• 11
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2014, 06:23:34 PM »
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.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2014, 04:08:52 AM »
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?

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2014, 05:47:54 AM »
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.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Rama Set

• 9918
• Round and round...
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2014, 05:52:00 AM »
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?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2014, 07:03:46 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 07:07:03 AM by pizaaplanet »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2014, 10:40:04 AM »
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.
Quote from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effect
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

Thanks!
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 05:56:19 PM by Gulliver »
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2014, 06:17:03 PM »
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. 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.

Unfortunately, none of your models are accurate representations of FET models actually subscribed to, so I cannot pick one from those.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 06:19:04 PM by pizaaplanet »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2014, 07:00:26 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2014, 09:24:51 PM by Gulliver »
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Rama Set

• 9918
• Round and round...
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2014, 09:11:55 PM »
The whole point if citing dark energy as the source is that it is unobserved.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #29 on: June 01, 2014, 11:40:52 PM »
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".

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.

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2014, 12:29:51 AM »
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.
Quote
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.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2014, 01:02:38 AM »
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.

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2014, 01:18:11 AM »
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.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2014, 02:09:00 AM »
Your admission that you won't be doing (or can't do) these calculation is what I expected.

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2014, 02:58:39 AM »
Your admission that you won't be doing (or can't do) these calculation is what I expected.
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 .
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 9985
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2014, 03:02:14 AM »
Your admission that you won't be doing (or can't do) these calculation is what I expected.
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.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15548
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2014, 03:13:12 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 03:16:42 AM by pizaaplanet »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Maths
« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2014, 03:41:52 AM »
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.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.