Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE

  • 35 Replies
  • 9290 Views
?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« on: April 19, 2008, 08:16:38 PM »
Gravity

FE: "the earth accelerates upwards"
RE: "a super-mysterious fabric, much like the force, that binds all things to existence bends around like it is playing twister and creates potholes where massive objects are attached, these potholes represent gravity because if you place a ball on the fabric, the ball will naturally gravitate roll down due to gravity fall into place because of gravity something but this fabric is super invisible and only comprehensible by super smart people like Einstein, which makes it true also gravitons"

Earths Heat

FE: "heat comes from beneath us"
RE: "heat comes from the sun, but the earth mostly gets heated from the inside out because light warps into the middle of earth and works it's way out. But all heat comes from the sun, except in the shade. But it's still really really hot in deep mines because they get a lot of sunlight."

Constant acceleration

FE: "We undergo constant acceleration upwards"
RE: "We undergo constant acceleration inwards, but even though the outer rim of earth is accelerating inwards it maintains it's shape because we stop accelerating when we are touching the ground, even though we still feel the force of acceleration working on us."

The oceans

FE: "The oceans stay in place because the earth is accelerating into them"
RE: "The oceans stay in place because, even though water is weightless in it's own medium, the oceans have a high pressure system of air above them that keeps the even higher pressure system of water below in place."

Global Warming

FE: "heat comes from beneath us, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would trap the heat inside."
RE: "heat comes from the sun, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would keep the heat of the sun out. Since this is not seen, global warming is actually climate change, and if anything changes it proves that both climate change happens, and the earth is round"

Earths Curve as a sum of its parts

FE: "The earth is flat, just like how it appears"
RE: "Even though the earth is flat everywhere, it is actually round due to large curvatures occurring in the earths surface in the deep unexplored areas of the ocean. This is where the curves must occur, because the earth is flat when I go outside."

Surface tension of individual water molecules

FE: "Works as demonstrated in modern journals."
RE: "Even though the fluid (gas, liquid) water molecules undergo constant gyroscopic acceleration due to the earths spin, the fact that these molecules should spin fast enough to counter their own magnetic field can be ignored because we have no theory to explain this"

Our atmosphere

FE: "it stays there because the earth accelerates into it."
RE: "As earth spins very rapidly, the atmosphere keeps from floating into space by grabbing the pertruding rods of earths merry go round very tightly."

Snowfall

FE: "It falls straight down (neglecting wind of course)"
RE: "It falls down and wedges tighter and tighter the closer to earth it gets but does not build up in higher densities at lower altitudes because of wind, and rainbow magic."

Extending planes

FE: "Neighbors can always level their homes with each other."
RE: "Neighbors cannot level their homes with each other, because that would prove that since the earth's curve is the sum of it's parts, it would be all level. So don't even try it, you will lose your home because of poor craftsmanship and you will die in a fire."

Gravitons

FE: "Don't exist."
RE: "They exist as unmeasurable, invisible, perfect things that are not matter or energy that travel at a speed defined by distance/0 and also make super-massive objects instantly change their acceleration without giving them any energy to do so."

Up

FE: "Is up."
RE: "Is up in the states, down in India, across in Belgium, forward in the antarctic, and whatever the states say in england. We have a table of conversions in the public library if that helps."

Shoe molding

FE: "Walking on a flat earth leads to flat shoe bottoms"
RE: "Yes, its true the average shoe bottom is flat. However, we are convinced that people who wear shoes do not live in the ares of the world where the earth has a curve."


index
« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 09:37:52 PM by narcberry »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2008, 08:19:11 PM »
Rowbotham's altered rules of perspective vs natural rules of perspective

Monster refractions vs minor refraction

Shadow object vs shadow

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2008, 08:26:33 PM »
Once again you amaze me!
Bravo Narberry!
I turned my signatures off because they make threads hard to read. I can't even see this when I post, please tell me what I said here.

?

[][][]

  • 554
  • Man of science.
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2008, 08:30:19 PM »

FE: "The earth is round, just like how it appears"

Bunkum! You must mean flat, eh old chap?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2008, 08:32:07 PM by [][][] »
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2008, 08:34:57 PM »
My ninja-edit doesn't know what you're talking about.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2008, 08:38:27 PM »
The oceans

FE: "The oceans stay in place because the earth is accelerating into them"
RE: "The oceans stay in place because, even though water is weightless in it's own medium, the oceans have a high pressure system of air above them that keeps the even higher pressure system of water below in place."

Oh fuck...

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2008, 08:46:59 PM »
You never realized the RE oceans would float away?

?

CyborgJesus

  • 215
  • Professional Misanthrope
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2008, 03:38:05 AM »
You never realized the RE oceans would float away?

I'm sorry I didn't realize that water was less dense than air and light enough to escape gravity.

Also this accelerating upwards thing always had me puzzled, what exactly is causing this upwards acceleration? Anyone who knows Newton's laws would deduce that there must be a constant force acting on the FE to pull it upwards. Is this claim anymore outlandish than gravity?
Quote from: King Bishop
Jesus is officially made of fail. Eat that, Christianity!
Quote from: Bill Hicks
The human race is a virus with shoes.

?

CyborgJesus

  • 215
  • Professional Misanthrope
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2008, 08:49:59 AM »
Our theory sounds cooler, as well as being correct. Thanks Narc!

As a fan of Discworld I do agree that it is cooler, however incorrect it is.
Quote from: King Bishop
Jesus is officially made of fail. Eat that, Christianity!
Quote from: Bill Hicks
The human race is a virus with shoes.

?

CyborgJesus

  • 215
  • Professional Misanthrope
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2008, 09:08:40 AM »
Quote from: King Bishop
Jesus is officially made of fail. Eat that, Christianity!
Quote from: Bill Hicks
The human race is a virus with shoes.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2008, 10:58:04 AM »
Also this accelerating upwards thing always had me puzzled, what exactly is causing this upwards acceleration?
The mechanism is unknown, but is given the place holder name of Dark Energy.

Quote
Anyone who knows Newton's laws would deduce that there must be a constant force acting on the FE to pull it upwards.
Right.

Quote
Is this claim anymore outlandish than gravity?
No, it is probably equally outlandish.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2008, 11:15:25 AM »
UA is specifically unique to Dogplatter's model.  It has, however, been applied wrongly to the accelerating earth model of the FAQ by noobs.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2008, 11:18:41 AM »
Why can't we just call it a UA?  I mean, the universe accelerates.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2008, 11:40:02 AM »
UA is an object composed of Dark Matter.  DE is, well, energy.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2008, 11:45:46 AM »
Let's consider FE vs RE with an occamistic inclination:
(excuse the repeated material, I am going to keep this thread as a repository, feel free to add to it)

Gravity

FE: "the earth accelerates upwards"
RE: "a super-mysterious fabric, much like the force, that binds all things to existence bends around like it is playing twister and creates potholes where massive objects are attached, these potholes represent gravity because if you place a ball on the fabric, the ball will naturally gravitate roll down due to gravity fall into place because of gravity something but this fabric is super invisible and only comprehensible by super smart people like Einstein, which makes it true also gravitons"

Earths Heat

FE: "heat comes from beneath us"
RE: "heat comes from the sun, but the earth mostly gets heated from the inside out because light warps into the middle of earth and works it's way out. But all heat comes from the sun, except in the shade. But it's still really really hot in deep mines because they get a lot of sunlight."

Constant acceleration

FE: "We undergo constant acceleration upwards"
RE: "We undergo constant acceleration inwards, but even though the outer rim of earth is accelerating inwards it maintains it's shape because we stop accelerating when we are touching the ground, even though we still feel the force of acceleration working on us."

The oceans

FE: "The oceans stay in place because the earth is accelerating into them"
RE: "The oceans stay in place because, even though water is weightless in it's own medium, the oceans have a high pressure system of air above them that keeps the even higher pressure system of water below in place."

Global Warming

FE: "heat comes from beneath us, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would trap the heat inside."
RE: "heat comes from the sun, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would keep the heat of the sun out. Since this is not seen, global warming is actually climate change, and if anything changes it proves that both climate change happens, and the earth is round"

Earths Curve as a sum of its parts

FE: "The earth is flat, just like how it appears"
RE: "Even though the earth is flat everywhere, it is actually round due to large curvatures occurring in the earths surface in the deep unexplored areas of the ocean. This is where the curves must occur, because the earth is flat when I go outside."

Surface tension of individual water molecules

FE: "Works as demonstrated in modern journals."
RE: "Even though the fluid (gas, liquid) water molecules undergo constant gyroscopic acceleration due to the earths spin, the fact that these molecules should spin fast enough to counter their own magnetic field can be ignored because we have no theory to explain this"

Our atmosphere

FE: "it stays there because the earth accelerates into it."
RE: "As earth spins very rapidly, the atmosphere keeps from floating into space by grabbing the pertruding rods of earths merry go round very tightly."

Snowfall

FE: "It falls straight down (neglecting wind of course)"
RE: "It falls down and wedges tighter and tighter the closer to earth it gets but does not build up in higher densities at lower altitudes because of wind, and rainbow magic."

Extending planes

FE: "Neighbors can always level their homes with each other."
RE: "Neighbors cannot level their homes with each other, because that would prove that since the earth's curve is the sum of it's parts, it would be all level. So don't even try it, you will lose your home because of poor craftsmanship and you will die in a fire."

Gravitons

FE: "Don't exist."
RE: "They exist as unmeasurable, invisible, perfect things that are not matter or energy that travel at a speed defined by distance/0 and also make super-massive objects instantly change their acceleration without giving them any energy to do so."

Up

FE: "Is up."
RE: "Is up in the states, down in India, across in Belgium, forward in the antarctic, and whatever the states say in england. We have a table of conversions in the public library if that helps."

Shoe molding

FE: "Walking on a flat earth leads to flat shoe bottoms"
RE: "Yes, its true the average shoe bottom is flat. However, we are convinced that people who wear shoes do not live in the ares of the world where the earth has a curve."


Add your own! Debunking RE is E-Z!

Leaving aside the fact that you have strawmanned almost every explanation given by RE, I'm going to take for granted that you haven't. For every explanation you offered by FE, one with equal explanatory power was offered by RE. Are you suggesting simplicity alone debunks RE? You're also forgetting an equally important epistemic concept, CONSERVATISM, which states that a theory that fits better with previously well-established theories gains confirmation, just as simplicity adds confirmation.

So, I'll say this: for every argument you give that is simpler (for sake of argument I am granting), they are horrifically less conservative than RE. And, being that RE and FE explain things equally well, there seems to be no surprise here: there's still no way to test your version of FE to RE. You're delusional to think you have given anything but empty rhetoric perhaps since the day you began openly advocating FE. That must feel nice.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2008, 12:24:42 PM by Aufbau20 »

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64599
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Occams Razor
« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2008, 11:49:02 AM »

RE: "Neighbors cannot level their homes with each other, because that would prove that since the earth's curve is the sum of it's parts, it would be all level. So don't even try it, you will lose your home because of poor craftsmanship and you will die in a fire."



The best ;D
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2008, 11:22:07 PM »
I am submitting this for review by our BBC friends.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2008, 02:27:50 AM »
Dammit! I'm going to have to delete my posts here because this is from when I was RE.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2008, 09:00:19 AM »
Gravity
FE: "the earth accelerates upwards"
RE: "a super-mysterious fabric, much like the force, that binds all things to existence bends around like it is playing twister and creates potholes where massive objects are attached, these potholes represent gravity because if you place a ball on the fabric, the ball will naturally gravitate roll down due to gravity fall into place because of gravity something but this fabric is super invisible and only comprehensible by super smart people like Einstein, which makes it true also gravitons"
What you describe is the metaphor that's told to school kids because they can't understand the hard mathematics that is GR.
This point is biased. I could re-write it:

FE: The earth accelerates upwards due to some unknown force that is completely unexplained that we call "dark energy" and only goes in one direction (we will ignore conservation of momentum here) and for some reason is not constant all over the world.
RE: Objects are attracted to each other.

Earths Heat
FE: "heat comes from beneath us"
RE: "heat comes from the sun, but the earth mostly gets heated from the inside out because light warps into the middle of earth and works it's way out. But all heat comes from the sun, except in the shade. But it's still really really hot in deep mines because they get a lot of sunlight."
In RET, the Earth's internal heat comes for radioactive decay. Where does this heat come from in FET?

Constant acceleration
FE: "We undergo constant acceleration upwards"
RE: "We undergo constant acceleration inwards, but even though the outer rim of earth is accelerating inwards it maintains it's shape because we stop accelerating when we are touching the ground, even though we still feel the force of acceleration working on us."
The outer rim of the Earth is not accelerating inwards. Apart from that, your account of RET is pretty much accurate. Also, it is because of GR and the curvature of space-time.
In FET, why do we accelerate upwards continually?

The oceans
FE: "The oceans stay in place because the earth is accelerating into them"
RE: "The oceans stay in place because, even though water is weightless in it's own medium, the oceans have a high pressure system of air above them that keeps the even higher pressure system of water below in place."
Equivalence priciple: the mechanism that keeps oceans in place in FET is the same as in RET.

Global Warming
FE: "heat comes from beneath us, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would trap the heat inside."
RE: "heat comes from the sun, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would keep the heat of the sun out. Since this is not seen, global warming is actually climate change, and if anything changes it proves that both climate change happens, and the earth is round"
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect for the actual reason in RET.

Earths Curve as a sum of its parts
FE: "The earth is flat, just like how it appears"
RE: "Even though the earth is flat everywhere, it is actually round due to large curvatures occurring in the earths surface in the deep unexplored areas of the ocean. This is where the curves must occur, because the earth is flat when I go outside."
No, the Earth appears flat because it is very big, thus curvature is too small to be noticed.

Our atmosphere
FE: "it stays there because the earth accelerates into it."
RE: "As earth spins very rapidly, the atmosphere keeps from floating into space by grabbing the pertruding rods of earths merry go round very tightly."
Narcberry seems to be confusing RET with The Magic Roundabout.
Earth actually spins very slowly (angular speed of 7.3E-5 rad/s), and gravity stops it floating into space.

Snowfall
FE: "It falls straight down (neglecting wind of course)"
RE: "It falls down and wedges tighter and tighter the closer to earth it gets but does not build up in higher densities at lower altitudes because of wind, and rainbow magic."
Indeed it does become (on average) more dense as it falls, but this is effect is tiny. Snow falling from a height of 1km will be 0.03% denser at the bottom.

Extending planes
FE: "Neighbors can always level their homes with each other."
RE: "Neighbors cannot level their homes with each other, because that would prove that since the earth's curve is the sum of it's parts, it would be all level. So don't even try it, you will lose your home because of poor craftsmanship and you will die in a fire."
As above, the effect is too small to be noticed (you don't seem to realise this: the Earth is VERY BIG).

Gravitons
FE: "Don't exist."
RE: "They exist as unmeasurable, invisible, perfect things that are not matter or energy that travel at a speed defined by distance/0 and also make super-massive objects instantly change their acceleration without giving them any energy to do so."
Gravitons are still hypothetical in RET. Anyway, what authority does a FE'er have to dictate particle physics?

EDIT: What you describe is pretty much exactly what happens with electromagnetism, which is mediated by virtual photons. Gravitons are a hypothetical example of virtual particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2008, 09:31:29 AM »
Ok well as particle physics is my thing ill start with gravitons. These are a hypothetical spin 2 field used to quantise the tensor field of gravity. The graviton is massless (gravity propagates at the speed of light). It is postulated to exist as a quantised theory of gravity wuld be required for a theory of everything. Im not sure what you mean by possessing neither mass or energy, it would be massless but it will have a total energy like any fundamental particle.

We know gravity must exist even if we ignore the Earth we can see that celestial bodies are moving with respect to each other so we need a force capable of describing this. Gravity has done very well so far I see no reason to wreck the rest of the universe just because we want to live on a giant CD.

The heat within the Earth comes from a mixture of radioactive decay and heat maintained from the Earths creation and of course you will get some heat from thermodynamics because of the very high pressures. The radioactive decay part of this was confirmed recently when neutrinos from the radioactive decay were found by the kamLAND experiment. The rest is thermodynamics.

The atmosphere is largely held in place by gravity, the heavier molecules are at the bottom. Infact Hydrogen and Helium have a mean speed high enough to escape completely. This is why we do not see much hydrogen or helium in our atmosphere, although some slower molecules are found in the outer layers. This is why we see no atmophere on bodies much smaller than the Earth.

Up is a word to describe the direction of the sky. OR if you've been trapped in an avalanche its the opposite to the direction saliva travels when it comes out of your mouth (free survival tip there).

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39547
Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2008, 10:19:47 AM »
bowler, a suggestion (well more of a warning) if you don't mind.  Gravity is a bad word around here.  theEngineer is one of those nit pickers who insists that gravity does not exist as a force and gravitation is the proper term that we should be using.  I've seen threads go for many pages because of it.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2008, 10:21:37 AM »
No keep using gravity Let theengineer come in and tout his very limited knowledge of relativity to you.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2008, 10:28:25 AM »
I always thought it was a grammatical thing. Gravitation in the process by which something feels gravity and proceeds to gravitate. In much the same way an evaluation is where you evaluate something. Anyway English was never my strong point.

Im being a little glib, there is I believe a convention where gravity itself is reserved for the effect on Earth, though I can't say i've ever paid any attention to it or heard someone get pulled up for it in conversation.

Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2008, 10:31:41 AM »
I always thought it was a grammatical thing. Gravitation in the process by which something feels gravity and proceeds to gravitate. In much the same way an evaluation is where you evaluate something. Anyway English was never my strong point.

Im being a little glib, there is I believe a convention where gravity itself is reserved for the effect on Earth, though I can't say i've ever paid any attention to it or heard someone get pulled up for it in conversation.
I have stated that fact many times. same as in physics current runs from negative to positive yet in engineering it runs the opposite direction, by convention or if you go to the butcher you order a pound or kilogram of meat instead of a slug or newton of meat.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39547
Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2008, 10:40:58 AM »
bowler, you may want to check out the gravity thread (at least the first page or two, at least) to get an idea of where these nit pickers are coming from.  I agree that gravity and gravitation can be used interchangeably for the most part, but it makes life a whole lot easier (and you have a better chance of keeping a discussion on topic) if you just play the game their way.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2008, 10:51:08 AM »
Ok well as particle physics is my thing ill start with gravitons. These are a hypothetical spin 2 field used to quantise the tensor field of gravity. The graviton is massless (gravity propagates at the speed of light). It is postulated to exist as a quantised theory of gravity wuld be required for a theory of everything. Im not sure what you mean by possessing neither mass or energy, it would be massless but it will have a total energy like any fundamental particle.

The atmosphere is largely held in place by gravity, the heavier molecules are at the bottom. Infact Hydrogen and Helium have a mean speed high enough to escape completely. This is why we do not see much hydrogen or helium in our atmosphere, although some slower molecules are found in the outer layers. This is why we see no atmophere on bodies much smaller than the Earth.

Up is a word to describe the direction of the sky. OR if you've been trapped in an avalanche its the opposite to the direction saliva travels when it comes out of your mouth (free survival tip there).

Gravitons are massless so they travel at the speed of light? Why is that limitation implied due to masslessness? Even so, it breaks conservation of energy. Simulations of binary star systems where gravity is communicated as luminal speeds show an immense acceleration that breaks both stars free of their orbits. So this is clearly not the case.

If hydrogen and helium are "too light" to be found at our altitude in the atmosphere, why is the primary source for hydrogen found much deeper in the earth, amongst much heavier elements than nitrogen or oxygen?

So up is the direction of the sky. So on mars, up is a universal direction on the planet, denoting the direction of earths sky. This means up is independently universal for each celestial body, and only relative on the earth. The earth being the cause for many such exceptions in RET.

Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2008, 11:06:44 AM »
This is I think a non-trivial discussion and depends on how you decide to picture gravity. As I have said in my post on the gravity website this has to do with the fact that inertial and gravitation mass appears to be the same thing. This known for certain but experiment has shown it to be true to a fair few decimal places. If for example charge was proportional to inertial mass we could do the same thing with electromagnetism I imagine. The axiom that these two masses are equal is called the Newton axiom. I prefer to use the other interpretation where the gravitational field acts on the Lagrangian.

Though these views are equivalent. The phrase fictitious force is rather like anti particle, a mistake designed to confuse. Try convincing on anyone on a fair ground ride that centrifugal.centripetal force are 'fictitious'. Whichever view you subscribe to has no effect on the physics. So while I do like to discuss it I cant see how its of any relevance here. Both reduce to Newtons equations in the classical limit.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39547
Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2008, 11:09:50 AM »
If hydrogen and helium are "too light" to be found at our altitude in the atmosphere, why is the primary source for hydrogen found much deeper in the earth, amongst much heavier elements than nitrogen or oxygen?

Unless you are talking about hydrocarbons (oil), the primary source of hydrogen is from water.  Helium, on the other hand, is a by product of alpha decay of certain radioactive elements.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2008, 11:13:20 AM »
It is elementary special relativity that a massless particle travels at the speed of light it must be on a gajillion high school/1st year uni help website. It does not break conservation of energy, in fact it is key to it.

Well helium is usually found in pockets above oil reserves, where its come out of decaying organic matter. I wasn't aware that there were substantial hydrogen reserves underground compared to the surface of the earth. Though given the quantity of hydrocarbons down there I wouldn't be surprised.

I really am not that bothered where you consider up to be. I am not convinced that the definition of a word is of any fundamental significance. Which way is up? I don't think is any more fundamental than: is it hot? Both of these questions are at liberty to have various answer for different people at different times. Should I ever find myself on Mars I shall make sure I have a good think about where up is.

Re: Narc's FE Guide: RE compared to FE
« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2008, 08:21:23 AM »
Gravitons are massless so they travel at the speed of light? Why is that limitation implied due to masslessness?

SR

Even so, it breaks conservation of energy. Simulations of binary star systems where gravity is communicated as luminal speeds show an immense acceleration that breaks both stars free of their orbits. So this is clearly not the case.

What simulations?

If hydrogen and helium are "too light" to be found at our altitude in the atmosphere, why is the primary source for hydrogen found much deeper in the earth, amongst much heavier elements than nitrogen or oxygen?

You're not talking about hydrocarbons and oter organic molecules are you? If u are, then it's because the large molecules are not light enough to escape.

So up is the direction of the sky. So on mars, up is a universal direction on the planet, denoting the direction of earths sky. This means up is independently universal for each celestial body, and only relative on the earth. The earth being the cause for many such exceptions in RET.

How can you be this thick-headed? In a gravitational field, "up" is almost always* defined to point exactly opposite to the direction of acceleration due to gravity.

Mathematically, if u have a gravitational potential given by a function G(x,y,z) then "up" points in the direction of Grad G (usually written ∇G).

*The only exception would be in an accelerating system e.g. a spacecraft.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 08:41:50 AM by ghazwozza »