Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2017, 07:04:13 PM »
Can you show us the force that is making the Earth accelerate? Can you conclusively show us that it's the Earth accelerating towards the ball when we let got of it and not the ball accelerating towards the Earth? If you can I would love to see it.
Not anymore than RE can show what makes gravity function, I suppose. But if you have some evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

Newton explained the effects of gravity in the 1600's and Einstein explained how it worked in the early 1900's. Over the last hundred years, more and more pieces of Einstein's theories have been confirmed in various experimental tests. Here is a summary. https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html

One caveat, I have not seen it explicitly mentioned anywhere, but I am assuming Einstein was a RE believer.


Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2017, 07:12:12 PM »
Can you show us the force that is making the Earth accelerate? Can you conclusively show us that it's the Earth accelerating towards the ball when we let got of it and not the ball accelerating towards the Earth? If you can I would love to see it.
Not anymore than RE can show what makes gravity function, I suppose. But if you have some evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
Then stop claiming dropping a ball is evidence for UA. It's evidence for something bringing the ball from your hand to the ground.

Did I claim it was evidence for UA? I simply said it was evidence of acceleration.

No, you didn't. Context. Learn to understand how it adjusts what you say, and to be clear in what you say when it's not in the context of what's going on if that's truly what you meant.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2017, 07:16:37 PM »
Again, no evidence of an accelerating Earth as opposed to a globe Earth with gravity.
Again, no evidence of a globe Earth with gravity as opposed to an accelerating Earth. See, I can do it too...

Ah - but there you're wrong.

How does UA explain that objects fall to the ground faster at the poles than at the equator?

In RET, it's a natural consequence of the rotation of the earth producing a centrifugal force that slightly opposes gravity at the equator, but not at the poles.

UA can't do that because the entire FE has to accelerate at the same exact rate or it'll tear itself apart.

While you're about it - tell us how there can be less "acceleration" at the tops of mountains....oh - and more where are dense rock formations underground.

(I still don't understand why FE'ers here don't just go with "gravity on an infinite plane" - it makes life so much easier.)
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2017, 07:26:51 PM »
No, you didn't. Context. Learn to understand how it adjusts what you say, and to be clear in what you say when it's not in the context of what's going on if that's truly what you meant.
Actually, I did. Unless you can show me where I said it was evidence of UA, please stop making things up. Thanks.


Ah - but there you're wrong.

How does UA explain that objects fall to the ground faster at the poles than at the equator?

In RET, it's a natural consequence of the rotation of the earth producing a centrifugal force that slightly opposes gravity at the equator, but not at the poles.

UA can't do that because the entire FE has to accelerate at the same exact rate or it'll tear itself apart.

While you're about it - tell us how there can be less "acceleration" at the tops of mountains....oh - and more where are dense rock formations underground.

(I still don't understand why FE'ers here don't just go with "gravity on an infinite plane" - it makes life so much easier.)

Already addressed in the wiki/FAQ, friend. It is the same answer, even if you don't like it.

Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2017, 07:46:01 PM »
No, you didn't. Context. Learn to understand how it adjusts what you say, and to be clear in what you say when it's not in the context of what's going on if that's truly what you meant.
Actually, I did. Unless you can show me where I said it was evidence of UA, please stop making things up. Thanks.
I said
Quote
Basically, the UA exists because FE needs a way to explain RE's gravity. That's it. They have no experimental evidence for it, it's predicated on the idea that you need a way to have gravity. Thus, you get the UA (or the infinite plane Earth) to supply that to the flat Earth https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration Note they claim it's being done by Dark Energy, which just isn't well understood and mere conjecture on the part of all involved (with Dark Energy I mean, it's pretty specious even in the RE realm still as I recall, essentially an idea to explain observed oddities that is being worked on.)

To which you replied
Quote
Quote
They have no experimental evidence for it, it's predicated on the idea that you need a way to have gravity.
I would suggest holding something (preferable not easily broken) in your hand a meter or more above the ground and letting it go. You can observe acceleration occur right before your eyes.

Context suggests you are offering that observation as evidence for UA. Whether you understand that or not appears to be a different question. Now obviously you intended "You can observe acceleration occur right before your eyes" to mean you were talking strictly about acceleration, or more precisely I think, this allows you to twist the meaning any way you want in the future. But if you weren't commenting about the UA discussion, why bother saying anything? You certainly have no problems staying silent in other places. Therefore context cues suggest you were offering experimental evidence of the acceleration of the Earth.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2017, 07:48:58 PM »
To which you replied
Quote
I would suggest holding something (preferable not easily broken) in your hand a meter or more above the ground and letting it go. You can observe acceleration occur right before your eyes.

So no claim beyond observing acceleration. Gotcha, thanks for proving my point and showing where you were incorrect. You are welcome to interpret things how you like, but that certainly doesn't make them correct. Maybe we can get back to the topic now that you have located your error.


Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2017, 08:00:28 PM »
To which you replied
Quote
I would suggest holding something (preferable not easily broken) in your hand a meter or more above the ground and letting it go. You can observe acceleration occur right before your eyes.

So no claim beyond observing acceleration. Gotcha, thanks for proving my point and showing where you were incorrect. You are welcome to interpret things how you like, but that certainly doesn't make them correct. Maybe we can get back to the topic now that you have located your error.
Bravo junker, truly you are not just a master at taking things out of context to fit your narrative, but obviously a top notch troll as well. Bravo, yes let's see about getting back on track, where were we...

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #47 on: September 27, 2017, 08:17:08 PM »
No, you didn't. Context. Learn to understand how it adjusts what you say, and to be clear in what you say when it's not in the context of what's going on if that's truly what you meant.
Actually, I did. Unless you can show me where I said it was evidence of UA, please stop making things up. Thanks.


Ah - but there you're wrong.

How does UA explain that objects fall to the ground faster at the poles than at the equator?

In RET, it's a natural consequence of the rotation of the earth producing a centrifugal force that slightly opposes gravity at the equator, but not at the poles.

UA can't do that because the entire FE has to accelerate at the same exact rate or it'll tear itself apart.

While you're about it - tell us how there can be less "acceleration" at the tops of mountains....oh - and more where are dense rock formations underground.

(I still don't understand why FE'ers here don't just go with "gravity on an infinite plane" - it makes life so much easier.)

Already addressed in the wiki/FAQ, friend. It is the same answer, even if you don't like it.

As usual, Junker gets to the limits of his ability to explain then punts to the Wiki...which (as usual) contains nothing whatever of value.

Well, certainly doesn't explain it - the word "equator" isn't mentioned even once.

The appalling lack of science on this page is astounding! "This force is known as "Universal Acceleration"" - why would you name a force "acceleration"?!  Well - whatever.

The explanation of how this is like RET gravity is also pretty hilarious: "its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects)."  In RET, gravity is a force between two objects.  A pebble pulls on the Earth with the exact same force that the Earth pulls on the pebble...Newton's Third Law guys.  The reason the pebble accelerates faster than the Earth is because it's so much lighter and F=ma, so: a=F/m.

Anyway - we don't need to discuss FE'ers inability to understand RET...it's funny when they try - but unimportant here.

There is a tiny bit in there about the reduction in gravity with altitude:

"The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth."
Er...no!  Why do the tides vary in timing from day to day when the stars are always in the same exact position at the same time every day?  Where to the stars go to when there is a low tide at midnight?  Tides are VERY clearly a lunar phenomenon.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?  A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Well - not really.  This "gravitation" (but not "gravity" - even though we just called it that by mistake!) can't produce both a variable attraction for the tides and a constant attraction for reduced gravity on mountain tops.  One or the other guys.

Then there is another page [url=https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation]https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration]https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation]https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
certainly doesn't explain it - the word "equator" isn't mentioned even once.

The appalling lack of science on this page is astounding! "This force is known as "Universal Acceleration"" - why would you name a force "acceleration"?!  Well - whatever.

The explanation of how this is like RET gravity is also pretty hilarious: "its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects)."  In RET, gravity is a force between two objects.  A pebble pulls on the Earth with the exact same force that the Earth pulls on the pebble...Newton's Third Law guys.  The reason the pebble accelerates faster than the Earth is because it's so much lighter and F=ma, so: a=F/m.

Anyway - we don't need to discuss FE'ers inability to understand RET...it's funny when they try - but unimportant here.

There is a tiny bit in there about the reduction in gravity with altitude:

"The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth."
Er...no!  Why do the tides vary in timing from day to day when the stars are always in the same exact position at the same time every day?  Where to the stars go to when there is a low tide at midnight?  Tides are VERY clearly a lunar phenomenon.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?  A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Well - not really.  This "gravitation" (but not "gravity" - even though we just called it that by mistake!) can't produce both a variable attraction for the tides and a constant attraction for reduced gravity on mountain tops.  One or the other guys.

Then there is another page https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation that says "Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane."...ah..."it accounts for it"...well that's a very complete and comprehensive explanation....**NOT**

It's like - "We've invented a name - and decided that it works - and now we're done!"...very zetetic.

So the Wiki DOES NOT explain a darned thing...although I know Junker wishes it were otherwise.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 08:38:00 PM by 3DGeek »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #48 on: September 27, 2017, 08:27:59 PM »
No, you didn't. Context. Learn to understand how it adjusts what you say, and to be clear in what you say when it's not in the context of what's going on if that's truly what you meant.
Actually, I did. Unless you can show me where I said it was evidence of UA, please stop making things up. Thanks.


Ah - but there you're wrong.

How does UA explain that objects fall to the ground faster at the poles than at the equator?

In RET, it's a natural consequence of the rotation of the earth producing a centrifugal force that slightly opposes gravity at the equator, but not at the poles.

UA can't do that because the entire FE has to accelerate at the same exact rate or it'll tear itself apart.

While you're about it - tell us how there can be less "acceleration" at the tops of mountains....oh - and more where are dense rock formations underground.

(I still don't understand why FE'ers here don't just go with "gravity on an infinite plane" - it makes life so much easier.)

Already addressed in the wiki/FAQ, friend. It is the same answer, even if you don't like it.

As usual, Junker gets to the limits of his ability to explain then punts to the Wiki...which (as usual) contains nothing whatever of value.

Well, certainly doesn't explain it - the word "equator" isn't mentioned even once.

The appalling lack of science on this page is astounding! "This force is known as "Universal Acceleration"" - why would you name a force "acceleration"?!  Well - whatever.

The explanation of how this is like RET gravity is also pretty hilarious: "its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects)."  In RET, gravity is a force between two objects.  A pebble pulls on the Earth with the exact same force that the Earth pulls on the pebble...Newton's Third Law guys.  The reason the pebble accelerates faster than the Earth is because it's so much lighter and F=ma, so: a=F/m.

Anyway - we don't need to discuss FE'ers inability to understand RET...it's funny when they try - but unimportant here.

There is a tiny bit in there about the reduction in gravity with altitude:

"The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth."
Er...no!  Why do the tides vary in timing from day to day when the stars are always in the same exact position at the same time every day?  Where to the stars go to when there is a low tide at midnight?  Tides are VERY clearly a lunar phenomenon.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?  A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Well - not really.  This "gravitation" (but not "gravity" - even though we just called it that by mistake!) can't produce both a variable attraction for the tides and a constant attraction for reduced gravity on mountain tops.  One or the other guys.

Then there is another page [url=https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation]https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration[\url] certainly doesn't explain it - the word "equator" isn't mentioned even once.

The appalling lack of science on this page is astounding! "This force is known as "Universal Acceleration"" - why would you name a force "acceleration"?!  Well - whatever.

The explanation of how this is like RET gravity is also pretty hilarious: "its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects)."  In RET, gravity is a force between two objects.  A pebble pulls on the Earth with the exact same force that the Earth pulls on the pebble...Newton's Third Law guys.  The reason the pebble accelerates faster than the Earth is because it's so much lighter and F=ma, so: a=F/m.

Anyway - we don't need to discuss FE'ers inability to understand RET...it's funny when they try - but unimportant here.

There is a tiny bit in there about the reduction in gravity with altitude:

"The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth."
Er...no!  Why do the tides vary in timing from day to day when the stars are always in the same exact position at the same time every day?  Where to the stars go to when there is a low tide at midnight?  Tides are VERY clearly a lunar phenomenon.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?  A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Well - not really.  This "gravitation" (but not "gravity" - even though we just called it that by mistake!) can't produce both a variable attraction for the tides and a constant attraction for reduced gravity on mountain tops.  One or the other guys.

Then there is another page [url]https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation]https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation]https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration[\url] certainly doesn't explain it - the word "equator" isn't mentioned even once.

The appalling lack of science on this page is astounding! "This force is known as "Universal Acceleration"" - why would you name a force "acceleration"?!  Well - whatever.

The explanation of how this is like RET gravity is also pretty hilarious: "its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects)."  In RET, gravity is a force between two objects.  A pebble pulls on the Earth with the exact same force that the Earth pulls on the pebble...Newton's Third Law guys.  The reason the pebble accelerates faster than the Earth is because it's so much lighter and F=ma, so: a=F/m.

Anyway - we don't need to discuss FE'ers inability to understand RET...it's funny when they try - but unimportant here.

There is a tiny bit in there about the reduction in gravity with altitude:

"The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth."
Er...no!  Why do the tides vary in timing from day to day when the stars are always in the same exact position at the same time every day?  Where to the stars go to when there is a low tide at midnight?  Tides are VERY clearly a lunar phenomenon.

Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?  A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Well - not really.  This "gravitation" (but not "gravity" - even though we just called it that by mistake!) can't produce both a variable attraction for the tides and a constant attraction for reduced gravity on mountain tops.  One or the other guys.

Then there is another page [url]https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
that says "Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane."...ah..."it accounts for it"...well that's a very complete and comprehensive explanation....**NOT**

It's like - "We've invented a name - and decided that it works - and now we're done!"...very zetetic.

So the Wiki DOES NOT explain a darned thing...although I know Junker wishes it were otherwise.

Maybe work on your post formatting. It makes this particular wall of text more of an eyesore than most of them. Speaking of your wall of text, I am sorry if you don't like the answer, but it is the same thing I mentioned in my aforementioned post. I get that you just don't like it. Unfortunately, that doesn't really matter.

Also, this is well beyond a Q&A post now, so I will move it to FED.

devils advocate

Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #49 on: September 27, 2017, 08:47:54 PM »
So basically Junker, FE has NO comment to answer the original question. The Wiki dies NOT answer it and your comments are pedantic critiques of our phrases or hair splitting over terms. The earth is round, gravity exists as a result of the spin and there is no evidence or reason to accept the crazy notion that the earth s a snow globe hurtling through your make it up as you go asking universe.....that said, good nitpicking, if you're not already then a career in politics awaits you!

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #50 on: September 27, 2017, 08:52:17 PM »
So basically Junker, FE has NO comment to answer the original question. The Wiki dies NOT answer it and your comments are pedantic critiques of our phrases or hair splitting over terms.
I'd suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.


...gravity exists as a result of the spin
??


...and there is no evidence or reason to accept the crazy notion that the earth s a snow globe hurtling through your make it up as you go asking universe.....that said, good nitpicking, if you're not already then a career in politics awaits you!
I legitimately have no idea what you are talking about here.

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #51 on: September 27, 2017, 10:20:25 PM »
lol ok. Please explain the Cavendish experiment within the constraint of UA.
Nice deflection of the question. I would suggest you review the FAQ and the wiki.
what would I be deflecting? what is causing Cavendish balls to accelerate toward each other? Not the acceleration of the plane. Might it be.. I don't know... gravity?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #52 on: September 27, 2017, 10:38:49 PM »
what would I be deflecting?

Answering the question. Feel free to go and read it again. If you find yourself struggling to find it, just ask and I will do my best to help you.

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #53 on: September 27, 2017, 10:41:07 PM »
what would I be deflecting?

Answering the question. Feel free to go and read it again. If you find yourself struggling to find it, just ask and I will do my best to help you.
Please do. Pretend I'm a dumb kid, you won't miss by much.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #54 on: September 28, 2017, 01:58:40 AM »
what would I be deflecting?

Answering the question. Feel free to go and read it again. If you find yourself struggling to find it, just ask and I will do my best to help you.
Please do. Pretend I'm a dumb kid, you won't miss by much.
While this is a low-effort troll job, I will play along for a moment. Please see the quote string:

caaaaaveeeendiiiiish!  8)
You think that is more easily observed than acceleration? I would suggest that you maybe do some research before posting. It will help to keep you from looking as ignorant as you do here.
lol ok. Please explain the Cavendish experiment within the constraint of UA.

As is very easily observed by anyone who can read, you will notice that your low-content post of "caaaaaveeeendiiiiish!  8)" was followed by my simple question of "You think that is more easily observed than acceleration?" Instead of replying to the question, you said "lol ok. Please explain the Cavendish experiment within the constraint of UA." which you will notice doesn't answer the question I asked you at all. You merely deflected with some unrelated request about how the Cavendish is explained within UA (again, please see the quote above if you find yourself still struggling). It is fine if you don't want to answer a question, but playing dumb is a bit intellectually dishonest. It is clear you don't want to be taken seriously, so this generous offering of help was a one time only kind of deal. I do wish you the best in overcoming whatever issue prevented you from comprehending a simple question, and hope that next time you post that you give a bit more effort. Take care, friend!
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 02:00:36 AM by junker »

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #55 on: September 28, 2017, 05:07:57 AM »
Junker, thanks for the effort, but it's still unclear. I hope you are not an elementary school teacher.
What is not easy to observe? You were talking about letting things drop, and stating, correctly, that the acceleration toward The floor is all you can really observe, good luck proving it's gravity. Now, the Cavendish experiment detects an attraction between masses. It's rather beside the point how accurately it does, if that's what you mean. You need to explain what is causing that attraction. That's all there is to my "low content comment". At least it got your attention, when I pose the question seriously I get crickets...

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #56 on: September 28, 2017, 01:52:08 PM »
Feel free to go and read it again. If you find yourself struggling to find it, just ask and I will do my best to help you.

Oh!  Cool!  So I've read the Wiki and I'm definitely struggling with it - so I'm asking you to do your best to help me.  Evidently I just needed to do the "Jeopardy!" thing where I phrase my answers in the form of a question!

So I just read this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration and I'm struggling with it:

1) It says: "This force is known as "Universal Acceleration"" - how can a force be an acceleration?   Force is defined as acceleration times mass.  Which mass is involved here?  The FE is claimed to be infinite in extent - so the mass must be infinite - doesn't this mean that the acceleration must be zero?!?

2) It says: "its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects)."  But in RET, gravity is a force between two objects.  A pebble pulls on the Earth with the exact same force that the Earth pulls on the pebble...Newton's Third Law guys.  The reason the pebble accelerates faster than the Earth is because it's so much lighter and F=ma, so: a=F/m.  So what's the rule in FET?

3) "The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth."  So could you please explain to me why the tides vary in timing from day to day when the stars are always in the same exact position at any given time of day?  Where do the stars go to when there is a low tide at midnight?  I can still see them.  Did their gravity gravitation turn off for some reason?  Why are there two high and two low tides each day.  This is not explained anywhere on the Wiki.

4) "Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?  A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."  How doe this "gravitation" (but not "gravity" - even though you just called it that by mistake!) produce both a variable attraction for the tides and a constant attraction for reduced gravity on mountain tops?

Then there is another page https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation ...

5) It says "Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane."   How exactly does it "account for it"?  This isn't explained anywhere I could find.

Thanks in advance for your help!  (You know, you should really stick to saying "Just read the Wiki" and "False" and let Tom take the hits for the gaping holes in FET.)

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #57 on: September 28, 2017, 02:29:51 PM »
I hope you are not an elementary school teacher.
I am not, but I sure feel like one after that exchange. Although, I imagine elementary students wouldn't struggle as much as you have here. I suppose I would be a remedial elementary teacher in this case.


Feel free to go and read it again. If you find yourself struggling to find it, just ask and I will do my best to help you.

Oh!  Cool!  So I've read the Wiki and I'm definitely struggling with it - so I'm asking you to do your best to help me.  Evidently I just needed to do the "Jeopardy!" thing where I phrase my answers in the form of a question!

So I just read this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration and I'm struggling with it:

1) It says: "This force is known as "Universal Acceleration"" - how can a force be an acceleration?   Force is defined as acceleration times mass.  Which mass is involved here?  The FE is claimed to be infinite in extent - so the mass must be infinite - doesn't this mean that the acceleration must be zero?!?

2) It says: "its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects)."  But in RET, gravity is a force between two objects.  A pebble pulls on the Earth with the exact same force that the Earth pulls on the pebble...Newton's Third Law guys.  The reason the pebble accelerates faster than the Earth is because it's so much lighter and F=ma, so: a=F/m.  So what's the rule in FET?

3) "The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth."  So could you please explain to me why the tides vary in timing from day to day when the stars are always in the same exact position at any given time of day?  Where do the stars go to when there is a low tide at midnight?  I can still see them.  Did their gravity gravitation turn off for some reason?  Why are there two high and two low tides each day.  This is not explained anywhere on the Wiki.

4) "Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?  A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull."  How doe this "gravitation" (but not "gravity" - even though you just called it that by mistake!) produce both a variable attraction for the tides and a constant attraction for reduced gravity on mountain tops?

Then there is another page https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation ...

5) It says "Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane."   How exactly does it "account for it"?  This isn't explained anywhere I could find.

Thanks in advance for your help!  (You know, you should really stick to saying "Just read the Wiki" and "False" and let Tom take the hits for the gaping holes in FET.)

Excellent quote mining, but if you actually go back and read the whole post of mine you pulled that excerpt from, you will notice that your wall of text here isn't even remotely related to what I said. However, my answer for you remains the same even if you keep ignoring it. If you are struggling this hard with the wiki, I honestly don't know how much I can help you. I know RE logicians have a rough time with basic logic and reading comprehension on a regular basis, so what you are exhibiting is nothing new. The best I can do for you is to suggest you head over to rif.org and take a look at the resources they offer. Once you have a better understanding, I encourage you to come back and try again after actually making an attempt. I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 02:31:27 PM by junker »

Rama Set

Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #58 on: September 28, 2017, 02:45:09 PM »
There are a number of problems with UA.  If it is a proper acceleration, what is the source of energy that powers it?  If it is a coordinate acceleration, then what mechanism is causing the FoR of the Earth to move differently than another FoR, and how is anyone even sure that this other FoR exists?  How does one distinguish UA from GR?  How does UA explain the gravitational attraction of mountains?  The Cavendish experiment?  Gravity waves?  As previously mentioned, the gravitational effects of celestial bodies has multiple properties that manifest based on what you are observing.  How does anyone know that celestial bodies have gravitation?

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?
« Reply #59 on: September 28, 2017, 02:56:58 PM »
I hope you are not an elementary school teacher.
I am not, but I sure feel like one after that exchange. Although, I imagine elementary students wouldn't struggle as much as you have here. I suppose I would be a remedial elementary teacher in this case.
not doing his job. Again: what is not easy to observe? You are avoiding the issue.