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.
But you guys do it -all- the time. Look at the value you place in the Bedford Level experiement.No, we don't. We don't invade mainstream science forums and bother everyone with BLE.
Quite simply, my point is that empirical evidence is not necessarily the best way to determine the shape of the earth. Sometimes you need to trust the experiences of others.Walking into the Flat Earth Society and telling us to trust other people's experience on the shape of the Earth would be like walking into a church filled with creationists and telling them to trust scientists on the matter of evolution (or vice-versa, going to a university and trying to convince the biology professors there that evolution is a hoax and they should trust creation science instead). It doesn't matter how right you think you are, or even how right you actually are, it simply won't work.
Start adding all that together and it starts looking like the cost of the solar roadways.Yeah, no.
It doesn't have to convert solid ice to water, it only has to be warm enough to keep the ice from forming.Snow forms long before it touches the ground. It does have to be able to melt it.
Which would be spread out over a long, long time (decades, maybe), and would hopefully save enough to be worth it in the end.It wouldn't save anything. The costs of maintenance would be ludicrous.
Are you guys all really arguing that the entire project would be too much all at once?No, we're arguing that the project is completely infeasible. One of the many lines of reasoning is that the entire project would cost several times the US' yearly budget.
So God is a masochist and likes to inflict pain and displeasure on himself?Nah, the only ones receiving pain and displeasure here are the people he specifically designed to be disobedient; for disobedience.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
[...]
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
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.
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?
But I have never heard anybody claim the heavens can influence r. I am curious, please explainNo one claimed the heavens can influence the distance between two objects, that's likely why you never heard such a claim being made.
It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not.So if I proclaim myself a deity right now, regardless of the fact that I'm not one, insulting me would be blasphemous?
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.
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.