[Rushy]

No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.

And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.

If you believe in universal acceleration, please explain what is making the Earth accelerate. And why we observe star light shifted to the red end of the spectrum (things moving further away) rather than the opposite. If the Earth is accelerating, shouldn't you believe we are getting closer to the stars and other things we observe in the sky?

I never claimed that I knew what makes it accelerate, you're the one here claiming it must be gravity, a completely unverified force.

[mtnman]

To state things a different way...

Newton, Kepler, and scientists that followed defined formulas that precisely predict the movements of objects and their interactions. In part, this was done with observations of planets and their moons, which helped them understand how the solar system works, with the sun at the center and all that. So they made observations and calculations that work. Those formulas are used in many aspects of modern life, like launching satellites.

FE theory doesn't have any equivalent body of work for UA. These is no scientific basis for the existence of UA. Those gravity formulas work for the round Earth having its place as one of the planets of our solar system. But since FE people can't accept that the Earth is round, all those gravity formulas must be wrong in your view. So UA is invented as a placeholder, one that just happens to have all the same effects of gravity.

[mtnman]

No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.

And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.

If you believe in universal acceleration, please explain what is making the Earth accelerate. And why we observe star light shifted to the red end of the spectrum (things moving further away) rather than the opposite. If the Earth is accelerating, shouldn't you believe we are getting closer to the stars and other things we observe in the sky?

I never claimed that I knew what makes it accelerate, you're the one here claiming it must be gravity, a completely unverified force.

You are correct on the first point. Newton/Kepler figured out what it does. Einstein explained how it does it. And experiments have been confirming his results for the last hundred years.

If you think gravity hasn't been verified, you are truly delusional and there is nothing I can say to help you. I assume you are in the camp of thinking all space flight has been faked. If not, I can assure you the they were using verified formulas to launch space flights. And satellites, like the one I'm using now to watch Dish TV.

[mtnman]

Not to change the subject, but while I have your attention. What is a "Planar Moderator"?

[Rama Set]

No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.

And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.

Yeah. And?  We don't now the "why" of anything in science, only the "how".

[3DGeek]

No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.

And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.

Yeah. And?  We don't now the "why" of anything in science, only the "how".

Not always...but ultimately, it's like talking to a small child when you say "Get ready for bed now."..."Why?"..."Because it's your bedtime soon."..."But why?"..."Because you have school tomorrow."..."But why?"..."Because you need to learn stuff."..."But why?"....."AAAAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! GO TO BED...NOW!"

Same deal with physics.   You can ask why your teacup is broken?  Because you released it from your hand, it gained kinetic energy and that was dissipated when it hit the floor.  But why did it fall? Because of the force of gravity was acting upon it and F=m.a - so it accelerated downwards.  You can ask why that happened?  Because two masses attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of their distance.   You can ask why?  Because mass curves space and the force emerges from the need to follow a geodesic path.  But if you ask "Why?" one more time - then in the end, the answer tends to be "Because that's how the universe is."

No matter how many explanations you provide, you can always reply with "But Why?" and eventually run out of explanations.   Will we ever know why masses curve space?   Maybe - but then we'll just be asking why THAT happens.

Sooner or later, you will ALWAYS run out of answers.

This isn't a flaw in physics - you run into the same problem with ANY system of discussion.  Why does the government demand taxes from use...descends into a long series of "But why?" questions that probably traverse through economics to politics to psychology to biology to chemistry to physics - and then to a brick wall when you just have to say that we ran out of explanations.

Flat Earth theory is just as bad - except that you hit the wall MUCH sooner!  Why does the moon move across the sky?  Because of celestial currents.  Why are there celestial currents?
 We don't know.

[Rushy]

No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.

And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.

Yeah. And?  We don't now the "why" of anything in science, only the "how".

Which is precisely why science is utterly useless.

You are correct on the first point. Newton/Kepler figured out what it does. Einstein explained how it does it. And experiments have been confirming his results for the last hundred years.

If you think gravity hasn't been verified, you are truly delusional and there is nothing I can say to help you. I assume you are in the camp of thinking all space flight has been faked. If not, I can assure you the they were using verified formulas to launch space flights. And satellites, like the one I'm using now to watch Dish TV.

Gravity has not been verified, and Einstein presupposed the causes of gravity, he never proved any of them (and they still haven't been proven). Remember, Einstein received a Nobel prize on his work with the photoelectric effect, never his unproven relativity hypotheses.

However, since you seem to be so sure about it being proven, perhaps you should let the greater scientific community know that you've finally found the One True Model and you're ready to be their overlord.

Not to change the subject, but while I have your attention. What is a "Planar Moderator"?

It's just a fancy title for "moderator". I try to keep the forum orderly, though usually I don't venture up here to the FET forums.

[StinkyOne]

No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.

And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.

Yeah. And?  We don't now the "why" of anything in science, only the "how".

Which is precisely why science is utterly useless.

You are correct on the first point. Newton/Kepler figured out what it does. Einstein explained how it does it. And experiments have been confirming his results for the last hundred years.

If you think gravity hasn't been verified, you are truly delusional and there is nothing I can say to help you. I assume you are in the camp of thinking all space flight has been faked. If not, I can assure you the they were using verified formulas to launch space flights. And satellites, like the one I'm using now to watch Dish TV.

Gravity has not been verified, and Einstein presupposed the causes of gravity, he never proved any of them (and they still haven't been proven). Remember, Einstein received a Nobel prize on his work with the photoelectric effect, never his unproven relativity hypotheses.

However, since you seem to be so sure about it being proven, perhaps you should let the greater scientific community know that you've finally found the One True Model and you're ready to be their overlord.

Not to change the subject, but while I have your attention. What is a "Planar Moderator"?

It's just a fancy title for "moderator". I try to keep the forum orderly, though usually I don't venture up here to the FET forums.

Science is utterly useless?? The irony is that this was posted by a device that would not exist without science... Saying relativity is unproven just shows your ignorance. The GPS system (not that you likely believe in that sort of thing) takes into account relativistic effects. I could go on, but changing your mind is not going to happen.

[Rushy]

Taking "relativistic" effects into account and proving relativity are two entirely separate things. Basic concepts of relativity, like frames of reference, do exist. Spacetime warping to create a magic force that attracts everything? Not so much.

[StinkyOne]

Taking "relativistic" effects into account and proving relativity are two entirely separate things. Basic concepts of relativity, like frames of reference, do exist. Spacetime warping to create a magic force that attracts everything? Not so much.

You're wrong. Spacetime warping is exactly what the GPS system has to take into account. (time dilution) There was also an experiment performed back in 2011 that proved frame dragging. Further, astronomers use gravitational lensing to get a better view of distant objects.

You're OK with frame of reference because FET uses to help explain UA. Spacetime effects can't exist because gravity doesn't exist in FET as it is observed in the real world. Talk about cherry picking. This is the sort of stuff that makes FET look completely made up.

[Rushy]

Taking "relativistic" effects into account and proving relativity are two entirely separate things. Basic concepts of relativity, like frames of reference, do exist. Spacetime warping to create a magic force that attracts everything? Not so much.

You're wrong. Spacetime warping is exactly what the GPS system has to take into account. (time dilution) There was also an experiment performed back in 2011 that proved frame dragging. Further, astronomers use gravitational lensing to get a better view of distant objects.

You're OK with frame of reference because FET uses to help explain UA. Spacetime effects can't exist because gravity doesn't exist in FET as it is observed in the real world. Talk about cherry picking. This is the sort of stuff that makes FET look completely made up.

Could you go into how exactly I might go about diluting time and what sort of diluting mixture I should use?

[mtnman]

You are correct on the first point. Newton/Kepler figured out what it does. Einstein explained how it does it. And experiments have been confirming his results for the last hundred years.

If you think gravity hasn't been verified, you are truly delusional and there is nothing I can say to help you. I assume you are in the camp of thinking all space flight has been faked. If not, I can assure you the they were using verified formulas to launch space flights. And satellites, like the one I'm using now to watch Dish TV.

Gravity has not been verified, and Einstein presupposed the causes of gravity, he never proved any of them (and they still haven't been proven). Remember, Einstein received a Nobel prize on his work with the photoelectric effect, never his unproven relativity hypotheses.

Still haven't been proven you say?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a6175/5-recent-tests-that-prove-einstein-right/

https://www.livescience.com/16270-general-relativity-gravitational-redshift-galaxies.html

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

[StinkyOne]

Taking "relativistic" effects into account and proving relativity are two entirely separate things. Basic concepts of relativity, like frames of reference, do exist. Spacetime warping to create a magic force that attracts everything? Not so much.

You're wrong. Spacetime warping is exactly what the GPS system has to take into account. (time dilution) There was also an experiment performed back in 2011 that proved frame dragging. Further, astronomers use gravitational lensing to get a better view of distant objects.

You're OK with frame of reference because FET uses to help explain UA. Spacetime effects can't exist because gravity doesn't exist in FET as it is observed in the real world. Talk about cherry picking. This is the sort of stuff that makes FET look completely made up.

Could you go into how exactly I might go about diluting time and what sort of diluting mixture I should use?

Sigh...dilation.

[juner]

You are correct on the first point. Newton/Kepler figured out what it does. Einstein explained how it does it. And experiments have been confirming his results for the last hundred years.

If you think gravity hasn't been verified, you are truly delusional and there is nothing I can say to help you. I assume you are in the camp of thinking all space flight has been faked. If not, I can assure you the they were using verified formulas to launch space flights. And satellites, like the one I'm using now to watch Dish TV.

Gravity has not been verified, and Einstein presupposed the causes of gravity, he never proved any of them (and they still haven't been proven). Remember, Einstein received a Nobel prize on his work with the photoelectric effect, never his unproven relativity hypotheses.

Still haven't been proven you say?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Stop spamming links. Use the edit feature. Warned.

[mtnman]

A fair point, I could have put the links in one post. The effort to dial knowledge back decades and to simply deny things that exist irritates me, sometimes more than other times.

[Rushy]

And of those listed links, how many of those have you performed yourself to verify their authenticity?

[mtnman]

And of those listed links, how many of those have you performed yourself to verify their authenticity?

Quite the copout. No reasonable answer, so you pull that one out of the hat.

To answer you question, no I have not performed those experiments. I am not a scientist, but I do have the capability to read and understand their results. At least, much of the time. And if it's something I don't understand, I try to learn and don't automatically assume everyone is conspiring against me.

Have you personally proven that the publisher/authors of all those articles are lying, part of the vast round conspiracy?
Have you personally visited and mapped the ice wall in which you probably believe?

[Rushy]

So, not only are your claims unverified, but you yourself admit that you wouldn't be able to test them, even if you want to, and instead refer to things like GPS satellites using relativity, when satellites don't even exist! And then you have the audacity to claim I'm the copout. Quite the intriguing line of argument you've built.

[mtnman]

So, not only are your claims unverified, but you yourself admit that you wouldn't be able to test them, even if you want to, and instead refer to things like GPS satellites using relativity, when satellites don't even exist! And then you have the audacity to claim I'm the copout. Quite the intriguing line of argument you've built.

For the record, I didn't say anything about GPS formulas using relativity, someone else made that comment. I actually had not heard that before, but considering the orbital speed of the satellites and their altitude, I suppose that makes sense. What with speed and lessor gravitational fields having effects and all.

It's a sad little world you have chosen for yourself where no accomplishments can be appreciated or knowledge gained based on the experiences of others.

Did you hear that someone climbed to the summit of Mt Everest? But wait, I can't comment on that since I didn't do that myself, and you probably haven't been there. So I guess you don't believe in that either.

OK, that's enough for now. I'm going to go back to the baseball game I'm watching on my satellite TV, which I assume you don't believe in either.

[StinkyOne]

So, not only are your claims unverified, but you yourself admit that you wouldn't be able to test them, even if you want to, and instead refer to things like GPS satellites using relativity, when satellites don't even exist! And then you have the audacity to claim I'm the copout. Quite the intriguing line of argument you've built.

I HATE this BS FEers try to pull. It is such a bogus line of hypocritical garbage and they know it. What experiments have YOU performed? You say the Earth is flat, prove it. Satellites don't exist - right... I blew Tom Bishop up on this a while back. Had him backed into such a corner that he started claiming there was a conspiracy after claiming there isn't one. Rushy, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you aren't even remotely qualified to perform anything more than very basic "backyard science" sort of experiments. If you can't test it, it can't be true. Sigh, willful ignorance is such a sad thing.