Universal Accelerator - how it works?

Quote from: sokarul on January 04, 2016, 09:52:53 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 04, 2016, 09:21:37 PM

Have you ever looked in the mirror?  Just wondering.  lol

The words of a defeated baby.

Let me know if you ever come to NC and I can show you how much of a baby I am, indoor socker boy.

What does this mean?  I've genuinely no idea....are you asking him to come and have sex with you?

Quote from: Brouwer on January 08, 2016, 03:29:56 AM

How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?

Drop something.  Or jump.  There you go: an inertial FOR. 

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

Since you keep wanting to start fights, may you fix this or do you need a "discount" chemist to fix it for you?

Says the discount chemist that claims I stated I had proven General Relativity.  Who also can't provide a single quote of mine to provide as evidence, yet provides posts of his, as evidence of my statement.

Say the engineer who thinks he can use a theory to prove scientific arguments.

Quote from: jroa on January 04, 2016, 09:56:46 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 04, 2016, 09:52:53 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 04, 2016, 09:21:37 PM

Have you ever looked in the mirror?  Just wondering.  lol

The words of a defeated baby.

Let me know if you ever come to NC and I can show you how much of a baby I am, indoor socker boy.

What does this mean?  I've genuinely no idea....are you asking him to come and have sex with you?

Judging by how much he hates people playing sports I think he is a fat ass and wants to eat me.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

Quote from: Brouwer on January 08, 2016, 03:29:56 AM

How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?

Drop something.  Or jump.  There you go: an inertial FOR. 

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

Since you keep wanting to start fights, may you fix this or do you need a "discount" chemist to fix it for you?

Uh, what?

Say the engineer who thinks he can use a theory to prove scientific arguments.

So, I'm still waiting on that quote...

Which is obviously why I termed it 'Dark Energy'.

And why would you go and do a thing like that?

From the little I have read the Einstein's "Equivalence Theory" can only be applied over a region of space and time where "g" is constant.  Here g is taken to be the net acceleration we feel as a result of gravity and other effects.

This is clearly not true for the whole surface area of the earth.
We find that at sea level g varies from about 9.780 m/s² at the Equator to to about 9.832 m/s² at the poles - only about 0.5%, but quite measurable.
Also an increase in altitude from sea level to 9,000 metres (30,000 ft) causes a weight decrease of about 0.29%, neglecting any change in bouancy of the less dense atmosphere. (Admittedly from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude, but the I don't believe the figures are much disputed).

So if the UA theory is going to rely on the "Equivalence Theory" for justification, some rational explanation for these variations must be provided.  This explanation should show why changes in "g"are detected as a result of massive ore bodies - used in mineral exploration.

And, please don't come up with the "gravitational effects of the sun moon and other celestial bodies" for obvious reasons!

Quote from: sokarul on January 08, 2016, 02:11:33 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

Quote from: Brouwer on January 08, 2016, 03:29:56 AM

How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?

Drop something.  Or jump.  There you go: an inertial FOR. 

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

Since you keep wanting to start fights, may you fix this or do you need a "discount" chemist to fix it for you?

Uh, what?

You sure get confused a lot, do you have Alzheimer's disease. Do you need me to fix your incorrect statement or are you going to do it?

Quote

Say the engineer who thinks he can use a theory to prove scientific arguments.

So, I'm still waiting on that quote...

I'm still waiting for you to learn what evidence is.   

You sure get confused a lot, do you have Alzheimer's disease. Do you need me to fix your incorrect statement or are you going to do it?

Sure, Discount Chemist, go ahead.

I'm still waiting for you to learn what evidence is.

So that is still a 'no' on the quote, then?

Quote from: Brouwer on January 08, 2016, 03:29:56 AM

How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?

Drop something.*  Or jump.*  There you go: an inertial FOR. 

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

*In a vacuum.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

Quote from: Brouwer on January 08, 2016, 03:29:56 AM

How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?

Drop something.*  Or jump.*  There you go: an inertial FOR. 

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

*In a vacuum.

Idiot.

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)

Quote from: sokarul on January 08, 2016, 09:30:56 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

Quote from: Brouwer on January 08, 2016, 03:29:56 AM

How do you set inertial FOR and how do you know it is not affected by UA?

Drop something.*  Or jump.*  There you go: an inertial FOR. 

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

*In a vacuum.

Idiot.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)

Are you saying air is massless?

Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.

Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.

Do you know what a question mark is? <---- This thing

Also once again, you change the subject.  For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics. Do you need me to explain why a falling object in atmosphere is not in an inertial reference frame? <--- question mark

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 10:06:07 PM

Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.

Do you know what a question mark is? <---- This thing

Also once again, you change the subject.  For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics. Do you need me to explain why a falling object in atmosphere is not in an inertial reference frame? <--- question mark

So no quote, then? <--- Question mark

Oh, and this:

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)

Quote from: sokarul on January 08, 2016, 10:14:21 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 10:06:07 PM

Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.

Do you know what a question mark is? <---- This thing

Read my post again. You clearly didn't comprehend any of it the first time.

Quote

Also once again, you change the subject.  For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics. Do you need me to explain why a falling object in atmosphere is not in an inertial reference frame? <--- question mark

So no quote, then? <--- Question mark

Quote

Oh, and this:

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)

Objects under aerodynamic drag are not inertial.

Quote

How do you determine what is in direct contact with UA and what it is not?

Simplified answer (applicable for most things on the FE and most celestial objects; this list is also FOR dependent):
1.  Is it accelerating at a minimum of 9.8m/s^2?  Yes, go to #2.  No, go to #5.
2.  Is there an acceleration vector normal to the FE equal to #1?  Yes, go to #3.  No, go to #5.
3.  When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise) does the object retain the acceleration described in #1 and #2?   Yes, go to #4.  No, go to #5.
4.  The object is affected by the UA (what I have termed Dark Energy).
5.  The object is not affected by the UA/DE.

Ok, so:;
A) The part of the Earth near the equator, where the acceleration is below 9.8 (~9.78) is not affected by the UA.
B) The object accelerating at 10 m/s^2 but with tilted vector is not affected by the UA. That means, anything rotating around the Earth is not, because their vectors aren't normal.
C) Object accelerating in the opposite direction to the Earth can also be affected by the UA. So the UA can accelerate objects in two opposite directions.
D) If UA accelerates stuff at 9.8m/s^2, how is anything above the shield (see further part of the post) able to move with higher acceleration?
E) Anything outside of the Earth that is moving "slower" (lower acceleration) is not affected by the UA. Meteors that hit the surface for instance.

Etc. Your description makes no sense at all. It is very selective and basically causes 99.9999....9% of the Universe not to be affected by the UA.

Quote from: Brouwer on January 08, 2016, 03:29:56 AM

If the disc acts as a shield to neglect the UA effect, why the Sun and the Moon do not fall onto the Earth? They are over the disc and UA is affected by the shield...

The FE creates a type of 'bow shock' within the DEF (Dark Energy Field).  This prevents the objects on the top of the FE from being directly affected by the UA/DE.  The field has nearly fully collapsed at about the altitude of the Sun and Moon, allowing for their suspension above the FE.

This "about the altitude of the Sun and Moon" collapse is so convinient that I just do not believe it. Also, the shiled would have to form a cylinder above the disc to  ~map the reality. I find this hard to believe too.

Quote from: Brouwer on January 08, 2016, 03:29:56 AM

Last question. Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?

Well, if the FE was not accelerating 'so regularly' we wouldn't be around to know it.

This answers the non-existing question. Try again.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 10:22:05 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 08, 2016, 10:14:21 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 10:06:07 PM

Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.

Do you know what a question mark is? <---- This thing

Read my post again. You clearly didn't comprehend any of it the first time.

Quote

Quote

Also once again, you change the subject.  For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics. Do you need me to explain why a falling object in atmosphere is not in an inertial reference frame? <--- question mark

So no quote, then? <--- Question mark

Quote

Oh, and this:

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)

Objects under aerodynamic drag are not inertial.

You can't read, can you?

For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics.

LOLZ!!

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

Quote

How do you determine what is in direct contact with UA and what it is not?

Simplified answer (applicable for most things on the FE and most celestial objects; this list is also FOR dependent):
1.  Is it accelerating at a minimum of 9.8m/s^2?  Yes, go to #2.  No, go to #5.
2.  Is there an acceleration vector normal to the FE equal to #1?  Yes, go to #3.  No, go to #5.
3.  When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise) does the object retain the acceleration described in #1 and #2?   Yes, go to #4.  No, go to #5.
4.  The object is affected by the UA (what I have termed Dark Energy).
5.  The object is not affected by the UA/DE.

Ok, so:;
A) The part of the Earth near the equator, where the acceleration is below 9.8 (~9.78) is not affected by the UA.

Uh, no.

B) The object accelerating at 10 m/s^2 but with tilted vector is not affected by the UA. That means, anything rotating around the Earth is not, because their vectors aren't normal.

Uh, no.

C) Object accelerating in the opposite direction to the Earth can also be affected by the UA. So the UA can accelerate objects in two opposite directions.

Uh, no.

D) If UA accelerates stuff at 9.8m/s^2, how is anything above the shield (see further part of the post) able to move with higher acceleration?

Notice the 'minimum' part of #1?

E) Anything outside of the Earth that is moving "slower" (lower acceleration) is not affected by the UA. Meteors that hit the surface for instance.

Uh, no.

Etc. Your description makes no sense at all. It is very selective and basically causes 99.9999....9% of the Universe not to be affected by the UA.

Uh, no.  Your failure of comprehension causes 99.9999....9% of the Universe to not be affected by the UA. 

This "about the altitude of the Sun and Moon" collapse is so convinient that I just do not believe it.

So you don't believe in the Earth or gravitation, or really any of the fundamental forces then, since their values in the universe are so convenient as to no be believable?

Also, the shiled would have to form a cylinder above the disc to  ~map the reality. I find this hard to believe too.

A cylinder huh?  What reality does that map to?

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

Quote from: Brouwer on January 08, 2016, 03:29:56 AM

Last question. Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?

Well, if the FE was not accelerating 'so regularly' we wouldn't be around to know it.

This answers the non-existing question. Try again.

Uh, that is a direct answer to your question: "Why the Earth is accelerating upwards so regularly (perfectly upwards), but there are plenty objects that are not?"

Quote from: sokarul on January 08, 2016, 10:27:38 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 10:22:05 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 08, 2016, 10:14:21 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 10:06:07 PM

Discount Chemist, I know you are not good at posting quotes, but please provide the quote where I said air is massless.

Do you know what a question mark is? <---- This thing

Read my post again. You clearly didn't comprehend any of it the first time.

Quote

Quote

Also once again, you change the subject.  For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics. Do you need me to explain why a falling object in atmosphere is not in an inertial reference frame? <--- question mark

So no quote, then? <--- Question mark

Quote

Oh, and this:

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

If an object is not experiencing an acceleration, then it is inertial.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 08, 2016, 06:58:39 AM

When the object is not in contact with the FE (directly or otherwise)

Objects under aerodynamic drag are not inertial.

You can't read, can you?

So it's agreed objects falling in atmosphere are not inertia.

Quote from: sokarul on January 08, 2016, 10:14:21 PM

For an engineer you sure don't know much about physics.

LOLZ!!

[/quote]
Gravitation is acceleration.

Have I missed something?
I have not ever seen any satisfactory reason for the variation of "g" over the surface of the earth.
The variations due to latitude, altitude and proximity to mineral bodies, as in :

Gravimetric surveys measure small variations in the gravitational field caused by the pull of underlying rock masses.
The variation in gravity may be caused by faults, anticlines, and salt domes that are often associated with oil-bearing formations.
Gravimetric surveys are also used to detect high-density minerals, like iron ore, pyrites and lead-zinc mineralizations.

Have I missed something?
I have not ever seen any satisfactory reason for the variation of "g" over the surface of the earth.
The variations due to latitude, altitude and proximity to mineral bodies, as in :

Quote from: http://www.atlascopcoexploration.com/1.0.1.0/354/TS3.pdf

Gravimetric surveys measure small variations in the gravitational field caused by the pull of underlying rock masses.
The variation in gravity may be caused by faults, anticlines, and salt domes that are often associated with oil-bearing formations.
Gravimetric surveys are also used to detect high-density minerals, like iron ore, pyrites and lead-zinc mineralizations.

This seems completely at odds with the idea of UA, any explanation?

Have you never heard of variations in readings of test equipment?  Are you tolling, or are you really this dumb? 

What about variations?

What about variations?

Are you saying that any two calibrated instruments can never display different results?  I thought you were some kind of chemist.  Are you lying now, or were you lying then? 

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 06:50:14 PM

What about variations?

Are you saying that any two calibrated instruments can never display different results?  I thought you were some kind of chemist.  Are you lying now, or were you lying then?

You have no reading comprehension at all. Where did I say two instruments can never display different results?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 09, 2016, 05:56:15 PM

Have I missed something?
I have not ever seen any satisfactory reason for the variation of "g" over the surface of the earth.
The variations due to latitude, altitude and proximity to mineral bodies, as in :

Quote from: http://www.atlascopcoexploration.com/1.0.1.0/354/TS3.pdf

Gravimetric surveys measure small variations in the gravitational field caused by the pull of underlying rock masses.
The variation in gravity may be caused by faults, anticlines, and salt domes that are often associated with oil-bearing formations.
Gravimetric surveys are also used to detect high-density minerals, like iron ore, pyrites and lead-zinc mineralizations.

This seems completely at odds with the idea of UA, any explanation?

Have you never heard of variations in readings of test equipment?  Are you tolling, or are you really this dumb?

Don't be intentionally obtuse!  Why on earth would exploration companies spend millions on gravimetric surveys with instrument showing sufficient "variations in readings of test equipment" to render that readings unreliable.

And, if "variations in readings of test equipment" is the cause of the variation of "g" with latitude and altitude, why are the readings consistent.

This is something I can never understand with flat Earthers:  One divergent measurement comes up that questions any tiny aspect of the globe, and all the Flat Earthers are over it like a rash!  Some "Scientist" like Miles Mathis (you know - he of the "π = 4" fame) comes along questioning Cavendish, and suddenly everyone says G, gravity does not exist etc, etc.  I see it all the time, but I had thought that you at least were a bit about this tactic.

My whole point has been that, UA should never have been applied to a region where the gravitational field is not constant, unless there is sound reasoning explaining these anomalies.

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 06:57:01 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 06:50:14 PM

What about variations?

Are you saying that any two calibrated instruments can never display different results?  I thought you were some kind of chemist.  Are you lying now, or were you lying then?

You have no reading comprehension at all. Where did I say two instruments can never display different results?

You are the one who is confused about variations, not me. 

So no quote then?

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 06:10:07 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 09, 2016, 05:56:15 PM

Have I missed something?
I have not ever seen any satisfactory reason for the variation of "g" over the surface of the earth.
The variations due to latitude, altitude and proximity to mineral bodies, as in :

Quote from: http://www.atlascopcoexploration.com/1.0.1.0/354/TS3.pdf

Gravimetric surveys measure small variations in the gravitational field caused by the pull of underlying rock masses.
The variation in gravity may be caused by faults, anticlines, and salt domes that are often associated with oil-bearing formations.
Gravimetric surveys are also used to detect high-density minerals, like iron ore, pyrites and lead-zinc mineralizations.

This seems completely at odds with the idea of UA, any explanation?

Have you never heard of variations in readings of test equipment?  Are you tolling, or are you really this dumb?

Don't be intentionally obtuse!  Why on earth would exploration companies spend millions on gravimetric surveys with instrument showing sufficient "variations in readings of test equipment" to render that readings unreliable.

And, if "variations in readings of test equipment" is the cause of the variation of "g" with latitude and altitude, why are the readings consistent.

This is something I can never understand with flat Earthers:  One divergent measurement comes up that questions any tiny aspect of the globe, and all the Flat Earthers are over it like a rash!  Some "Scientist" like Miles Mathis (you know - he of the "π = 4" fame) comes along questioning Cavendish, and suddenly everyone says G, gravity does not exist etc, etc.  I see it all the time, but I had thought that you at least were a bit about this tactic.

My whole point has been that, UA should never have been applied to a region where the gravitational field is not constant, unless there is sound reasoning explaining these anomalies.

Why does the US government spend $14,000 for a toilet seat?  You seem like a very gullible person. 

So no quote then?

What about variations?

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:12:43 PM

So no quote then?

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 06:50:14 PM

What about variations?

Where in that quote do I claim two instruments can't display different results? I don't even see the words "instrument" or "results" in it. 

I'll wait.