Stuff

In Fe, an unknown force (I don't know what they call it) is used to explain the phenomenon of the UA, which itself is an unknown used to explain the equivalent of gravity on earth and its movement.

I think the unknown force and the UA are the same thing (is UA universal accelerator?)

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

In Fe, an unknown force (I don't know what they call it) is used to explain the phenomenon of the UA, which itself is an unknown used to explain the equivalent of gravity on earth and its movement.

I think the unknown force and the UA are the same thing (is UA universal accelerator?)

Yes, it is Universal accelerator. But in order to transfer Kinetic energy on every piece of matter un the iniverse, the UA would need an energy source. And since it's accelerating, the required energy becomes greater with each passing second. Also, heat would be created in the process.

Quote

Incorrect. See the Equivalence Principal.

Explain.

Equivalence Principle = frames undergoing gravity are equal to frames undergoing constant acceleration.  General Relativity.

Yes, it is Universal accelerator. But in order to transfer Kinetic energy on every piece of matter un the iniverse, the UA would need an energy source. And since it'S accelerating, the required energy becomes greater with eac hpassing second. Also, heat would be created in the process.

That is assuming the UA is a force-at-a-distance.  It could be the result of some intrinsic property of the universe that we cannot see; not necessarilly coming from 'somewhere' but from 'no-where' (as can be detected by us).  Since we don't know what it is I think it would be better to make no assumptions about what it is (sounds very  much like dark matter to me).  

Now, my point of argument is that dark matter is given too much credit, I think.  We don't know what dark matter is made of, where it came from, or whether it even exists.  We cannot see it.

Equivalence Principle = frames undergoing gravity are equal to frames undergoing constant acceleration. General Relativity.

I know what it is. But that does not answer the question of "How can you tell that everything is being accelerated?"

That is assuming the UA is a force-at-a-distance. It could be the result of some intrinsic property of the universe that we cannot see; not necessarilly coming from 'somewhere' but from 'no-where' (as can be detected by us). Since we don't know what it is I think it would be better to make no assumptions about what it is (sounds very much like dark matter to me).

That only strenghtens my position that the UA is an unknown.

But if it was merely a property of matter, why would they all move in the same direction? Furthermore, if it was a property of matter, an object would not fall down when you'd let go of it.

Now, my point of argument is that dark matter is given too much credit, I think. We don't know what dark matter is made of, where it came from, or whether it even exists. We cannot see it.

No one claims to know exactly what Dark matter really is. It's pretty much a scapegoat. We know something exists because the universe's expension would not be exponential otherwise, it was arbitrarly named "dark matter" But we do know it exists. If it didn't, gravity would win, and we would have an occilating universe (we still could, but the conditions are much harder to reach).

Quote

Equivalence Principle = frames undergoing gravity are equal to frames undergoing constant acceleration. General Relativity.

I know what it is. But that does not answer the question of "How can you tell that everything is being accelerated?"

The fact that we feel a pseudo-force of gravity.  We exchange your Gravity for our Acceleration; get it now?

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Quote

Equivalence Principle = frames undergoing gravity are equal to frames undergoing constant acceleration. General Relativity.

I know what it is. But that does not answer the question of "How can you tell that everything is being accelerated?"

The fact that we feel a pseudo-force of gravity.  We exchange your Gravity for our Acceleration; get it now?

Thats actually incorrect, as its a property of GR, RE exchanges gravity for acceleration as well. However the observed acceleration is not the same as FE acceleration.

FE acceleration states that we experience a pull toward the Earth because it is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s/s. However why do to bodies with mass in space accelerate toward each other, normal (as in perpendicular) to the direction that the Earth is accelerating upward if the universe is accelerating upward as well?

Do objects apart from the Earth experience different laws of gravitation. Remember GR shows that the curvature of space-time is centred around its Centre of mass. The centre of mass on the flat earth is obscured due to its flatness and would have clearly different gravitational effects at different points.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Quote

Equivalence Principle = frames undergoing gravity are equal to frames undergoing constant acceleration. General Relativity.

I know what it is. But that does not answer the question of "How can you tell that everything is being accelerated?"

The fact that we feel a pseudo-force of gravity.  We exchange your Gravity for our Acceleration; get it now?

Thats actually incorrect

Oh really?

Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

Sorry for trying to explain it to him without all the technicality.

as its a property of GR, RE exchanges gravity for acceleration as well.

O RLY?

In general relativity, it is assumed that spacetime is curved by the presence of matter (energy), this curvature being represented by the Riemann tensor.

Looks like GR replaces gravity with the curving of spacetime, and not acceleration.  Oops.

lol it appears the FE society is filled with morons. What do you think causes the curvature in space-time, mass, which i clearly stated a thousand times. Why do you think i said space time is curved around its centre of mass?

the Equivalence principle applies to both the FE and the RE.

I stated that mass curved space time, however the acceleration we feel is not gravity, just a result of moving along the 4 dimensional curvature in space time.

lol it appears the FE society is filled with morons.

I didn't realize you had joined.  Too bad you were taught that there is only one correct answer to a question, for you would have realized that you and I have been saying the same thing; I just like to argue with your word choice because it's fun to watch you react.

Dance, play-thing, dance!

What do you think causes the curvature in space-time, mass, which i clearly stated a thousand times.

Had you, you know, actually read my post, you would have seen this:

In general relativity, it is assumed that spacetime is curved by the presence of matter (energy), this curvature being represented by the Riemann tensor.

ZOMG WE SAID THE SAME FUCKING THING !

the Equivalence principle applies to both the FE and the RE.

Do you work for the Department of the Completely Obvious?  If not, you should; I hear the pay is great and the job is easy.

I stated that mass curved spacetime, however the acceleration we feel is not gravity, just a result of moving along the 4 dimensional curvature in space time.

It's not really acceleration, either; matter/energy takes the path of least resistance in spacetime, only it looks like it's accelerating to us.

Quote from: "Quarrior"

lol it appears the FE society is filled with morons.

I didn't realize you had joined.  Too bad you were taught that there is only one correct answer to a question, for you would have realized that you and I have been saying the same thing; I just like to argue with your word choice because it's fun to watch you react.

Dance, play-thing, dance!

Quote from: "Quarrior"

What do you think causes the curvature in space-time, mass, which i clearly stated a thousand times.

Had you, you know, actually read my post, you would have seen this:

Quote from: "Wikipedia"

In general relativity, it is assumed that spacetime is curved by the presence of matter (energy), this curvature being represented by the Riemann tensor.

ZOMG WE SAID THE SAME FUCKING THING !

Quote from: "Quarrior"

the Equivalence principle applies to both the FE and the RE.

Do you work for the Department of the Completely Obvious?  If not, you should; I hear the pay is great and the job is easy.

Quote from: "Quarrior"

I stated that mass curved spacetime, however the acceleration we feel is not gravity, just a result of moving along the 4 dimensional curvature in space time.

It's not really acceleration, either; matter/energy takes the path of least resistance in spacetime, only it looks like it's accelerating to us.

No you say exactly what i've been saying this entire thread. Even your last statement is just quoting equivalence principle...why did u bother? Arguing with FE idiots is pointless, lets stay on topic please!

No you say exactly what i've been saying this entire thread....Arguing with FE idiots is pointless, lets stay on topic please!

Just like how you were arguing the 'exact same thing' as me about GPS, except you were saying the exact wrong (thus opposite) thing?

Quote from: "Quarrior"

No you say exactly what i've been saying this entire thread....Arguing with FE idiots is pointless, lets stay on topic please!

Just like how you were arguing the 'exact same thing' as me about GPS, except you were saying the exact wrong (thus opposite) thing?

Actually know. I clearly explained the difference between the two, you had no idea that some GPS devices could be transmitters as well as recievers lol.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Rick_James"

I believe the general consensus is that the Universe is expanding. It's everything inside it that's accelerating.

Exactly.

So the center of the universe is also accelerating within the universe? How can that be?

Anyone? Or is Tom wrong about the FE universe being geocentric?

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Quarrior"

No you say exactly what i've been saying this entire thread....Arguing with FE idiots is pointless, lets stay on topic please!

Just like how you were arguing the 'exact same thing' as me about GPS, except you were saying the exact wrong (thus opposite) thing?

Actually know. I clearly explained the difference between the two, you had no idea that some GPS devices could be transmitters as well as recievers lol.

Just like how you were telling me I was wrong because my explanation used multilateration, when it was yours that did. :roll:

Quote from: "Quarrior"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Quarrior"

No you say exactly what i've been saying this entire thread....Arguing with FE idiots is pointless, lets stay on topic please!

Just like how you were arguing the 'exact same thing' as me about GPS, except you were saying the exact wrong (thus opposite) thing?

Actually know. I clearly explained the difference between the two, you had no idea that some GPS devices could be transmitters as well as recievers lol.

Just like how you were telling me I was wrong because my explanation used multilateration, when it was yours that did. :roll:

:roll: Actually i proved to you what I was talking about there, you were the one that didn't understand what I was talking about. You were the one that didn't know some GPS devices could be transmitters as well. I knew what I was talking about and it used Triliteration. However your terminology confused me because it seemed like u were talking about TDOA then and i stated so. I knew what I was talking about all the time and showed you so...you shut up pretty quickly when you realised GPS devices can also be transmitters. Even before then you took the topic off on a pointless tangent, the forum was about the existance of satellites.

Quarrior, you ass.  Just admit you made a mistake.  Toss your gargantuan ego aside and reread that thread.

The fact that we feel a pseudo-force of gravity. We exchange your Gravity for our Acceleration; get it now?

It still doesn't answer my question.

How can you determine that it is due to everything in the universe being accelerated in the same direction?  How can you tell that this is what's happening rather than another phenomenon, when you have no frame of reference to allow you to know that everything is moving?

The fact that the forces felt would be the same does nothing to show that it is one phenomenon over the other.

Simply saying "the equivalence principle" did not answer the question.

 you were the one that didn't understand what I was talking about.

That's because what you were saying made no sense.

You were the one that didn't know some GPS devices could be transmitters as well.

I did know that.  It's used on military planes to uplink the data.

I knew what I was talking about and it used Triliteration.

Your explanation used multilateration, and did so wrongly.

However your terminology confused me because it seemed like u were talking about TDOA then and i stated so.

The only confusion was brought about by your unwillingness to read for comprehension the articles you linked.  Not once did I refer to TDOA or multilateration in my explanation.

I knew what I was talking about all the time and showed you so.

When you said that multilateration uses very accurate clocks?  Or when you said that GPS calculates positon by the unit transmitting signals to satellites?  Or when you said that GPS did not use accurate clocks?  Or was it when you said that a hyperboloid is a sphere?

..you shut up pretty quickly when you realised GPS devices can also be transmitters.

That's because it wasn't relative to the discussion.  Determining position via GPS means the unit is receiving signals.  If the unit is broadcasting signals to locate itself, it's no longer using GPS.

Even before then you took the topic off on a pointless tangent, the forum was about the existance of satellites.

No, the topic was about how GPS could work without them, hence the title "GPS satellites???".  Which is why I explained how GPS works, and noted how no part of the system requires anything to be in orbit.

Is it really that hard to simply say you were mistaken?  You are making yourself out to be an ass by constantly coming up with excuses for yourself.

Quarrior, you ass.  Just admit you made a mistake.  Toss your gargantuan ego aside and reread that thread.

I didn't make a mistake, people just don't listen to me and assume what I'm talking about without reading my entire post, or nit pick at tangential arguments to annoy me.

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"

Quarrior, you ass.  Just admit you made a mistake.  Toss your gargantuan ego aside and reread that thread.

I didn't make a mistake, people just don't listen to me and assume what I'm talking about without reading my entire post, or nit pick at tangential arguments to annoy me.

Oh, please.  Everything you said was wrong.

Quote from: "Quarrior"

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"

Quarrior, you ass.  Just admit you made a mistake.  Toss your gargantuan ego aside and reread that thread.

I didn't make a mistake, people just don't listen to me and assume what I'm talking about without reading my entire post, or nit pick at tangential arguments to annoy me.

Oh, please.  Everything you said was wrong.

Ahh no it wasn't i never claimed that GPS didn't use trilateration, I was never asked to explain it, so i didn't. I explained Multilateration when you asked, if you had of asked for trilateration I would have explained that as well. What kind of an Engineer are you anyway, I find it difficult to believe that a man fo science so blindly follows FE thoery.

Some examples of you being wrong:

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Fine. GPS works because of very accurate clocks.

lol no it doesn't

A message is sent to the satellites from the ground by any GPS device.

The three satellites then send a signal back to the device triangulating its position relative to the positions of the satellites above the surface of the earth.

Remember these satellites are in geosynchronous orbit

if the GPS unit is only a reciever, then it can NOT operate based on very accurate clocks

to determine the position of an object using clocks is called multilateration

GPS device requires the satellites to know the position of the device.

I however do not deny the use of synchronized Atomic clocks on the satellite

multilateration is what you described is locating a position using very accurate clocks

 

GPS uses satellites, otherwise there would be no need for the GPS device to reset itself all the time

You seem confused by Multilateration and Trilateration. What you have described is Multilateration.

Some examples of you being wrong:

Quote from: "Quarrior"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Fine. GPS works because of very accurate clocks.

lol no it doesn't

Quote from: "Quarrior"

A message is sent to the satellites from the ground by any GPS device.

Quote from: "Quarrior"

The three satellites then send a signal back to the device triangulating its position relative to the positions of the satellites above the surface of the earth.

Quote from: "Quarrior"

Remember these satellites are in geosynchronous orbit

Quote from: "Quarrior"

if the GPS unit is only a reciever, then it can NOT operate based on very accurate clocks

Quote from: "Quarrior"

to determine the position of an object using clocks is called multilateration

Quote from: "Quarrior"

GPS device requires the satellites to know the position of the device.

Quote from: "Quarrior"

I however do not deny the use of synchronized Atomic clocks on the satellite

Quote from: "Quarrior"

multilateration is what you described is locating a position using very accurate clocks

 

Quote from: "Quarrior"

GPS uses satellites, otherwise there would be no need for the GPS device to reset itself all the time

Quote from: "Quarrior"

You seem confused by Multilateration and Trilateration. What you have described is Multilateration.

Ahh ok, you just quote completely out of context then...example
"GPS uses satellites, otherwise there would be no need for the GPS device to reset itself all the time" I was refering to the original point that satellites exist and the total lack of need for satellites in a FE and what a waste of money it would be to have Satellites.

You seemed to confuse my point entirely. You were talking about calculating trilateration from fixed points above or on the Earths surface. Multilateration does this using very accurate clocks to dtermine the TDOA!!!!!. Trilateration uses yes, very accurate clocks as well, but the transmitters, satellites are moving. The entire time i was point out the rediculousness of  satellites in a FE scenario!!! IF THE EARTH WERE FLAT, people would just use MULTILATERATION, no need for Trilateration which is much mroe expensive and much more complicated. You missed my point entirely.

Was i talking to a brick wall the entire time!

Its also true about the reciever not using very accurate clocks, you even stated yourself that the reciever uses a Quartz clock. I never denied the use of Atomic clocks on the satellites...you idiocy is frustrating.

Also if you want to rant about me, do it in the Angry Ranting, this topic is a good one, lets stick to Gravity and Relativity here

Quote

Ahh ok, you just quote completely out of context then

Each point is false in and of itself.

...example
"GPS uses satellites, otherwise there would be no need for the GPS device to reset itself all the time" I was refering to the original point that satellites exist and the total lack of need for satellites in a FE and what a waste of money it would be to have Satellites.

There is no part of GPS that requires the transmitter to be in orbit.

You seemed to confuse my point entirely. You were talking about calculating trilateration from fixed points above or on the Earths surface. Multilateration does this using very accurate clocks to dtermine the TDOA!!!!!.

No, it does not:

Note that the receivers do not need to know the absolute time at which the pulse was transmitted - only the time difference is needed.

Trilateration uses yes, very accurate clocks as well, but the transmitters, satellites are moving.

Why must they be moving?

IF THE EARTH WERE FLAT, people would just use MULTILATERATION, no need for Trilateration which is much mroe expensive and much more complicated.

Then why is it so widely used in navigation, over distances where the earth could be considered to be relatively flat?

I never denied the use of Atomic clocks on the satellites.

Look at the first quote in my previous post.

you idiocy is frustrating.

I've been thinking the same thing.

this topic is a good one, lets stick to Gravity and Relativity here

Yep, so I'm going to split it.

What kind of an Engineer are you anyway

Mechanical.

I find it difficult to believe that a man fo science so blindly follows FE thoery.

You know what happens when you assume?  You make an ass of yourself.