by AWPrime » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 14:23:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raphael', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AWPrime', ' ')Those links have nothing to do with the topic; they are mere tests involving free-fall.
Please answer why they chose 22 seconds as the duration of the 'free fall' (simulated zero gravity), and they suggest 32 complete trips of simulated free fall....why did they choose those as the VARIABLES?
22 seconds because there is only so much airspace avialable (we don't want to crash into the ground now would we?). And 32 trips to get enough time, this also limited by the amount of fuel.
Any number is possible just look at this link, you will find many instances of freefall, being longer, shorter, done only one time of more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n regards to altering your SpaceTime reality .... to a SpaceMotion reality you will need to do some more reading and purging...
This reality is supported by Milos Wolfe, a world class physicist...
http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/index.php Who? For a world class, he sure is an unknown in scientific circles. I did have a look at his work, it does a 'oke' job at deriving inertial equivalence, but stops just short of the full answer. Then there are other faults such as that his work lacks even a single one testable prediction and that is mostly useless.
And it doesn't support your notions.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he physics / science establishment did not accept Einstein's ideas either back in 1905.
by AWPrime » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 19:45:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raphael', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AWPrime', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raphael', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AWPrime', ' ')Those links have nothing to do with the topic; they are mere tests involving free-fall.
Please answer why they chose 22 seconds as the duration of the 'free fall' (simulated zero gravity), and they suggest 32 complete trips of simulated free fall....why did they choose those as the VARIABLES?
22 seconds because there is only so much airspace avialable (we don't want to crash into the ground now would we?). And 32 trips to get enough time, this also limited by the amount of fuel.
Any number is possible just look at this link, you will find many instances of freefall, being longer, shorter, done only one time of more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall Your responses are fucking laughable...not enough fuel...trips limited by the amount of fuel....
WHY WOULD YOUR SCIENCE GODS CHOOSE THOSE NUMBERS MISTER?
by AWPrime » Sun 14 Jan 2007, 15:03:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raphael', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AWPrime', 'T')oo bad you can't give any argument. Maybe your just afraid that I will destroy it just like the silly number argument you just had.
Ever heard of the Bourbon Codex....connected to 22 in a very big way.
HEH ... did ya know the Hebrew alphabet has 22 letters.
HEH ... did ya know the Major arcana of the Tarot has 22 archetypes.
And it has nothing to do with freefall. Are we getting more, number masturbation from you?
Raphael, you should just stop the empty preaching and start making arguments. And these arguments shouldn’t be based on imaginary facts such as your freefall numbers.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')RAVITY ITSELF PROVES IT BY THE WAY. GRAVITY SAYS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS CONNECTED.
And this connection is limited to gravitational effects. But you don’t let reality stop you, do you?
by katkinkate » Mon 15 Jan 2007, 05:36:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('greenworm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's not wrong. The higher tides at full and new moon are a result of the added effect of the sun's gravity pulling the same or opposite directions from the moon. But the moon's gravity is still constant (varying only with distance from the earth). So there! Razz
That is exactly what I am saying, wtf, are you arguing? Some sort of semantics? All of my links are proving the point you just made. What you just stated backs up my claims 100%. Hence, during full moons there is a stronger gravitational pull and plants will tend to go through a growth spurt. Why are we arguing, we are literally saying the same exact thing?
![[smilie=violent1.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/violent1.gif "violent1")
Firstly, the original post I reacted to seemed to be saying that the moon's gravitational pull varied with the phases. Which it doesn't. You said basically, 'Yes it does.' and added the sun's gravitational pull to back up your argument.
Secondly I would posit that at the full moon, the total upward gravitational pull (at night) would actually be reduced, because the sun's gravitational pull would be added to the earth's, thus increasing the downward pull to counteract the moon's upward pull (until daytime when it would be reversed). It would be the new moon when the total gravitational pull from both the moon and the sun would be combined in the one direction, although at night, that direction would be with the earth's, ie downwards and the combined upwards pull would be during the day.
I would suggest, as the moon passes overhead every 25 hours, 36 minutes and some seconds (with it's constant gravity) that the gravity may have less effect on plants than that of the extra light available at full moon, which is the only true 'variable' element.
Kind regards, Katkinkate
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
by AWPrime » Fri 26 Jan 2007, 13:30:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raphael', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AWPrime', 'O')nly 200 year?
Rapheal, I find you lacking in wisdom.
Out of the entire article you reply that some other guys timeline in regards to sacred text is off? Important thing to realize MR. DETAIL is this ... it predates the appearance of the poster boy Jesus. As does the Elephant Headed Indian God Ganesh who also coincidently was born of an immaculate conception.
The article is a waste of bits because it doesn't check the claims. And because it doesn't give any evidence to exclude any other interpetation.
