Why knocking is so important.

[Drich]

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.'

---

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.
)

---

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.