The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: StinkyOne on August 19, 2017, 03:27:04 PM
-
I read the wiki on tides, but it didn't have much info. As we know, large bodies of water (and land, ftm) go through regular tidal changes caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon. FET claims the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of stars. It also states that the Moon has some gravitational attraction, which helps cause the tides. This raises a very important question. What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?
-
What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?
I might be placing a wrong answer, but maybe it will be interseting for you. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6625)
-
What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?
I might be placing a wrong answer, but maybe it will be interseting for you. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6625)
So you post a link to some video of the sun rising and you claim it is rising out of a lake or ocean? Give me a break. Are there any serious FEers, or is this site just have a handful of goofs making stuff up. As for your sun video, it is purely light refraction. Honestly, if an incredibly hot ball of plasma was in water, can you even begin to comprehend the amount of steam that would be generated?? Also, having a 32 mile wide object submerge into the ocean would cause massive tsunamis. But hey, lets just make stuff up and call it real.
As for the visual effect, you can create a similar effect by bringing your thumb and pointer finger very close together, but not touching. Do it in a dark room while sitting in front of your computer screen. Helps if your hand is close to your eye when you do it.
-
I read the wiki on tides, but it didn't have much info. As we know, large bodies of water (and land, ftm) go through regular tidal changes caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon. FET claims the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of stars. It also states that the Moon has some gravitational attraction, which helps cause the tides. This raises a very important question. What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?
The FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth - and that this causes tides - but that utterly FAILS to explain why there are TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day. One when the moon is overhead - and another when it's nowhere in sight. RET explains this by the fact that the Earth/Moon system mutually orbits around a "barycenter" point that's not at the center of the Earth - which produces a centrifugal force on the side of the Earth opposite the Moon...which produces that second tide.
I've yet to see an FET explanation for that...although at least one FE'er claims it can be "found in the Wiki"...which it absolutely cannot.
-
The FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth
Incorrect.
-
The FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth
Incorrect.
Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.
-
Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.
I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:
"This is not the same as Gravity"
Yep. When you believe in a fake theory with no basis in fact, it lends itself to everyone just making things up as they go.
Hi there. If you just want to complain, we have a forum dedicated for that. Please don't shit up threads in the upper fora with it, though. Warned.
-
Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.
I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:
"This is not the same as Gravity"
I know comprehension and equivalencies can be tough for some of you, but if it acts like gravity, affects things like gravity, and has a similar basis in how it functions, it's gravity. Call it whatever you want, that doesn't stop it from being an effect one can call 'gravity'. You even call it 'gravitation' in the name. In case you don't recall/know; "Gravitation: The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass or energy; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity." You're literally calling it celestial gravity, and saying it's a special case of gravity because it only exists between Earth and the things not on Earth, and that somehow means you can't call it gravity. While you've already called it gravity.
-
Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.
I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:
"This is not the same as Gravity"
I know comprehension and equivalencies can be tough for some of you, but if it acts like gravity, affects things like gravity, and has a similar basis in how it functions, it's gravity. Call it whatever you want, that doesn't stop it from being an effect one can call 'gravity'. You even call it 'gravitation' in the name. In case you don't recall/know; "Gravitation: The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass or energy; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity." You're literally calling it celestial gravity, and saying it's a special case of gravity because it only exists between Earth and the things not on Earth, and that somehow means you can't call it gravity. While you've already called it gravity.
That is a long post to simply admit that you are incorrect.
While the terms may frequently be used synonymously, they are not identical.
-
Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.
I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:
"This is not the same as Gravity"
I know comprehension and equivalencies can be tough for some of you, but if it acts like gravity, affects things like gravity, and has a similar basis in how it functions, it's gravity. Call it whatever you want, that doesn't stop it from being an effect one can call 'gravity'. You even call it 'gravitation' in the name. In case you don't recall/know; "Gravitation: The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass or energy; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity." You're literally calling it celestial gravity, and saying it's a special case of gravity because it only exists between Earth and the things not on Earth, and that somehow means you can't call it gravity. While you've already called it gravity.
That is a long post to simply admit that you are incorrect.
While the terms may frequently be used synonymously, they are not identical.
Gravity: a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (such as stars and planets), and between particles (such as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation
I'm uh, not seeing much of a difference here Junker, other than the Gravity definition goes a touch more 'in depth' as it were. They do appear to be describing the exact same phenomenon.
-
Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.
I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:
"This is not the same as Gravity"
I know comprehension and equivalencies can be tough for some of you, but if it acts like gravity, affects things like gravity, and has a similar basis in how it functions, it's gravity. Call it whatever you want, that doesn't stop it from being an effect one can call 'gravity'. You even call it 'gravitation' in the name. In case you don't recall/know; "Gravitation: The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass or energy; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity." You're literally calling it celestial gravity, and saying it's a special case of gravity because it only exists between Earth and the things not on Earth, and that somehow means you can't call it gravity. While you've already called it gravity.
That is a long post to simply admit that you are incorrect.
While the terms may frequently be used synonymously, they are not identical.
Gravity: a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (such as stars and planets), and between particles (such as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation
I'm uh, not seeing much of a difference here Junker, other than the Gravity definition goes a touch more 'in depth' as it were. They do appear to be describing the exact same phenomenon.
Gravitation simply describes attraction/movement to/toward something. You can apply gravity to it, sure, but it is not required.
-
Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.
I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:
"This is not the same as Gravity"
I know comprehension and equivalencies can be tough for some of you, but if it acts like gravity, affects things like gravity, and has a similar basis in how it functions, it's gravity. Call it whatever you want, that doesn't stop it from being an effect one can call 'gravity'. You even call it 'gravitation' in the name. In case you don't recall/know; "Gravitation: The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass or energy; the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Also called gravity." You're literally calling it celestial gravity, and saying it's a special case of gravity because it only exists between Earth and the things not on Earth, and that somehow means you can't call it gravity. While you've already called it gravity.
That is a long post to simply admit that you are incorrect.
While the terms may frequently be used synonymously, they are not identical.
Gravity: a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (such as stars and planets), and between particles (such as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation
I'm uh, not seeing much of a difference here Junker, other than the Gravity definition goes a touch more 'in depth' as it were. They do appear to be describing the exact same phenomenon.
Gravitation simply describes attraction/movement to/toward something. You can apply gravity to it, sure, but it is not required.
Gravitation is attraction between objects of mass. Gravity is objects of mass attract each other. Gravitation is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature. Gravity=Gravitation. For there to be gravitation, there must also be gravity. These aren't two separate ideas here. Honestly if you think they are, please explain the difference. What is gravitation? What is gravity? How are they not two words for the same thing? Where do you have gravitation without it being also describable as gravity?
-
For there to be gravitation, there must also be gravity.
False.
What is gravitation?
Already explained in the thread.
What is gravity?
Also already explained.
How are they not two words for the same thing? Where do you have gravitation without it being also describable as gravity?
They can be, and often are used as words for the same thing. In FET they are not the same thing, as gravity does not exist.
-
For there to be gravitation, there must also be gravity.
False.
What is gravitation?
Already explained in the thread.
What is gravity?
Also already explained.
How are they not two words for the same thing? Where do you have gravitation without it being also describable as gravity?
They can be, and often are used as words for the same thing. In FET they are not the same thing, as gravity does not exist.
How does celestial gravitation differ from what REers would call gravity. I'm not talking about the supposed constant acceleration of the Earth. (Although, I would love to know how that works, as well.)
-
For there to be gravitation, there must also be gravity.
False.
What is gravitation?
Already explained in the thread.
What is gravity?
Also already explained.
How are they not two words for the same thing? Where do you have gravitation without it being also describable as gravity?
They can be, and often are used as words for the same thing. In FET they are not the same thing, as gravity does not exist.
What an excellent and compelling statement for how they are different. You're right, I've given the definition of both in this thread. Yet you can't seem to explain how they are different, because the definitions sure don't. The FE hypothesis claims gravity doesn't exist, because reasons, but some then posit gravity DOES exist, but we can't call it gravity because reasons. What celestial gravitation describes is gravity, because gravitation is gravity. It's two words for the same force, the definition makes that quite clear. But again, you claim they are in fact different. How? What's the difference? Where have we observed gravitation but not gravity? FE's claim there is no gravity doesn't count. It's a claim with no observable evidence unless you've seen the acceleration of the Earth, which would require a vantage point not on Earth.
-
Yet you can't seem to explain how they are different, because the definitions sure don't.
Incorrect. I would suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.
-
Yet you can't seem to explain how they are different, because the definitions sure don't.
Incorrect. I would suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.
I haven't seen you define the difference anywhere, nor even define either term. Both posted definitions (from the same online dictionary) say they are the same thing. If you can in fact explain how they are different, please do so instead of continuing to say that it's explained in the thread. Because I don't see anywhere that the difference is explained, as you certainly haven't other than an unprovable claim that they aren't simply because the FE hypothesis says they aren't.
-
I read the wiki on tides, but it didn't have much info. As we know, large bodies of water (and land, ftm) go through regular tidal changes caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon. FET claims the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of stars. It also states that the Moon has some gravitational attraction, which helps cause the tides. This raises a very important question. What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?
If u need more info please message me I may be wrong but I think gravity is nothing more than centripetal acceralation.Since as go away from earth gravity decreases which should not happen,it should constant as whole but in centripetal acceralation we know that as far u move from earth the acceralation radial decreases since its inversely proportional to the radius of a curved surface.
-
I read the wiki on tides, but it didn't have much info. As we know, large bodies of water (and land, ftm) go through regular tidal changes caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon. FET claims the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of stars. It also states that the Moon has some gravitational attraction, which helps cause the tides. This raises a very important question. What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?
If u need more info please message me I may be wrong but I think gravity is nothing more than centripetal acceralation.Since as go away from earth gravity decreases which should not happen,it should constant as whole but in centripetal acceralation we know that as far u move from earth the acceralation radial decreases since its inversely proportional to the radius of a curved surface.
I don't need any info. Thank you for the offer. Gravity decreases following the inverse square law. (as it should)
I think you should look further into centripetal acceleration. I think you don't fully under how it is generated.
-
Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.
I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:
"This is not the same as Gravity"
So you think that's a comprehensive explanation of how there are two tides per day and not one as a simple lunar attraction implies?
I've repeatedly asked this "two tides" question - and every time you've said "False" (not a very helpful reply) or "It's in the Wiki"...and scouring the Wiki turns up no explanation whatever for this.
Now you're telling us that "This is not the same as Gravity" is a satisfying explanation? Really? **REALLY??!
That's about the same as "Fairies come along at night and sprinkle fairy dust onto the waves to make a second tide."
You guys are supposed to be zeteticists...which experiment lead you to this conclusion?
-
Corrected quote: SOME FE'ers seem to claim that the moon does exert SOME gravity on the Earth.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
It can feel difficult to hold a debate on these fora when it feels like every FE believer differs from every other on at least one point if not more.
I know reading can be tough for some of you, but the very link you provided literally says:
"This is not the same as Gravity"
Nice that you bring it up, because I started a thread on this very subject that got no attention, and I understand that bumping threads up is not kosher, here.
From your link:
This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.
Emphasis mine.
How do you explain the Cavendish experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
Secondly, how can it cause the tide(s) if object on earth are not affected by it?
btw, my thread is here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6813.0
-
How do you explain the Cavendish experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
-
How do you explain the Cavendish experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
Oh good grief! Protect us from rank amateurs trying to debunk world class experts!
The point about the Cavendish experiment isn't so much that it's an accurate measurement of gravity (although it's not bad) - it's that it demonstrates that any two masses exert a force between them due to their masses and distances.
The precise measurements can be done with planets, moons and stars where there is no air resistance, no walls nearby, nothing like that. Cavendish demonstrates that what makes the planets orbit the sun, and various moons orbit their planets also operates between lead weights inside a laboratory.
-
How do you explain the Cavendishb experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
please either explain it in your own words, or at least quote the relevant parts of the linked document. I'm not going to wade for an hour through the ramblings of a graphomaniac. (I'm not discarding it a priori only because he's a crank convinced that pi equals 4. It's just that I have a life)
-
How do you explain the Cavendishb experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
please either explain it in your own words, or at least quote the relevant parts of the linked document. I'm not going to wade for an hour through the ramblings of a graphomaniac. (I'm not discarding it a priori only because he's a crank convinced that pi equals 4. It's just that I have a life)
I read through it. It is a lot of assumptions followed by conclusions. There is no actual construction, observation or measurement before the calculations. There is not any actual measured data, just assumed data based on the author's feelings from looking at photos of the experiments. In not one place could I find description of how the author built his own version of the apparatus matching the Cavendish experiment to the greatest degree of accuracy and then took more highly accurate measurements from his own experiment to compare against the observed data from the original. He guestimated everything and then concluded exactly what he believed before he started. He could have saved me a lot of reading if he had just said "nuh-uh" and left it at that.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
I read through it.[...]
you sir are one dedicated motherf ;D ;D ;D thank you.
But I still want Tom's explanation. He's always whining on the quality of the evidence presented... when it's his turn, I'm entitled to do the same.
-
I read through it.[...]
you sir are one dedicated motherf ;D ;D ;D thank you.
But I still want Tom's explanation. He's always whining on the quality of the evidence presented... when it's his turn, I'm entitled to do the same.
I would agree completely with your right to point out flaws in his evidence. I am running into very much the same thing asking about a different experiment. The text cited as proof lacks actual controls, it just assumes that it got everything right. Tom, please explain why your evidence for the FE model doesn't need rigor?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
How do you explain the Cavendishb experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
please either explain it in your own words, or at least quote the relevant parts of the linked document. I'm not going to wade for an hour through the ramblings of a graphomaniac. (I'm not discarding it a priori only because he's a crank convinced that pi equals 4. It's just that I have a life)
I read through it. It is a lot of assumptions followed by conclusions. There is no actual construction, observation or measurement before the calculations. There is not any actual measured data, just assumed data based on the author's feelings from looking at photos of the experiments. In not one place could I find description of how the author built his own version of the apparatus matching the Cavendish experiment to the greatest degree of accuracy and then took more highly accurate measurements from his own experiment to compare against the observed data from the original. He guestimated everything and then concluded exactly what he believed before he started. He could have saved me a lot of reading if he had just said "nuh-uh" and left it at that.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
So, because I'm a glutton for punishment, I ended up reading (most of) that tripe. I would submit that your description is still too generous. Kudos to the kindness of your hearth.
Not only it's the scientific equivalent of a pipe dream, in which he spends pages and pages finding supposed oversights on the experiments others have done, while accurately avoiding to conduct one himself, but the entire armchair reasoning rests on his own made up unified theory of everything, and that, oh boy, really has the scientific establishment trembling. No really, you guys should google him. It's fun. Read his demonstration(s) of how pi equals 4, and how everybody before him got it wrong.
Tom, did you actually read the content of that link, or did you forward the first result that came up with google?
If the former, do you espouse his *snicker* theory in all its ramifications?
This forum gets better by the day ;D
-
How do you explain the Cavendishb experiment, then? EDIT, link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
please either explain it in your own words, or at least quote the relevant parts of the linked document. I'm not going to wade for an hour through the ramblings of a graphomaniac. (I'm not discarding it a priori only because he's a crank convinced that pi equals 4. It's just that I have a life)
I read through it. It is a lot of assumptions followed by conclusions. There is no actual construction, observation or measurement before the calculations. There is not any actual measured data, just assumed data based on the author's feelings from looking at photos of the experiments. In not one place could I find description of how the author built his own version of the apparatus matching the Cavendish experiment to the greatest degree of accuracy and then took more highly accurate measurements from his own experiment to compare against the observed data from the original. He guestimated everything and then concluded exactly what he believed before he started. He could have saved me a lot of reading if he had just said "nuh-uh" and left it at that.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
So, because I'm a glutton for punishment, I ended up reading (most of) that tripe. I would submit that your description is still too generous. Kudos to the kindness of your hearth.
Not only it's the scientific equivalent of a pipe dream, in which he spends pages and pages finding supposed oversights on the experiments others have done, while accurately avoiding to conduct one himself, but the entire armchair reasoning rests on his own made up unified theory of everything, and that, oh boy, really has the scientific establishment trembling. No really, you guys should google him. It's fun. Read his demonstration(s) of how pi equals 4, and how everybody before him got it wrong.
Tom, did you actually read the content of that link, or did you forward the first result that came up with google?
If the former, do you espouse his *snicker* theory in all its ramifications?
This forum gets better by the day ;D
Wow! Pi=4? Not even 3? That's impressive. There is a man who needs to wrap a tape measure around a coke can and see what it says!
-
Wow! Pi=4? Not even 3? That's impressive. There is a man who needs to wrap a tape measure around a coke can and see what it says!
he's in a league of his own.
The abridged version is here: http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
The unabridged version contains even weirder stuff, but is longer than the old testament, and not nearly as funny.
So getting back to Cavendish... anyone else willing to chime in? Junker?
-
Wow! Pi=4? Not even 3? That's impressive. There is a man who needs to wrap a tape measure around a coke can and see what it says!
he's in a league of his own.
The abridged version is here: http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
The unabridged version contains even weirder stuff, but is longer than the old testament, and not nearly as funny.
Oh boy! That's hilarious. So he's subdividing the tangent and cotangent into smaller and smaller chunks - then boldly asserts that "If we take this process to its limit, we take our path to the path of the arc AC."...which isn't true. Then, a few paragraphs down, he says "Some will say this is just doing the calculus wrong, but I claim that history has done the calculus wrong, not me."
Ah - OK then.
But why not measure the circumference of a circle with a tape measure...just to be on the safe side?...and if the answer is anywhere between (say) 3.9 and 4.1 times the diameter, go ahead and publish...but if the answer is anywhere between 3.0 and 3.2 - you should probably go back and double-check your math!
So getting back to Cavendish... anyone else willing to chime in? Junker?
(Fetching popcorn now...)
-
Wow! Pi=4? Not even 3? That's impressive. There is a man who needs to wrap a tape measure around a coke can and see what it says!
he's in a league of his own.
The abridged version is here: http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
The unabridged version contains even weirder stuff, but is longer than the old testament, and not nearly as funny.
Oh boy! That's hilarious. So he's subdividing the tangent and cotangent into smaller and smaller chunks - then boldly asserts that "If we take this process to its limit, we take our path to the path of the arc AC."...which isn't true. Then, a few paragraphs down, he says "Some will say this is just doing the calculus wrong, but I claim that history has done the calculus wrong, not me."
Ah - OK then.
But why not measure the circumference of a circle with a tape measure...just to be on the safe side?...and if the answer is anywhere between (say) 3.9 and 4.1 times the diameter, go ahead and publish...but if the answer is anywhere between 3.0 and 3.2 - you should probably go back and double-check your math!
So getting back to Cavendish... anyone else willing to chime in? Junker?
(Fetching popcorn now...)
I find it interesting that exacting standards of experimental control are demanded of any RE evidence, but the FE evidence is assumed as true without any experimental control and often without any actual experiments. I believe that this is sufficient evidence of dual standards, but I would prefer to take further samplings of the arguments for FE before coming to a conclusion. Is there a FE experiment with physical measurements demonstrating that gravity doesn't exist?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Wow! Pi=4? Not even 3? That's impressive. There is a man who needs to wrap a tape measure around a coke can and see what it says!
he's in a league of his own.
The abridged version is here: http://milesmathis.com/pi3.html
The unabridged version contains even weirder stuff, but is longer than the old testament, and not nearly as funny.
Oh boy! That's hilarious. So he's subdividing the tangent and cotangent into smaller and smaller chunks - then boldly asserts that "If we take this process to its limit, we take our path to the path of the arc AC."...which isn't true. Then, a few paragraphs down, he says "Some will say this is just doing the calculus wrong, but I claim that history has done the calculus wrong, not me."
Ah - OK then.
But why not measure the circumference of a circle with a tape measure...just to be on the safe side?...and if the answer is anywhere between (say) 3.9 and 4.1 times the diameter, go ahead and publish...but if the answer is anywhere between 3.0 and 3.2 - you should probably go back and double-check your math!
So getting back to Cavendish... anyone else willing to chime in? Junker?
(Fetching popcorn now...)
I find it interesting that exacting standards of experimental control are demanded of any RE evidence, but the FE evidence is assumed as true without any experimental control and often without any actual experiments. I believe that this is sufficient evidence of dual standards, but I would prefer to take further samplings of the arguments for FE before coming to a conclusion. Is there a FE experiment with physical measurements demonstrating that gravity doesn't exist?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
That would be a very hard experiment to do.
The FE'ers claim is that gravity exists (and is the cause of tides...er...well...one tide...but handwave) but is selective in it's action...so they're at liberty to randomly say "Well, OF COURSE your experiment that uses buckets of water as the weights demonstrates gravity - but what if you'd made them out of Osmium?"
But it's much easier to disprove by asking (AGAIN!) how it is that gravity is less at the equator and greater at the poles...and less at the tops of mountains...and how the heck there are TWO tides per day.
As usual...crickets...(unless Junker says "False!" - which is always such a convincing debating tactic!)