Guys, how is this still going on. Majority of the feeling or "seek and you shall find, or "knocking"" can be attributed to psychology. If one wants to believe in something or have a sub-conscience desire towards a religion for whatever emotional need they require. It will produce the results describe in the circumstance of "knocking". Also, the simulacrum effect plays a huge role.

(August 29, 2014 at 11:30 am)Chuck Wrote:

(August 29, 2014 at 11:27 am)Natachan Wrote: Well temperature does affect air density, so it would affect your terminal velocity.

Terminal velocity, not gravitational acceleration.

No, but recall he was confusing the two originally.

It's not psychology, it's psychopathology.

(August 29, 2014 at 11:32 am)Chuck Wrote: It's not psychology, it's psychopathology.

Oh thanks, I learned something new today. There is a broader terms, thanks for the new term here. Anyway, still shocked about this still going on.

(August 29, 2014 at 9:26 am)Drich Wrote:

(August 28, 2014 at 3:38 pm)Tonus Wrote: He said "the average gravitational acceleration rate on Earth."

You responded to him that 'other variables can change the formula' (I assume that you mean that other variables can change the result). My point is that the word "average" takes this into account; by definition, it recognizes that the results fall into a range that is dependent on one or more variables.

but again that average is only valid at sea level. therefore not a true average. there is a 0.9% variance in that average therefore the true average 9.8 m/s². Plus 0.45%

Wouldn't those be the "one or more variables" that the word "average" implies? I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

If I say that the average American is 30 years old, it doesn't mean that every American is 30 years old. It doesn't even mean that the average New Yorker is 30 years old. It doesn't mean that the average American who lives at sea level is 30 years old with a +/- coefficient of 0.45. It just means that the average American is 30 years old.

Why is the Earth only "the Earth" at sea level?

He is so accustomed to squirming, wiggling, and weaseling for Jesus that he reflexively think squirming, wiggling, and weaseling could deflect scrutiny from his general ignorance of real topics of study as well.

All he is accomplishing is to add yet more lines of evidence pointing to his profound unreliability, unscrupulousness and intellectual dishonesty. He lives to play a fantasy role in which he is more significant than his accomplishments have entitled him to, and he imagines the real world is obligated to play along, and would lie, cheat, dissemble, to get the real world to do so.

(August 29, 2014 at 11:31 am)bladevalant546 Wrote: Guys, how is this still going on. Majority of the feeling or "seek and you shall find, or "knocking"" can be attributed to psychology. If one wants to believe in something or have a sub-conscience desire towards a religion for whatever emotional need they require. It will produce the results describe in the circumstance of "knocking". Also, the simulacrum effect plays a huge role.

Simulacrum effect? Is my Google-fu so weak, or did you mean 'placebo effect'? Or other?

(August 29, 2014 at 2:09 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 29, 2014 at 11:31 am)bladevalant546 Wrote: Guys, how is this still going on. Majority of the feeling or "seek and you shall find, or "knocking"" can be attributed to psychology. If one wants to believe in something or have a sub-conscience desire towards a religion for whatever emotional need they require. It will produce the results describe in the circumstance of "knocking". Also, the simulacrum effect plays a huge role.

Simulacrum effect? Is my Google-fu so weak, or did you mean 'placebo effect'? Or other?

It is very similar to the placebo effect. However, it mainly deals with philosophical, superstitious, or religious items. A lucky coin for example, or something like that. Also, it can things you subconsciously give power to, like the holy spirit or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum

(August 29, 2014 at 11:25 am)Chuck Wrote: But where is warmth in all this, drich told us gravity depended on warmth.



Btw, gravity does in fact depend on warmth, if warmth I'd rigorously defined as the amount of thermal energy in the earth. BUT as certainly as drich knows jack shit about physics, the relationship between warmth and gravity is not what drich thinks. And in the real world many other higher order effects would influence the force of the pull of gravity, such as the complicated non-concentric mass distribution of the earth, the deformation of the earth by gravity of moon and sun, etc, FAR,FAR, more than the amount of thermal energy in the earth.

By E=MC^2, energy is mass, and warmth is the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the substance involved. So a warmer object does have more energy, and by equivalence more mass than a cooler but otherwise identical object. So a warmer object excerpts a slightly greater gravitational pull than a cooler one. But the amount of gravity caused by thermal energy is vanishingly small next to the gravity of the rest mass. No spacecraft has yet had its orbit gone meaningfully awry by its handler ignoring the thermal component of the earth's gravitational mass.

Warmth has to do with air density sport, the colder it is the more dense the air, subsequently the more the drag. The more drag the slower the acceleration coefficient.

As I posted earlier the little 'g' formula for determining the average gravitational acceleration on earth ignores the drag coefficient that is apart of any real world test that does not happen in a literal vacuum.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

So again to say the AGAoE is 'X' does indeed take a measure of fAith. Because unless on is at sea level in a tightly controlled environment they will not get rate of acceleration that so many of you have put your 'faith' in.

I think its ironic the amount of faith that those who would oppose what I am saying here concerning gravity are requiring from their readers, as nothing they have said to date has been substantiated by the first link or posting of any legitimate reference material.

Yet they all argue 'facts.'

---

(August 29, 2014 at 1:05 pm)Chuck Wrote: He is so accustomed to squirming, wiggling, and weaseling for Jesus that he reflexively think squirming, wiggling, and weaseling could deflect scrutiny from his general ignorance of real topics of study as well.

All he is accomplishing is to add yet more lines of evidence pointing to his profound unreliability, unscrupulousness and intellectual dishonesty. He lives to play a fantasy role in which he is more significant than his accomplishments have entitled him to, and he imagines the real world is obligated to play along, and would lie, cheat, dissemble, to get the real world to do so.

Just One little thing chuckie.. I'm the only one who has supported my position with verifiable fact. Every formula I used ever conclusion I have posted I have also posted a link to a verfiable source that supports my assertions. I have not referenced some 'text book' that only I can see, and appeal to my supposed position is some field that somehow makes me an expert. nor do I require people to just take my word for it...

that shows you to be at best lacking in your basic cognitive abilities, or out and out dishonest. Or do you have a third option?
(Maybe try one that does not end with you lashing out at my wife as a means to win an arguement about gravity.
)

---

(August 29, 2014 at 12:49 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(August 29, 2014 at 9:26 am)Drich Wrote: but again that average is only valid at sea level. therefore not a true average. there is a 0.9% variance in that average therefore the true average 9.8 m/s². Plus 0.45%

Wouldn't those be the "one or more variables" that the word "average" implies? I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

If I say that the average American is 30 years old, it doesn't mean that every American is 30 years old. It doesn't even mean that the average New Yorker is 30 years old. It doesn't mean that the average American who lives at sea level is 30 years old with a +/- coefficient of 0.45. It just means that the average American is 30 years old.

Why is the Earth only "the Earth" at sea level?

Did you read anything in the links I provided?

The average gA at sea level is greater than the gA at altitude. The gA at sea level is the high end of the scale, and the gA at alt is the low end. .9% I believe is the difference. See my orginal gravity post for the actual data.

That means if their is a .9% difference then the gravity experienced at sea level is not the average on earth. The average would take in that .9% variance. Which means the average earth gA would be the gravity at sea level plus .45% because that is 1/2 of .9.

Now to say the earth's gA at sea level is the over all gA on the planet or even the average is incorrect.(which is what was said) Because again the average would include the difference found between sea level at altitude. But to insist that it is because you read it in a book, or on line, and go off half cocked because your a douche who believe his job makes him an expert, or because you really want to see a guy fail so bad that your willing to ignore actual fact, takes a lot of faith.

Far more than the mustard seed that is required that Christ wants from us.

Drippy, drippy, drippy. What a dumb, ignorant overreaching ass you are, and how easily you think you can bluster past people who don't think Jesus or bible can substantiate for time actually spent learning the foundations of science of understanding of real world.

You should know Wikipedia works very hard to dumb itself down to a level that people merely a few thousand times smarter and more educated than you, ie no smarter than a reasonably sober high school dropout, would have a shot at quoting it in something like a correct context.

For real understanding, you would need a text book calculated for education, and the book is not the one only I can see. You would have seen it if you valued a real education more than your bible, and had taken a real math or physics class in a moderately dutiful high school, dumfuck.

Unlike what you might think, most people on this forum do value a real education, and have seen such text books, so I don't need to quote anything to defend elementary concepts in physics. If you can't follow what I am saying, then trash the fucking bible, stop wasting your time with your moronic and moronically inept evangelizing, and go take some classes in math and physics.

Now, where were we, oh, yet. We are talking about the acceleration of gravity. not acceleration of a particular OBJECT tethered on a string, or acceleration of something floating in the air under helium balloon. In other words, acceleration of GRAVITY, dumbass.

The net acceleration of any object is equal to it mass, times the VECTOR SUM of all forces acting on it. Of these forces, gravity is just ONE. By distributive property, net acceleration of any object is equal to the vector sum of separate components of acceleration individually caused by the different forces acting on the object.

Air drag, WHEN AN OBJECT IS MOVING THROUGH THE AIR, dependent on air density, and imposed its own drag force, and it's own acceleration. But If you had the brain of an ameba, you might have realized you force of gravity acts on the object even when an object is instantaneously AT REST in relation to the air, when it is experiencing no drag whatsoever as a result. And force of gravity, causing ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY, is therefore independent of air drag.

Has a few words of the bible fallen out of your head through your ears to make way for this slightly clearer understanding of how one elementary component of how the real world works, drippy?

No? I didn't think so.