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.
Yes, it is a mainstream phenomena. There is a mainstream phenomena which has built up and has resulted in 20% of Gen Z claiming to be LGBTQ.Hmm.. Gen Z makes up about 20% of the population. So 20% of 20%, or about 4%, of the population claims to be LGBTQ. I'm not sure about you, but 4% doesn't sound mainstream to me.
To remind you: your argument is that if NASA were faking it, they necessarily must successfully do so without making mistakes. Whether or not they're trying to avoid mistakes is entirely immaterial.No, my argument is that if NASA were faking it then they would have to do a very good job of catching and fixing their mistakes before they make into their public archive lest they get caught and shut down.
Markjo, how things "seem" to you is really close to the bottom of just about everyone's priority list.If that's how you feel, then feel free to not waste your time and just don't engage.
Because even "shockingly incompetent" people often go to great lengths try to avoid getting caught, especially when getting caught can have some pretty significant ramifications. Are you suggesting that doesn't care about getting caught? It seems that NASA must not only be "shockingly incompetent" about letting obvious mistakes get into their archives, but also shockingly apathetic about getting caught.Perhaps you should be skeptical of why NASA would allow CGI glitching to make it into the archive. In the "live" video, maybe some CGI glitching might slip through, but it seems that any such mistakes would have been caught and fixed by the time it got to the archive.This argument always comes across as so desperate. "If they were dishonest, they'd be more perfect about it; therefore, they must be honest." There isn't even an attempt at a logical sequence here.
Markjo, you forget that most people in this world are shockingly incompetent. If mediocrity works for their goals, why do you assume they'd strive for perfection?
I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.Perhaps you should be skeptical of why NASA would allow CGI glitching to make it into the archive. In the "live" video, maybe some CGI glitching might slip through, but it seems that any such mistakes would have been caught and fixed by the time it got to the archive.
Plus he has little chance of winning.That's what we thought in 2016. If there is one thing that we've learned from history is that we never learn from history.
I haven't conjured up anything. The aether surrounds you as we write.We can? Please explain how these aether currents can be detected, identified and mapped. As I understand it, the classical view of aether is that it is static medium (i.e., an absolute frame of reference that would totally destroy relativity), hence the MM experiments that were looking for the aether drift as the earth moved through it.
We can measure the force of the pressure applied by the aether and its currents.
We can even map them.
No, I didn't say that it "ought to have been higher", just that it seems unreasonably low TO ME.Often times in cases like this, the monetary judgement is almost completely irrelevant. That a jury found Trump liable for wrongdoing is the significant part.
We're not talking about sentences, either.
Being ordered to pay an amount of money is a sentence. Look at a legal dictionary. The term sentence is only more often used in reference criminal matters.
Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.
This is a win for Trump. This secondary verdict will be appealed and squashed then that will be it for this case.I'm not sure how being found guilty on 8 of 10 charges could be considered a win, but whatever.
Read the post above mine. Markjo wants to talk about the version with the ball falling to the ground now:I also said to put aside the mechanism. I just asked whether a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing upwards has better direct evidence. Sure, from the ball's frame of reference the earth rushing upwards makes sense. However, from your frame of reference (the same one as the earth), the ball falling to the ground is what you would observe.Putting aside the different mechanisms for a moment, which has the better direct physical evidence: a ball falling to the ground or the ground rushing up to meet the ball? From my frame of reference, the ball falling to the ground makes more sense.
It's not an argument of the difference between gravity and gravitation. In the scenario with the upwardly accelerating rocket the ceiling within the rocket is accelerating upwards and moving through space. This does not happen in the static version on earth. There is a physical difference.I'm not sure if you are understanding the question posed by the EP. If you are in a rocket and don't know anything about where you're, then how can you tell if you're in space accelerating at 1g or if you are being influenced by a 1g gravitational field (curvature of space-time) when the results of any experiment would be the same either way?
This isn't going to be another pedantic gravity vs gravitation gotcha, is it? You know full well that the terms gravity and gravitation are used interchangeably, even by physicists discussing GR. Even the article that you cited uses the term gravity even though it's obviously referring to gravitation.Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level. So, how is it that you can tell the difference? What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?
Upwards acceleration is doing something that does not happen in classic Newtonian gravity.
“ One can also see the role of the equivalence principle by considering a pulse of light emitted over a distance h along the axis of a spaceship in uniform acceleration g in outer space. The time taken for the light to reach the detector is t = h (we use units G = c = 1). The difference in velocity of the detector acquired during the light travel time is v = gt = gh, the Doppler shift z in the detected light. This experiment, carried out in the gravity-free environment of a spaceship whose rockets produce an acceleration g, must yield the same result for the energy shift of the photon in a uniform gravitational field f according to the equivalence principle. The Pound-Rebka-Snyder experiments can therefore be regarded as an experimental proof of the equivalence principle. ”Yes, gravity mimics acceleration, even down to the subatomic level. So, how is it that you can tell the difference? What is acceleration doing that gravity isn't, or vice versa?
See bolded.
Curved space gravity is mimicking the effect of being inside of an upwardly accelerating rocket ship. That is what is meant by the equivalence principle.
According to the equivalence principle whatever physical effect takes place in an upwardly accelerating environment is indistinguishable from "gravity". This is what it is.