Sandokhan and Gravitation etc

  • 36 Replies
  • 5393 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« on: November 25, 2019, 12:34:05 AM »
Sandokhan has been continually spamming of the "Radar ranging in the Solar System" thread with completely irrelevant material.

So I'll try to answer his posts here.

"Four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere" by exactly the same thing that stops YOU flying off into space and that is gravitation.

Please describe the attractive mechanism by which a molecule of water is attracted by the Earth's iron/nickel core.
Who says it does? But I'm still waiting for your explanation the attractive mechanism that stops YOU flying off into space.

Quote from: sandokhan
When velocities become appreciable compared to c or when close to huge masses Einstein's General Relativity gives the best current solution.

You still seem not to understand what is going on.
No,  that's you!
Quote from: sandokhan
General relativity HAS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE GRAVITY.
Incorrect.
Quote from: sandokhan
General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.
No matter how deep you go there are always are deeper levels. In your hypotheses please explain exactly why there is a far higher density of aether around Venus than the Moon. Careful how answer because there might be a trap.

Quote from: sandokhan
Dr. Erik Verlinde:

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.
That's totally wrong! General Relativity describe's precisely in which way mass and energy affect spacetime but maybe it does not answer why - ask a physicist.

Quote from: sandokhan
General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.
No GR does not rely on Newtonian Gravitation. 
Part the background of GR was Einstein noting that there were two definitions of mass for the same object.
                One is the inertial mass as in force = massinertial x acceleration
and the other is the gravitational mass as in force = (G x Mgrav x massgrav) / d2..
Yet in every case  massinertial = massgravmassgrav.
Having two definitions for the one mass seemed incorrect to Einstein and so to cut things short he saw that the force that we call gravitation is really an inertial force and not an attractive force as Newtonian Gravitation appears to be.

Here's  some entertainment for you:

General relativity explained in under three minutes


Quote from: sandokhan
This is what you wrote earlier:
The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime
Explain to your readers HOW mass bends spacetime. You haven't done so at all.
You refuse to answer the simplest question so why should I bother with that? Go ask a physicist!

Quote from: sandokhan
No one else can explain how mass/matter interacts with spacetime, not even Einstein.
Have you asked everybody, including Einstein?

Quote from: sandokhan
Feynman resolved the energy-momentum tensor problem by the field approach: the gravity force between Newton's apple and the Earth is caused by the exchange of gravitons. Gravitons (real and virtual) are mediators of the gravitational interaction.
I seriously doubt that Feynman went further than suggesting that gravitons might be the gravitational analog of photons in electromagnetism and could tie gravitation into quantum mechanics.

But to date General Relativity and Quantum mechanics are not compatible for a number of reasons.

Quote from: sandokhan
Then, you have a huge problem: how do gravitons produce curvature?
Nobody says that they do.

Quote from: sandokhan
Again, general relativity DOES NOT offer any kind of a mechanism.

That is why physicists have to rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model.
No they do not "rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model".
They use Newton's Laws of motion an universal gravitation where it is sufficiently accurate simply because it is so much simpler to work with.

But Cosmologists and particle physicist certainly use relativity in many situations.

The bottom line is that however much you wriggle and squirm General Relativity is by far the best explanation of gravitation and mechanics that we have to date.

But that does not mean that it will not be modified,  updated or changed in some way.

Do you have a better theory that let's you do real calculations for things like, say, the propagation time for light or other EM radiation  to and from the Moon, Venus and Mars at any specified date?


*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2019, 06:50:32 AM »
His is a straw-man argument.

Because science does not have all the details of X, there for X does not exists.

This would be equivalent to the ancient Romans not believing that fire can burn you or that it exists, simply because they have not figured out exothermic chemical reactions yet.

There was flight before we knew how to fly
There was electricity before we knew what it even was
There was fire before we understood chemistry
There is gravity, even though we dont understand the mechanism.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2019, 07:47:40 AM »
His is a straw-man argument.

Because science does not have all the details of X, there for X does not exists.

This would be equivalent to the ancient Romans not believing that fire can burn you or that it exists, simply because they have not figured out exothermic chemical reactions yet.

There was flight before we knew how to fly
There was electricity before we knew what it even was
There was fire before we understood chemistry
There is gravity, even though we dont understand the mechanism.
Exactly, as the Americans took to the skies in a plane, the British and Germans were bitterly arguing over competing theories of aerodynamics.

Indeed even today, there are still two alternative theories on one of the principal forces of flight, Lift.  However, fights continue to happen.

The basis of 99% of all of Sandy's posts, is partial quotes, misquotes, overly complicated derivations in maths (some of which he has forgotten why he did it), all wrapped up in Ad hominem debating style with obfuscation a plenty and as you state strawman as far as the eye can see.
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2019, 04:07:49 PM »
His is a straw-man argument.

Because science does not have all the details of X, there for X does not exists.

This would be equivalent to the ancient Romans not believing that fire can burn you or that it exists, simply because they have not figured out exothermic chemical reactions yet.

There was flight before we knew how to fly
There was electricity before we knew what it even was
There was fire before we understood chemistry
There is gravity, even though we dont understand the mechanism.
Exactly, as the Americans took to the skies in a plane, the British and Germans were bitterly arguing over competing theories of aerodynamics.

Indeed even today, there are still two alternative theories on one of the principal forces of flight, Lift.  However, fights continue to happen.

The basis of 99% of all of Sandy's posts, is partial quotes, misquotes, overly complicated derivations in maths (some of which he has forgotten why he did it), all wrapped up in Ad hominem debating style with obfuscation a plenty and as you state strawman as far as the eye can see.
Of course heavier than air flying machines are impossible, Lord Kelvin said so ::) look:
Quote from: Wolfram Research
Kelvin, Lord William Thomson (1824-1907)
Another example of his hubris is provided by his 1895 statement "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning...I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society."

Kelvin is also known for an address to an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the advancement of Science in 1900 in which he stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." A similar statement is attributed to the American physicist Albert Michelson.
And would you doubt one so renown as Lord Kelvin ;D?

But those Wright brothers seemed to have the motto:
"The Difficult We Do Immediately. The Impossible Takes a Little Longer"
                    A misquotation from Charles Alexandre de Calonne, the Finance Minister for King Louis XVI.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Weight Loss
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2019, 05:28:28 AM »
<< Irrelevant and off-topic, bye! >>

Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2019, 05:46:27 AM »
Sandokhan has been continually spamming of the "Radar ranging in the Solar System" thread with completely irrelevant material.

So I'll try to answer his posts here.

"Four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere" by exactly the same thing that stops YOU flying off into space and that is gravitation.

Please describe the attractive mechanism by which a molecule of water is attracted by the Earth's iron/nickel core.
Who says it does? But I'm still waiting for your explanation the attractive mechanism that stops YOU flying off into space.

Quote from: sandokhan
When velocities become appreciable compared to c or when close to huge masses Einstein's General Relativity gives the best current solution.

You still seem not to understand what is going on.
No,  that's you!
Quote from: sandokhan
General relativity HAS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE GRAVITY.
Incorrect.
Quote from: sandokhan
General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.
No matter how deep you go there are always are deeper levels. In your hypotheses please explain exactly why there is a far higher density of aether around Venus than the Moon. Careful how answer because there might be a trap.

Quote from: sandokhan
Dr. Erik Verlinde:

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.
That's totally wrong! General Relativity describe's precisely in which way mass and energy affect spacetime but maybe it does not answer why - ask a physicist.

Quote from: sandokhan
General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.
No GR does not rely on Newtonian Gravitation. 
Part the background of GR was Einstein noting that there were two definitions of mass for the same object.
                One is the inertial mass as in force = massinertial x acceleration
and the other is the gravitational mass as in force = (G x Mgrav x massgrav) / d2..
Yet in every case  massinertial = massgravmassgrav.
Having two definitions for the one mass seemed incorrect to Einstein and so to cut things short he saw that the force that we call gravitation is really an inertial force and not an attractive force as Newtonian Gravitation appears to be.

Here's  some entertainment for you:

General relativity explained in under three minutes


Quote from: sandokhan
This is what you wrote earlier:
The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime
Explain to your readers HOW mass bends spacetime. You haven't done so at all.
You refuse to answer the simplest question so why should I bother with that? Go ask a physicist!

Quote from: sandokhan
No one else can explain how mass/matter interacts with spacetime, not even Einstein.
Have you asked everybody, including Einstein?

Quote from: sandokhan
Feynman resolved the energy-momentum tensor problem by the field approach: the gravity force between Newton's apple and the Earth is caused by the exchange of gravitons. Gravitons (real and virtual) are mediators of the gravitational interaction.
I seriously doubt that Feynman went further than suggesting that gravitons might be the gravitational analog of photons in electromagnetism and could tie gravitation into quantum mechanics.

But to date General Relativity and Quantum mechanics are not compatible for a number of reasons.

Quote from: sandokhan
Then, you have a huge problem: how do gravitons produce curvature?
Nobody says that they do.

Quote from: sandokhan
Again, general relativity DOES NOT offer any kind of a mechanism.

That is why physicists have to rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model.
No they do not "rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model".
They use Newton's Laws of motion an universal gravitation where it is sufficiently accurate simply because it is so much simpler to work with.

But Cosmologists and particle physicist certainly use relativity in many situations.

The bottom line is that however much you wriggle and squirm General Relativity is by far the best explanation of gravitation and mechanics that we have to date.

But that does not mean that it will not be modified,  updated or changed in some way.

Do you have a better theory that let's you do real calculations for things like, say, the propagation time for light or other EM radiation  to and from the Moon, Venus and Mars at any specified date?

What I would like to know is where does this sandokhan chap find the time to post all these reams of gibberish...
(Or is there a site on the dark web where he can buy this stuff?)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2019, 03:55:27 PM »
No they do not "rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model".
They use Newton's Laws of motion an universal gravitation where it is sufficiently accurate simply because it is so much simpler to work with.

But Cosmologists and particle physicist certainly use relativity in many situations.

The bottom line is that however much you wriggle and squirm General Relativity is by far the best explanation of gravitation and mechanics that we have to date.

But that does not mean that it will not be modified,  updated or changed in some way.

Do you have a better theory that let's you do real calculations for things like, say, the propagation time for light or other EM radiation  to and from the Moon, Venus and Mars at any specified date?

What I would like to know is where does this sandokhan chap find the time to post all these reams of gibberish...
(Or is there a site on the dark web where he can buy this stuff?)
All you didn't want to know about Sandokhan's repository of "wisdom": Advanced Flat Earth Theory « on: July 15, 2009, 12:59:41 AM ».
That's just the first of a near infinite compendium of misinformation and occult "sciences".

Try this one: Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Message by sandokhan on » DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX IV
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 04:11:39 PM by rabinoz »

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2019, 09:30:54 AM »
What I would like to know is where does this sandokhan chap find the time to post all these reams of gibberish...
(Or is there a site on the dark web where he can buy this stuff?)
He, like cikljamas, copies and pastes most of his long-winded content from previous posts.  They have both amassed quite a catalog of incoherent rants and misquotes over the years, giving them plenty of distractions for derailing a topic once they are backed into a corner.  Google a sentence from any of their long posts with "site:theflatearthsociety.org/forum" in the search criteria to find years of older posts they copied from (and and have been routinely debunked).

To sandokhan's credit, he sometimes also leaves direct links to these older posts, where cikljamas does not.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2019, 10:01:47 AM »
That scientists have not yet confirmed a unified theory for quantum gravity seems to be the only argument left for some.  Most discussions eventually lead to this.

But as someone (sorry, can’t remember who) pointed out in another thread, people worked out that fire was hot long before they understood exothermic chemical reactions.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2019, 10:54:27 AM »
That scientists have not yet confirmed a unified theory for quantum gravity seems to be the only argument left for some.  Most discussions eventually lead to this.

But as someone (sorry, can’t remember who) pointed out in another thread, people worked out that fire was hot long before they understood exothermic chemical reactions.

As Sandy pointed out General Relativity has errors in it, after vigorously testing it for 100 years it is only...

99.999997% accurate

Therefore, Electric Universe!!!

You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2019, 01:07:53 PM »
That scientists have not yet confirmed a unified theory for quantum gravity seems to be the only argument left for some.  Most discussions eventually lead to this.

But as someone (sorry, can’t remember who) pointed out in another thread, people worked out that fire was hot long before they understood exothermic chemical reactions.
And that "electrostatic" changes attract things was known before 500 BC: "This property, first recorded by Thales of Miletus, was the first electrical phenomenon investigated by humans."

The quite accurate electrostatic force law "was first published in 1785 by French physicist Charles-Augustin de Coulomb" long before anyone had any the slightest understanding of the mechanism.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2019, 02:52:53 PM »
This is not on gravitation but is covered under the "etc":

Quote from: Sandokhan
Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Reply #653 on: December 06, 2019, 11:43:58 PM »
GIZEH PYRAMID: WHEN WAS IT ACTUALLY BUILT? II
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Then, there is the matter of the arctangent extended infinite series used at Gizeh:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1834389#msg1834389

The use of advanced calculus means that the Gizeh pyramid was built exactly at the same time as the knowledge of mathematical analysis was being introduced in the 17th century:
Origin of Calculus: How Mathematical Analysis Was Imported to India, Italy, France and England
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1574605#msg1574605
And try this one:
Quote from: Sandokhan
Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Reply #325 on: November 01, 2016, 06:29:01 PM »
TAN 51.8554° = TWO SACRED CUBITS

Reference #1

http://davidpratt.info/pyramid.htm
Note this: "TAN 51.8554° = TWO SACRED CUBITS".
     But "TAN 51.8554°" is a dimensionless number = 1.273305 and
     "TWO SACRED CUBITS" = 2 x 25.0265 British inches or 2 x 0.635673 = 1.271346 metres.
So Sandokhan's writing "TAN 51.8554° = TWO SACRED CUBITS" is meaningless because it is close only if you experss the sacred cubit in metres.

So tan(51.8554°) is very close to two sacred cubits but only when expressed in metres.
But the ancient Egyptians had no idea of the size of a metre so it seems that there is no logical reason for this close approximation.

Or is there? Who knows but read this:
Quote from: Doug Krieger
The Dimensions of Paradise in Light of the “Sacred Cubit”
Sir Isaac Newton defined the “sacred cubit” as 25 pyramid inches.  Based on his research of the ancient texts he postulated the length of the sacred cubit to be between 24. 90 and 25. 02 inches (as distinct from the Royal Cubit equal 25.62 inches believed to be the measurement employed by the Egyptians in construction of the Great Pyramid.)

1 Sacred Cubit = 25 pyramid inches = 25.0265 modern (British/American) inches (or 63.5 cm)
A pyramid inch is about 1.001 of a British or American inch.
(1 : 25) x  sacred cubit =1 inch =2. 54 cm

Heavenly (astronomical) origin of the Sacred Cubit
The pyramid inch exhibits a special relation to the size of the Earth

Geodesic measurements of the polar radius of the Earth show that the Earth has a radius of 3,949.89 miles. Converting that to feet and then inches, we see that the Earth’s radius is very close to 250,000,000 actual inches. 250,000,000 pyramid inches is exactly the polar radius of the Earth.

The Earth’s polar radius is 250,000,000 pyramid inches translates to 10,000,000 sacred cubits.
In other words, a sacred cubit, when defined as such, is 1/10,000,000 the polar radius of the Earth. If that sounds strange, then consider the so-called definition of the meter. That unit of measure is 1/10,000,000 of a quadrant of the Earth along a predetermined meridian. In other words, the quarter circumference of the Earth. If this were the case, then the ratio of the meter to the sacred cubit would be PI/2 (3.14159/2).
1 meter =39.37 inches
1 sacred cubit = 25.0265 inches
Ratio:  1 sacred cubit/1 meter = 1.5731
2 x 1.5731 = 3.146 (very close approximation of “Pi”)
This would not be an exact ratio since the Earth is an oblate sphere, but it is a very close approximation. Dividing the meter by 100 yields a centimeter, and dividing the sacred cubit by 100 yields (very closely to) the quarter inch.
There's more but that can be read in the reference.

But note that all of the above is based on the Earth's being a Globe and cannot work if the Earth is flat.
Interesting . . . .

I'm afraid that I don't as yet see the logic in the later parts of Doug Krieger's writing but who knows?


« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 04:05:19 PM by rabinoz »

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2019, 03:33:32 PM »
He added a post today about the Pyramids to his 'Advanced Flat Earth' section.

Apparently it's made of concrete,  which is bizarre as it's mostly still there and it's made of granite cased in limestone?

Not sure where it's going but no doubt will be added to a thread regarding revised chronology of history?

You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2019, 04:04:12 PM »
He added a post today about the Pyramids to his 'Advanced Flat Earth' section.

Apparently it's made of concrete,  which is bizarre as it's mostly still there and it's made of granite cased in limestone?

Not sure where it's going but no doubt will be added to a thread regarding revised chronology of history?
It already more or less is:
Quote from: Sandokhan
Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Reply #653 on: December 06, 2019, 11:43:58 PM »
GIZEH PYRAMID: WHEN WAS IT ACTUALLY BUILT? II
The use of advanced calculus means that the Gizeh pyramid was built exactly at the same time as the knowledge of mathematical analysis was being introduced in the 17th century:
Origin of Calculus: How Mathematical Analysis Was Imported to India, Italy, France and England
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1574605#msg1574605
::) ::) ::)

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2019, 04:37:53 PM »
Note this: "TAN 51.8554° = TWO SACRED CUBITS".
     But "TAN 51.8554°" is a dimensionless number = 1.273305 and
     "TWO SACRED CUBITS" = 2 x 25.0265 British inches or 2 x 0.635673 = 1.271346 metres.
So Sandokhan's writing "TAN 51.8554° = TWO SACRED CUBITS" is meaningless because it is close only if you experss the sacred cubit in metres.
If I recall correctly, he defines the conversion factor between a meter and a sacred cubit as number you get when you take the wavelength of some color (reddish) as measured in micrometers.  And you're allowed to change the color, so the conversion factor changes too.  In other words, a sacred cubit can be whatever length you want within a large range of values.

Sandokhan, correct me if I'm misremembering.

But yeah, all his ancient mystical math in ancient mystical units require SI ;D
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2019, 04:55:33 PM »
I wish we had a face palm emoji.

What on earth has calculus got to do with the Great Pyramid, calculus the study of continuous change.

Continuous change,  that structure has been there for 4500 years

So calculus can be used to work out volume,  but we are dealing with a pyramid, a pyramid made out of rectangular blocks no less.

1/3 of the area of the base x height gives you the volume, its basic geometry.

 ;)

You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2019, 08:56:50 PM »
I wish we had a face palm emoji.
Take your pick, but they're images not real emojis:
  or  

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2019, 09:20:07 PM »
Quote from: Doug Krieger
The Dimensions of Paradise in Light of the “Sacred Cubit”
The Earth’s polar radius is 250,000,000 pyramid inches translates to 10,000,000 sacred cubits.
In other words, a sacred cubit, when defined as such, is 1/10,000,000 the polar radius of the Earth. If that sounds strange, then consider the so-called definition of the meter. That unit of measure is 1/10,000,000 of a quadrant of the Earth along a predetermined meridian.
According to Douglas Krieger the 2/π comes from:
            a sacred cubit, being defined as 1/10,000,000 the polar radius of the Earth and
            a metre being defined as 1/10,000,000 of a quadrant of the Earth along the meridian through Paris.
But that would appear to link the sacred cubit with the Earth's being a Globe :).

*

faded mike

  • 2731
  • I'm thinkin flat
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2019, 12:05:45 AM »
Meeting of the GES front page news
"Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

theoretical formula for Earths curvature = 8 inches multiplied by (miles squared) = inches drop from straight forward

kids: say no to drugs

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2019, 09:31:56 AM »
So far the most logical explanation for 'gravity effect' is likely Universal Acceleration (UA).

But if you see the horizon looks higher, it ain't UA. It's another version a bit similar to UA >> Downwards Universal Deceleration.
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

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

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2019, 09:35:06 AM »
Attention:

Don't link something you don't even know due to absurdity of the explanation.

Gravity and whatever explanation about it is dying 👌
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

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

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2019, 09:45:40 AM »
So far the most logical explanation for 'gravity effect' is likely Universal Acceleration (UA).

But if you see the horizon looks higher, it ain't UA. It's another version a bit similar to UA >> Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Lie on the ground and get some friends to place a very large rock on top of you.

Describe the forces you feel
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2019, 10:05:17 AM »
So far the most logical explanation for 'gravity effect' is likely Universal Acceleration (UA).

But if you see the horizon looks higher, it ain't UA. It's another version a bit similar to UA >> Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Lie on the ground and get some friends to place a very large rock on top of you.

Describe the forces you feel

You can't claim it must be gravity. There are other explanations supported by emphirical realities.

D.U.D. or U.A. or Gravity all have similarity at a glance i.e  "force". But the question: is it "reality friendly"? Gravity is not supported by reality.
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

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

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2019, 10:36:45 AM »
So far the most logical explanation for 'gravity effect' is likely Universal Acceleration (UA).

But if you see the horizon looks higher, it ain't UA. It's another version a bit similar to UA >> Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Lie on the ground and get some friends to place a very large rock on top of you.

Describe the forces you feel

You can't claim it must be gravity. There are other explanations supported by emphirical realities.

D.U.D. or U.A. or Gravity all have similarity at a glance i.e  "force". But the question: is it "reality friendly"? Gravity is not supported by reality.

Gravity is reality friendly.

Mass attracts mass.

The greater the mass, the greater the gravitational effect.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2019, 04:05:05 PM »
So far the most logical explanation for 'gravity effect' is likely Universal Acceleration (UA).

But if you see the horizon looks higher, it ain't UA. It's another version a bit similar to UA >> Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Lie on the ground and get some friends to place a very large rock on top of you.

Describe the forces you feel

You can't claim it must be gravity. There are other explanations supported by emphirical realities.

D.U.D. or U.A. or Gravity all have similarity at a glance i.e  "force". But the question: is it "reality friendly"? Gravity is not supported by reality.

The only similarity between gravity, universal acceleration, artificial gravity, and d.u.d, is they all exert a force. That's where the similarities end. Gravity force lessens with altitude, or with distance, but with ua force, d.u.d, or artificial gravity, it cannot. Think about it. So these do not match reality. Gravity does.

How many flat earthers does it take to change a light globe? None. None of them believe the globe can rotate, so they sit in the dark discussing conspiracy theories of the globe makers.

Keep sitting in the dark, Danang, but when you choose to find out if the globe turns, the light might hurt your eyes at first, but just know reality and a world of scientific discovery awaits you.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2019, 04:07:08 PM by Sunset »

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2019, 07:02:38 PM »
"The greater the mass, the greater the gravitational effect."

>> That applies between magnets, or magnet & iron.

Other substance is too weak. Soil, human body, etc.

If there were gravity your feetsteps  would be hard. D.U.D. ain't have such issue.

Humans drive to the earth downwards by velocity while earth decelerates downwards.

And why in vacuum any weight will have the same falling pattern.

The lighter object is supposed to hit the earth quicker than the more weight object. In fact not. Both hit the earth at the same time.

There is no downwards attracting force.
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

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

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2019, 07:08:46 PM »
"Gravity force lessens with altitude, or with distance, but with ua force, d.u.d, or artificial gravity, it cannot."

>> Your weight is Constant no matter at what altitude you fly.
ISS hovering astronots? That's just the game of dipping the aircraft. 👌
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

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

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2019, 07:10:59 PM »
Still waiting the response of the perspective of "HIGHER LEVELED HORIZON". 
By the way, that's the property of D.U.D.
• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

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

*

Danang

  • 5583
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2019, 08:03:03 PM »
This! 8)

• South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
• Downwards Universal Deceleration.

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

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2019, 08:05:36 PM »
This! 8)


Nice photo and interesting scenery but so what?