A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A one-off reply to 'Miss Thaing'



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 4th 04, 09:42 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 5th 04, 08:35 PM
Darla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old January 5th 04, 09:25 PM
Chuck Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 5th 04, 09:31 PM
Darla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old January 5th 04, 09:35 PM
Bill Sheppard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 5th 04, 09:37 PM
Darla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old January 5th 04, 10:17 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 6th 04, 01:05 AM
John Zinni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old January 6th 04, 01:51 PM
Darla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old January 6th 04, 02:58 PM
Darla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.