The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Pleaseexplain on May 31, 2014, 04:00:33 PM
-
Now... I have posted a few things under ask a flat earth theorist anything, and I'm pretty sure I won't get an answer. So I thought I'd just go ahead and post the last 2 under the debate board. I am trying to avoid anything that could be viewed as flaming. Which is quite fun. I am simply doing a bit of maths, and looking at what it tells me.
So... The answer I got was the earth is accelerating at 9.8ms^-2, producing the same effect as gravity.
*Facepalm.
This is quite an interesting point however, as this implies certain things.
1. There is no gravitational force holding the moon in place.... So what, spooky force? Okay great explanation
2. Every single thing that does not orbit the earth is... A lie? Binary star systems? You know... The ones you can look at? The moons of every other planet?
Okay A*
3. So the earth accelerates at 9.8ms^2 and there is no gravity. The earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old (Following radioactive decay dating). I know you think the earth is something like 4000 years old though... So I'll go with that. Yeah this is.... I mean feel free to check my calculations but..... If the age of the earth is 4000 years old, that is about 1.2623 x 10^11 seconds. Now, you say the earth is accelerating at 9.8ms^-2. That means, following v = u + at, with a being 9.8ms^-2, t being 1.2623 x 10^11 and assuming u = 0 (Start at zero velocity), that the earth has a velocity of approximately 1.23705 x 10^12 ms^-1. The speed of light is about 2.998 x 10^8ms^-1.
Simplified
Following what this society "teaches" with the earth accelerating at 9.8ms^-2 and the age of the earth being 4000 years.
The earth is travelling at a velocity of at least 1,237,050,000,000 metres every second. (2,767,202,040,085.9 mph).
A little comparison, the speed of light is about 299,800,000 metres every second. (670,633,500.4 mph).
So this society is claiming all experimental evidence of the speed of light is incorrect. One of the cornerstones of modern physics is completely and utterly wrong. It's easy to claim certain things that the average person could accept, but the predictions based on that hypothesis need to be validated by experimental evidence. And quite simply.... This simple calculation based on what you're telling me is just mind boggling. The idea that the earth is travelling at that velocity is just.... How, how can nobody have realised what no gravity means? When you were thinking of a way to argue against gravity did it ever occur to you that acceleration means a change in velocity? And then this change in velocity adds up to a greater than speed of light value, utterly ridiculing the whole idea. If not... Then you are claiming that everybody else is wrong. Good luck with that
2:
Oh and another point, because I just remembered it.
On a flat earth accelerating at 9.8ms^-2, the acceleration is constant across the whole world. Which just so happens to be incorrect, the acceleration of free fall varies substantially from the equator to the poles, completely contradicting your hypothesis. The acceleration due to free fall can go from 9.76 to 9.83 ms^-2.
And because I was so amazed by my previous calculation, I decided to find the age of the earth, according to what you tell me (excluding the age you state).
So, with the earth travelling at a tenth of the speed of light, 29,980,000ms^-1, a reasonable velocity that should have little relativistic effects. Again, using v= u + at, where v = 29,980,000, a = 9.8 and u is zero, t would equal 3059183.7 seconds. In years, that is 0.09694 years. Now, I don't know how old you might be, but I'm pretty sure I've lived for longer than 35.4 days. However according to your fairly conflicting ideas, the earth is 35.4 days old. Thanks for the information, this is news worthy indeed.
P.S
In the likely eventuality that they run out of arguments and ban me, just remember that if you look into what they're actually saying, you can find some interesting statements, such as the age of the earth being little over a month ;)
-Alex
-
...
-Alex
You really should take a moment and read about how velocities add when Special Relativity is involved. Here's a good starting point: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
However, the UA is still flawed. See the Flat Earth General board's topic on FE Models for a good way to demonstrate FET's UA's flaws.
Oh, and welcome. (Just to be clear, I'm a REer.)
-
Hi, I've tried to avoid special relativity for now, as that's the next level for me. I do understand how nothing can reach the speed of light however, and so to say that the earth has a constant acceleration has really amused me. The whole UA thing is completely destroyed by different values for the acceleration of free fall, which just so happen to perfectly fit in with the laws of gravitation.
-
Welcome! I can't help but notice that your first question is addressed in our FAQ (http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ#Objects_cannot_exceed_the_speed_of_light._Doesn.27t_this_mean_that_the_Earth_can.27t_accelerate_forever.3F) (and a link to a more in-depth explanation (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light) is provided there).
As for the second one, the common response provided is that the heavens have a slight and uneven gravitational pull, causing the discrepancies in local perceived g.
Oh, and for the records, since these questions are exact copies of the ones you asked in "Ask a FE theorist anything", I removed them from that thread.
-
Ah well, university will solve that one. I'm sorry but the explanation for the UA is dark energy? The heavens have a slight and uneven gravitational pull? The answers in your FAQ are... Interesting. The explanation of seasons and day or night are absolutely golden. But sticking with UA, you're saying the "heavens" have a gravitational pull. So you're saying gravity is true. And therefore a flat earth contradicts everything we could know about gravity. What
-
I'm going to skip any and all pointless snide remarks you've made. Try to avoid them in the future - they don't encourage people to respond.
I'm sorry but the explanation for the UA is dark energy?
Correct.
The heavens have a slight and uneven gravitational pull?
Indeed.
But sticking with UA, you're saying the "heavens" have a gravitational pull. So you're saying gravity is true.
Yes and no. Let's hope you don't jump into any rash conclu-
And therefore a flat earth contradicts everything we could know about gravity. What
...sions. Right, you did jump to rash conclusions. Just because gravitation (not to be confused with gravity) is exerted by some bodies does not mean all bodies necessarily have to exert it.
-
Okay Gulliver, I had a look at some of the other threads you post in and.... I feel for you.
Anyway, so not all bodies exert gravity? So an object with mass does not always exert a gravitational force upon another mass. I don't know much about GR or SR but I do understand Newtons laws of gravitation. Quite simply, everything with mass experiences a gravitational force. Is this saying the earth does not have mass, but then the stars with mass still affect the earth?
I think this can be summarised with
1. The earth has zero mass and is hence unaffected by gravity (Which would pull the earth into a sphere). With UA providing the acceleration of free fall.
2. The acceleration of free fall is affected by the gravitational force of stars.
How are both true
-
Quite simply, everything with mass experiences a gravitational force.
I have in the past asked people to show to me that bananas exert a gravitational force (I even suggested the Cavendish experiment when people started getting confused). Unfortunately, no one even attempted it. It is claimed that all bodies exert a gravitational force, and we quite simply disagree.
I think this can be summarised with
1. The earth has zero mass and is hence unaffected by gravity (Which would pull the earth into a sphere). With UA providing the acceleration of free fall.
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.
2. The acceleration of free fall is affected by the gravitational force of stars.
Almost. I'm not sure why you'd restrict yourself to just the stars. We're talking about the heavens.
How are both true
They're not.
-
Also, I find your accusation of us banning people we disagree with quite inflammatory. We have public ban log, you know? There have only been 2 bans issued in the past half-year, both for excessive derailment and harassment. You posting a couple paragraphs on how you don't understand Round Earth physics and how you forgot to read the FAQ won't warrant a ban. The fact that you're talking to Gulliver (who thought the ISS accelerates towards the Earth at 9.8m/s2 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1577.msg30543#msg30543)) should be the best proof of this.
-
Quite simply, everything with mass experiences a gravitational force.
I have in the past asked people to show to me that bananas exert a gravitational force (I even suggested the Cavendish experiment when people started getting confused). Unfortunately, no one even attempted it. It is claimed that all bodies exert a gravitational force, and we quite simply disagree.
g = -GM/r^2
It's really as simple as a single equation. The inverse square law tells us that the gravitational force due to stars are completely negligible. Indeed the objects in the heavens as you describe it, have no impact on the calculated value of g.
It's interesting how you separate FE physics from RE physics. One of the principal rules of physics is that the laws of physics are the same regardless of location, yet on earth there's an exception?
-
g = -GM/r^2
It's really as simple as a single equation. The inverse square law tells us that the gravitational force due to stars are completely negligible. Indeed the objects in the heavens as you describe it, have no impact on the calculated value of g.
It's interesting how you separate FE physics from RE physics. One of the principal rules of physics is that the laws of physics are the same regardless of location, yet on earth there's an exception?
Yes, some parts of physics are fundamentally different between models. You'd think that would be obvious, given that FET introduces a whole new concept of dark energy accelerating the Universe.
Please specify M and r for the heavens. Your equation is rather useless without those.
Now, you say that physics applies equally regardless of location. Unfortunately, this is not true for the mainstream theories of gravitation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
-
And just to clarify as it seems that centripetal acceleration is poorly understood. The calculated value of g for the ISS using g = -GM/r^2.
r = radius from the centre of the earth to the ISS. The radius of the earth is about 6,371,000 m and the ISS orbits at about 370,000 m hence r = 6,741,000
M = mass of the earth, approx 5.97219 × 10^24 kg
G = 6.67 x 10^-11
Hence g (Of the ISS) = 8.77ms^2 or Nkg^-1
-
And just to clarify as it seems that centripetal acceleration is poorly understood. The calculated value of g for the ISS using g = -GM/r^2.
r = radius from the centre of the earth to the ISS. The radius of the earth is about 6,371,000 m and the ISS orbits at about 370,000 m hence r = 6,741,000
M = mass of the earth, approx 5.97219 × 10^24 kg
G = 6.67 x 10^-11
Hence g (Of the ISS) = 8.77ms^2 or Nkg^-1
Yes, I've already explained this to Gulliver in the appropriate thread (although your r is slightly too low, causing an inflated result, but you're still closer than Gulliver's 9.8m/s2, so all is forgiven). If you have anything to add to that thread, please post it there, not here.
-
You seem to think that the ISS is not accelerating towards the earth? Yes the value for g is less than 9.8ms^-2 for the ISS. That's precisely because it is orbiting at a height of 370km. g may be slightly lower than that on the surface of earth, but it is still an acceleration towards the centre of the earth.
-
You seem to think that the ISS is not accelerating towards the earth?
No. Have you tried actually reading the thread I linked you to? And I already told you you got your r wrong, but I suppose that didn't come through, so I'll try again:
It's not 370km, you numpty. It's about 420km.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS
-
I'm going to skip any and all pointless snide remarks you've made. Try to avoid them in the future - they don't encourage people to respond.
Well I'm glad you accept the ISS orbits the earth in a circular path, and as it has a centripetal acceleration of about 8.7ms^2, that would point towards a non UA. Now back to another point.
You claim that the variations seen in measured values of g are due to the "heavens". Can you explain where in g=-GM/r^2 the mass of stars, planets, moons, comets and general mass varies depending on the specific location where the measurements are taken?
-
Well I'm glad you accept the ISS orbits the earth in a circular path, and as it has a centripetal acceleration of about 8.7ms^2, that would point towards a non UA. Now back to another point.
Yes, the Round Earth model does not have UA. I'm glad we can agree on that. It's a bit worrisome that you try to extrapolate from that to the Flat Earth model, but oh well.
Of course, it's worth noting that under the RE model, the ISS's path is not circular at all.
You claim that the variations seen in measured values of g are due to the "heavens". Can you explain where in g=-GM/r^2 the mass of stars, planets, moons, comets and general mass varies depending on the specific location where the measurements are taken?
Sorry, I've asked you to do this already, since you're the one who claims this equation would prove or disprove anything in FET. Also, it doesn't have to be mass. It could be the distance, which varies with location pretty much by default. Please don't arbitrarily pick one variable out of two, especially if you're going to pick the wrong one.
-
Okay let's try and stick with one thing please. No orbit is 100% circular with perigee and apogee attributed to orbits.
g= -GM/r^2
The radius of the earth is the one true variable in measurements. G is a constant and M is a constant.
At the north pole we see a greater value of g, indicating a reduced r. At the equator we see a lesser value of g, indicating an increased r. There are numerous explanations for this, including the moon, the oceans, mountains and hills etc. But I have never heard anybody claim the heavens can influence r. I am curious, please explain
-
But I have never heard anybody claim the heavens can influence r. I am curious, please explain
No one claimed the heavens can influence the distance between two objects, that's likely why you never heard such a claim being made.
-
Pizaa Planet: When you say Dark Energy, do you mean that there is obviously some energy causing UA, but you do not know what it is or how to detect it?
In regards to your banana story, I am not sure what you are getting at. The Cavendish experiment is performed by university students regularly, with consistent results. Do bananas hold a particular interest for you?
-
Ah, but if the heavens do not influence r then why would they influence g? With a spherical earth the explanation is quite straightforward, with the moon and a few other factors causing the sphere to have a 'bulge' so to speak around the equator. This non spherical shape will influence r, with the poles having a reduced r, and at the equator there will be an increased r. Think of it like a pressing down on top of a football. Around the middle there will be a greater radius.
This is quite a simple explanation, of course there are other factors such as changing densities in the earth but for the most part this holds true. If you were to look at a gravitational map, you can see that certain locations have specific differences to the value of g.
Unless of course you say that g = GM/r^2 is not true. But then I would like to see your alternative. You can't simply say something is wrong and not specify exactly what is wrong with it.
-
Pizaa Planet: When you say Dark Energy, do you mean that there is obviously some energy causing UA, but you do not know what it is or how to detect it?
That's a gross oversimplification, but it'll do.
In regards to your banana story, I am not sure what you are getting at. The Cavendish experiment is performed by university students regularly, with consistent results. Do bananas hold a particular interest for you?
If all matter exerts gravitation, then this should be verifiable for any matter. I picked bananas because they're readily available and reasonably cheap.
Ah, but if the heavens do not influence r then why would they influence g?
Well, yes, the existence of the heavens does not intrinsically influence your distance from the heavens. What about this is confusing?
-
Quite simply, everything with mass experiences a gravitational force.
I have in the past asked people to show to me that bananas exert a gravitational force (I even suggested the Cavendish experiment when people started getting confused). Unfortunately, no one even attempted it. It is claimed that all bodies exert a gravitational force, and we quite simply disagree.
I think this can be summarised with
1. The earth has zero mass and is hence unaffected by gravity (Which would pull the earth into a sphere). With UA providing the acceleration of free fall.
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.
2. The acceleration of free fall is affected by the gravitational force of stars.
Almost. I'm not sure why you'd restrict yourself to just the stars. We're talking about the heavens.
How are both true
They're not.
Please clarify for us. Did you ask all people who might have at one time attempted the Cavendish experiment with bananas whether he (or she) ever once attempted it? Is there some other rationale for making the claim highlighted above?
Please verify: Do you claim that in your model the heavens interact with terrestrial objects and effect at least one terrestrial object in such a way as to explain some of the variation of g (in magnitude, direction, or both) it experiences near the FE's surface. All terrestrial objects? At all times? Bananas?
Would you please publish, or point us to such a publication, that specifically measured the effect of your model's heavens on bananas. I would expect that the publication, if comprehensive, will include observations at various altitudes, latitudes, times of day, times of lunar month, days of solar year, and more.
Thanks.
-
Pizaa Planet: When you say Dark Energy, do you mean that there is obviously some energy causing UA, but you do not know what it is or how to detect it?
That's a gross oversimplification, but it'll do.
You have the floor to illuminate the elegance of the explanation or should I enjoy the chase?
-
Please clarify for us. Did you ask all people who might have at one time attempted the Cavendish experiment with bananas whether he (or she) ever once attempted it? Is there some other rationale for making the claim highlighted above?
You promised to try and keep your pedantry in check! Of course, "everyone" in this context was referring to the small group of RE'er regulars this challenge was presented to on the old forum. "Everyone" is still very welcome to pick it up and change the current outcome, but as of now, it stands.
Please verify: Do you claim that in your model the heavens interact with terrestrial objects and affect at least one terrestrial object in such a way as to explain some of the variation of g (in magnitude, direction, or both) it experiences near the FE's surface. All terrestrial objects? At all times? Bananas?
No, that is not what I claim.
Would you please publish, or point us to such a publication, that specifically measured the effect of your model's heavens on bananas. I would expect that the publication, if comprehensive, will include observations at various altitudes, latitudes, times of day, times of lunar month, days of solar year, and more.
Whoah there, buddy. I'm not the one here who claims there's a magical force out there affecting (or effecting, aka resulting in) all matter. You'll have to ask Pleaseexplain for this kind of analysis.
-
Please clarify for us. Did you ask all people who might have at one time attempted the Cavendish experiment with bananas whether he (or she) ever once attempted it? Is there some other rationale for making the claim highlighted above?
You promised to try and keep your pedantry in check! Of course, "everyone" in this context was referring to the small group of RE'er regulars this challenge was presented to on the old forum. "Everyone" is still very welcome to pick it up and change the current outcome, but as of now, it stands.
Please verify: Do you claim that in your model the heavens interact with terrestrial objects and affect at least one terrestrial object in such a way as to explain some of the variation of g (in magnitude, direction, or both) it experiences near the FE's surface.
No, that is not what I claim.
Thank you for the reply. Let's start with our pedantic concern about my use of "effect" as a verb.
verb (used with object)
10. to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring.
Next, please verify: Excluding the EM, Weak and Strong forces. is there at least one attractive force, in any FET model you've supported, or answered a question regarding, in this thread, that works at a distance of more than one mile. If so, please specify in detail the FET model (if it helps you: by reference to the FAQ or the thread I started about FE Models), the name FEers have given to this force, and the experimental observations supporting that this force works at a distance, If not, please explain the variation in gravity experienced by the USGS stations measuring gravity as reported here: http://research.utep.edu/default.aspx?tabid=37229 (http://research.utep.edu/Portals/73/Images/usgv.gif)
Thanks!
-
Thank you for the reply. Let's start with our pedantic concern about my use of "effect" as a verb. [...]
I didn't criticise you for using it as a verb, I criticised you for using the wrong verb. The definition you referenced makes it rather quite clear why:
verb (used with object)
10. to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring.
Now, let's take your sentence:
Please verify: Do you claim that in your model the heavens interact with terrestrial objects and effect at least one terrestrial object in such a way as to explain some of the variation of g (in magnitude, direction, or both) it experiences near the FE's surface.
And apply the definition you yourself kindly provided. You asked me if the interaction between the heavens and terrestrial objects produces, brings about, accomplishes or makes happen other terrestrial objects.
What you mean was affect. Oh, and let's use a dictionary that actually has some credibility to it and doesn't list words that don't exist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradoxal). Anyway, here you go:
[...]
af·fect
verb \ə-ˈfekt, a-\
Definition of AFFECT
transitive verb
: to produce an effect upon: as
a : to produce a material influence upon or alteration in <paralysis affected his limbs>
b : to act upon (as a person or a person's mind or feelings) so as to produce a response : influence
Now, let's see: were you asking me if gravitation creates (effects) objects as a result or if it affects them? I maintain the illusion that you're a vaguely sane person, and thus it's easier for me to assume that you got the word wrong than that you were wondering if I believe that gravitation produces objects.
For more information, please visit: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/03/affect-versus-effect/ (http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/03/affect-versus-effect/)
Unfortunately, none of your models are accurate representations of FET models actually subscribed to, so I cannot pick one from those.
-
Unfortunately, none of your models are accurate representations of FET models actually subscribed to, so I cannot pick one from those.
How is that irrelevant? I never said you had to choose one of mine. Since when do you choose to answer questions about only models that you subscribe to anyway? Are you just dodging difficult questions again?
I do agree, BTW, now that you've made you criticism clearer, I should have chosen "affect".
Let's try the OP another way: Given GR and its supporting theories and that the FE uses the UA to provide g in many cases, how much energy would the UA need to have accelerated the FE at approximately 9.8 m/s/s for a billion years? Then for the following day? How does that compare the the observed energy (excluding any inferred from the UA) in the FE? At your option you may round to one significant digit. Please show all your reasoning, math, references, and anything else that might help us understand the result. Thanks.
-
The whole point if citing dark energy as the source is that it is unobserved.
-
How is that irrelevant? I never said you had to choose one of mine. Since when do you choose to answer questions about only models that you subscribe to anyway? Are you just dodging difficult questions again?
I didn't say I only answer questions about models I subscribe to. I said that models you had me choose from in your blog post are not subscribed to.
I do agree, BTW, now that you've made you criticism clearer, I should have chosen "affect".
I'm glad. :)
Let's try the OP another way: Given GR and its supporting theories and that the FE uses the UA to provide g in many cases, how much energy would the UA need to have accelerated the FE at approximately 9.8 m/s/s for a billion years? Then for the following day? How does that compare the the observed energy (excluding any inferred from the UA) in the FE? At your option you may round to one significant digit. Please show all your reasoning, math, references, and anything else that might help us understand the result. Thanks.
I'm fairly sure we've done this in the past. The numbers were astronomically large and suggested that this energy would be completely unprecedented anywhere else. I'm not too bothered about going through that again.
-
How is that irrelevant? I never said you had to choose one of mine. Since when do you choose to answer questions about only models that you subscribe to anyway? Are you just dodging difficult questions again?
I didn't say I only answer questions about models I subscribe to. I said that models you had me choose from in your blog post are not subscribed to.
And still you don't seem to be able to answer the question. If the FEers are wondering why the new site isn't getting as many hits as they'd like, they need look no further than such dodging. Your loss really.Let's try the OP another way: Given GR and its supporting theories and that the FE uses the UA to provide g in many cases, how much energy would the UA need to have accelerated the FE at approximately 9.8 m/s/s for a billion years? Then for the following day? How does that compare the the observed energy (excluding any inferred from the UA) in the FE? At your option you may round to one significant digit. Please show all your reasoning, math, references, and anything else that might help us understand the result. Thanks.
I'm fairly sure we've done this in the past. The numbers were astronomically large and suggested that this energy would be completely unprecedented anywhere else. I'm not too bothered about going through that again.
I'll look forward to your attempt. Let me know if and when you need help with the math or physics. I have left hints lying about, just in case you're too proud to ask for the assistance.
Best wishes.
Oh, here's another hint: if you get less than a factor (of needed energy to all observed energy) of less than a centillion, you probably do not have the right technique. For now, feel free to leave for the future any or all of the following: 1) engineering methods, 2) conservation of momentum issues, 3) Getting the energy to the UA, 4) heat (and other radiation) transfer or dissipation problems.
-
I'm not too bothered about going through that again.
I'll look forward to your attempt.
I apologise, I should have taken your reading comprehension into account when formulating my answer. What I said was that I won't be repeating these calculations. Looking forward to the result would be a waste of your time.
-
I'm not too bothered about going through that again.
I'll look forward to your attempt.
I apologise, I should have taken your reading comprehension into account when formulating my answer. What I said was that I won't be repeating these calculations. Looking forward to the result would be a waste of your time.
You misunderstand. I wasted no time looking forward to your result, or lack thereof. Your admission that you won't be doing (or can't do) these calculation is what I expected. FET will continue to want for a credible foundation as long as the FE dodging continues. BTW, thanks for the apology.
-
Your admission that you won't be doing (or can't do) these calculation is what I expected.
But the calculation has already been done. What about this confuses you?
-
Your admission that you won't be doing (or can't do) these calculation is what I expected.
But the calculation has already been done. What about this confuses you?
Nothing. Your claim is clear, lacking in detail (Who did the calculation? When was the calculation first accepted? Where is this calculation explained in detail?) and unsupported. Even if your claim is true, the resulting calculation should be subject to further review and critique. You might want to consider how the SM deals with confirmation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Confirmation .
-
Your admission that you won't be doing (or can't do) these calculation is what I expected.
But the calculation has already been done. What about this confuses you?
Nothing. Your claim is clear, lacking in detail (Who did the calculation? When was the calculation first accepted? Where is this calculation explained in detail?) and unsupported. Even if your claim is true, the resulting calculation should be subject to further review and critique. You might want to consider how the SM deals with confirmation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Confirmation .
You might want to consider the proper use of parentheses.
-
Even if your claim is true, the resulting calculation should be subject to further review and critique.
I agree. I suggest you get right on it and use the old site's search feature (assuming it still works). Meanwhile, unless you start making some actual points and stop trying to waste my time by demanding that I do your busywork, I think I'm done with this thread. The OP has been addressed, and your derailment is neither entertaining nor stimulating.
Also, I'm a bit disappointed. You forgot to thank me in that last post. Are you starting to break character?
-
Even if your claim is true, the resulting calculation should be subject to further review and critique.
I agree. I suggest you get right on it and use the old site's search feature (assuming it still works). Meanwhile, unless you start making some actual points and stop trying to waste my time by demanding that I do your busywork, I think I'm done with this thread. The OP has been addressed, and your derailment is neither entertaining nor stimulating.
Also, I'm a bit disappointed. You forgot to thank me in that last post. Are you starting to break character?
I'll allow your unsupported claim to languish on its own, the rather typical lot for any FE claim. I made no demands beyond asking a question very much related to the OP. I have no idea what you mean by "starting to break character", beyond a vague suspicion that you've made another personal attack in the uppermost forum, so I have to leave it unanswered.