|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A one-off reply to 'Miss Thaing'
The resident "alien" sez in another defunct thread,
So if you place Moby on a bathroom scale while in the tank, there would be virtually zero measurement of the "flow" of gravity. ...What happened? ....Has the flow disappeared? -rest snipped Apparently you need a course in reading comprehension. Earlier in that thread, or in the paralleling one, there was an interchange with Odysseus explaining buoyancy under the F.S. model. It was an _explanation_ , not an abstract description of effects. You either didn't read it or your comprehension level is nil. If you want to be treated respectfully and to be regarded as having some innate intelligence, drop the "alien" nonsense. oc |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
... The resident "alien" sez in another defunct thread, So if you place Moby on a bathroom scale while in the tank, there would be virtually zero measurement of the "flow" of gravity. ...What happened? ....Has the flow disappeared? -rest snipped Apparently you need a course in reading comprehension. Earlier in that thread, or in the paralleling one, there was an interchange with Odysseus explaining buoyancy under the F.S. model. It was an _explanation_ , not an abstract description of effects. You either didn't read it or your comprehension level is nil. If you want to be treated respectfully and to be regarded as having some innate intelligence, drop the "alien" nonsense. oc No no no, it is not that easy. Your statement about bathroom scales is if I remember correctly: a bathroom scale is a direct measurement of the flow of space. If this is not precisely how you say it, then at least this is how it reads when you write it. Your explanation regarding buoyancy fails to mention what happens to the flow. If a bathroom scale is a direct measure of this flow, then what happens to the flow when Bert weighs Moby and gets Zero? And just for you: we are hereby dropping the alien nonsense. We will no longer consider humans to be aliens. We are hereby, All of us - citizens of the cosmos - cosmosians. What Ever. G Darla |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If a bathroom scale is a direct measure of this flow, then what happens to
the flow when Bert weighs Moby and gets Zero? I've reached the conclusion that Bert is acting... merely to troll. Are you two the same person? Clear Skies Chuck Taylor Do you observe the moon? Try the Lunar Observing Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/ ************************************************** ********** |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Darla" wrote in message
... No no no, it is not that easy. Your statement about bathroom scales is if I remember correctly: a bathroom scale is a direct measurement of the flow of space. If this is not precisely how you say it, then at least this is how it reads when you write it. Your explanation regarding buoyancy fails to mention what happens to the flow. If a bathroom scale is a direct measure of this flow, then what happens to the flow when Bert weighs Moby and gets Zero? And just for you: we are hereby dropping the alien nonsense. We will no longer consider humans to be aliens. We are hereby, All of us - citizens of the cosmos - cosmosians. What Ever. G Darla There may be a better way to envision this problem, Bill. As we know, the acceleration due to gravity is a measurable parameter. We know what it measures at the surface of a mass, and we know that it decreases with altitude. Intuitively, without the need for measurement, we know that the acceleration due to gravity must decrease within the mass as one imaginatively approaches the center of mass. We also know that if we drop a heavy, dense object into the ocean, it will sink to the bottom. So gravity, of course, is still at work. There may be Two figures for the acceleration due to gravity in the ocean. There is the figure that we could work out mathematically for a spot, say, four or five miles beneath the surface of the ocean. Then there might be an "apparent" figure that would denote a measured acceleration of an object that is dropping past our reference point. How fast does an object drop through the ocean? Or in other words, what would be the measured acceleration due to gravity in the ocean. Would two objects of significantly unequal densities drop through the ocean at the same rate? Is there a threshold velocity, a maximum reachable velocity, and what is it? What, if anything, does water do to the flow of space in order to make it appear that when Moby steps his eight "feet" on his bathroom scale, he appears to weigh zero grams? Darla |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
When that 'Alien review' thead started running earlier, of course I
skipped over it along with kook Min's. Then upon noticing Painius had hopped in it, I figgered there must be something amusing going on, and snooped in also. Suspicion confirmed (!). 'Miss Thaing' is a piece of work, to say the least. There's either of two possible scenarios going on with her/him/it. One is patent stoopidity. To present oneself as an extraterrestrial alien with super-classified "level 5 - 6" knowledge, and to expect to be taken serously, is unutterable, ribald stoopidity, worthy only of mockery and derision. The edict for 'decorum and civility' don't hold no water here. Or two, the person is clinically delusional and genuinely _does_ believe her alien-hood. If the latter is the case, then she should seek professional help immediately. On the 'bathroom scale' issue, she apparently did not read, or did not comprehend it as half tongue in cheek. The 'tongue-in-cheek-ness' was in saying "if you want evidence for flowing space, you needn't look any further than a bathroom scale, as it gives a direct analogue readout of matter's *resistance* to the flow of space, aka 'weight', under the F.S. model. The interchange with Odysseus fully explained buoyancy under the F.S. model. On the issue of "Where does the flow go once ingested?", that's the 'Roach Motel' issue universally cited by objectors to the F.S. model. It's a back burner issue and a 'given', just as the Standard Model has its 'givens' and imponderables.. such as the pre-BB condition and whatever imponderables may lie 'outside' our horizon of visibility. Despite the clear evidence *for* the BB, ought we to say, "I cannot accept the BB because we don't know what came before it."? No, we accept the BB along with its implicit 'givens'. The flowing-space model simply looks at the evidence, applies Occams Razor, and accepts gravity for what it appears to be and behaves as, and puts the 'givens' on the back burner just as the Standard Model does. Painius, this is all your fault. G oc |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message
... If a bathroom scale is a direct measure of this flow, then what happens to the flow when Bert weighs Moby and gets Zero? I've reached the conclusion that Bert is acting... merely to troll. Are you two the same person? Clear Skies Chuck Taylor Do you observe the moon? Try the Lunar Observing Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/ ************************************************** ********** No, Chuck Taylor, Bert and I are separate entities. He is far more imaginative than I. It is interesting sometimes to see things through Bert's eyes, is it not? Thank you for asking! Darla |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Darla The mass of water is known. Objects of greater mass (weight)
taking up the space of water will fall. Negative bouyancy. When we compare the up ward force of bouyancy it is much stronger than gravity.For the most part It is like comparing your refrigerator magnet to Earth's gravity force. Bad to use the term weight in water. Your body weigh is 16lb in water if you are as fat as me 180llb That is why scuba divers need lead weights. No use using the acceleration rate of gravity as an object going down through water Two factors come into play. The Titanic fell down through two miles of water and only reached the speed of 60 mph when it hit the ocean floor. Water always has an up force. Bert |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
... When that 'Alien review' thead started running earlier, of course I skipped over it along with kook Min's. Then upon noticing Painius had hopped in it, I figgered there must be something amusing going on, and snooped in also. Suspicion confirmed (!). 'Miss Thaing' is a piece of work, to say the least. There's either of two possible scenarios going on with her/him/it. One is patent stoopidity. To present oneself as an extraterrestrial alien with super-classified "level 5 - 6" knowledge, and to expect to be taken serously, is unutterable, ribald stoopidity, worthy only of mockery and derision. The edict for 'decorum and civility' don't hold no water here. Testy testy Bill ;-) Or two, the person is clinically delusional and genuinely _does_ believe her alien-hood. If the latter is the case, then she should seek professional help immediately. On the 'bathroom scale' issue, she apparently did not read, or did not comprehend it as half tongue in cheek. The 'tongue-in-cheek-ness' was in saying "if you want evidence for flowing space, you needn't look any further than a bathroom scale, as it gives a direct analogue readout of matter's *resistance* to the flow of space, aka 'weight', under the F.S. model. The interchange with Odysseus fully explained buoyancy under the F.S. model. On the issue of "Where does the flow go once ingested?", that's the 'Roach Motel' issue universally cited by objectors to the F.S. model. It's a back burner issue and a 'given', just as the Standard Model has its 'givens' and imponderables.. such as the pre-BB condition and whatever imponderables may lie 'outside' our horizon of visibility. Despite the clear evidence *for* the BB, ought we to say, "I cannot accept the BB because we don't know what came before it."? No, we accept the BB along with its implicit 'givens'. The flowing-space model simply looks at the evidence, applies Occams Razor, and accepts gravity for what it appears to be and behaves as, and puts the 'givens' on the back burner just as the Standard Model does. Painius, this is all your fault. G oc |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
... Darla The mass of water is known. Objects of greater mass (weight) taking up the space of water will fall. Negative bouyancy. When we compare the up ward force of bouyancy it is much stronger than gravity.For the most part It is like comparing your refrigerator magnet to Earth's gravity force. Bad to use the term weight in water. Your body weigh is 16lb in water if you are as fat as me 180llb That is why scuba divers need lead weights. No use using the acceleration rate of gravity as an object going down through water Two factors come into play. The Titanic fell down through two miles of water and only reached the speed of 60 mph when it hit the ocean floor. Water always has an up force. Bert What about air, Bert? Does the atmosphere have an up force? We are looking at the flow of space. In order for this space to flow to the center of the earth, it must flow through the atmosphere, the oceans, and various levels of different density solids. I am just trying to understand how space does this. It seems to flow differently through different things. Or does it? Bill does not seem to know, as he keeps falling back on dogma. I wonder if he realizes how much his own thinking is still bogged down by the "void space paradigm?" It is not an easy thing to scrap. The best minds in the world have tried to scrap it. "Many have tried." "They tried and failed???" "They tried and died." G Darla |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
... When that 'Alien review' thead started running earlier, of course I skipped over it along with kook Min's. Then upon noticing Painius had hopped in it, I figgered there must be something amusing going on, and snooped in also. Suspicion confirmed (!). 'Miss Thaing' is a piece of work, to say the least. There's either of two possible scenarios going on with her/him/it. One is patent stoopidity. To present oneself as an extraterrestrial alien with super-classified "level 5 - 6" knowledge, and to expect to be taken serously, is unutterable, ribald stoopidity, worthy only of mockery and derision. The edict for 'decorum and civility' don't hold no water here. Or two, the person is clinically delusional and genuinely _does_ believe her alien-hood. If the latter is the case, then she should seek professional help immediately. On the 'bathroom scale' issue, she apparently did not read, or did not comprehend it as half tongue in cheek. The 'tongue-in-cheek-ness' was in saying "if you want evidence for flowing space, you needn't look any further than a bathroom scale, as it gives a direct analogue readout of matter's *resistance* to the flow of space, aka 'weight', under the F.S. model. The interchange with Odysseus fully explained buoyancy under the F.S. model. On the issue of "Where does the flow go once ingested?", that's the 'Roach Motel' issue universally cited by objectors to the F.S. model. It's a back burner issue and a 'given', just as the Standard Model has its 'givens' and imponderables.. such as the pre-BB condition and whatever imponderables may lie 'outside' our horizon of visibility. Despite the clear evidence *for* the BB, ought we to say, "I cannot accept the BB because we don't know what came before it."? No, we accept the BB along with its implicit 'givens'. The flowing-space model simply looks at the evidence, applies Occams Razor, and accepts gravity for what it appears to be and behaves as, and puts the 'givens' on the back burner just as the Standard Model does. Painius, this is all your fault. G oc This is what "separates the Men from the boys." Men Think and at least Attempt to find an explanation. boys perform copouts. Men Think and come up with answers, right or wrong. boys spit up dogma dooky. Men Think and find ways to test their conclusions. boys play "Let's make fun of the different guy!" Men Think. Gordon Wolter did not tell you his wonderful secrets because he thought the air in front of his mouth needed heating up. Nor did he teach you how to think. Gordon Wolter told you his special ideas because he figured that you already Knew How to think. With all due respect and admiration, we are still waiting for you to prove him right. Consider a force. Label this force an attractive force. Envision this force emanating from and surrounding an atom. There are other forces of an atom. These other forces are relatively strong, powerful, as compared with this "new" force. They are So strong, and this new force is So weak, that the other forces effectively mask the weak force. On a nuclear level, this weak force is transparent, eluding all but the most sensitive instruments. This force does its work outside the atom. But it is so weak, that very little work gets done. So little work gets done, that it virtually cannot be detected, even if two or three or seventeen atoms are working together. Only when the number of atoms is extremely high does the work begin to become detectable. The higher the number of atoms, the easier it is to detect the work. When the number of atoms is high enough, the work can stretch out for yards and yards. Miles and miles. Parsecs and parsecs. It can pull you in. It can make you fall. It will keep your feet on the ground. And it might just get you to think. This is everything but the apple hitting you on the head. (Oh! and did you notice? No math.) G Darla |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
G. Forbat's new theory of space REPLY to objections | Gary Forbat | Space Station | 0 | July 5th 04 02:27 AM |
G. Forbat's new theory of matter REPLY to objections | Gary Forbat | Satellites | 0 | July 2nd 04 02:20 AM |
G. Forbat's new theory of matter REPLY to objections | Gary Forbat | CCD Imaging | 0 | July 2nd 04 02:16 AM |