Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
More God talkLook, this has even less explanatory power than the wiki, and that's saying a lot.
More OT god talkLook, either you have something relevant to the question to say or you're wasting everyone's time.
Be my guestCan I save this for future use?
Which beside being a statement rife with problems of various nature has zero explanatory power.
I don't know, I can check with a cardiologist, if you want. What does this have to do with the OP?most likely the same way he creates an electrical current in your body that surrounds your heart causing it to contract (pump) 2.5 BILLION times in your life. Did your crew figure that one out?God does itThanks for the contribution. It's a possibility.
There's a catch, though. My municipality has a service predicting the tides (it's important around here) and it's very precise. It's not a church though, so I don't think they are in contact with the almighty. Do you happen to know *how* God does it?
God does itThanks for the contribution. It's a possibility.
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.Which beside being a statement rife with problems of various nature has zero explanatory power.
that's not correct, you kept ignoring the answers, and kept stating without reasons that perspective should somehow be different when stuff is far away.Tom, you keep bringing up your magic perspective. There are several threads in the debate section in which it has been taken to task, because it's ludicrous. It would show good faith to answer those objections before continuing using it. Considering how perspective works in the real world, the explanation above is gobbledygook
The thread where I got those quotes from was not responded to. If no one responds to me I win, right? Why not respond to my winning argument?
All planes are not the same, and planes do not travel at a set speed through the duration of their flight.Do you actually know this or are you making stuff up? Over long distances there is little variation in aircraft type and cruise speed. And I really don't know how you come up with the idea that planes should change speed by much during flights. Anyway, he's averaging the results to compensate. We'll see how the error bars are when he's finished.
This assumption is false.did i already tell you that this debate style isn't helping anybody? (FE and RE people alike).
this is a proportion, not an absolute measure. He doesn't need to work out the actual distances.Tom, he's not using speed at all. He's using flight time as a distance analogue. So there's no flight speed involved what so ever.
Flight time is not able to get a distance without knowing speed.
Cavendish doesn't disprove UA. It simply demonstrate that there are factors that need to be taken into account when calculating the value of said UA. I.e. the second part of the question. But junker said it ain't on topic and who am I to protest.
a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).
threads of different length?
tbh the first part of the question is kind of a non issue. FE proponents can simply say it's a basic property of the universe, just as I understand gravity is. The second part, where he asks how you get that number and the reasoning behind it, hasn't been answered in detail, beside stating that's indistinguishable from gravity. But you're starting from the assumption that the A in Q&A stands for answer.I have read the Wiki and FAQ; (UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2)
But am struggling to find either a reason why or proof that the earth IS accelerating at 9.8 metres per second:
Wiki states: "The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct."
I was hoping that a FE could explain why this theory exists without this reasoning and evidence? Why does it make sense to you and how did this exact speed come about? As for the several explanations for UA; what are they please as I could not see them listed anywhere?
many thanks
Has there been an answer to the OP? Why is the Earth accelerating at 9.8 metres per second?
you are still not getting why it's relevant with the concept of UA of the OP.So are you willing to discuss cavendish here or elsewhere or shall I put that on the list of things FE proponents seem not to have an opinion/understand/care to discuss?Why would I discuss Cavendish in a thread that has nothing to do with it?
*Adding humour to the list of things not to use with you.come on now you're overdoing itIt's easy to find, it's the one with 0 replies.Must not have been a very interesting topic, then.
Edited to add: please refrain from low content posts in the upper fora
I mean, I could have easily warned you for your initial low-content post that initiated the whole mess, but I didn't. However, seeing as you are not a moderator, I will kindly ask that you don't attempt to moderate threads. This can go ahead and be your last freebie.
come on now you're overdoing itIt's easy to find, it's the one with 0 replies.Must not have been a very interesting topic, then.
The Cavendish experiment was really an effort to calculate the constant in Newton's Law of Gravity. ("Big G") You can't easily work it out without knowing the masses of the objects involved - which is hard to figure out for stars, planets, moons, etc. Hence Cavendish (and others who refined his experiment) use known masses so they can figure out 'G' directly rather than from 'g and guesstimated masses for planets and such. We don't need Cavendish to explain how gravity works - that can be deduced by watching the motion of planets in a heliocentric solar system.Sure, but that's not why it's important in this context. In this thread we are not anywhere near any G yet, big or small. We could go faster, but the people here love their hair thoroughly splitted.
I'm sorry, this time it's you the one not getting it, but I don't want to beat around the bushes for hours on end.see you're probably not getting this because of your kinda sorta opinion about ye old Cavendish. Share, and then we'll have some foundation to build onYou can continue to deflect as much as you'd like when it is pointed out that you are wrong, but it doesn't make you any less wrong. I figured you would have learned that by now.
