Poll

Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?

Universal Acceleration (UA) (by wiki.tfes.org)
Things fall because of density
Pressure of aether waves (by Sandokhan)
Downwards Universal DeAcceleration (by Danang)
Things just fall / No Explanation / Explanation not available yet
Other

Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?

  • 44 Replies
  • 2320 Views
*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« on: September 19, 2019, 01:44:36 AM »
I pick option 5: no explanation. Better admit that you don't know than invent something that doesn't make any sense.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

Danang

  • 3891
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2019, 02:52:25 AM »
Gravity by RE... does it make sense?
Be honest, it doesn't make sense, right?
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19135
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2019, 03:10:58 AM »
I pick option 5: no explanation. Better admit that you don't know than invent something that doesn't make any sense.

It would be awesome and probably impossible for you to explain what you are insinuating.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2019, 03:46:19 AM »
I pick option 5: no explanation. Better admit that you don't know than invent something that doesn't make any sense.

It would be awesome and probably impossible for you to explain what you are insinuating.
So, "Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?"

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2019, 04:47:11 AM »
Gravity by RE... does it make sense?
Be honest, it doesn't make sense, right?

Gravity by Newton or by Einstein are not an option in the poll, this thread is only about FE theories. RE is offtopic.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2019, 04:56:45 AM »
I pick option 5: no explanation. Better admit that you don't know than invent something that doesn't make any sense.

It would be awesome and probably impossible for you to explain what you are insinuating.

I'm saying none of FE theories I know seems to make sense or be consistent with facts, therefore  saying that "things just fall" is the most reasonable answer, at least in my opinion as RE person.

However if I still had to pick one from the list, I'd say UA is the most clever and elaborated, while the density theory is the easiest to disprove and the worst.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

Danang

  • 3891
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2019, 05:21:02 AM »
Yeah, Universal Acceleration makes sense.
But if UA seems to have flaw in some angles, e.g. dome cracking, needs infinite increasing energy etc. Downwards Universal DeAcceleration gives better explanation/answer without dismissing the UA propositions about 'gravity'.

UA is our history, when the engine still worked. Now, the engine is already off without ruining the previous UA mechanism except the changing from acceleration to be deacceleration.
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 3891
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2019, 05:23:44 AM »
For scientific athmoplane, the words "no explanation" sounds bad.
It's better to state "the explanation is not available yet"
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 3891
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2019, 05:27:50 AM »
Hard to explain, right?

TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2019, 05:36:38 AM »
For scientific athmoplane, the words "no explanation" sounds bad.
It's better to state "the explanation is not available yet"

Ok thanks, I updated the poll.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2019, 06:48:28 AM »
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2019, 07:10:22 AM »
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2019, 09:25:40 AM »
Yeah, Universal Acceleration makes sense.
But if UA seems to have flaw in some angles, e.g. dome cracking, needs infinite increasing energy etc. Downwards Universal DeAcceleration gives better explanation/answer without dismissing the UA propositions about 'gravity'.

UA is our history, when the engine still worked. Now, the engine is already off without ruining the previous UA mechanism except the changing from acceleration to be deacceleration.

Danang, deceleration (deacceleration) is literally the exact same thing as acceleration.

There is no physical distinction between acceleration and deceleration.  Deceleration is just acceleration in the opposite direction that people would refer to as acceleration.  For example, if you were working out the math, stomping the gas pedal in a car is acceleration with a positive sign, slamming the brake pedal is acceleration with a negative sign. 

Changing speed is changing speed, that is acceleration.  It doesn't matter if that change is positive or negative, acceleration still behaves the same way.  That is, you still "feel" the movement, you still induce forces on mass, it's all the same.  If a sky dome structure cannot withstand acceleration of 10 m/s2, then it also cannot stand deceleration of 10 m/s2.  That deceleration is exactly the same thing as acceleration of 10 m/s2 because the only difference is your own measurement convention.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40126
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2019, 11:20:03 AM »
Hard to explain, right?


Put the flat earth in the middle instead of the sun and doesn't that pretty much describe what your universal deacceleration does too?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2019, 11:48:13 AM »
Hard to explain, right?



What is it?

It shows the movement of the planets around the sun and also how the sun moves around the galaxy.
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

Danang

  • 3891
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2019, 12:52:56 PM »
Yeah, Universal Acceleration makes sense.
But if UA seems to have flaw in some angles, e.g. dome cracking, needs infinite increasing energy etc. Downwards Universal DeAcceleration gives better explanation/answer without dismissing the UA propositions about 'gravity'.

UA is our history, when the engine still worked. Now, the engine is already off without ruining the previous UA mechanism except the changing from acceleration to be deacceleration.

Danang, deceleration (deacceleration) is literally the exact same thing as acceleration.

There is no physical distinction between acceleration and deceleration.  Deceleration is just acceleration in the opposite direction that people would refer to as acceleration.  For example, if you were working out the math, stomping the gas pedal in a car is acceleration with a positive sign, slamming the brake pedal is acceleration with a negative sign. 

Changing speed is changing speed, that is acceleration.  It doesn't matter if that change is positive or negative, acceleration still behaves the same way.  That is, you still "feel" the movement, you still induce forces on mass, it's all the same.  If a sky dome structure cannot withstand acceleration of 10 m/s2, then it also cannot stand deceleration of 10 m/s2.  That deceleration is exactly the same thing as acceleration of 10 m/s2 because the only difference is your own measurement convention.

In DUDEA model, there are air or fog or ash in the universe. This makes the earth experience a decreased speed.
In UA the dome cannot bear continual, increased pressure.
Ancient people said that the milky way is actually the crack of the dome.
If the dome is still fine up to now, because the pressure is always constant, not increased as occuring in UA.
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2019, 01:27:03 PM »
In DUDEA model, there are air or fog or ash in the universe. This makes the earth experience a decreased speed.
Whoa. Okay, help me understand this.  So we are on the "back" of a disk that is slowing down (relative to universal air/fog/ash) because the "front" of the disk is crashing into said air/fog/ash.  And that deceleration is what's creating the effect of (what we'd call) gravity.  Although we're constantly decelerating, which is very much not like how an object in a thin fluid would slow.  Nevertheless, eventually, presumably, this deceleration will decrease, and the disk will be at rest with respect to the universal air/fog/ash, and everything on earth will be floating around, unbound by (what we'd call) gravity.

... Is that right?
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2019, 01:28:12 PM »
In DUDEA model, there are air or fog or ash in the universe.
In UA the dome cannot bear continual, increased pressure.
But DUDEA would be identical to UA because downward deceleration is upward acceleration - two negatives making a positive.


Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2019, 05:39:31 PM »
Yeah, Universal Acceleration makes sense.
But if UA seems to have flaw in some angles, e.g. dome cracking, needs infinite increasing energy etc. Downwards Universal DeAcceleration gives better explanation/answer without dismissing the UA propositions about 'gravity'.

UA is our history, when the engine still worked. Now, the engine is already off without ruining the previous UA mechanism except the changing from acceleration to be deacceleration.

Danang, deceleration (deacceleration) is literally the exact same thing as acceleration.

There is no physical distinction between acceleration and deceleration.  Deceleration is just acceleration in the opposite direction that people would refer to as acceleration.  For example, if you were working out the math, stomping the gas pedal in a car is acceleration with a positive sign, slamming the brake pedal is acceleration with a negative sign. 

Changing speed is changing speed, that is acceleration.  It doesn't matter if that change is positive or negative, acceleration still behaves the same way.  That is, you still "feel" the movement, you still induce forces on mass, it's all the same.  If a sky dome structure cannot withstand acceleration of 10 m/s2, then it also cannot stand deceleration of 10 m/s2.  That deceleration is exactly the same thing as acceleration of 10 m/s2 because the only difference is your own measurement convention.

In DUDEA model, there are air or fog or ash in the universe. This makes the earth experience a decreased speed.
In UA the dome cannot bear continual, increased pressure.
Ancient people said that the milky way is actually the crack of the dome.
If the dome is still fine up to now, because the pressure is always constant, not increased as occuring in UA.

If universal deceleration is the name of the game, why don't we see stars directly above us red shifted?  Like Polaris, for example?
With all the woes facing our planet do we need a flat earth to add to them...

*

Danang

  • 3891
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2019, 07:23:05 PM »
In DUDEA model, there are air or fog or ash in the universe. This makes the earth experience a decreased speed.
Whoa. Okay, help me understand this.  So we are on the "back" of a disk that is slowing down (relative to universal air/fog/ash) because the "front" of the disk is crashing into said air/fog/ash.  And that deceleration is what's creating the effect of (what we'd call) gravity.  Although we're constantly decelerating, which is very much not like how an object in a thin fluid would slow.  Nevertheless, eventually, presumably, this deceleration will decrease, and the disk will be at rest with respect to the universal air/fog/ash, and everything on earth will be floating around, unbound by (what we'd call) gravity.

... Is that right?

Yep, we are going be in at rest condition.
It reminds me of Christianity's concept of "Rapture".
It can the case, on the condition that, after the earth's speed becomes zero, the engine gets activated again and then UA will remanifest. Human beings will go launching to the sky and at last 'fall' and live on the firmament as the new earth's surface.
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 3891
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2019, 07:34:32 PM »
Yeah, Universal Acceleration makes sense.
But if UA seems to have flaw in some angles, e.g. dome cracking, needs infinite increasing energy etc. Downwards Universal DeAcceleration gives better explanation/answer without dismissing the UA propositions about 'gravity'.

UA is our history, when the engine still worked. Now, the engine is already off without ruining the previous UA mechanism except the changing from acceleration to be deacceleration.

Danang, deceleration (deacceleration) is literally the exact same thing as acceleration.

There is no physical distinction between acceleration and deceleration.  Deceleration is just acceleration in the opposite direction that people would refer to as acceleration.  For example, if you were working out the math, stomping the gas pedal in a car is acceleration with a positive sign, slamming the brake pedal is acceleration with a negative sign. 

Changing speed is changing speed, that is acceleration.  It doesn't matter if that change is positive or negative, acceleration still behaves the same way.  That is, you still "feel" the movement, you still induce forces on mass, it's all the same.  If a sky dome structure cannot withstand acceleration of 10 m/s2, then it also cannot stand deceleration of 10 m/s2.  That deceleration is exactly the same thing as acceleration of 10 m/s2 because the only difference is your own measurement convention.

In DUDEA model, there are air or fog or ash in the universe. This makes the earth experience a decreased speed.
In UA the dome cannot bear continual, increased pressure.
Ancient people said that the milky way is actually the crack of the dome.
If the dome is still fine up to now, because the pressure is always constant, not increased as occuring in UA.

If universal deceleration is the name of the game, why don't we see stars directly above us red shifted?  Like Polaris, for example?

It's because of the difference of dome's density and athmoplane density between the observer and the celestial bodies. Over head celestial bodies give less optic distortion if compared to other celestial bodies with bigger azimuth.
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 3891
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2019, 09:06:21 PM »
In DUDEA model, there are air or fog or ash in the universe.
In UA the dome cannot bear continual, increased pressure.
But DUDEA would be identical to UA because downward deceleration is upward acceleration - two negatives making a positive.

The function of giving 'gravity' effect for both models is the same. But UA gives more pressure to the dome much more than DUDEA does.
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Jura-Glenlivet II

  • 2996
  • Will I still be perfect tomorrow?
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2019, 03:06:48 AM »

So your creator is a lousy architect, not taking into account the relative pressure on his dome, and an even worse forward planner, in not having a fire team in case of failure, I’m not sure we can trust this guy.
Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.



High Priestess of the “Society for the Promotion of Arbitrary Moderation” (SPAM)

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2019, 03:53:36 AM »
Hard to explain, right?



What is it?

It shows the movement of the planets around the sun and also how the sun moves around the galaxy.

Cant see the image anymore, but it didn't
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

Danang

  • 3891
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2019, 05:32:45 AM »

So your creator is a lousy architect, not taking into account the relative pressure on his dome, and an even worse forward planner, in not having a fire team in case of failure, I’m not sure we can trust this guy.

That's why doomsday had been scheduled and informed since the beginning. And then there will be a world that much much better for only those who believe in God.

Our Creator is the one and only Best Creator with highly sophisticated system.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2019, 05:40:48 AM by Danang »
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 3891
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2019, 05:37:12 AM »
Hard to explain, right?


Put the flat earth in the middle instead of the sun and doesn't that pretty much describe what your universal deacceleration does too?

Except there are dome, tracks, machinery system in DUDEA.
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2019, 07:56:34 AM »
Human beings will go launching to the sky and at last 'fall' and live on the firmament as the new earth's surface.
This will kill most all macroscopic life.  Plants will be uprooted, dirt will fill the air.  Deep marine life would explode from lack of pressure, surface marine life would be cut off from their habitats as the oceans lift away.  Land animals would starve, with predators unable to hunt and prey unable to feed.  Maybe birds and insects could survive the longest, before all the plants die off, if the weightless dirt and water doesn't choke them out first.

Nice.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2019, 03:31:24 PM »
It's because of the difference of dome's density and athmoplane
Really?  I didn't know anyone measured the domes density. What is it?

*

Danang

  • 3891
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2019, 05:54:09 AM »
It's because of the difference of dome's density and athmoplane
Really?  I didn't know anyone measured the domes density. What is it?

The amount of mass.. dome & athmoplane.
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

Re: Which FE gravitation theory makes more sense?
« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2019, 06:19:11 AM »
Really?  I didn't know anyone measured the domes density. What is it?

The amount of mass.. dome & athmoplane.
In other words, you don't know. You're just making things up.