[3DGeek]

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.

Oh good grief.  Is that the best you can do?   Let me translate your post into English:  "I can't answer a single one of your questions even though I said I would - so I'm going to claim that you're an idiot."

Fine...just fine...this is what we all expect of FE'ers.  Tom does the exact same thing.  Wait until the going gets tough, then deflect and bail...never, EVER engage in the discussion when it looks like you're going to lose.

It's just pathetic.  Man-up dude.  Either provide clear answers these entirely reasonable and on-topic questions about the Wiki articles relating to the question at hand - or admit that you can't.  (or just deflect/evade/bail as usual and we'll just assume the latter).

[juner]

not doing his job.

I agree. Based on your struggles so far I am playing the role of a remedial elementary teacher who is clearly not doing a good job because you still are struggling with something so simple.

Again: what is not easy to observe? You are avoiding the issue.

What is there to avoid? All I did was ask a question you still haven't answered. I am not sure why it is so difficult for you.

Oh good grief.  Is that the best you can do?   

I am sorry if pointing out simple observations isn't good enough for you.

Let me translate your post into English:

Are you suggesting it wasn't in English?

"I can't answer a single one of your questions even though I said I would - so I'm going to claim that you're an idiot."

Where did I say I would do that? Did you actually go back and read the post like I told you to? Clearly, you did not, or you wouldn't be having such a hard time with this.

Fine...just fine...this is what we all expect of FE'ers.  Tom does the exact same thing.  Wait until the going gets tough, then deflect and bail...never, EVER engage in the discussion when it looks like you're going to lose.

Oh hey, another rant when 3D doesn't get what he wants after posting a wall of text in response to something he didn't understand.

It's just pathetic.  Man-up dude.

Did you just assume my gender?

Either provide clear answers these entirely reasonable and on-topic questions about the Wiki articles relating to the question at hand - or admit that you can't.  (or just deflect/evade/bail as usual and we'll just assume the latter).

You can assume whatever you would like. Turns out that you are not the arbiter of the thread. All you did was quote-mine something I said, then posted a wall of questions that had no bearing on what I said. That isn't how conversation works, friend.

[Ga_x2]

Again: what is not easy to observe? You are avoiding the issue.

What is there to avoid? All I did was ask a question you still haven't answered. I am not sure why it is so difficult for you.

ok. To my hinting at the cavendish experiment, you asked:

You think that is more easily observed than acceleration?

And this is the third time I'm asking you in response: what is difficult to observe?
And you are avoiding to get into the meat of the argument, instead concentrating on asperger level pedantries.

[juner]

Again: what is not easy to observe? You are avoiding the issue.

What is there to avoid? All I did was ask a question you still haven't answered. I am not sure why it is so difficult for you.

ok. To my hinting at the cavendish experiment, you asked:

You think that is more easily observed than acceleration?

And this is the third time I'm asking you in response: what is difficult to observe?
And you are avoiding to get into the meat of the argument, instead concentrating on asperger level pedantries.

So, I get that words are apparently hard for you, but I didn't actually say anything was difficult to observe. Feel free to show where I said anything to the contrary, and I will retract my claim. All I did was ask you a question which you are still avoiding for some reason.

[Ga_x2]

Again: what is not easy to observe? You are avoiding the issue.

What is there to avoid? All I did was ask a question you still haven't answered. I am not sure why it is so difficult for you.

ok. To my hinting at the cavendish experiment, you asked:

You think that is more easily observed than acceleration?

And this is the third time I'm asking you in response: what is difficult to observe?
And you are avoiding to get into the meat of the argument, instead concentrating on asperger level pedantries.

So, I get that words are apparently hard for you, but I didn't actually say anything was difficult to observe. Feel free to show where I said anything to the contrary, and I will retract my claim. All I did was ask you a question which you are still avoiding for some reason.

I rest my case. Holy faq you have taken hairsplitting to a artform.
So.
When you say:

You think that is more easily observed than acceleration?

what does that "that" there stands for?

[Curious Squirrel]

Again: what is not easy to observe? You are avoiding the issue.

What is there to avoid? All I did was ask a question you still haven't answered. I am not sure why it is so difficult for you.

ok. To my hinting at the cavendish experiment, you asked:

You think that is more easily observed than acceleration?

And this is the third time I'm asking you in response: what is difficult to observe?
And you are avoiding to get into the meat of the argument, instead concentrating on asperger level pedantries.

Don't bother engaging with Junker. He'll quote mine, ignore context, and play word games until he can twist things to make himself feel he's won. It's not worth it. He does a fine job moderating (even if I feel he's a bit biased) but he doesn't actually discuss. He just sits on his high horse.

[juner]

When you say:

You think that is more easily observed than acceleration?

what does that "that" there stands for?

It means do you Ga_x2 think "that" Cavendish/gravity is more easily observed than acceleration?

Don't bother engaging with Junker. He'll quote mine, ignore context, and play word games until he can twist things to make himself feel he's won. It's not worth it. He does a fine job moderating (even if I feel he's a bit biased) but he doesn't actually discuss. He just sits on his high horse.

Cool opinion. Sorry if I have upset you in the past. Turns out I do actually discuss, I just prefer to discuss the dumb things RE logicians say when they say them (see:frequently).

[Ga_x2]

When you say:

You think that is more easily observed than acceleration?

what does that "that" there stands for?

It means do you Ga_x2 think "that" Cavendish/gravity is more easily observed than acceleration?

if I were your horse I'd be high as a kyte too. My God why did we have to go through all that to get to this.

So.
When you drop something to the floor, the only immediate observation is that the ball accelerates toward it. To go from there to "there is something that attracts stuff and that attraction is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the distance and I'm calling this thing gravity" is a stretch.

The Cavendish experiment shows that there is something like what I've described above. The immediate observation is that the balls accelerate toward each other, but you have nothing clearly acting on them, and the edit: attraction is dependent on mass and distance. My understanding is that we call this thing gravity, even if we don't yet know the underpinnings. So the short answer is yes. Why do you think otherwise?

[juner]

So.
When you drop something to the floor, the only immediate observation is that the ball accelerates toward it.


To go from there to "there is something that attracts stuff and that attraction is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the distance and I'm calling this thing gravity" is a stretch.

The Cavendish experiment shows that there is something like what I've described above. The immediate observation is that the balls accelerate toward each other, but you have nothing clearly acting on them, and the acceleration is dependent on mass and distance. My understanding is that we call this thing gravity, even if we don't yet know the underpinnings. So the short answer is yes. Why do you think otherwise?

I see, so you think observing the Cavendish experiment is easier than observing acceleration. That was a long-winded reply when you could have just said yes and saved two pages of replies. I mean, you are objectively wrong, but at least you gave a sort-of-answer finally.

[Ga_x2]

So.
When you drop something to the floor, the only immediate observation is that the ball accelerates toward it.


To go from there to "there is something that attracts stuff and that attraction is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the distance and I'm calling this thing gravity" is a stretch.

The Cavendish experiment shows that there is something like what I've described above. The immediate observation is that the balls accelerate toward each other, but you have nothing clearly acting on them, and the acceleration is dependent on mass and distance. My understanding is that we call this thing gravity, even if we don't yet know the underpinnings. So the short answer is yes. Why do you think otherwise?

I see, so you think observing the Cavendish experiment is easier than observing acceleration. That was a long-winded reply when you could have just said yes and saved two pages of replies. I mean, you are objectively wrong, but at least you gave a sort-of-answer finally.

what's wrong with my answer?

[juner]

what's wrong with my answer?

It is incorrect. That is what is wrong with it.

[Ga_x2]

what's wrong with my answer?

It is incorrect. That is what is wrong with it.

you are not really interested in having a conversation are you? Or are you just having a blast exploiting my good nature?
Why is it incorrect?

[juner]

you are not really interested in having a conversation are you?

Of course I am.

Why is it incorrect?

Because observing acceleration is objectively easier than observing gravity.

[Curious Squirrel]

you are not really interested in having a conversation are you?

Of course I am.

Incorrect

Why is it incorrect?

Because observing acceleration is objectively easier than observing gravity.

False

[juner]

Because observing acceleration is objectively easier than observing gravity.

False

I mean, I know RE logicians can be kind of dense, but do you actually believe this? Do you understand what acceleration is? I honestly can't believe this discussion is happening right now (or that I am replying to it).

[Ga_x2]

you are not really interested in having a conversation are you?

Of course I am.

Why is it incorrect?

Because observing acceleration is objectively easier than observing gravity.

then you missed entirely the sense of my quip about Cavendish! Of course it is, that's trivially true. Why would you ever ask me that? Just to enjoy 3 pages of me trying to understand what the heck you were  hinting at?

I thought (wrongly) you were referring to the difficulty of observing gravity in the context of UA vs. The context of a lab experiment. My bad. Now I know it. You have literally no depth in your comments. I'll never try and read anything else beyond what's clearly stated. Also because you're not even trying to narrow the gap in the misunderstandings,
 because that's your way of having fun.

I take everything back and start afresh. Do you have any opinion on the Cavendish experiment? Would you mind sharing it?

[juner]

Why would you ever ask me that? Just to enjoy 3 pages of me trying to understand what the heck you were  hinting at?

Because I was looking for a simple yes or no based on your one-word reply with an emoticon. I am not sure why you read so much into it.

I thought (wrongly) you were referring to the difficulty of observing gravity in the context of UA vs. The context of a lab experiment. My bad. Now I know it. You have literally no depth in your comments.

I really try to keep it simple for RE logicians. Turns out you still take it in any direction you want to...

I'll never try and read anything else beyond what's clearly stated.

I am not sure why you would do otherwise.

Also because you're not even trying to narrow the gap in the misunderstandings,
because that's your way of having fun.

I apologize if a short question caused you a misunderstanding. I assure you it isn't fun for me.

I take everything back and start afresh. Do you have any opinion on the Cavendish experiment?

Not really.

Would you mind sharing it?

Sure, I suppose. Preferably in a topic that has something to do with it.

[Ga_x2]

Why would you ever ask me that? Just to enjoy 3 pages of me trying to understand what the heck you were  hinting at?

Because I was looking for a simple yes or no based on your one-word reply with an emoticon. I am not sure why you read so much into it.

I overestimated your interest in having a conversation about topics instead of a metaconversation about words.

I assure you it isn't fun for me.

False.
 

Sure, I suppose. Preferably in a topic that has something to do with it.

It has A LOT to do with the OP.

Now keeping it in vein, you saying that you haven't an opinion would mean that you have nothing to share...

[juner]

Now keeping it in vein, you saying that you haven't an opinion would mean that you have nothing to share...

I didn't say I don't have an opinion. You are already doing the thing you said you would stop doing. Oh well.

[Ga_x2]

Now keeping it in vein, you saying that you haven't an opinion would mean that you have nothing to share...

I didn't say I don't have an opinion. You are already doing the thing you said you would stop doing. Oh well.

Shoot!   
Chalk this up to English not being my native language... I read "not really" as meaning absolutely not.
So you do have an opinion, sorta, ok good.
So. Back again: it has A LOT to do with the OP.
Please share