## REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS! | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 06:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I haven't yet been confronted with that hypothetical problem in any idea that is proved science. Is that not in of itself revealing?AA 47216577 You are avoiding my simple yes/no question. If it were suddenly discovered that Sir Isaac Newton were of Jewish descent, would that suddenly invalidate all of Newtonian Mechanics, in your worldview? 74444 He would have to understand Newtonian mechanics first....... Anonymous Coward 47214963 Scratch that........he is just this very moment discovering the basics of relativity. |

AA User ID: 47216577 United States 09/22/2013 07:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nothing can accelerate instantaneously no matter how great the force. Quoting: If the acceleration matches that of the acceleration constant of gravity of the force, no acceleration will be perceived and no force will either. To me this seems intuitively logical but let me expand on the idea a bit more. It simply because our senses are tuned to detect changes, not things remaining constant in our frame of reference. Since the force of gravity is capable of accelerating mass it must be a force. So long as a falling body is equaling te acceleration constant of the force, forces appear to be in balance in that frame of reference. You won't experience any sensation of force or acceleration, but both are there. Take te example of an orbit. The force of gravity and centripetal acceleration are balanced, they're both there, but they are impossible to perceive in the orbiting masses frame of reference. But if another mass is acted on by the orbiting bodies gravity it experiences a detectable force AA 47216577 So you agree with relativity and Einstein said the same thing as you much more simply. I am so screwed in the head. Anonymous Coward 47214963 First statement:WRONG. Einstein insisted gravity was the result of a curvature of space , a distortion caused by matter, and no force was involved. insisted no force was acting on a falling mass when accelerating at the gravitational constant. That is bush league science fiction bullshit Second statement: when you put it that way, I agree |

AA User ID: 47216577 United States 09/22/2013 07:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 07:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nothing can accelerate instantaneously no matter how great the force. Quoting: If the acceleration matches that of the acceleration constant of gravity of the force, no acceleration will be perceived and no force will either. To me this seems intuitively logical but let me expand on the idea a bit more. It simply because our senses are tuned to detect changes, not things remaining constant in our frame of reference. Since the force of gravity is capable of accelerating mass it must be a force. So long as a falling body is equaling te acceleration constant of the force, forces appear to be in balance in that frame of reference. You won't experience any sensation of force or acceleration, but both are there. Take te example of an orbit. The force of gravity and centripetal acceleration are balanced, they're both there, but they are impossible to perceive in the orbiting masses frame of reference. But if another mass is acted on by the orbiting bodies gravity it experiences a detectable force AA 47216577 So you agree with relativity and Einstein said the same thing as you much more simply. I am so screwed in the head. Anonymous Coward 47214963 First statement:WRONG. Einstein insisted gravity was the result of a curvature of space , a distortion caused by matter, and no force was involved. insisted no force was acting on a falling mass when accelerating at the gravitational constant. That is bush league science fiction bullshit Second statement: when you put it that way, I agree AA 47216577 You have a severe reading comprehension problem. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 07:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nothing can accelerate instantaneously no matter how great the force. Quoting: If the acceleration matches that of the acceleration constant of gravity of the force, no acceleration will be perceived and no force will either. To me this seems intuitively logical but let me expand on the idea a bit more. It simply because our senses are tuned to detect changes, not things remaining constant in our frame of reference. Since the force of gravity is capable of accelerating mass it must be a force. So long as a falling body is equaling te acceleration constant of the force, forces appear to be in balance in that frame of reference. You won't experience any sensation of force or acceleration, but both are there. Take te example of an orbit. The force of gravity and centripetal acceleration are balanced, they're both there, but they are impossible to perceive in the orbiting masses frame of reference. But if another mass is acted on by the orbiting bodies gravity it experiences a detectable force AA 47216577 So you agree with relativity and Einstein said the same thing as you much more simply. You are so screwed in the head. Anonymous Coward 47214963 First statement:WRONG. Einstein insisted gravity was the result of a curvature of space , a distortion caused by matter, and no force was involved. insisted no force was acting on a falling mass when accelerating at the gravitational constant. That is bush league science fiction bullshit Second statement: when you put it that way, I agree AA 47216577 Well good......we can agree you are screwed in the head |

AA User ID: 47216577 United States 09/22/2013 07:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

AA User ID: 47216577 United States 09/22/2013 07:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If the acceleration matches that of the acceleration constant of gravity of the force, no acceleration will be perceived and no force will either. To me this seems intuitively logical but let me expand on the idea a bit more. It simply because our senses are tuned to detect changes, not things remaining constant in our frame of reference. Since the force of gravity is capable of accelerating mass it must be a force. So long as a falling body is equaling te acceleration constant of the force, forces appear to be in balance in that frame of reference. You won't experience any sensation of force or acceleration, but both are there. Take te example of an orbit. The force of gravity and centripetal acceleration are balanced, they're both there, but they are impossible to perceive in the orbiting masses frame of reference. But if another mass is acted on by the orbiting bodies gravity it experiences a detectable force AA 47216577 So you agree with relativity and Einstein said the same thing as you much more simply. I am so screwed in the head. Anonymous Coward 47214963 First statement:WRONG. Einstein insisted gravity was the result of a curvature of space , a distortion caused by matter, and no force was involved. insisted no force was acting on a falling mass when accelerating at the gravitational constant. That is bush league science fiction bullshit Second statement: when you put it that way, I agree AA 47216577 Well good......we can agree I am screwed in the head Anonymous Coward 47214963 So what's the problem? |

AA User ID: 47216577 United States 09/22/2013 07:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 07:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Relativity is very real, there are countless examples in every facet of science. Einsteins relativity is a beggar clothed in the garments of royalty, a pretense, a fiction. Tesla was right. The term 'relativity' is most often associated with Einsteins GR and SR. had I put more thought into the thread title I obviously would have included his name Quoting: AA 47216577 Flippity flap flop flump PWNED AGIN Jackassogen winds |

AA User ID: 47216577 United States 09/22/2013 07:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Relativity is very real, there are countless examples in every facet of science. Einsteins relativity is a beggar clothed in the garments of royalty, a pretense, a fiction. Tesla was right. The term 'relativity' is most often associated with Einsteins GR and SR. had I put more thought into the thread title I obviously would have included his name Quoting: AA 47216577 Flippity flap flop flump I'm PWNED AGIN. slipped in my own shitAnonymous Coward 47214963 |

AA User ID: 47216577 United States 09/22/2013 07:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 07:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 07:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 07:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 07:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

AA User ID: 47216577 United States 09/22/2013 07:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 12581626 United States 09/22/2013 07:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | E = M C^2 Proved bunk: Quoting: Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as it's form suggests, then the algebraic solution for C produces C = SQRT(E/M) This translates basically into "if you transform matter into energy C has to increase or the equation produces an inequality".In an algebraic form, C cannot be a constant unless both E and M are constant and never vary have a very nice day Anonymous Coward 47216577 C = PI D (circumference of a circle = PI times the diameter of the circle) Proved bunk: Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as its form suggests, then the algebraic solution for PI produces PI = C / D. This translates basically into "If you change the circumference of a circle, PI has to change or the equation produces an inequality". In an algebraic form, PI cannot be a constant unless both C and D are constant and never vary. a = GM/R^2 (the gravitational acceleration for mass M at distance R is equal to the product of the Gravitational Constant G times the mass M divided by the square of the distance R) Proved bunk: Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as it form suggests, then the algebraic solution for G produces G= a * R^2/M. This translates basically into "If you change the distance from mass M, the Gravitational Constant G has to change or the equation produces an inequality". In an algebraic form, G cannot be a constant unless a, R and M are constant and never vary. I'm sure that IDW will ignore this post, claim that his post was edited, state that I am a NASA shill, make some obscene, antisemitic, homophobic remark, or explain how he was in some strange way correct. I believe this is the most ridiculous thing IDW has ever said. He has finally put his foot in his mouth so far that he has kicked himself in the ass. It is such a perfect example of his general cluelessness that I think 74444 should add it his list of IDW screwups. If there's still room, that is. |

AA User ID: 47216577 United States 09/22/2013 07:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

AA User ID: 47216577 United States 09/22/2013 07:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | E = M C^2 Proved bunk: Quoting: Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as it's form suggests, then the algebraic solution for C produces C = SQRT(E/M) This translates basically into "if you transform matter into energy C has to increase or the equation produces an inequality".In an algebraic form, C cannot be a constant unless both E and M are constant and never vary have a very nice day Anonymous Coward 47216577 C = PI D (circumference of a circle = PI times the diameter of the circle) Proved bunk: Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as its form suggests, then the algebraic solution for PI produces PI = C / D. This translates basically into "If you change the circumference of a circle, PI has to change or the equation produces an inequality". In an algebraic form, PI cannot be a constant unless both C and D are constant and never vary. Anonymous Coward 12581626 Wrong> The ratio of diameter to circumference is PI and that is a constant. Mass /energy is not a constant NEXT |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 07:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 08:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 08:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | E = M C^2 Proved bunk: Quoting: Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as it's form suggests, then the algebraic solution for C produces C = SQRT(E/M) This translates basically into "if you transform matter into energy C has to increase or the equation produces an inequality".In an algebraic form, C cannot be a constant unless both E and M are constant and never vary have a very nice day Anonymous Coward 47216577 C = PI D (circumference of a circle = PI times the diameter of the circle) Proved bunk: Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as its form suggests, then the algebraic solution for PI produces PI = C / D. This translates basically into "If you change the circumference of a circle, PI has to change or the equation produces an inequality". In an algebraic form, PI cannot be a constant unless both C and D are constant and never vary. Anonymous Coward 12581626 Wrong> The ratio of diameter to circumference is PI and that is a constant. Mass /energy is not a constant NEXT AA 47216577 That's irrational |

74444User ID: 74444 United States 09/22/2013 08:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

74444User ID: 74444 United States 09/22/2013 08:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No person who has ever made an actual positive contribution to humanity is of jewish persuasion. Any 'advancement' they appear to make is always a detriment. Quoting: They have a spotless record. All bad. Name an example. AA 47216577 You are avoiding my simple yes/no question. If it were suddenly discovered that Sir Isaac Newton were of Jewish descent, would that suddenly invalidate all of Newtonian Mechanics, in your worldview? |

nomuse (NLI) User ID: 2380183 United States 09/22/2013 08:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 08:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

nomuse (NLI) User ID: 2380183 United States 09/22/2013 09:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

nomuse (NLI) User ID: 2380183 United States 09/22/2013 09:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "different wavelengths of light have different kinetic energy levels. This is not debatable. Different wavelengths of light are deflected by gravity at different rates of deflection because of this difference in KE, This is not debatable. Quoting: The observation of the discrepancy involved with Mercury's orbit can be and is explained succinctly and rationally simply by applying the facts as we now understand them. What gravity actually is is another matter. Just because relativity gives one explanation of gravity , it does not automatically imply it is correct." - From and earlier post made 12 years ago by myself AA 47216577 Cripes. GRAVITY doesn't work that way. Or do you think objects that are moving faster get lighter (or heavier, you haven't said which and I don't care). And gravitational lensing isn't frequency-dependent. There is no chromatic aberration in lensed images. |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 12581626 United States 09/22/2013 09:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as it's form suggests, then the algebraic solution for C produces C = SQRT(E/M) This translates basically into "if you transform matter into energy C has to increase or the equation produces an inequality".In an algebraic form, C cannot be a constant unless both E and M are constant and never vary have a very nice day Anonymous Coward 47216577 C = PI D (circumference of a circle = PI times the diameter of the circle) Proved bunk: Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as its form suggests, then the algebraic solution for PI produces PI = C / D. This translates basically into "If you change the circumference of a circle, PI has to change or the equation produces an inequality". In an algebraic form, PI cannot be a constant unless both C and D are constant and never vary. Anonymous Coward 12581626 Wrong> The ratio of diameter to circumference is PI and that is a constant. Mass /energy is not a constant NEXT AA 47216577 No, Right> The RATIO of energy to matter, E/M, is C^2, just as the RATIO of circumference to diameter, C/D, is PI. And you left out a = GM/R^2 (the gravitational acceleration for mass M at distance R is equal to the product of the Gravitational Constant G times the mass M divided by the square of the distance R) Proved bunk: Quoting: Closely examine that equation. If it is an algebraic equation as it form suggests, then the algebraic solution for G produces G= a * R^2/M. This translates basically into "If you change the distance from mass M, the Gravitational Constant G has to change or the equation produces an inequality". In an algebraic form, G cannot be a constant unless a, R and M are constant and never vary. Anonymous Coward 12581626 How come? |

Anonymous Coward User ID: 47214963 United States 09/22/2013 09:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |

Related Threads