Universal Accelerator - how it works?

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

You shouldn't state a myth and then call him gullible.

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:15:38 PM

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.

Your confusion is about variations.  I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about.  Is this a new debating technique for you? 

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:18:21 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:15:38 PM

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.

Your confusion is about variations.  I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about.  Is this a new debating technique for you?

So still no quote then?

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:22:04 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:18:21 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:15:38 PM

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.

Your confusion is about variations.  I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about.  Is this a new debating technique for you?

So still no quote then?

You quoted your own quote where you were confused about variations.  I know you are a bit autistic, but come on, surely even you know that you quoted yourself. 

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:23:13 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:22:04 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:18:21 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:15:38 PM

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.

Your confusion is about variations.  I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about.  Is this a new debating technique for you?

So still no quote then?

You quoted your own quote where you were confused about variations.  I know you are a bit autistic, but come on, surely even you know that you quoted yourself.

Where do I say I'm confused? I asked "What about variations?". So, what about them?

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?

Since no reputable company could possibly hire an idiot who writes as poorly as sokarul, I have come to the conclusion that he must have been the affirmative action (poor GPA, bad writing skills, low IQ) hire that is required of most companies.  Seeing as there is no way he could work for a competitive wage against his peers, I have again come to the conclusion that he must be paid at a lower wage and receive the most menial, unimportant tasks the company has (like those given to summer interns).  Thus, sokarul is now referred to as the Discount Chemist.

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:24:26 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:23:13 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:22:04 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:18:21 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:15:38 PM

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.

Your confusion is about variations.  I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about.  Is this a new debating technique for you?

So still no quote then?

You quoted your own quote where you were confused about variations.  I know you are a bit autistic, but come on, surely even you know that you quoted yourself.

Where do I say I'm confused? I asked "What about variations?". So, what about them?

Perhaps the question mark makes me thing that you do not know something. 

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:30:05 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:24:26 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:23:13 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:22:04 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:18:21 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:15:38 PM

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.

Your confusion is about variations.  I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about.  Is this a new debating technique for you?

So still no quote then?

You quoted your own quote where you were confused about variations.  I know you are a bit autistic, but come on, surely even you know that you quoted yourself.

Where do I say I'm confused? I asked "What about variations?". So, what about them?

Perhaps the question mark makes me thing(sic) that you do not know something. 

Thing? or Think?

Question marks mean I'm asking a question. It's in the name.

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?

Since no reputable company could possibly hire an idiot who writes as poorly as sokarul, I have come to the conclusion that he must have been the affirmative action (poor GPA, bad writing skills, low IQ) hire that is required of most companies.  Seeing as there is no way he could work for a competitive wage against his peers, I have again come to the conclusion that he must be paid at a lower wage and receive the most menial, unimportant tasks the company has (like those given to summer interns).  Thus, sokarul is now referred to as the Discount Chemist.

He did say once that they make him watch an oven all day.  Even if he does work in some sort of lab, they could hire a temp to watch the oven.  Maybe he is just a temp claiming to be what his idols are?  I don't know. 

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:32:08 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:30:05 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:24:26 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:23:13 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:22:04 PM

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 07:18:21 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 07:15:38 PM

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.

Your confusion is about variations.  I am not even sure why I have to explain to you what you are confused about.  Is this a new debating technique for you?

So still no quote then?

You quoted your own quote where you were confused about variations.  I know you are a bit autistic, but come on, surely even you know that you quoted yourself.

Where do I say I'm confused? I asked "What about variations?". So, what about them?

Perhaps the question mark makes me thing(sic) that you do not know something. 

Thing? or Think?

Question marks mean I'm asking a question. It's in the name.

If you are asking a question, it is because you do not know about something.  Therefore, you have some confusion about the subject. 

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?

Since no reputable company could possibly hire an idiot who writes as poorly as sokarul, I have come to the conclusion that he must have been the affirmative action (poor GPA, bad writing skills, low IQ) hire that is required of most companies.  Seeing as there is no way he could work for a competitive wage against his peers, I have again come to the conclusion that he must be paid at a lower wage and receive the most menial, unimportant tasks the company has (like those given to summer interns).  Thus, sokarul is now referred to as the Discount Chemist.

lol

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

Oh, you mean inertial.  I wish you could learn to spell or at least proof read your posts.  You know, like a chemist would do when writing a report that you say chemists don't write.

If you weren't so busy trying to play 'gotcha' all the time and actually read what I post, you wouldn't look like so much of an idiot.

To keep the explanation simple for the person I was explaining the concept to, I posted this thought experiment:
'Drop something.  Or jump.  There you go an inertial FOR.'

See?  Simple and easily understood by the layman.

The very next statement is this very important caveat to the statement prior:

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

Which everyone apparently understood, except for you, since you were too busy trying to get a 'gotcha'.  But I don't expect anything else from the Discount Chemist.  Maybe read the post a little better next time and you won't look like such an idiot all the time.

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 10:49:33 AM

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

Oh, you mean inertial.  I wish you could learn to spell or at least proof read your posts.  You know, like a chemist would do when writing a report that you say chemists don't write.

I never said that. It's a shame you have to be so dishonest to try and make a point.

If you weren't so busy trying to play 'gotcha' all the time and actually read what I post, you wouldn't look like so much of an idiot.

You make yourself look like an idiot, not me.

To keep the explanation simple for the person I was explaining the concept to, I posted this thought experiment:
'Drop something.  Or jump.  There you go an inertial FOR.'

Yes you did.

See?  Simple and easily understood by the layman.

Simplifying scientific concepts can lead to people not believing in it.

The very next statement is this very important caveat to the statement prior:

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 09, 2016, 08:05:46 AM

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

Normally that would be true, but you and jroa have shown that not to be true in your criticism against me.

Which everyone apparently understood, except for you, since you were too busy trying to get a 'gotcha'.  But I don't expect anything else from the Discount Chemist.  Maybe read the post a little better next time and you won't look like such an idiot all the time.

You said something wrong, and then tried to explain it further. That's ok to admit. Just simply come to terms with statements that you make which are incorrect and move on or even just add some thing and say you are clarifying what you meant. Not need to go shouting at me like I did something wrong.  If you actually read what I say, you wouldn't have to be so aggressive towards me.

Quote from: Brouwer on January 08, 2016, 10:51:03 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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. 

Thank you for providing exhausting explainations. Looks like you are just anothre time-waster here /sarcasm

Quote

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?

We are not discussing foundations of the gravitation, nor foundations of UA (where does the UA force come from), but its direct effects and observations. Changing the topic to does not help you.

Quote

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?

You said that the shield collapses around the altitute of Sun/Moon. Which are, by FE "model" changing. But that does not matter now. What matters is that if something collapeses at set altitute, it forms ~flat imaginary surface there. Unless you come up with the other explaination.

Quote

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?"

No. Let me expand:
1. Why other bodies are not accelerating perfectly upwards?
2. Why other bodies are changing their direction of motion even if they are affected (somehow) by the UA?
3. Why, even though the Earth is being hit by rocks from the space, big ones), the direction of Earth's vector never changes?

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 09, 2016, 07:44:30 PM

Oh, you mean inertial.  I wish you could learn to spell or at least proof read your posts.  You know, like a chemist would do when writing a report that you say chemists don't write.

I never said that. It's a shame you have to be so dishonest to try and make a point.

But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results.

Lol!  That is the entire sentence you posted.

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 08:00:49 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 09, 2016, 07:44:30 PM

Oh, you mean inertial.  I wish you could learn to spell or at least proof read your posts.  You know, like a chemist would do when writing a report that you say chemists don't write.

I never said that. It's a shame you have to be so dishonest to try and make a point.

Quote from: sokarul on December 16, 2015, 03:34:42 PM

But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results.

Lol!  That is the entire sentence you posted.

But then you look at the very next sentence." That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include."
So no, I never said a chemist wouldn't write a report. I said their report would contain more than just results.

Dishonesty at it's finest. I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you. We would have been shut down years ago if they were.

We are not discussing foundations of the gravitation, nor foundations of UA (where does the UA force come from), but its direct effects and observations. Changing the topic to does not help you.

Hmm, since my post illustrated the ridiculousness of your statement, there was no subject changing involved.  I simply stated that if you don't believe in this convenience, then how can you believe in the others?

You said that the shield collapses around the altitute of Sun/Moon. Which are, by FE "model" changing. But that does not matter now. What matters is that if something collapeses at set altitute, it forms ~flat imaginary surface there. Unless you come up with the other explaination.

I believe I said "nearly fully collapsed" which in no way implies a step function in the openness of the field.  In fact, it explicitly states the opposite.

No. Let me expand:
1. Why other bodies are not accelerating perfectly upwards?

Why would all other bodies accelerate perfectly upwards?

2. Why other bodies are changing their direction of motion even if they are affected (somehow) by the UA?

Uh, what?

3. Why, even though the Earth is being hit by rocks from the space, big ones), the direction of Earth's vector never changes?

We would all be dead if it did.  Let's hope that doesn't happen for a long time.  Although, it really doesn't matter, as in the end of the Universe, we all die anyway.  Now or later, it is just a matter of time.

But then you look at the very next sentence." That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include."

Oh, so now it is OK to clarify a statement in the next sentence!  So not only are you a discount chemist, but also a hypocrite.

I can't believe you didn't see that one coming.  I set you up and you walked right into it.  Idiot.

Dishonesty at it's finest.

I agree, your hypocrisy is extremely intellectually dishonest.  And I use the term 'intellectually' in the loosest means possible.

I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you.

Lolz! 

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 10:52:57 PM

But then you look at the very next sentence." That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include."

Oh, so now it is OK to clarify a statement in the next sentence!  So not only are you a discount chemist, but also a hypocrite.

No hypocrite here. You said something that can be incorrect and then something that was correct.  I only said correct things. Further more, you changed what I said. I originally said "write papers on results" which you changed to "reports". See the difference? 

I can't believe you didn't see that one coming.  I set you up and you walked right into it.  Idiot.

The only idiot is you.

Quote

Dishonesty at it's finest.

I agree, your hypocrisy is extremely intellectually dishonest.  And I use the term 'intellectually' in the loosest means possible.

No hypocrisy here as explained. Plus in the past I and others had to tell you to stop omitting parts of posts you quote to make yourself look correct.

Quote

I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you.

Lolz!

It's sad you think your dishonesty is funny.

Quote from: Brouwer on January 09, 2016, 09:55:50 PM

We are not discussing foundations of the gravitation, nor foundations of UA (where does the UA force come from), but its direct effects and observations. Changing the topic to does not help you.

Hmm, since my post illustrated the ridiculousness of your statement, there was no subject changing involved.  I simply stated that if you don't believe in this convenience, then how can you believe in the others?

Gravitational forces and how convinient they are is an irrelevant part of the topic. We are discussing UA only.

Quote

You said that the shield collapses around the altitute of Sun/Moon. Which are, by FE "model" changing. But that does not matter now. What matters is that if something collapeses at set altitute, it forms ~flat imaginary surface there. Unless you come up with the other explaination.

I believe I said "nearly fully collapsed" which in no way implies a step function in the openness of the field.  In fact, it explicitly states the opposite.

What step function? The cylinder-shape simply meant that the higher the slice of the cylinder is, the less efficient the shield is. This follows from your "nearly fully collapsed" statement.

Quote from: Brouwer on January 09, 2016, 09:55:50 PM

No. Let me expand:
1. Why other bodies are not accelerating perfectly upwards?

Why would all other bodies accelerate perfectly upwards?

Because only the ones whose acceleration vector is normal to the FE, are affected by the UA. This is your statement that you simply ignored to provide further explaination.

Quote

2. Why other bodies are changing their direction of motion even if they are affected (somehow) by the UA?

Uh, what?

How the Sun, supposedly (acceleration vector is not normal) affected by the UA, can revolve around the north pole's axis?

Quote

3. Why, even though the Earth is being hit by rocks from the space, big ones), the direction of Earth's vector never changes?

We would all be dead if it did.  Let's hope that doesn't happen for a long time.  Although, it really doesn't matter, as in the end of the Universe, we all die anyway.  Now or later, it is just a matter of time.

Expect we were hit by multiple heavy rocks in the past. Expect it does not take so much mass to change the direction of acceleration by 0.0001 degrees, which defies the rule of upward acceleration. To remain perfect upward acceleration, the center of mass can never change. If it changed, we would either accelerate in different direction (new "upward") or the disc would move tilted. Which one is correct?

No hypocrite here. You said something that can be incorrect and then something that was correct.  I only said correct things. Further more, you changed what I said. I originally said "write papers on results" which you changed to "reports". See the difference?

I didn't change anything.  You said it in the same post.  In fact, in the very next sentence!

But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results.

You see the period there?  That is the end of the sentence.  An incorrect statement.

That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include.

This is the very next sentence.  A caveat to your post.  Which is also incorrect, even taken on its own.

I only said correct things.

You made two incorrect statements, actually.

The only idiot is you.

Well, since I trapped you into doing the exact same thing you accused me of doing and you didn't realize it, I would say you are the idiot.

No hypocrisy here as explained.

Too bad your attempt to explain was idiotic and makes no sense.  Well done, Discount Chemist.

Plus in the past I and others had to tell you to stop omitting parts of posts you quote to make yourself look correct.

Uh, no.

Quote

Quote

I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you.

Lolz!

It's sad you think your dishonesty is funny. 

I'm actually lol'ing at your continued failure to proof read your posts.  Idiot.

Gravitational forces and how convinient they are is an irrelevant part of the topic. We are discussing UA only.

You made a ridiculous statement, which I illustrated with an example, but it's irrelevant?  As long as you now realize that your statement was ridiculous, we can move on, until it comes up again.

What step function? The cylinder-shape simply meant that the higher the slice of the cylinder is, the less efficient the shield is. This follows from your "nearly fully collapsed" statement.

A cylinder goes from an open internal volume to a closed container in a step function.  As for the rest of this quote, it makes no sense.

How the Sun, supposedly (acceleration vector is not normal) affected by the UA, can revolve around the north pole's axis?

There is a component to the acceleration vector that is normal to the FE and equal to the acceleration of the FE.  Otherwise, the FE would eventually have run into the Sun.

To remain perfect upward acceleration, the center of mass can never change. If it changed, we would either accelerate in different direction (new "upward") or the disc would move tilted. Which one is correct?

You are assuming that the DE does not provide a self-righting mechanism.  Which would be obviously wrong.  Otherwise, we would all be dead.

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 11:27:15 PM

No hypocrite here. You said something that can be incorrect and then something that was correct.  I only said correct things. Further more, you changed what I said. I originally said "write papers on results" which you changed to "reports". See the difference?

I didn't change anything.  You said it in the same post.  In fact, in the very next sentence!

Quote from: sokarul on December 16, 2015, 03:34:42 PM

But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results.

You see the period there?  That is the end of the sentence.  An incorrect statement.

Quote

That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include.

This is the very next sentence.  A caveat to your post.  Which is also incorrect, even taken on its own.

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 11:27:15 PM

I only said correct things.

You made two incorrect statements, actually.

Quote

The only idiot is you.

Well, since I trapped you into doing the exact same thing you accused me of doing and you didn't realize it, I would say you are the idiot.

Quote

No hypocrisy here as explained.

Too bad your attempt to explain was idiotic and makes no sense.  Well done, Discount Chemist.

Quote

Plus in the past I and others had to tell you to stop omitting parts of posts you quote to make yourself look correct.

Uh, no.

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you.

Lolz!

It's sad you think your dishonesty is funny. 

I'm actually lol'ing at your continued failure to proof read your posts.  Idiot.

Maybe one day you will back up what you say.

Quote from: Brouwer on January 10, 2016, 12:31:00 AM

Gravitational forces and how convinient they are is an irrelevant part of the topic. We are discussing UA only.

You made a ridiculous statement, which I illustrated with an example, but it's irrelevant?  As long as you now realize that your statement was ridiculous, we can move on, until it comes up again.

Quote

What step function? The cylinder-shape simply meant that the higher the slice of the cylinder is, the less efficient the shield is. This follows from your "nearly fully collapsed" statement.

A cylinder goes from an open internal volume to a closed container in a step function.  As for the rest of this quote, it makes no sense.

Quote

How the Sun, supposedly (acceleration vector is not normal) affected by the UA, can revolve around the north pole's axis?

There is a component to the acceleration vector that is normal to the FE and equal to the acceleration of the FE.  Otherwise, the FE would eventually have run into the Sun.

Quote

To remain perfect upward acceleration, the center of mass can never change. If it changed, we would either accelerate in different direction (new "upward") or the disc would move tilted. Which one is correct?

You are assuming that the DE does not provide a self-righting mechanism.  Which would be obviously wrong.  Otherwise, we would all be dead.

What else are you going to ad hoc about the UA?

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 10, 2016, 07:24:56 AM

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 11:27:15 PM

No hypocrite here. You said something that can be incorrect and then something that was correct.  I only said correct things. Further more, you changed what I said. I originally said "write papers on results" which you changed to "reports". See the difference?

I didn't change anything.  You said it in the same post.  In fact, in the very next sentence!

Quote from: sokarul on December 16, 2015, 03:34:42 PM

But no, chemists you work with would not write papers on their results.

You see the period there?  That is the end of the sentence.  An incorrect statement.

Quote

That would be part of them, but there's a few more parts of the scientific method they would include.

This is the very next sentence.  A caveat to your post.  Which is also incorrect, even taken on its own.

Quote from: sokarul on January 09, 2016, 11:27:15 PM

I only said correct things.

You made two incorrect statements, actually.

Quote

The only idiot is you.

Well, since I trapped you into doing the exact same thing you accused me of doing and you didn't realize it, I would say you are the idiot.

Quote

No hypocrisy here as explained.

Too bad your attempt to explain was idiotic and makes no sense.  Well done, Discount Chemist.

Quote

Plus in the past I and others had to tell you to stop omitting parts of posts you quote to make yourself look correct.

Uh, no.

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm glad the engineers I work with are dishonest like you.

Lolz!

It's sad you think your dishonesty is funny. 

I'm actually lol'ing at your continued failure to proof read your posts.  Idiot.

Maybe one day you will back up what you say.

Wow, what a retort.  Except my post is full of back up.  So, failure, yet again, Discount Chemist.

Oh, so now it is not OK to make a shitty response!  So not only are you a discount engineer, but also a hypocrite.

I can't believe you didn't see that one coming.  I set you up and you walked right into it.  Idiot.

I initially posted this basis question in http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65265.msg1746721#msg1746721 and received no sensible reply, just silly answers.
So I tried again with http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65265.msg1747140#msg1747140, only jroa with inane responses!

So, I will try again:

From the little I have read 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 buoyancy 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!
I just get answers like:

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

My reply was:
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?
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.

If there are no sensible responses (other than from Skeptimatic or JRoweSkeptic, who I doubt go with UA anyway) I can just assume that the UA should NEVER have been applied, and the FE had better find anoyther explanation for "gravity".

Oh, so now it is not OK to make a shitty response!  So not only are you a discount engineer, but also a hypocrite.

I can't believe you didn't see that one coming.  I set you up and you walked right into it.  Idiot.

Holy shit, that was the lamest response you have ever posted.  I want to laugh at you, but damn, now I just feel sorry for you. 

He did say once that they make him watch an oven all day.

Ha!  That is exactly what I was envisioning Discount Chemist doing!  Discount Chemist's job could be replaced at any time with a standard household timer.

Quote from: Brouwer on January 10, 2016, 12:31:00 AM

Gravitational forces and how convinient they are is an irrelevant part of the topic. We are discussing UA only.

You made a ridiculous statement, which I illustrated with an example, but it's irrelevant?  As long as you now realize that your statement was ridiculous, we can move on, until it comes up again.

Quote

What step function? The cylinder-shape simply meant that the higher the slice of the cylinder is, the less efficient the shield is. This follows from your "nearly fully collapsed" statement.

A cylinder goes from an open internal volume to a closed container in a step function.  As for the rest of this quote, it makes no sense.

Quote

How the Sun, supposedly (acceleration vector is not normal) affected by the UA, can revolve around the north pole's axis?

There is a component to the acceleration vector that is normal to the FE and equal to the acceleration of the FE.  Otherwise, the FE would eventually have run into the Sun.

Quote

To remain perfect upward acceleration, the center of mass can never change. If it changed, we would either accelerate in different direction (new "upward") or the disc would move tilted. Which one is correct?

You are assuming that the DE does not provide a self-righting mechanism.  Which would be obviously wrong.  Otherwise, we would all be dead.

Wait a minute! You are a rocket engineer ... I doubt it with a comment like that. Any self-righting mechanism would apply a torque to everything on your earth model. This would cause vectored accelerations in some very uncomfortable directions for the humans living on your model.

Rocket scientist indeed ... LOL