Supposing for a moment that the government does guard it solely by posting men on it, these men are 150 in the air. From that hight they can see at least 15 miles in every relevant direction (this of course is calculating using the RE model... on a FE they might see farther). Thus you can cover the whole wall with just 78,225/30 = 2608 men.
You can decrease it further by giving them snowmobiles and having them ride between waypoints. If they can ride 10 mph and still keep an eye on things, then in one hour one sixth the previous number -- or 652 men -- can cover the wall in an hour. In fact, doing this gives them better coverage, since this way their 15-mile-radius field of vision doesn't have any holes.
Now take the terrain into account -- much of the Ice Wall is probably unapproachable except by air -- and you can trim down the numbers even further.
Strategically locate some helicopter pads (on the wall or floating) and you can have heavy armament on the scene in thirty minutes. Assuming an Apache helicopter can fly 150 mph, in that time they could fly 75 miles, so we would need to place pads every 150 miles, requiring 521 pads. Obviously, if you don't insist on thirty-minute response time, you can do with fewer. Don't forget that the watchmen can see 15 miles away from the wall, so thirty minutes should be more than enough to intercept any boat that tries to approach, snap pictures, and sail to safety.
Of course, this is all assuming that the only means our governments have of detecting trespassers is by looking with their eyes. We're neglecting radar and high-altitude spyplanes, probably with infrared cameras.
We're also neglecting intelligence. Anybody who wants to travel to the ice wall has to leave from someplace, and these someplaces can be watched by agents as well. There aren't too many good places to set on on such a journey from. Then, such expeditions would also have to be planned, and agents could get words about them before they even start. Once they've started, agents could monitor radio transmissions. If they can discover tresspassers a thousand miles away instead of only fifteen, then maybe they don't need so big a force as you say.
Here's where this organization is going to fail. We are approaching a generation where it will cost about $1,000,000 for any average joe (millionaire) to go into space. Go into space yourself before you call astronauts bribed liars and try to disprove science. Actually, no FE'ers are scientists nor have any of them graduated from an Ivy League school. The engineer said "Well I'm an engineer, does that count?" - no, no it certainly does not because ur-anus is flatter than the earth is, even if you had a bubblebutt.
Five hundred men to guard your "ice wall?" Do you think the world is, like, a hundred miles in its circumfrence, or something? Or would you plan on having one man to guard several hundred kilometers of land at a time?
Another thing, you should check some basic economics, because giving that much money away every year would put so much of it in circulation that the U.S. dollar wouldn't be worth shit. (seriously, shit is worth something to some people, but that money actually costs something to print so it would be worth less than nothing)
Really? Because where I live, my food costs the same, my car was still the same price, airline tickets are cheaper, gas is cheaper; I get either the same amount or more for the same price today than I did yesterday or last week. Where do you live?
I just don't understand the point of certain things then.
http://www.spacedaily.com/images/hubble-ultradeep-desk-800.jpg
Why was that picture faked? What is the point?
What was the point of NASA claiming that they lost contact with Voyager 2? Why have they said they've discovered 40 new moons of Jupiter in the past two decades?
Why did they release a fake story about a new storm seen on Saturn?
Why make up stuff about the location of the Pioneer satellites? Why fake a picture of the earth from billions of miles away?
Why did they make up the fact that they just sent the New Horizons mission to Pluto? What is their motivation for continually telling the public of the launching of fake satellites?
Why did they make up the fact that they just sent the New Horizons mission to Pluto? What is their motivation for continually telling the public of the launching of fake satellites?
Embarrassment:
So, the government messed up at a really bad time to mess up, and they've been pooling all of the already-angry tax-payers' money into research that eventually led to a less-than-exciting discovery: The Earth is flat. Everyone was wrong. Millions (probably billions) of dollars of money that didn't really belong to them had been basically tossed down the drain for research of the round Earth, when, in fact it was flat. So, instead of angering people and possibly even sparking a revolt of some sort, they made up some stuff. And you know how lies tend to roll and get bigger and bigger until they're inescapable? I'd say a worldwide conspiracy is that concept...to the max.
Money:
You no longer get the big fat paychecks from the conspirators. After all of the press wears out, and starts ignoring you again--meaning no more cash from interviews--you'll probably have to start working again.
Government Paychecks:
It's very possible that the conspiracy runs by just sucking money out of the government that they are underneath. Seeing as the head honchos in those governments don't have to know about the conspiracy, it'd be pretty easy to take money from the government. Also, even if the leaders DID know, it's tax money that's going into the space exploration research, so really, they'd still be pulling profit. Basically, if you chose to believe this option, the leaders of the conspiracy are taking tax money and getting filthy stinking rich off of it. Sounds like a motive to me.
You idiot, 'NASA' stands for North American Space Association.
So FE'ers don't want to tell people the truth, they want to start a world wide panic?
Fucking terrorists.
But wait.......
Quote from: "GUN"You idiot, 'NASA' stands for North American Space Association.
You should watch who you call an idiot. NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Quote from: "Jveritas8"I just don't understand the point of certain things then.
http://www.spacedaily.com/images/hubble-ultradeep-desk-800.jpg
Why was that picture faked? What is the point?
What was the point of NASA claiming that they lost contact with Voyager 2? Why have they said they've discovered 40 new moons of Jupiter in the past two decades?
Why did they release a fake story about a new storm seen on Saturn?
Why make up stuff about the location of the Pioneer satellites? Why fake a picture of the earth from billions of miles away?
Why did they make up the fact that they just sent the New Horizons mission to Pluto? What is their motivation for continually telling the public of the launching of fake satellites?
Don't you listen? NASA is doing all that because it is going to make them rich and powerful.
Quote from: "GUN"You idiot, 'NASA' stands for North American Space Association.
You should watch who you call an idiot. NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Another thing I thought of - you say that the leaders of this conspiracy are getting fat paychecks from the "funding".
But I thought that this "funding" went towards paying for the advanced digital imaging equipment and computers used to fake space exploration.
So which is it?
...if my caculations are correct...
Quote from: "wuttttttttup"...if my caculations are correct...
Something tells me they aren't.
this is the sorriest most pathetic attempt i have seen yet from an FEer at trying to argue anything.
Quote from: "wuttttttttup"this is the sorriest most pathetic attempt i have seen yet from an FEer at trying to argue anything.
You have not been talking to any.
Who said I wasn't one? I simply stated that the person you were talking to (Masterchief) is not a FE'er.
Wutup, read my signiture. It will all become clear.
obviously you havent found Erasmus's thread about guarding the ice wall either. he based it on gaurds patrolling on snowmobiles from spaced out stations. it made sense. i'll have a browse for it in a tick and see if can link you guys.
No, I read it. It's simply absurd. There's still hundreds and hundreds of miles of land for each man. And snowmobiles? You don't drive snowmobiles on a wall of ice!
No, I read it. It's simply absurd. There's still hundreds and hundreds of miles of land for each man. And snowmobiles? You don't drive snowmobiles on a wall of ice!
Quote from: "The Dragon Reborn"
No, I read it. It's simply absurd. There's still hundreds and hundreds of miles of land for each man. And snowmobiles? You don't drive snowmobiles on a wall of ice!
You can't drive a snowmobile on land covered in snow?
They guard the wall and probably don't drive on it very often, for fear of sliding off the earth.
First off, the ice wall is on land. I would assume the land has some good thickness to it.
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"Wutup, read my signiture. It will all become clear.
LOL
Engineer! You have a fanclub of n00bs! Congratulations!
.../jealousy.
~D-Draw
What's a n00b?
Quote from: "phaseshifter"What's a n00b?
In this case, a n00b refers to anyone who thinks they've beaten TheEngineer in a debate, and put a slanderous remark about him in their signature (which is a violation of forum rules, by the way).
Quote from: "phaseshifter"What's a n00b?
In this case, a n00b refers to anyone who thinks they've beaten TheEngineer in a debate, and put a slanderous remark about him in their signature (which is a violation of forum rules, by the way).
_________________
The Engineer is a douchebag.
As is GeoGuy.
How is it violating rules to call The Engineer a douchebag? You might as well ban me for saying the sky is blue.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws
What's a n00b?
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"
How is it violating rules to call The Engineer a douchebag? You might as well ban me for saying the sky is blue.
From the terms and conditions you agreed to when you registered on the site:QuoteYou agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws
abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws
Whatever, guys. Let's get things back on-topic. I have yet to see any real evidence on why this stuff doesn't make sense. Irrationality does not apply as an argument in debate, seeing as (1) there are a LOT of irrational people in this world, and (2) rationality is based on a personal set of beliefs, and I doubt that the case of rationality can be solidly...rationalized. :PI really hope you're joking. You're ignoring all the posts that have valid questions/concerns. Do not ignore this one.
~D-Draw
Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.
Uh oh, someone needs a diaper.Quote from: "rr332211"Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.
Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.
Gravity makes perfect sense? Can you explain what gravity is? I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.
Gravity is that force that will crush you when I drop a brick on your head from space.
How many times have people explained gravity to engineer already?
Quote from: "phaseshifter"How many times have people explained gravity to engineer already?
Lots of people have explained it to him. But as of yet not a single person has answerd his question.
Yes they did, he wanted to know how it works and it was explained to him.
What do you mean by that? Give a more specific question.Quote from: "rr332211"Gravity is that force that will crush you when I drop a brick on your head from space.
The brick will 'crush' me, not gravity. If gravity is not magical, why can't you tell me how it works?
Even if you don't believe in gravity, I'll put the same spotlight on you. How do things fall?
Quote from: "rr332211"
Even if you don't believe in gravity, I'll put the same spotlight on you. How do things fall?
Things don't fall, Earth accelerates up to them.
Quote from: "GeoGuy"Quote from: "rr332211"
Even if you don't believe in gravity, I'll put the same spotlight on you. How do things fall?
Things don't fall, Earth accelerates up to them.
So... why is the earth accelerating? And, with the earth moving upward at 1g, why aren't our legs crushed each time we jump in the air?
So... why is the earth accelerating?
why aren't our legs crushed each time we jump in the air?
Quote from: "Stapler117"Quote from: "GeoGuy"Quote from: "rr332211"
Even if you don't believe in gravity, I'll put the same spotlight on you. How do things fall?
Things don't fall, Earth accelerates up to them.
So... why is the earth accelerating? And, with the earth moving upward at 1g, why aren't our legs crushed each time we jump in the air?
The mechanism the causes the acceleration is still unknown. Why would your legs get crushed?
Of course the mechanism is unknown.
Why wouldn't your legs get crushed? Its moving at 1g towards your legs, what the hell do you think is going to happen? How about you go stand on a hydrolic platform that can accelerate upwards at 1g (in theory) and then jump. Yea, it will fucking suck.
Quote from: "Stapler117"
Of course the mechanism is unknown.
Well, what is the mechanism that causes gravity?
Think about it. Your ideas are so geocentric...so you're saying Earth moves upwards at us, yet other SPHERICAL planets are completely different "somehow", but "gravity doesn't exist". They don't move upwards, yet they all have different amounts of Gs? You're retarded. Why would our planet be so different? And if we moved upwards, yet other things followed, they'd have to have the same amount of Gs, using your assumptions about the world. But, that's wrong.QuoteWhy wouldn't your legs get crushed? Its moving at 1g towards your legs, what the hell do you think is going to happen? How about you go stand on a hydrolic platform that can accelerate upwards at 1g (in theory) and then jump. Yea, it will fucking suck.
So when you jump upwards on the RE, you are accelerating towards the ground at 1g. How many broken legs have you had?
All mass attracts other mass. Earth has a lot of mass, and we don't, so we get attracted to Earth more than Earth is attracted to us.
I can't. But I can pretty much disprove the Earth moving up thing. When you jump, the "gravity" in the flat Earth model would be so fast that if you jump once, then jump again in 3 seconds, you'll fall faster the second time.Quote from: "rr332211"
All mass attracts other mass. Earth has a lot of mass, and we don't, so we get attracted to Earth more than Earth is attracted to us.
As I said, saying "Mass attracts mass" is describing the properties of gravity. What Engineer's asking you is why mass attracts mass.
I can't. But I can pretty much disprove the Earth moving up thing. When you jump, the "gravity" in the flat Earth model would be so fast that if you jump once, then jump again in 3 seconds, you'll fall faster the second time.
Exactly my point. Take the difference between 2^2 and 3^2, and 3^2 and 4^2, for example. 4 and 9, 9 and 16...5 and 7. Different numbers. You'd fall faster as time goes by. But that doesn't happen. Earth accelerating upwards hypothesis = WRONG.Quote from: "rr332211"I can't. But I can pretty much disprove the Earth moving up thing. When you jump, the "gravity" in the flat Earth model would be so fast that if you jump once, then jump again in 3 seconds, you'll fall faster the second time.
No, that wouldn't happen at all actually. Earth is not just moving upwards, it's accelerating upwards.
Exactly my point.
I'm talking about jumping, smartass.Quote from: "rr332211"Exactly my point.
When standing on the ground my velocity relative to Earth never changes, it's always om/s.
I'm talking about jumping, smartass.
Basically, what I'm saying is "gravity" increases with time, if the velocity increases with time. Therefore, you can't jump as high/you fall faster as time goes on. Also, the force would probably crush you. And the whole entire planet. Oh wait, sorry, it's already "flat". Well, it'd get flatter, mountains would disappear, and water would crush through the Earth.Quote from: "rr332211"I'm talking about jumping, smartass.
I know, it's just that what you're saying makes no sense. How can I possibly start jumping at different speeds if I am always moving the same speed at the start of each jump?
Basically, what I'm saying is "gravity" increases with time, if the velocity increases with time.
Yeah, on the surface. When you jump, you become susceptible to the full effects of the Earth's velocity. And the effects drastically increase with time.Quote from: "rr332211"Basically, what I'm saying is "gravity" increases with time, if the velocity increases with time.
And bascially what I'm saying is that Earth's velocity relative to objects on its surface doesn't increase over time.
Yeah, on the surface. When you jump, you become susceptible to the full effects of the Earth's velocity. And the effects drastically increase with time.
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.Wait, sorry, you're right. I'm retarded, and was completely screwing something up.
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.
Actually it does.
If the earth wasn't spinning, the pull of gravity on us would be a bit higher, mostly at the equator.
Wait, sorry, you're right. I'm retarded, and was completely screwing something up.
Still doesn't explain gravity on other celestial bodies...such as the moon. Because humans HAVE been on the moon.
Quote from: "rr332211"Wait, sorry, you're right. I'm retarded, and was completely screwing something up.
Still doesn't explain gravity on other celestial bodies...such as the moon. Because humans HAVE been on the moon.
Yup, and humans have been to Tattooine, and Hoth; oh! And don't forget Middle Earth! That looked real, didn't it? Damned real.
~D-Draw
We *know* those places are not real penguinface. Stop being a dick and go have sex with your mom.
Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"We *know* those places are not real penguinface. Stop being a dick and go have sex with your mom.
Yeah, well with your logic, seeing as apparently it's simply impossible to edit video and photos, those places MUST have been real. I mean, the movie pretended they were real, so theoretically, they would be.
~D-DRaw
You people are ignorant, stupid, retards.
Noone said that we cant edit videos. But what I am saying is we are not standing on Hoth right now, or Middle Earth.
FYI you can see where LOTR was filmed, its in New Zeland.
^Seeing as it's possible that the guards have no connection to the government at all...Plus, the whole border thing is a really, really stupid controversy anyways. Fucking Republicans...Quote from: "Joseph Bloom"Noone said that we cant edit videos. But what I am saying is we are not standing on Hoth right now, or Middle Earth.
FYI you can see where LOTR was filmed, its in New Zeland.
So? Twilight Zone did a pretty good job at making it look like some astronauts were on some sort of crazy, alien planet, and that was in the late '50s to early '60s. All they did was find a stretch of desert that looked untreaded (on Earth) and said it was an alien planet.
By the way, IT'S A COOKBOOK! :o
~D-Draw
GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.
I GIVE UP.
I think Joseph was trying to say that the earth is real not fiction. We know this because we are standing on it right now.
that's not being nice. that's just absurd. ONE PERSON TO KNOW THIS DEADLY GOVERNMENTAL SECRET. its just the most insane thing i have ever come across. ONE PERSON. ONE PERSON to control all the GPS companies and keep down this big lie, pretending satellites are orbiting the earth, with no questions asked.
i cannot articulate how moronic these calculations/this theory is...
I GIVE UP. YOU PEOPLE ARE A LOST CAUSE.
Quote from: "dantheman40k"I think Joseph was trying to say that the earth is real not fiction. We know this because we are standing on it right now.
Right, but that doesn't mean that we know what shape it is. I really don't see where this is strengthening your argument.
~D-Draw
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"Quote from: "dantheman40k"I think Joseph was trying to say that the earth is real not fiction. We know this because we are standing on it right now.
Right, but that doesn't mean that we know what shape it is. I really don't see where this is strengthening your argument.
~D-Draw
We know wat shape it is, a sphere.
We know wat shape it is, a sphere.
That's an important point, have to say. Every few threads someone says things like
"We can't be sure. *blaaaaa* *pseudo-philosophical and pseudo-psychological gibberish.*"
or something like
"It's just a mind-game. *oversestimates everything* *admire some FE'ers* They are trying to make people think about *whatever*. *some more blind worship*".
But, and no read very carefully, that's not true. There's nothing to discuss or think about. The fact ist that the earth is a globe. And that can't be changed - whatever people say in a bosh forum.
And that is the reason why I don't take anything here serious - but hey, it's still a bit fun.
What about explanations that show that it can't be spherical?
Would be great as well
No, the point is: If the earh is a globe it can't be flat. And the earth is a globe. If you want to doubt that, you need something that shows that it isn't. Explanations how it could be another shape are worth n o t h i n g.
The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Honestly, by the way it seems on TV, those things are so unstable, no one would ever EVER doubt that someone died while in space due to some random accident (add a bunch of jargon and you've got an incredibly convincing reason for death).
The way it seems on TV- TV which is controlled by the nasty, nasty government. You trust them on this I take it?
(add a bunch of jargon and you've got an incredibly convincing reason for death)- Just because you do not understand something so complex as the varying degrees of danger involved with space travel, you can't write it off as 'a bunch of jargon'.
You are actually making me physically sick due to your rather overwhwlming ignorance. Please stop hindering the development of the intellectual world.
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.
ROFL
Quote from: "daniel_is_not_flat"Quote from: "daniel_is_not_flat"Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.
ROFL
Do you disagree?
no, i have finally found the universal truth and i started to laugh uncontrollably.
i just wish you could see it too man.
How Does The Conspiracy Benefit?
This is not easily answered, but I've taken some insight into this and made some estimates on how the conspiracy could be making money:
Government Paychecks:
It's very possible that the conspiracy runs by just sucking money out of the government that they are underneath. Seeing as the head honchos in those governments don't have to know about the conspiracy, it'd be pretty easy to take money from the government. Also, even if the leaders DID know, it's tax money that's going into the space exploration research, so really, they'd still be pulling profit. Basically, if you chose to believe this option, the leaders of the conspiracy are taking tax money and getting filthy stinking rich off of it. Sounds like a motive to me.
Display of Power:
Some people are control freaks. Maybe they get a rush from showing that they can change everyone's mind about the true shape of the Earth.
Embarrassment:
So, the government messed up at a really bad time to mess up, and they've been pooling all of the already-angry tax-payers' money into research that eventually led to a less-than-exciting discovery: The Earth is flat. Everyone was wrong. Millions (probably billions) of dollars of money that didn't really belong to them had been basically tossed down the drain for research of the round Earth, when, in fact it was flat. So, instead of angering people and possibly even sparking a revolt of some sort, they made up some stuff. And you know how lies tend to roll and get bigger and bigger until they're inescapable? I'd say a worldwide conspiracy is that concept...to the max.
Recruitment/Faithfulness:
Similar to the one above. Maybe the future-conspirators were ashamed that they hadn't reached out to space yet, and they felt that the people were getting hasty and impatient with them, so they decided to say they did it, and qualm the welling resentment of them, so they could ACTUALLY send people into space on a later date, without a bunch of morons knocking on their doorstep asking when they would be done with their space ship.
Unfortunately, they later realized that they were wrong the whole time, and therefore had to uphold the conspiracy, lest they be accused of lying, and therefore reverting the resentment to its original state.
As you can see, the conspiracy is not only logical, but it's, in its own way, actually quite plausible. With all of these concepts in your face, it's hard to refute AT LEAST the possibility of a conspiracy covering up the shape of the Earth.
So, are the current and past "top three" of NASA stinking rich? How about their russian and chinese counterparts? How they could cover up for decades that they are stinking rich, and at the same time enjoy the benefits? Secret holiday oasis for them and their families in the heavily guarded Antarctica?
Showing to who? To the couple of dozen other ppl that are in it too? Must be a real rush.
They suddenly found out that Earth is actually flat, and thought "this is a less-than-exciting discovery"? Rrright... how many scientists would cover up a finding that would basically guarantee a Nobel prize and pretty much change the world forever?
That's actually just a repeat of the "Embarrassment" reasoning...
Actually, with these concepts it's not hard at all to refute the possibility of a conspiracy of this type. The motives alone would be sub-par even for a b-movie. No wonder there hasn't been a movie about the FE conspiracy; it's too ridiculous even for Hollywood. :lol:
I guess they're just good about not spending their money all in one place.
What does the entertainment-value of a theory have to do with its validity? :?
Quote
What does the entertainment-value of a theory have to do with its validity? :?
Nothing. Just tried to point out how ridiculous your claims sound to anyone who has a clue.
When you are making a conspiracy theory you need real, solid evidence to prove the common ideology wrong. You guys have none of that though.
Quote from: "ULTIMA-W"When you are making a conspiracy theory you need real, solid evidence to prove the common ideology wrong. You guys have none of that though.
:shock:
Why ask me a question if you're just going to delete the answer? :lol:
So the wall would need atmosphere on the other side to keep from being boiled away very very quickly.
You ask for a definition of gravity
You assume a moving mass going at 1g would act like gravity.
If there was no gravity, then by rights, the movement of the plane at 1g would mean everything on the plane would be moving at that same speed.
Meaning? There would be no gravity sensation.
The only way to achieve 'gravity' in your scenario is to have a constant acceleration. That in itself would mean that we would be gaining speed at 10m/s/s.
If I took into account the biblical 6000 years of the universe we would be moving at approximately 688746240000000m/s by now and growing.
"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."
QuoteIf I took into account the biblical 6000 years of the universe we would be moving at approximately 688746240000000m/s by now and growing.
What? That's faster then light. That's not even possible. You should read up on this thing called Relativity.
The constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.
QuoteThe constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.
Nope. The accelerating earth will continue to approach the speed of light without reaching it. Take a few basic Physics courses at your local community college before posting here again.
QuoteThe constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.
Nope. The accelerating earth will continue to approach the speed of light without reaching it. Take a few basic Physics courses at your local community college before posting here again.
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"QuoteThe constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.
Nope. The accelerating earth will continue to approach the speed of light without reaching it. Take a few basic Physics courses at your local community college before posting here again.
Lol!
To continue 'accelerating' your need to go faster is prevalent. The speed of light isn't a moving scale that you can never reach, its a constant that cannot be reached because of the massive amounts of energy required.
Besides, we have already figured that Relativity cannot exist because Gravity doesnt, so crossing the speed of light threshold shouldn't be a problem.
(Add edit)
Speed of light = 299,792,458m/s
Acceleration needed = 9.8m/s/s
So every second it needs to move 9.8m faster than the previous second. Why dont you go take a few lessons before making assumptions (http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20030306)?
(B.Phy, UTAS)
Quote from: "Marcis"Quote from: "Tom Bishop"QuoteThe constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.
Nope. The accelerating earth will continue to approach the speed of light without reaching it. Take a few basic Physics courses at your local community college before posting here again.
Lol!
To continue 'accelerating' your need to go faster is prevalent. The speed of light isn't a moving scale that you can never reach, its a constant that cannot be reached because of the massive amounts of energy required.
Besides, we have already figured that Relativity cannot exist because Gravity doesnt, so crossing the speed of light threshold shouldn't be a problem.
(Add edit)
Speed of light = 299,792,458m/s
Acceleration needed = 9.8m/s/s
So every second it needs to move 9.8m faster than the previous second. Why dont you go take a few lessons before making assumptions (http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20030306)?
(B.Phy, UTAS)
OMFG You idiots seriously need to stop using Galilean velocity transformations near the speed of light. Use Lorentz like the rest of us.
Matter becomes more massive as it accelerates, and at the speed of light, an object would have infinite mass.
To accelerate an object of non-zero rest mass to c would require infinite time with any finite acceleration, or infinite acceleration for a finite amount of time
Either way, such acceleration requires infinite energy. Going beyond the speed of light in a homogeneous space would hence require more than infinite energy, which is not a sensible notion.
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"Quote from: "Marcis"Quote from: "Tom Bishop"QuoteThe constant acceleration would fail at the speed of light as nothing can provide enough power to cross the infinite plane required.
Nope. The accelerating earth will continue to approach the speed of light without reaching it. Take a few basic Physics courses at your local community college before posting here again.
Lol!
To continue 'accelerating' your need to go faster is prevalent. The speed of light isn't a moving scale that you can never reach, its a constant that cannot be reached because of the massive amounts of energy required.
Besides, we have already figured that Relativity cannot exist because Gravity doesnt, so crossing the speed of light threshold shouldn't be a problem.
(Add edit)
Speed of light = 299,792,458m/s
Acceleration needed = 9.8m/s/s
So every second it needs to move 9.8m faster than the previous second. Why dont you go take a few lessons before making assumptions (http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20030306)?
(B.Phy, UTAS)
OMFG You idiots seriously need to stop using Galilean velocity transformations near the speed of light. Use Lorentz like the rest of us.QuoteMatter becomes more massive as it accelerates, and at the speed of light, an object would have infinite mass.
To accelerate an object of non-zero rest mass to c would require infinite time with any finite acceleration, or infinite acceleration for a finite amount of time
Either way, such acceleration requires infinite energy. Going beyond the speed of light in a homogeneous space would hence require more than infinite energy, which is not a sensible notion.
Remind me again where I am using Galilean Transformations again?
You ... need to stop using Galilean velocity transformations near the speed of light. Use Lorentz like the rest of us.
Here's where this organization is going to fail. We are approaching a generation where it will cost about $1,000,000 for any average joe (millionaire) to go into space. Go into space yourself before you call astronauts bribed liars and try to disprove science. Actually, no FE'ers are scientists nor have any of them graduated from an Ivy League school. The engineer said "Well I'm an engineer, does that count?" - no, no it certainly does not because ur-anus is flatter than the earth is, even if you had a bubblebutt.
Then I guess it's a good thing it's made of rock.IT'S A WALL MADE OF ICE. Ice is as much rock as water is.
I suppose you think your "Antarctica" is made entirely of ice as well? :o
also, the people that i have met who have been into space are very nice people and would not live their whole lives a fake.
i was chosen from accross thousands in scotland to go to space school. i've met many astonauts from america, china and russia and have seen their personal photos of earth that they took. there are hundreds of these pictures for every single mission. could anyone really spend time faking hundreds of photos every time theres a flight. also, the people that i have met who have been into space are very nice people and would not live their whole lives a fake.
i was chosen from accross thousands in scotland to go to space school. i've met many astonauts from america, china and russia and have seen their personal photos of earth that they took. there are hundreds of these pictures for every single mission. could anyone really spend time faking hundreds of photos every time theres a flight. also, the people that i have met who have been into space are very nice people and would not live their whole lives a fake.
I'm also curious. To Flat Earthers, what is the westernmost continent in the world?There is no such thing.
The stars of the night sky do scroll by in a circular fashion. ::)
How about the sun, moon, and planets? ;D
The stars of the night sky do scroll by in a circular fashion. ::)Every model of a flat earth and a hovering sun fails to explain the apparent circular motion of the stars that you acknowledge. You cannot have it both ways: either you deny this "circular fashion" or you present a model of a flat earth that predicts this result. If you can show a model where this circular fashion and the apparent position of Polaris (the North Star) can be predicted for different latitudes, you just have to publish it and wait for your Nobel Prize. Your problem is one of laziness, of looking too much into the books about the Cosmos and not enough into the Cosmos itself.
Quotealso, the people that i have met who have been into space are very nice people and would not live their whole lives a fake.
I'm sure that Hitler was a nice fellow deep down inside.
Given that the circumference of a FE is very important for determining how far out the government conspiracy agents have to be posted, I'd say that's a very important factor indeed.
Joking aside, the wall can't be too far out, otherwise there'd be a vast, twilight land out past antarctica (which doesn't make sense given the angle of sunlight in antarctica) where sunlight couldn't reach.
Hey Guys.. I've been reading the forum for the past few days and decided to sign up... I was wondering about something and I'm hoping that the FE'ers can provide me some sort of explanation about it.. This thought came to me at about page 5 of this thread, but I didn't want to have my first post be mostly quotes.. ???First, you need to review some basic physics. The FEers claim, without evidence, that the FE is accelerating, not moving, at a constant rate. The acceleration provides the replacement for gravity.
So... the earth is flat, and is a disc-shaped structure that is moving 'upward' at a speed that allows for the velocity of the movement to supply what we refer to as gravity. At the same time every other celestial body, or the universe in general if you will, is ascending at this same rate... Is the velocity of this flat earth constant? And if so how does it remain constant when material forces are applied to it. I understand that most burn up in the atmosphere, but meteorites /do/ get through on occasion and over the course of the earth's history (I know the FE model presents a shorter one but I have yet to find the number) it should very slowly pick away at the upward momentum. Other celestial bodies are, according to your model, allowed to be spherical. And many are much... much larger or without Atmo, or both. I am assuming the same applies to them.
So is there an explanation behind the /constant/ upward movement?
-= NOTE =-
I am new to the forum, and by no means a scientist. If there is somewhere else I should have posted this please just point me in the right direction.
I'm looking forward to discussions. :P
I read through the FAQ, but I wasn't aware that the Primer was something I had to download. I just finished it. I noted something amusing in it too...We're grateful for the review. Again, welcome. I look forward to your question.
FE standard evasion algorithm:
1. If first response, then respond "Read the FAQ".
The FAQ is a bit to handle at times, it's hard to keep up with all the side-barring without going over it a couple times. :/
Their method of explaining gravity makes more sense now that I give it more thought.. I'm going to have to find a thread on tides that's current and pose another question that's eating at me. :p
Second, you should know after lurking for a few days that there is one important document to review: the FE FAQ. Please make sure that you've read and understood it.Fixed it.
Second, you should know after lurking for a few days that there is one important document to review: the FE FAQ. Please make sure that you've read and understood it.Fixed it.
Unless something like an atmosphere prevented you from seeing it.
I agree. But how do we even know that this is even reality? Maybe the government has us all of us hooked to a machine filling our heads up with this stupid idea of "Earth". I read this article in a science journal, I think it was "Weekly World News" that stated "CONSPIRACY! The Government of the planet known as 'Philanx' has billions of people hooked up into a machine that makes every one a retard!", which proves that there is no such thing as reality.............. The EndWelcome to the FES boards, we don't have any cigars left so smoke this red candle that has "TNT" written on it instead.
That's what I got out of your post!I a ma retard! .............. The End
Roundyfilter™ FTW!That's what I got out of your post!I a ma retard! .............. The End
???;D
Quote from: rr332211Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.
Gravity makes perfect sense? Can you explain what gravity is? I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.
Quote from: phaseshifter
Another thing, you should check some basic economics, because giving that much money away every year would put so much of it in circulation that the U.S. dollar wouldn't be worth shit. (seriously, shit is worth something to some people, but that money actually costs something to print so it would be worth less than nothing)
The US puts 200 million dollars A DAY into the war in Iraq. If that has not devalued the dollar how will keeping a few thousand guards and equipment at the ready do it?
How do magnets work? Is one magnet constantly accelerating towards the other?lol? ???
Quote from: rr332211Gravity is that force that will crush you when I drop a brick on your head from space.The brick will 'crush' me, not gravity. If gravity is not magical, why can't you tell me how it works?
That's the point: You get to have a bunch of magical, unexplained mechanisms, so why can't the FE?
try telling the families of the soldiers who DIED in those wars that they were fake!Yeah, they died in the World War 2 movie.
"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature.Gravity specifically refers to Newton's version of the phenomenon.
The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's,Gravity and General Relativity are mutually exclusive.
although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.That's one of the major problems: It only works on objects with mass. Everything else is left out.
You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force.That's because gravity is a pseudo force. It doesn't actually exist as a force.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: F = Gm1m2/r^2. Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they doBut it is fundamentally flawed. It only affects objects with mass and violates Special Relativity. Plus, it claims there is some sort of force.
you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do)The FE has a way to calculate the observed acceleration using simple phyisics. The RE and Newton's formula had to be 'fudged' to provide the correct answer.
That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model. INCREDIBLY USEFUL.And fundamentally flawed.
RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.Quite the contrary, the RE continually marches towards complication and irrationality.
"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature.What about it?
The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's, although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.What about objects with no mass?
Gravity is also defined as one of the four fundamental "forces" of nature.It's four fundamental interactions.
You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force. So what is a force? How do forces work? In fact, what is energy? How does energy work? What is space? What is time? How do they work?A force is an influence. A force causes objects to accelerate. Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy permits objects to do work. Space is a three-dimensional quantity. Time is a measurement of events. Space and time allows events to occur; together, they become a four-dimensional continuum.
Btw, how is it that the brick crushes you? You can observe a sequence of events (brick lands on your head, head is crushed), but you cannot observe the causal relation between the brick landing on your head and your head being crushed (Hume). So why don't you explain what causality is, what it's made of, how it works, why it appears to exist, etc without invoking magic...Causality is a relation; you can't explain how does a relation work and why does it exist, but what is it. Gravity is a phenomenon; therefore, you have to explain what, how, where, when, where, and why does it work.
I can only speak from personal knowledge about Netwon's model, so I will use it as an analogy to explain why FE model is inferior.Do you even know that Newton was uncomfortable of what causes the force of gravity? Although he did not pretend that he knew how gravity works, he made no hypothesis to the thesis. Also, Newton thought that gravity should have a finite speed, but he fear that having such property would destroy all the agreements behind his theories and equations.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: F = Gm1m2/r^2. Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they do, you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do), you've also explained why the planets are relatively spherical, why the planets seem to orbit in elliptical paths, you've explained how much velocity an object needs to escape planet Earth (yes, I know many of you guys don't believe this is possible, but still), you've explained what sort of gravitational attractions between two objects 100 meters away need to be accounted for if you're measuring some motion between them to an absurd degree of accuracy, and on and on.Now, explain to me how do you put all those explanations for an object with no mass.
That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model. INCREDIBLY USEFUL.Right, useful only in inertial reference frames.
Exactly how is the flat Earth model useful in anywhere near the same degree as even Newton?You don't use the flat Earth to explain science. You use science to explain the flat Earth.
Why is RE better? Because it explains more with less arbitrary additions. You have a bunch LESS "magical, unexplained mechanisms" in RE then FE or at least in RE there is an uncanny degree of USEFULNESS and accurate and USEFUL predictions. In fact, the way things seem to be going, (assuming we can get a unified theory), RE will only need FOUR "magical, unexplained mechanisms."It's all about plausibility.
It may be that It Rests On Infinite Turtles. However, our models that predict a spherical earth are so much more useful and integrated than these FE models. The goal is to make a model that requires the least amount of arbitrary additions and that makes the most accurate predictions. RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.Right, but not 100%.
Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.And?
It appears that even Newton RE wins in those categories.It appears that Newton loses in a non-inertial frame of reference.
"Gravity" is simply a word to describe several seemingly different observations of nature.What about it?
The latest and most reliable models to predict it is Einstein's, although Newton's works fine with reasonable masses.What about objects with no mass?
Gravity is also defined as one of the four fundamental "forces" of nature.It's four fundamental interactions.
Gravitation is a more correct term than gravity. "Gravity" is the general term used to describe the phenomenon.
You seem to ridicule people who define gravity as a force. So what is a force? How do forces work? In fact, what is energy? How does energy work? What is space? What is time? How do they work?A force is an influence.
A force causes objects to accelerate.
Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy permits objects to do work.
Space is a three-dimensional quantity.
Time is a measurement of events.
Space and time allows events to occur; together, they become a four-dimensional continuum.
Now, explain what causes the force of gravity, how does it attract mass, and where does it come from.
Btw, how is it that the brick crushes you? You can observe a sequence of events (brick lands on your head, head is crushed), but you cannot observe the causal relation between the brick landing on your head and your head being crushed (Hume). So why don't you explain what causality is, what it's made of, how it works, why it appears to exist, etc without invoking magic...Causality is a relation; you can't explain how does a relation work and why does it exist, but what is it. Gravity is a phenomenon; therefore, you have to explain what, how, where, when, where, and why does it work.
I can only speak from personal knowledge about Netwon's model, so I will use it as an analogy to explain why FE model is inferior.Do you even know that Newton was uncomfortable of what causes the force of gravity? Although he did not pretend that he knew how gravity works, he made no hypothesis to the thesis. Also, Newton thought that gravity should have a finite speed, but he fear that having such property would destroy all the agreements behind his theories and equations.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: F = Gm1m2/r^2. Right there you've just explained in incredible accuracy not only how things fall and why they fall the way they do, you've also explained why the observed acceleration of Earth is exactly what it is (something FE doesn't seem to do), you've also explained why the planets are relatively spherical, why the planets seem to orbit in elliptical paths, you've explained how much velocity an object needs to escape planet Earth (yes, I know many of you guys don't believe this is possible, but still), you've explained what sort of gravitational attractions between two objects 100 meters away need to be accounted for if you're measuring some motion between them to an absurd degree of accuracy, and on and on.Now, explain to me how do you put all those explanations for an object with no mass.
That's Newton, which I hear has been dethroned recently, yet it is still an amazingly eloquent, accurate and USEFUL model. INCREDIBLY USEFUL.Right, useful only in inertial reference frames.
Exactly how is the flat Earth model useful in anywhere near the same degree as even Newton?You don't use the flat Earth to explain science. You use science to explain the flat Earth.
Why is RE better? Because it explains more with less arbitrary additions. You have a bunch LESS "magical, unexplained mechanisms" in RE then FE or at least in RE there is an uncanny degree of USEFULNESS and accurate and USEFUL predictions. In fact, the way things seem to be going, (assuming we can get a unified theory), RE will only need FOUR "magical, unexplained mechanisms."It's all about plausibility.
It may be that It Rests On Infinite Turtles. However, our models that predict a spherical earth are so much more useful and integrated than these FE models. The goal is to make a model that requires the least amount of arbitrary additions and that makes the most accurate predictions. RE models continually march towards simplicity and accuracy in predictions.Right, but not 100%.
Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions.And?
It appears that even Newton RE wins in those categories.It appears that Newton loses in a non-inertial frame of reference.
This turtle guy is funny. When he loses an argument or is shown to be incorrect, he just brings in questions to side-step the issue.
Please show where I have lost an argument.
Let me ask you this: How does science work?
I could just copy paste their entire responses to your "questions" or misunderstandings. I'd just re-read the thread if I were you.
Let me ask you this: How does science work?
Not sure what type of smart-ass answer you're looking for, but science doesn't "work." Science basically means knowledge.
If perhaps you're referring to the studying of the social or natural sciences, and the invocation of the scientific method, then there's obviously that. Either way, it comes down to majority opinion regarding subjective and valued aspects of reproducible events.
Do ANY of you understand what my point was?I sure didn't see any point.
try telling the families of the soldiers who DIED in those wars that they were fake!Yeah, they died in the World War 2 movie.
Science works like this:You mean like this:
observe a phenomenon
come up with a theory for the phenomenon
TEST the theory by conducting experiments
revise or reject the theory based on the RESULTS of those experiments
repeat
Science does not mean knowledge, but that's not relavent.
The entire point of my science comments were that in order to accept most FE models you must abandon a model that makes more accurate predictions yet is more integrated- which is exactly contrary to the scientific method (which involves accepting the more integrated model, given identical prediction ability)
also why do they have 15 mile long field of vision if the "atmosphere" causes the horizon to vanish after 3 miles
Science does not mean knowledge, but that's not relavent.
science
"1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
The entire point of my science comments were that in order to accept most FE models you must abandon a model that makes more accurate predictions yet is more integrated- which is exactly contrary to the scientific method (which involves accepting the more integrated model, given identical prediction ability)
That is an assumption many people make. FE doesn't necessarily involve abandoning the method of prediction; it merely requires different phenomena or explanations for the observations we encounter. Simply because a lot of FE work is in a type of infancy, and that the accuracy and simplification isn't quite there, doesn't mean that it can't be obtained in the future.
Do ANY of you understand what my point was?I sure didn't see any point.
According to divto the truthist, philosophy and science are the same thing.
You can't just highlight ONE or a few words in a definition and claim that the definition means those one or few words (unless of course the definition is one word...)
FE has been around for longer than RE. But even so, remember, it isn't just PREDICTIONS- it's INTEGRATION and SIMPLICITY. At this point, FE is woefully inferior. If it turns out some day that it becomes the better model, and the conspiracy is shown to be true, who in their right mind wouldn't drop mainstream physics in a heartbeat for it? But as you said, in it's "infancy" is simply doesn't cut it. Perhaps some day it will. In the mean time, I will be studying the model that is much more useful (although perhaps for entertainment purposes and thought experiments I'll study the currently inferior one as well).
According to divto the truthist, philosophy and science are the same thing.
Really? Where did I say that?
You can't just highlight ONE or a few words in a definition and claim that the definition means those one or few words (unless of course the definition is one word...)Do you know what the word basically means? Did you happen to miss definition #4?
FE has been around for longer than RE. But even so, remember, it isn't just PREDICTIONS- it's INTEGRATION and SIMPLICITY. At this point, FE is woefully inferior. If it turns out some day that it becomes the better model, and the conspiracy is shown to be true, who in their right mind wouldn't drop mainstream physics in a heartbeat for it? But as you said, in it's "infancy" is simply doesn't cut it. Perhaps some day it will. In the mean time, I will be studying the model that is much more useful (although perhaps for entertainment purposes and thought experiments I'll study the currently inferior one as well).
No one argues that it's currently inferior. But that also takes into account the assumptions people place in the fallacies they invoke.
If the atmosphere stops them seeing farther than 3 miles which is (in RE) curvature of the earth but same effect. How could technology allow them to see through it?also why do they have 15 mile long field of vision if the "atmosphere" causes the horizon to vanish after 3 miles
I think there was this thing called technology, but I'm not too sure.
which would not go un noticed.
Avoided answering as usualwhich would not go un noticed.
::)
Avoided answering as usual
Also a pipeline supplying power as was once suggested is impossible as that would also be easily spotted. And it takes a huge force of man power to perform such a feat. It was be noticed and information would leak.
So no pipe line. and no way of getting fuel to a power plants all the way around 78,000 miles of antarctica without it being noticed. solar arrays powerful enough power that much equipment and accomedation would be huge and visible from space (which you just proved possible by saying orbiting FE is possbile) Wind isn't an option as it wouldn't generate enough power, plus transporting such devices there would not go un noticed.Avoided answering as usual
Didn't avoid anything. The rolling of the eyes was the indication of your illogical assumption that someone would notice such a thing. You know, the very opposite of a planned conspiracy.Also a pipeline supplying power as was once suggested is impossible as that would also be easily spotted. And it takes a huge force of man power to perform such a feat. It was be noticed and information would leak.
Which probabilistically rules out a pipeline, good work.
So no pipe line. and no way of getting fuel to a power plants all the way around 78,000 miles of antarctica without it being noticed. solar arrays powerful enough power that much equipment and accomedation would be huge and visible from space (which you just proved possible by saying orbiting FE is possbile) Wind isn't an option as it wouldn't generate enough power, plus transporting such devices there would not go un noticed.
not making much sense this guard theory.
Satelling monitoring. governmental and civilian. You clearly made it possible to orbit FE. and since satellites such as the international space station can clearly visible from the ground, satellite monitoring is realistic and possible.So no pipe line. and no way of getting fuel to a power plants all the way around 78,000 miles of antarctica without it being noticed. solar arrays powerful enough power that much equipment and accomedation would be huge and visible from space (which you just proved possible by saying orbiting FE is possbile) Wind isn't an option as it wouldn't generate enough power, plus transporting such devices there would not go un noticed.
not making much sense this guard theory.
Visible from space...who are the ones orbiting the Earth? What are they using?
You seem to like the word unnoticed. I'd like to know on what assumptions you're basing such arguments.
Satelling monitoring. governmental and civilian. You clearly made it possible to orbit FE. and since satellites such as the international space station can clearly visible from the ground, satellite monitoring is realistic and possible.
Also, all those docking forms saying things like "3000 wind turbines to antarctica" would raise eyebrows
The civilian companies running the ships. all experiments in the antarctic are civilian operations.Satelling monitoring. governmental and civilian. You clearly made it possible to orbit FE. and since satellites such as the international space station can clearly visible from the ground, satellite monitoring is realistic and possible.
I said it was possible to orbit the FE, yes. However, not in the traditional sense.
I also said satellites exist. I never said they were used. You'd have to constantly eject mass to stay situated above the Earth.Also, all those docking forms saying things like "3000 wind turbines to antarctica" would raise eyebrows
Really? Compared to the scientific research and such is going on there, who would raise their eyebrows?
try telling the families of the soldiers who DIED in those wars that they were fake!Yeah, they died in the World War 2 movie.
hang on a min , u think ww2 didn't happen ?!?!?!??!?!
Are you familiar with the transitive property of mathematics?
Well, you implied that the word "knowledge" is equivalent to the bold phrase in your definition "a branch of knowledge,"
What I am trying to tell you is that the two are not equivalent.
Thus, if you claim that science is knowledge (the word "is" is mathematically understood as "equal"), which you did
Definition four without the addition of " knowledge gained by systematic study" is not a definition of science. Again, you can't just highlight one or a few words of the definition- and you can't have "basically" definitions if you want actual definitions, because philosophy ALSO "basically" means knowledge, as does astrology (knowledge of astrological bs)
Please elaborate.
For the love of God... did you even comprehend the POINT of my post? :headdesks:I don't see any point in your post.
It's a word used by laymen to describe some repeatedly observed events.Some repeatedly observed events of what?
:headdesks: This is what I mean, you failed to comprehend the purpose of my post...And your purpose was...?
The words "interactions" and "forces" are interchangeable in this context. That is why you often hear the phrase "four fundemental forces." Lets not play semantics so we look intelligent, eh?Eh, we use "interactions" because there's no such thing as gravitational "force".
When laymen use the term "gravity" they mean "that which causes bodies to fall." Newton's model integrates falling with orbital motion. That alone makes it better than (most) FE.What mechanism makes gravity to cause things fall? How does gravity cause things to fall?
Yes, gravitation is the more correct term, but only if you're wanting to split hairs. When the people you debate say the word gravity, I know they mean gravitation, you know they mean gravitation, Santa Clause knows they mean gravitation, which brings up the question of why you even brought the distinction up? Self aggrandization maybe?Because I want accuracy. I don't want fallacies.
What is an influence? What CAUSES influence? By what MECHANISM does influence occur?An influence is a force. When I push a block, I apply influence (or force) to the block to make it move.
What is acceleration? By what mechanism do bodies accelerate? Force? But what causes forces? By what mechanism do forces opperate?Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity. Bodies accelerate when force is applied. Force is caused by an external agent.
What is work? By what mechanism does Energy permit objects to do work?Ever heard of a dictionary?
This is a horrible definition. Why should space only be three-dimensional? What IS a dimension? By what mechanisms do dimensions occur/exist? What distinguishes one dimension from another? How could one tell if space is three dimensional, four dimensional, or fifty-dimensional if one can only see in three dimensions? (Abbot)Space = Length, width, and height. Hence, space is three-dimension.
A measurement of events? Wow. This is even worse than your space definition.A measurement of sequence of events. I thought your brain would be spinning fast enough to notice it...
NONE of your definitions are ANY better than the ones these people have used for gravity. They have no explanation. They are simply observations.Observation of what?
By what mechanism does space and time allow events to occur? Ever read Kant? By what mechanism does spacetime become a four-dimensional continuum, when higher dimensional continuums work as well?Why does an explosion occur? Space and time allow that to happen. Time cannot be separated from space because it depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light.
First of all, you did no better in your definitions...It must feel so good to be so denial.
Gravity in Newton's model is simply an observation of nature.Nature of what?
No one knows where it comes fromTherefore its existence is fallacy.
anymore than anyone knows where the strong nuclear force [again, force is commonly used interchangeably with interaction in this case, so I am useing that convention in spite] came from.Right, which is why "interaction" is more accurate than "force".
gravity attracts mass in Newton's model. It is simply fundemental => but completely modeled to astounding accuracy mathematically.Again, how does gravity attracts mass? Actually, you still haven't answered this:
Now, explain what causes the force of gravity, how does it attract mass, and where does it come from.
The REASON Newton is superior is because his model does more than simply state it's existence- he integrates it into a model that has predictive abilities that go far beyond simply watching objects fall.And?
First of all, science does not explain WHY something works.Really? It explains why I am typing right now.
Third, gravity in the sense of Newton's model is none of these things: "An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses."Uh, gravity, in Newtonian sense, is all of these things.
Gravity is simply a model showing a relation between one body of nature and another.A model of what?
Did you know Einstein was uncomfortable with his own work in quantum mechanics? What's your point here?My point was that Newton already knew his theories had many fallacies.
Newton certainly didn't know WHY IT EXISTED- but he knew his model had uncanny accuracy in predictions.Right, fundamentally flawed accuracies.
"Gravity" (this time in the laymen sense) is simply something that is observed.Really? Have you taken a picture of gravity?
Newton's model of gravity is superior because it incorporates several seemingly unrelated occurances into one mathematical framework. This is the entire point of theoretical physics- and once again in Newton's case, his model was extremely useful and accurate.I don't see any usefulness of his model other than pulling "forces" out of his ass to explain events.
My pen falls. I'll explain it: there's force of gravity pulling it down! I'm being thrown outwards in a car. I'll explain it: there are centrifugal forces pushing me out!
OBVIOUSLY Newton's model, which has been DETHRONED BY EINSTEIN'S MODEL (and was mentioned in my first post in this thread, incidently), is not going to explain everything- DUH- that's why it has been relagated to uses that do not require a terribly great deal of precision.Then why did you even use his model (or his formula) when you should be using Einstein's instead? I guess you love fallacies...
Why don't you exlpain in one mathematical formula how the FE model explains why objects fall and why the sun rotates in a circle above the surfase? If you don't mind, one that I can plug the numbers in and test (and see that the same mathematical forumal that predicts in detail how objects fall and also predicts in detail how the sun moves accross the sky).Who says I believe in a flat Earth?
Really? I'm pretty sure most of the events happening in this universe are undergoing acceleration.QuoteRight, useful only in inertial reference frames.
Yes, so much so that it is still used today in civil engineeing, astronomy (when great precision is not needed), etc etc.
Newton makes predictions that are tested in the heavenly bodies, on Earth, every non-extreme inertial reference frame.What is "non-extreme inertial reference frame"?
You don't make a model to match particulars- you observe particulars, then make a model that predicts both the particulars and the generals. Newton's model does this. How does FE model?According to Tom, what is the shape of the ground? Flat.
You've got the scientific method exactly backwards here. You don't start with the final conclusion and then try to explain it, adjusting your model until it matches the final conclusion (ala creationism).When did I say science starts with a conclusion?
You observe something and make PREDICTIONS that you test (please note, that although the world has been observed to be more or less spherical [which of course is propaganda] the model still predicts large spherical bodies [center of mass, gravitation], becaues your model precludes the possibility of seeng the flat Earth, you CANNOT SAY "use science to explain the flat Earth" becaues in YOUR model YOU CANNOT EVER SEE IT because the conspiracy will stop you...). You can NEVER know for sure if the final conclusion is correct (which is why you cannot start with the flat Earth and then try to explain it)- you can only know that the final conclusion your model predicts consistantly matches your tested predictions.Internets just couldn't get any weirder...
Newton's model makes many predictions and they all are correct to a high degree.:o
But even more important, Newton's model is simple and eloquent- this is the entire point of theoretical physics- to explain the most occurances with the simplest mathematical model. Newton will defeat most FE models here- and it isn't even the current RE model.What about it?
Plausibility? Please explain. This seems to be embarrasingly weak. Science is not about plausibility, it is about mathematical models, prediction and testing.If science is not about plausibility, it would be bsing and not holding the truth.
Is it plausible that one can "travel into the future" simply by changing one's acceleration or location for a spell and then returning home? No, sounds like science ficiton- yet it is observed reality, predicted by Einstein's model.Speed of light is science fiction?
Not very plausible at all. But correct.Speed of light is plausible and correct.
Science can NEVER be 100% correct. I'm just not understanding the fuss here.Yes, and?
We use the model that is the simplest yet most predictive, until a better one arrives.General relativity has arrived. So, can you stop using Newton?
We, as scientsts, do not make claims (or should not) about absolute reality- we can only say that x has a very high probability of being more correct than y.I might be wrong but, are you saying you're a scientist?
Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions....Which is why I've been saying that Newton's theory is useless and we should be using Einstein's instead.
FErs say that actually the earth is moving up (the UA theory), which fails to explain the fact that objects dropped from high altitude fall slower.What?
i've known of people who thought the "holocaust" was fake before, but that's the first time i've encountered someone who thought the ENTIRE war was fake!Both were faked in the same movie: 'World war II" by John Timmer.
ok, who was the first person to drop objects off a tower and notice that they fell at the same speed? i forgot his name.Galileo, I think.
obviously, when you drop something and it falls, SOME force is pulling it down. Newton named it gravity, and worked out his formula.When things fall, they experience weightlessness. If the force of gravity is gone so easily, how could it be a force?
FErs say that actually the earth is moving up (the UA theory), which fails to explain the fact that objects dropped from high altitude fall slower.Wait, what?
ever hear of "microgravity"? according to NASA, it is the tiny gravity pull caused by the spaceship's mass pulling on things in and around the ship!No, microgravity means nothing of the kind.
and do you think the fighting going on in IRAQ right NOW is totally fake?What? Do you have ADHD or something?
ever hear of "microgravity"? according to NASA, it is the tiny gravity pull caused by the spaceship's mass pulling on things in and around the ship!NASA puts a person inside a rocket and it accelerates at 9.8m/s2 in deep space, far from sources of gravity. The person holds a ball and lets it go. Now, what happens to the ball?
Quoteand do you think the fighting going on in IRAQ right NOW is totally fake?What? Do you have ADHD or something?
What's unrealistic? Eric being on topic? I agree.
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!Except that is not what microgravity is. Which you claimed it was.
"What? Do you have ADHD or something?"Read for comprehension next time.
which i interpreted as u saying that a fake war in iraq is a unrealistic idea
Did i just correctly read somebody say that both world wars were faked?
So most of the male sex on the planet was wiped out for what purpose?
For the love of God... did you even comprehend the POINT of my post? :headdesks:I don't see any point in your post.
It's a word used by laymen to describe some repeatedly observed events.Some repeatedly observed events of what?
:headdesks: This is what I mean, you failed to comprehend the purpose of my post...And your purpose was...?
The words "interactions" and "forces" are interchangeable in this context. That is why you often hear the phrase "four fundemental forces." Lets not play semantics so we look intelligent, eh?Eh, we use "interactions" because there's no such thing as gravitational "force".
When laymen use the term "gravity" they mean "that which causes bodies to fall." Newton's model integrates falling with orbital motion. That alone makes it better than (most) FE.What mechanism makes gravity to cause things fall? How does gravity cause things to fall?
What is an influence? What CAUSES influence? By what MECHANISM does influence occur?An influence is a force. When I push a block, I apply influence (or force) to the block to make it move.
What is acceleration? By what mechanism do bodies accelerate? Force? But what causes forces? By what mechanism do forces opperate?Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity. Bodies accelerate when force is applied. Force is caused by an external agent.
What causes the external agent? Well, what causes you to push a block?
What is work? By what mechanism does Energy permit objects to do work?Ever heard of a dictionary?
This is a horrible definition. Why should space only be three-dimensional? What IS a dimension? By what mechanisms do dimensions occur/exist? What distinguishes one dimension from another? How could one tell if space is three dimensional, four dimensional, or fifty-dimensional if one can only see in three dimensions? (Abbot)Space = Length, width, and height. Hence, space is three-dimension.
A measurement of events? Wow. This is even worse than your space definition.A measurement of sequence of events. I thought your brain would be spinning fast enough to notice it...
NONE of your definitions are ANY better than the ones these people have used for gravity. They have no explanation. They are simply observations.Observation of what?
By what mechanism does space and time allow events to occur? Ever read Kant? By what mechanism does spacetime become a four-dimensional continuum, when higher dimensional continua work as well?Why does an explosion occur? Space and time allow that to happen.
Time cannot be separated from space because it depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light.
First of all, you did no better in your definitions...It must feel so good to be so denial.
Gravity in Newton's model is simply an observation of nature.Nature of what?
No one knows where it comes fromTherefore its existence is fallacy.
anymore than anyone knows where the strong nuclear force [again, force is commonly used interchangeably with interaction in this case, so I am useing that convention in spite] came from.Right, which is why "interaction" is more accurate than "force".
gravity attracts mass in Newton's model. It is simply fundemental => but completely modeled to astounding accuracy mathematically.Again, how does gravity attracts mass?
Actually, you still haven't answered this:QuoteNow, explain what causes the force of gravity, how does it attract mass, and where does it come from.
The REASON Newton is superior is because his model does more than simply state it's existence- he integrates it into a model that has predictive abilities that go far beyond simply watching objects fall.And?
First of all, science does not explain WHY something works.Really? It explains why I am typing right now.
Third, gravity in the sense of Newton's model is none of these things: "An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses."Uh, gravity, in Newtonian sense, is all of these things.
Gravity is simply a model showing a relation between one body of nature and another.A model of what?
Did you know Einstein was uncomfortable with his own work in quantum mechanics? What's your point here?My point was that Newton already knew his theories had many fallacies.
Newton certainly didn't know WHY IT EXISTED- but he knew his model had uncanny accuracy in predictions.Right, fundamentally flawed accuracies.
"Gravity" (this time in the laymen sense) is simply something that is observed.Really? Have you taken a picture of gravity?
Newton's model of gravity is superior because it incorporates several seemingly unrelated occurances into one mathematical framework. This is the entire point of theoretical physics- and once again in Newton's case, his model was extremely useful and accurate.I don't see any usefulness of his model other than pulling "forces" out of his ass to explain events.
QuoteMy pen falls. I'll explain it: there's force of gravity pulling it down! I'm being thrown outwards in a car. I'll explain it: there are centrifugal forces pushing me out!
OBVIOUSLY Newton's model, which has been DETHRONED BY EINSTEIN'S MODEL (and was mentioned in my first post in this thread, incidently), is not going to explain everything- DUH- that's why it has been relagated to uses that do not require a terribly great deal of precision.Then why did you even use his model (or his formula) when you should be using Einstein's instead? I guess you love fallacies...
Why don't you exlpain in one mathematical formula how the FE model explains why objects fall and why the sun rotates in a circle above the surfase? If you don't mind, one that I can plug the numbers in and test (and see that the same mathematical forumal that predicts in detail how objects fall and also predicts in detail how the sun moves accross the sky).Who says I believe in a flat Earth?
Right, useful only in inertial reference frames.QuoteYes, so much so that it is still used today in civil engineeing, astronomy (when great precision is not needed), etc etc.Really? I'm pretty sure most of the events happening in this universe are undergoing acceleration.
Great precision is not needed? No wonder why NASA fails all the time...
Newton makes predictions that are tested in the heavenly bodies, on Earth, every non-extreme inertial reference frame.What is "non-extreme inertial reference frame"?
You don't make a model to match particulars- you observe particulars, then make a model that predicts both the particulars and the generals. Newton's model does this. How does FE model?According to Tom, what is the shape of the ground? Flat.
You've got the scientific method exactly backwards here. You don't start with the final conclusion and then try to explain it, adjusting your model until it matches the final conclusion (ala creationism).When did I say science starts with a conclusion?
You observe something and make PREDICTIONS that you test (please note, that although the world has been observed to be more or less spherical [which of course is propaganda] the model still predicts large spherical bodies [center of mass, gravitation], because your model precludes the possibility of seeing the flat Earth, you CANNOT SAY "use science to explain the flat Earth" because in YOUR model YOU CANNOT EVER SEE IT because the conspiracy will stop you...). You can NEVER know for sure if the final conclusion is correct (which is why you cannot start with the flat Earth and then try to explain it)- you can only know that the final conclusion your model predicts consistently matches your tested predictions.Internets just couldn't get any weirder...
Newton's model makes many predictions and they all are correct to a high degree.:o
But even more important, Newton's model is simple and eloquent- this is the entire point of theoretical physics- to explain the most occurances with the simplest mathematical model. Newton will defeat most FE models here- and it isn't even the current RE model.What about it?
Plausibility? Please explain. This seems to be embarrasingly weak. Science is not about plausibility, it is about mathematical models, prediction and testing.If science is not about plausibility, it would be bsing and not holding the truth.
Is it plausible that one can "travel into the future" simply by changing one's acceleration or location for a spell and then returning home? No, sounds like science ficiton- yet it is observed reality, predicted by Einstein's model.Speed of light is science fiction?
Not very plausible at all. But correct.Speed of light is plausible and correct.
Science can NEVER be 100% correct. I'm just not understanding the fuss here.Yes, and?
We use the model that is the simplest yet most predictive, until a better one arrives.General relativity has arrived. So, can you stop using Newton?
We, as scientsts, do not make claims (or should not) about absolute reality- we can only say that x has a very high probability of being more correct than y.I might be wrong but, are you saying you're a scientist?
Because science is only concerned with models, there is no reason to debate which model is TRUE- only which is the most useful, integrated, simple and accurate in predictions....Which is why I've been saying that Newton's theory is useless and we should be using Einstein's instead.
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.
Hence, gravity = acceleration.Would that not be 'gravitation' = acceleration?
And, no you can't use weather balloons or other buoyant / flying aircraft because your signal point of origin would be constantly changingAnd this doesn't happen with satellites?
KB0RQB clear.What are you supposed to be, some sort of trucker?
Not the same way no. Balloons and aircraft are either at the whim of weather or constrained by fuel requirements respectively.And, no you can't use weather balloons or other buoyant / flying aircraft because your signal point of origin would be constantly changingAnd this doesn't happen with satellites?
QuoteKB0RQB clear.What are you supposed to be, some sort of trucker?
No matter how you slice it, you can't get a patterned flight path, continuously from any source other than an orbit based object for any reasonable length of time. Nice try though.Wow, it's amazing that planes don't crash all the time. Especially since they apparently can't know their position. Hell, I'm amazed that I don't end up in a different state when I fly, not being able to know where I am, and all...
I only ask 'cause in your first two posts you were pretending to be Optimus Prime. Which almost got you banned, by the way.If only you knew.QuoteKB0RQB clear.What are you supposed to be, some sort of trucker?
i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.
*Sigh* What about objects without mass?i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.
i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...*Sigh* What about objects without mass?i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.
i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...*Sigh* What about objects without mass?i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.
i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...*Sigh* What about objects without mass?i TOLD you: the MASS of the spaceship itself makes a tiny gravity pull, just like Einstein said it would!So the ship suddenly exerts a gravity pull now? Sounds like magic to me.
i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity
Why not? Shouldn't it? Isn't mass what makes them attract, according to gravity?
~D-Draw
Well, massless objects are also affected by (and affect) space time.. are you referring to particles such as the graviton?Specifically, I am referring to light.
What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...What about massless objects attracting each other due to 'gravity'?
i havnt read the other posts because i couldn't be assed , but all masses are attracted to each other by gravity...And without mass you get no gravity. I, however, can get gravity simply by energy and momentum. Or, in the rocket case, acceleration.
Oh and all those seasoned and extreamly experienced sailors who sailed around (note the use or the word aROUND and not across) the world hundreds of years ago just happened to miss this er "ice wall" of yours?
That seems a bit off topic...What about them? That statement does not exclude those from attraction...What about massless objects attracting each other due to 'gravity'?
and there is no such thing as a "massless object".Photons. Gluons. Bosons.
those are single particles, not "objects".Since when is a particle not an object?
those are single particles, not "objects".Since when is a particle not an object?
you can also get "gravity" by SPINNING part of a spaceship around! ever seen 2001?That's centrifugal force, which is also another fictitious force arising in a non-inertial reference frame.
and there is no such thing as a "massless object". or are you saying the "shadow object" is actually some sort of HOLOGRAM?Massless particles.
Good, so we finally agree Newton's model is trash and the force of gravity does not exist. That is the main point of my posts, but I guess it must took you thousands of words to comprehend it...
No, not quite. You can't think of it in terms of right and wrong- only in utility and predictability with respect to a particular level of observational ability.When did I said Newton's theory is wrong? I said his theory is horribly flawed, mainly because of his definition of gravity as a mysterious force.
The "force" of gravity may very well still exist even if Newton's description of it is flawed.I don't mind if you like to believe something that doesn't exist.
Further, since curvatures in space-time cause accelerations (as objects move through them), and since the Newtonian concept of force is defined as something that could cause an acceleration, one would still not necessarily be wrong in saying "the force of gravity."Right, which is why Newton's force of gravity is flawed since its proportional only to inertial mass.
Further, in special relativity the definition Force = the derivative of momentum with respect to time, F = dp/dt still holds, so, because gravitation causes changes in momentum with respect to time, once again you could say "the force of gravity" (but I am told that this time momentum must be defined differently- instead of mass times velocity, p = mv,What, so you're now trying to mix things up to suit your position?
it is p = mv/[(1 -v2)/c2](1/2) Some math wrangling changes this into a "four-force," which replaces the Newtonian concept.
Not sure if GR gravity is defined in some way like this though, but even so, if we use Newton's definition of a force, Einstein's "gravity" still can be called "the force of gravity"- albeit with an * ...Uh, Einstein defines gravity as the curvature of space-time, not a force. Again, can we be consistent with correct information?
Also, I absolutely disagree that Newton's model is trash. It is still extremely useful for every day calculations and simple physics, and is easier mathematically.Like I said, Newton's model only works on inertial frames; inertial frames don't apply in the real world.
Finally, since Einstein's model cannot be unified with quantum mechanics as is, it can be considered "trash" as well, if you want to hold it to a similar standard.You might as well say "since quantum mechanics cannot be unified with relativity as is, it can be considered 'trash' as well." It's all about wording.
No, not quite. You can't think of it in terms of right and wrong- only in utility and predictability with respect to a particular level of observational ability.That entirely depends on your goal. If your goal isn't in the applied sciences (at least in the short term), then this isn't true at all.
oh, and maybe photons DO have mass, as shown by the "solar wind", which means they are NOT "massless"! that's what i meant when i said "massless object" was a contradiction!Photons do not have mass. They carry momentum. Are you ever going to do a little research before you type?
No, not quite. You can't think of it in terms of right and wrong- only in utility and predictability with respect to a particular level of observational ability.When did I said Newton's theory is wrong? I said his theory is horribly flawed, mainly because of his definition of gravity as a mysterious force.
The "force" of gravity may very well still exist even if Newton's description of it is flawed.I don't mind if you like to believe something that doesn't exist.
Further, since curvatures in space-time cause accelerations (as objects move through them), and since the Newtonian concept of force is defined as something that could cause an acceleration, one would still not necessarily be wrong in saying "the force of gravity."Right, which is why Newton's force of gravity is flawed since its proportional only to inertial mass.
Further, in special relativity the definition Force = the derivative of momentum with respect to time, F = dp/dt still holds, so, because gravitation causes changes in momentum with respect to time, once again you could say "the force of gravity" (but I am told that this time momentum must be defined differently- instead of mass times velocity, p = mv,What, so you're now trying to mix things up to suit your position?
it is p = mv/[(1 -v2)/c2](1/2) Some math wrangling changes this into a "four-force," which replaces the Newtonian concept.
Although causes changes in momentum (or anything: acceleration, velocity, mass, etc) with respect to time, gravitation is not a force. The word "cause" is not "is". And F = dp/dt is not even the force of gravity, in terms of Newtonian mechanics. Gravitation, in Newtonian definition, is "action at a distance", basically that formula you put before.Not sure if GR gravity is defined in some way like this though, but even so, if we use Newton's definition of a force, Einstein's "gravity" still can be called "the force of gravity"- albeit with an * ...Uh, Einstein defines gravity as the curvature of space-time, not a force. Again, can we be consistent with correct information?
Also, I absolutely disagree that Newton's model is trash. It is still extremely useful for every day calculations and simple physics, and is easier mathematically.Like I said, Newton's model only works on inertial frames; inertial frames don't apply in the real world.
Finally, since Einstein's model cannot be unified with quantum mechanics as is, it can be considered "trash" as well, if you want to hold it to a similar standard.You might as well say "since quantum mechanics cannot be unified with relativity as is, it can be considered 'trash' as well." It's all about wording.
That entirely depends on your goal. If your goal isn't in the applied sciences (at least in the short term), then this isn't true at all.
YOU should do some research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
notice it says: momentum is the PRODUCT of MASS and VELOCITY.
momentum=mass*velocity.
therefore, a object with zero mass would have zero momentum!
not really, considering FE'ers understand Einstein better than RE'ers.
I was responding to you saying Newton's model was trash.And how does that have to do with "right and wrong"?
I don't believe in it as Newton describes it. Did I say that I believed in it?Then don't say it exists.
But you can still say "force" so long as by force you do not mean mass * acceleration. It is a wording game.It's not a wording game; it's equivalence. f = ma = m(vf-vi)/t = dp/dt.
No, I am saying that Newton wasn't scrapped with Einstein, it was modified and exists as a limiting circumstance withing relativity.Right, so we will just use Einstein from now on.
It is a matter of what you mean by the words you use. We cannot see the curvature of space-time, we can only see that the mathematical model that includes this also matches reality very accurately.Which is why I've been saying that Einstein is way more accurate than Newton. Therefore, we shall use Einstein instead.
...Except GR works in all frames and Newton only works in inertial frames. In other words, in GR laws of physics are the same in all frames.QuoteLike I said, Newton's model only works on inertial frames; inertial frames don't apply in the real world.The effects of GR are often neglible enough to where Newton's model works perfectly fine.
No, what we can say is that GR is not a complete theory and will be a subset of a larger more encompassing one, and QM is not a complete theory and will be a subset of a larger more encompassing one, but some definitions and ways of understanding both will probably have to be changed... just like what happened with Newton's model.Right, which is still a wording game.
LOL!! So since you're I don't know.. for arguments sake let's say Green, ALL Green understand said widget better than Blue? hahahahaha!
Momentum for a massless object is defined as:
p=E/c
where E is the object's energy and c is the speed of light.
Perhaps I should have specified for you to do some correct research.
energy is NOT the same thing as momentum! does HEAT have momentum?
oh, and E=Mc2
YOU should do some research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
notice it says: momentum is the PRODUCT of MASS and VELOCITY.
momentum=mass*velocity.
therefore, a object with zero mass would have zero momentum!
i still haven't heard an answer to my earlier question: HOW would this "conspiracy" TAKE control in the FIRST PLACE without anyone noticing?The conspiracy is multi-polar, well-developed, and well-organized. How can you argue against that?
anyone heard of the "space race"? that was a COMPETITION to get into space before the russians. anyone think all of that was totally fake?I don't see any problem with them being fake.
they launched rockets and an AIRCRAFT CARRIER picked up the capsules afterward. so every single member of the carrier crew would have to be in on it...They used aircraft carriers to protect the ice wall instead.
Didn't we spend millions more than we could have to rush the development of the shuttles? That was just my impression, but I'll look for a source when I have time. :-\anyone heard of the "space race"? that was a COMPETITION to get into space before the russians. anyone think all of that was totally fake?I don't see any problem with them being fake.
Didn't we spend millions more than we could have to rush the development of the shuttles?
For people driven by money, that sounds rather illogical. Waiting longer would save them money, the primary motivation for the conspiracy. I doubt that a delayed space race would compromise them.Didn't we spend millions more than we could have to rush the development of the shuttles?
Point?
Really? Because where I live, my food costs the same, my car was still the same price, airline tickets are cheaper, gas is cheaper; I get either the same amount or more for the same price today than I did yesterday or last week. Where do you live?
whether it is a crash of magnitude never before seen in human history, or a generations-long synergistic spiraling of debt, default, corruption, collapse of national stature and world influence...this is what we are setting ourselves up for.I agree.
Quote from: rr332211
Even if you don't believe in gravity, I'll put the same spotlight on you. How do things fall?
Things don't fall, Earth accelerates up to them.
Just wondering if everyone really thinks this way?Yes, it does. Air resistance would hamper one, however.
How about you lift up a motorcycle engine and a shoe 10 ft. in the air and drop them...does the earth accelerate into them at the same time?
Just wondering if everyone really thinks this way?Yes, it does. Air resistance would hamper one, however.
How about you lift up a motorcycle engine and a shoe 10 ft. in the air and drop them...does the earth accelerate into them at the same time?
No, like shape and size.
People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.
Not all astronauts would need to be bribed, probably.
Not all astronauts would need to be bribed, probably.
Not all astronauts would need to be bribed, probably.
oh right they just put them in a box and shake it a bit and say, hey, you're in space! and they tie fishing line to their ankles and dangle them in the air to trick them into thinking they are weightless. Or does a wizard come and cast the weightlessness spell on the muggle astronauts and trick them?
Muggium, thinkis inspaceium!
Not all astronauts would need to be bribed, probably.
oh right they just put them in a box and shake it a bit and say, hey, you're in space! and they tie fishing line to their ankles and dangle them in the air to trick them into thinking they are weightless. Or does a wizard come and cast the weightlessness spell on the muggle astronauts and trick them?
Muggium, thinkis inspaceium!
Kind of, but it would be a little more sophisticated and hi-tech than that.
if this conspiracy was so inbeded into the governement that they were willing to spend millions of pounds to cover it up, and kill people, why would they let this site stay alive? And let you FE'rs live? Surely you would've been killed by now?
it says that shutting down this site would be proof of the existence of the flat world. But, killing anyone who went near the edge of the planet would be too. People would find out. If they were willing to put some much money into bribing people, they could easily secure the funds to shut down this website, delete all history of it, and silence anyone who remembered anything on it.
ok ok, I hear what you are saying and understand. With such knowledge and belief that you have, do you not want to know more? I know that the world is round, and that if you go far enough east on the map, you'll magicaly appear on the west. You believe that the world is flat, and if you go far enough east on the map . . . what? Do you not want to know more about our world rather then just NOT believe what people tell you. If I was you, I would be an explorer, or at very least, someone with enough evidence to get some kind of a bribe out of NASA haha!
I was talking about the personal section, about you. Why are you not more of an activist on this topic? If I suddenly found proof and believed proof that there is no such thing as noise, tomorrow, I would be straight out there trying to make money from it, or understand it better.
Rr332211, gravity has nothing to do with how fast Earth is moving, it all depends on Earth's acceleration. If you jump up into the air, the gap between you and the ground will close at an increasing rate of 9.8m/s^2. Every time you jump. No matter how many times you jump.
Ok... sounds Good 2000 at 100000 a year thats what 200million + the 45 original 245million
Who DOES Need to Know:
NASA -- Okay, so the top three (at most) need to know, we'll say. These are the guys who actually are controlling the conspiracy, and maybe some of the profit is divided amongst them, but they don't need to be bribed to shut their mouths, and thus have no leverage amongst the others. If we say about three other people in NASA know about it, who are helping with image editing, video editing, and general coverage, but working closely with the top three.
RASA -- The Russians are just about equal if not more active in space exploration as the US, so we'll say these guys have six people helping out with the conspiracy as well. As a matter of fact, tag one more on, just because I'm generous. That leaves us with thirteen people.
China -- Yes, in 2003, China became the third country to independently send a manned spaceship into outer space. However, their space program isn't all that big. As a (very) liberal estimate, we'll say they need about three people. But why don't we tag on one more just to make sure I'm not cheating. That leaves us with seventeen people from the space exploration crews that need to know.
GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.
Public Relations People -- NASA or RASA conspirators could fill this role, too, but again, generosity has the better of me, and I'm going to say that the conspiracy hires people to do this, too, since the guys in the space exploration teams are filled with a bunch of pale, pimply white guys, and therefore aren't good at convincing people of the truth. We'll say they need a couple of these guys, bringing the total up to a whopping twenty people.
People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.
Who Does NOT Need To Know:
PotUS -- Why would the president need to know? All he knows is that he's giving money to what he thinks is a space exploration team, and then he sees exactly what everyone in the world sees on TV. He doesn't ever need to suspect a damned thing.
Members of Space Teams -- They see exactly what we see as well, but they're sitting on the ground looking at it "Live." That doesn't mean that they know that the people are actually in space, but they can make a really convincing argument towards it, perhaps.
Conclusive Mathematics:
Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.
That brings us to 40 x 1,000,000. Forty million dollars plus forty million every year? Sure, it's plenty of cash, but NASA receives so much more money than that from just governmental funds, and while I don't know much about Russian space teams, I'm sure they do, too. They can easily pay for this, and the undernoted requirements for money, without even breaking a sweat; in fact, they'll be probably pulling a profit, just from the government giving them cash.
Maintenance:
There doesn't need to be all that much maintenance, besides damage control. The space exploration programs have maintenance funds from their respective governments, so they're all self-sufficient without having to spend excess money on maintaining the conspiracy (seeing as all the cash they're not spending on research can be spent on the conspiracy).
The only reason extra money might need to be poured into the conspiracy would be for damage control. If we say that this would cost somewhere around five million per year, that still only leaves us with forty-five million per year.
*UPDATED*
Ice Wall Guarding:
Now, I'm going to take this, and say that we need about one-thousand men guarding the wall, again with two shifts each....
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"the FAA says there are 612,000 pilots.... lets assume [extrordinarily generous assumption] only half are allowed to fly over international waters thats still 306000.... That is 10 Shea Stadiums worth of conspirators.... ok screw that number most probably have small planes lets reduce it even further....HALF AGAIN.. ok so we are clear I'm going to assume that the entire population of airline pilots lives in the US and that only one in every 4 pilots has license to cross international borders... is this true? by no stretch of the imagination, but hey, im being generous.. it still adds 153000 people... EVEN if they were not actively conspiring they would notice that land masses don't line up with their GPS...so unless they were complete Morons... so I'll drop 1000 of them as morons... thats another 152000 but let's assume that they don't get the fat check the big-wigs get, they get an extra 100k a year like the soldiers, let's see *quackulations* ok my quackulator says it tuns out to 15.2 BILLION....WOW... this is kinda big budget here that's not even including the original 245 million... but that only inflates it to 15.4..... How do you explain that?
A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)
The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Embarrassment:
So, the government messed up at a really bad time to mess up, and they've been pooling all of the already-angry tax-payers' money into research that eventually led to a less-than-exciting discovery: The Earth is flat. Everyone was wrong. Millions (probably billions) of dollars of money that didn't really belong to them had been basically tossed down the drain for research of the round Earth, when, in fact it was flat. So, instead of angering people and possibly even sparking a revolt of some sort, they made up some stuff. And you know how lies tend to roll and get bigger and bigger until they're inescapable? I'd say a worldwide conspiracy is that concept...to the max.
That was just one theory. They probably just want money.O, I know im not saying I destroyed the whole argument.... just that piece is so very counter intuitive. I do try to not be that guy who just says he is right, but if you think about it... it's possible, but if you think about it beyond face level it would have to be so far reaching that almost literally the only people not involved would be the ones fighting it.
humans have been to Hoth!That looked real, didn't it? Damned real.
~D-Draw
If the Earth is flat, then why do you see the sail of a ship before the ship?
/Theory debunked.
If the Earth is flat, then why do you see the sail of a ship before the ship?
/Theory debunked.
Read Earth Not a Globe.
I'm not paying money to read a book of lies.
I'm not paying money to read a book of lies.
It's available in full online.
The answers are there for you to find them. If you truly wished to learn, you would seek them out for yourself.
Is there anything that you are not an expert on? ::)The answers are there for you to find them. If you truly wished to learn, you would seek them out for yourself.
And if you knew anything about optics, you would know that Rowbotham's answers are wrong.
You don't need to be an expert to know that Rowbotham was wrong.Is there anything that you are not an expert on? ::)The answers are there for you to find them. If you truly wished to learn, you would seek them out for yourself.
And if you knew anything about optics, you would know that Rowbotham's answers are wrong.
You don't need to be an expert to know that Rowbotham was wrong.
QuoteYou don't need to be an expert to know that Rowbotham was wrong.
Where did you prove that Rowbotham was wrong?
Well, for one thing, even Roundy admits that Rowbotham was wrong about the moon being self luminous.
Let's see. Rowbotham's explanations of the sinking ship phenomenon and sun sets as perspective effects do not obey even the most basic optical properties.
Rowbotham was also wrong when he said that an object tossed into the air loses all horizontal motion when it reaches the apex of it's trajectory.
QuoteWell, for one thing, even Roundy admits that Rowbotham was wrong about the moon being self luminous.
Let's see. Rowbotham's explanations of the sinking ship phenomenon and sun sets as perspective effects do not obey even the most basic optical properties.
Rowbotham was also wrong when he said that an object tossed into the air loses all horizontal motion when it reaches the apex of it's trajectory.
So how do you know that Rowbotham is wrong if you didn't bother to prove or test anything?
He is not even claiming to be an expert.Is there anything that you are not an expert on? ::)The answers are there for you to find them. If you truly wished to learn, you would seek them out for yourself.
And if you knew anything about optics, you would know that Rowbotham's answers are wrong.
Why should we prove a negative? Where's all the evidence that Rowbotham and Lady Blount are right, instead of Wallace, Oldham, and the others that have performed the experiment?QuoteWell, for one thing, even Roundy admits that Rowbotham was wrong about the moon being self luminous.
Let's see. Rowbotham's explanations of the sinking ship phenomenon and sun sets as perspective effects do not obey even the most basic optical properties.
Rowbotham was also wrong when he said that an object tossed into the air loses all horizontal motion when it reaches the apex of it's trajectory.
So how do you know that Rowbotham is wrong if you didn't bother to prove or test anything?
So how do you know that Rowbotham is right if none of his experiments work right?
Why should we prove a negative? Where's all the evidence that Rowbotham and Lady Blount are right, instead of Wallace, Oldham, and the others that have performed the experiment?
QuoteSo how do you know that Rowbotham is right if none of his experiments work right?
Please answer the question: How do you know that Rowbotham was wrong if you have not proven or demonstrated him to be wrong?
Why not?
Rowbotham said that the sun should recede into the background and fade away.
We don't have to prove a negative. Where's your evidence that he was right? And you must also prove that only he was right, instead of the others that performed the experiment and came to different conclusions.QuoteRowbotham said that the sun should recede into the background and fade away.
No he didn't.
Please answer the question: How do you know that Rowbotham was wrong if you have not proven or demonstrated him to be wrong?
We don't have to prove a negative.
QuoteRowbotham said that the sun should recede into the background and fade away.
No he didn't.
Please answer the question: How do you know that Rowbotham was wrong if you have not proven or demonstrated him to be wrong?
In the diagram, fig. 64, let the line E, D, represent the surface of the earth; H, H, the morning and evening horizon; and A, S, B, a portion of the true path of the sun. An observer at 0, looking to the east, will first see the sun in the morning, not at A, its true position, but in its apparent position, H, just emerging from the "vanishing point," or the morning horizon. At nine o'clock, the sun will have the apparent position, 1, gradually appearing to ascend the line H, 1, S; the point S, being the meridian or noonday position. From S, the sun will be seen to gradually descend the line S, 2, H, until he reaches the horizon, H, and entering the "vanishing point," disappears, to an observer in England, in the west, beyond the continent of North America, as in the morning he is seen to rise from the direction of Northern Asia.(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig64.jpg)
This is not what I observed when I saw the sun set. The path that the sun took when it set was much steeper than what Rowbotham describes.
QuoteThis is not what I observed when I saw the sun set. The path that the sun took when it set was much steeper than what Rowbotham describes.
Really? What kind of steepness does Rowbotham describe for the sun's setting?
Doesn't look very steep to me. At least not as steep as I personally witnessed.
QuoteDoesn't look very steep to me. At least not as steep as I personally witnessed.
George Davey's illustrations are severely out of scale in ENAG, if you hadn't noticed. In that image the sun looks like it's about a few feet above the person.
Different bodies recede into the horizon at different inclinations, as everyone knows. A flock of birds will disappear into the horizon at a different inclination than a jet airplane. As the body gets higher it will approach the horizon at a different angle.
everything that travels towards the horizon gets smaller and smaller
its angular velocity slows down
Also, do you have any idea how far away the sun would have to be from an observer in order to appear to touch the horizon if the earth was flat?
You are still missing (or evading) the point Tom. The observed path of the sun as it sets is an arc downwards, not an incline.
Quoteeverything that travels towards the horizon gets smaller and smaller
The sun maintaining its diameter as it recedes is discussed in a dedicated chapter of Earth Not a Globe.
I'm of the opinion that the sun is at such a height that its perspective lines into the earth from the observer's point of view is nearly 45 degrees, meaning that its velocity is relatively slow and constant.
It has been established in Earth Not a Globe that the vanishing point to perspective lines are not infinitely far away, but a finite distance away from the observer.
Let me give an example of this. Lets say it is the December solstice. An observer in south America directly on the tropic of Capricorn watches the sun pass by directly overhead at exactly 15 degrees per hour.
Lets take Flat earth numbers and assume the earth is flat for this. At noon, the sun is exactly 3100 miles above the observers head. Another observer, who is exactly 9000 miles north of the first observer (somewhere in Canada). Is observing the same sun.
With the Pythagorean theorem, we calculate his distance from the sun assuming the earth is flat.
3100^2 + 9000^2 = c^2
When we solve, unless I made a typo, the second observer is 10397.11 miles away from the sun. More than 3 times the distance than the first observer. Of course relative to both observers the sun is traveling at the same linear velocity. However, the angular velocity should be much smaller for the second observer since he is so much further away. This is not the case, from every location on earth, the sun travels almost exactly 15 degrees across the sky. Not to mention that at noon the sun is 3100 miles above the first observers, but at 5:00 p.m. it will be further away on a flat earth, and therefore should have a different angular velocity. Still not the case.
I believe this is a huge hole in FE.
I wonder how you would explain this away, but I work for Cogent Communications, and I have access to one of the thirteen internet root nameservers. We are often asked to completly destory hack/virus sites.
You claim the goverment does not shut down the website because it would prove your theory correct.
It is perfectly possible to shut down a site and make it look like the owner shut it or the web server hosting it failed/crashed/virus/was destroyed. I and others have performed such operations on sites which organize crime. We do it this way to reduce possibilitys of fan sites made after the main site is taken down.
Also, we have access to over 99% (99.756% if I remember) of the worlds ISP (as we have connection to the other 12 root nameservers) and as we have permission to see their records, we can find out almost anyones address by monitering the ISP which they use. CC has helped Police and other powers to apprehand criminals thousends of times this way.
So my point is, we can crash your site in any number of ways and make no-one the wiser, theres a recorded 127 ways which we have used to crash a site, the most common is just destroying it there and then. You think people will think that FE is real just because your unprotected website goes down? We can just phone up your hosting company and order them to take you down and spill some crap about you violated TOS.
But we havn't, none of the 13 Companys have being asked to monitor your website (we monitor many sites which are anti-goverment). Nobody cares about this bunch of lies. I wont even give you my reasons on how wrong you are because:
1) You just say im arragont and stupid if you cant answer a question which proves you wrong
2) You ignore me because I prove you wrong
3) You make up some crap ass theory with NO evidence, only your own ideas and refuse to believe anything else.
( and before you go "oh, well we know how you will take us down and it will make us stronger", do you think you will become headline news? No news company, not even a small town newspaper would talk to you, they would be a laughing stock. )
P.S The earth is a triangle, caveman bribed by bigger caveman built gaint lasers to cut it. Sorry.
So, are the current and past "top three" of NASA stinking rich? How about their russian and chinese counterparts? How they could cover up for decades that they are stinking rich, and at the same time enjoy the benefits? Secret holiday oasis for them and their families in the heavily guarded Antarctica?Yup. And I guess they're just good about not spending their money all in one place.
The Ice Wall is a mountain range covered in ice. Global Warming would not have too much of an effect on it.
Boolean Algebra, my latest obsession
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28393.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28393.0)
a<*<*<*<*...
You have created a parodox than leaves us no chance for escape from the middle. Neither truth of falseness touch you're theory. I'll be back later to disect your dfacts in boolean terms
Please explain what the point of such a conspiracy would be
I don't wish to sound creepy or threatening, but I was able to find the person who registered this website, their home address, and their phone number. Unless I am mistaken, it is a Mr. Davis who lives in Tennessee. I don't wish to divulge any more than that.
People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.
Also wanted to add another point:Have you ever tried to shut down a website? It's not as easy as you think kid.
I don't wish to sound creepy or threatening, but I was able to find the person who registered this website, their home address, and their phone number. Unless I am mistaken, it is a Mr. Davis who lives in Tennessee. I don't wish to divulge any more than that.
I know only an average amount about computers, but I have learned enough information to determine that this domain was purchased through godaddy.com , that it expires on 11-Mar-10, and of course the personal information of the man who owns this webpage. With all the tools available to those who run this conspiracy, U.S. Government associated or not, do you really think this webpage would be safe? I found at least 5 threads this morning that talk about the Conspiracy performing assassinations, this very thread mentions armed gunman all along an ice wall who have surely killed to keep this secret safe- if you were even CLOSE to being right, do you really think that this webpage would be fine? Do you realize how easy it would be to quietly shut down this webpage? It would certainly be easy to bribe or kill Mr. Davis, but I'm not even saying that! Between all the power and technology mentioned, the ability to hack, or shut down this webpage for some common reason is beyond abundant. The reason it has been up since at LEAST 11-Mar-08 is because nobody cares. And why would nobody care? Because there is nobody to care. There is no Conspiracy. Thats the only conclusion I can make, and I'm still waiting on a counter argument.
Thank you again for your time,
Nick
I don't wish to sound creepy or threatening, but I was able to find the person who registered this website, their home address, and their phone number. Unless I am mistaken, it is a Mr. Davis who lives in Tennessee. I don't wish to divulge any more than that.
Hisharu needs to explain his motives, Hmmm? The interest shown in Usernames's location added to his denial of the conspiracy might point to some low-level conspiracy operative earning his stripes. And you look suspicious too, WoM!Wait, what?
Just seeing if you were awake and functioning.Good, I thought my cover had been blown. That would have been really embarrassing.
The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Okay. There has been way too many threads asking about the same damned question, and too many people saying that the governments can't pull together a conspiracy as such, and what not. This will conclusively prove that it is entirely plausible, profitable and, hopefully, probable. Expect me to reference this any time you ask a stupid question about the conspiracy again.
First Topic:
How Can They Afford the Conspiracy?
Bribes
Let's look at this liberally (keep in mind these are probably near maximized estimates).
Who DOES Need to Know:
NASA -- Okay, so the top three (at most) need to know, we'll say. These are the guys who actually are controlling the conspiracy, and maybe some of the profit is divided amongst them, but they don't need to be bribed to shut their mouths, and thus have no leverage amongst the others. If we say about three other people in NASA know about it, who are helping with image editing, video editing, and general coverage, but working closely with the top three.
RASA -- The Russians are just about equal if not more active in space exploration as the US, so we'll say these guys have six people helping out with the conspiracy as well. As a matter of fact, tag one more on, just because I'm generous. That leaves us with thirteen people.
China -- Yes, in 2003, China became the third country to independently send a manned spaceship into outer space. However, their space program isn't all that big. As a (very) liberal estimate, we'll say they need about three people. But why don't we tag on one more just to make sure I'm not cheating. That leaves us with seventeen people from the space exploration crews that need to know.
GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.
Public Relations People -- NASA or RASA conspirators could fill this role, too, but again, generosity has the better of me, and I'm going to say that the conspiracy hires people to do this, too, since the guys in the space exploration teams are filled with a bunch of pale, pimply white guys, and therefore aren't good at convincing people of the truth. We'll say they need a couple of these guys, bringing the total up to a whopping twenty people.
People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.
Ice Wall Guards -- These guys don't need to be paid in full, either, as they're only guarding an ice wall. I believe that it was Erasmus who pulled some mathematics on this one, and showed that not that many people were needed to guard the ice wall. As they don't really have any leverage on the conspiracy, they won't count for this part (I'll go back to it later), since this is mostly about who needs to be paid to shut their mouths.
Who Does NOT Need To Know:
PotUS -- Why would the president need to know? All he knows is that he's giving money to what he thinks is a space exploration team, and then he sees exactly what everyone in the world sees on TV. He doesn't ever need to suspect a damned thing.
Members of Space Teams -- They see exactly what we see as well, but they're sitting on the ground looking at it "Live." That doesn't mean that they know that the people are actually in space, but they can make a really convincing argument towards it, perhaps.
Conclusive Mathematics:
Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.
That brings us to 40 x 1,000,000.
Forty million dollars plus forty million every year? Sure, it's plenty of cash, but NASA receives so much more money than that from just governmental funds, and while I don't know much about Russian space teams, I'm sure they do, too. They can easily pay for this, and the undernoted requirements for money, without even breaking a sweat; in fact, they'll be probably pulling a profit, just from the government giving them cash.
Maintenance:
There doesn't need to be all that much maintenance, besides damage control. The space exploration programs have maintenance funds from their respective governments, so they're all self-sufficient without having to spend excess money on maintaining the conspiracy (seeing as all the cash they're not spending on research can be spent on the conspiracy).
The only reason extra money might need to be poured into the conspiracy would be for damage control. If we say that this would cost somewhere around five million per year, that still only leaves us with forty-five million per year.
*UPDATED*
Ice Wall Guarding:
Now, I'm going to take this, and say that we need about one-thousand men guarding the wall, again with two shifts each, if we include cameras, infrared, radar, intelligence, and all that good stuff. This is more than I stated previously, but bear in mind that I had been very generous with the amount those men had been paid. Now, seeing as the men practically have no influence (all they do is guard an ice wall; it's not like it's probable they have a lot of friends at all, let alone ones in high places), they don't necessarily need a very grand rate of pay. Therefore I'm dropping my previous estimate to a simple one-hundred thousand dollars per person. That still leaves us with the same amount of two-million dollars to pay for every guard in the wall forces.
CONSPIRACY MONEY TOTAL = $47,000,000 USD (Forty-Million U.S. Dollars)
Second Topic:
How Does The Conspiracy Benefit?
This is not easily answered, but I've taken some insight into this and made some estimates on how the conspiracy could be making money:
Government Paychecks:
It's very possible that the conspiracy runs by just sucking money out of the government that they are underneath. Seeing as the head honchos in those governments don't have to know about the conspiracy, it'd be pretty easy to take money from the government. Also, even if the leaders DID know, it's tax money that's going into the space exploration research, so really, they'd still be pulling profit. Basically, if you chose to believe this option, the leaders of the conspiracy are taking tax money and getting filthy stinking rich off of it. Sounds like a motive to me.
Display of Power:
Some people are control freaks. Maybe they get a rush from showing that they can change everyone's mind about the true shape of the Earth.
Embarrassment:
So, the government messed up at a really bad time to mess up, and they've been pooling all of the already-angry tax-payers' money into research that eventually led to a less-than-exciting discovery: The Earth is flat. Everyone was wrong. Millions (probably billions) of dollars of money that didn't really belong to them had been basically tossed down the drain for research of the round Earth, when, in fact it was flat. So, instead of angering people and possibly even sparking a revolt of some sort, they made up some stuff. And you know how lies tend to roll and get bigger and bigger until they're inescapable? I'd say a worldwide conspiracy is that concept...to the max.
Recruitment/Faithfulness:
Similar to the one above. Maybe the future-conspirators were ashamed that they hadn't reached out to space yet, and they felt that the people were getting hasty and impatient with them, so they decided to say they did it, and qualm the welling resentment of them, so they could ACTUALLY send people into space on a later date, without a bunch of morons knocking on their doorstep asking when they would be done with their space ship. Unfortunately, they later realized that they were wrong the whole time, and therefore had to uphold the conspiracy, lest they be accused of lying, and therefore reverting the resentment to its original state.
Third Topic:
What If Someone Squeals?
"Yes," you say, "but what happens when someone leaks the information?"
Why You WOULD Leak Conspiracy Information:
Fame:
You officially proved that the Earth is actually flat. You'll be in history books for ages!
Money:
Interviews with every news station and every magazine ever. You'll be a huge celebrity, and as such, you'll probably be making a fair amount of cash...at least for a little while.
Peace of Mind:
It's probably tough to keep that stuff in your head without leaking some of it out every once in a while. It'd be a lot on your conscience.
Why You Would NOT Leak Conspiracy Information:
Fame:
Some people don't like being in the spotlight all that much. Paparazzi can get annoying, and even though attention may appear to be entertaining, it can get old pretty fast.
Money:
You no longer get the big fat paychecks from the conspirators. After all of the press wears out, and starts ignoring you again--meaning no more cash from interviews--you'll probably have to start working again.
Peace of Mind:
You just screwed over all of your friends, just because you wanted a few minutes of fame and a lot of cash. Congratulations.
Insanity:
If you don't have enough proof, you won't be revered as a revolutionary, you'll be revered as Patient #3562 at the local mental hospital.
Death:
While a most likely uncommon side-effect, NASA could easily kill you and say, "He died in a space shuttle accident, I swear." Honestly, by the way it seems on TV, those things are so unstable, no one would ever EVER doubt that someone died while in space due to some random accident (add a bunch of jargon and you've got an incredibly convincing reason for death).
Topic Four:
Conclusive Notes:
As you can see, the conspiracy is not only logical, but it's, in its own way, actually quite plausible. With all of these concepts in your face, it's hard to refute AT LEAST the possibility of a conspiracy covering up the shape of the Earth. If anyone wants to rebuttal, though, I gladly welcome it (in fact, I'm probably missing a lot of stuff--but hey, I'm only one guy), and I'll add more to this compendium (hence why it's a compendium).
SO STOP MAKING CONSPIRACY THREADS!!
Hah...I agree.The OP stopped coming to this site a while ago
But it made much more sense than the OP.
Hah...I agree.The OP stopped coming to this site a while ago
But it made much more sense than the OP.
Last Active: October 06, 2008, 12:50:42 PM
So, don't expect an answer soon, unless some other FE'er feels like dealing with your tl;dr.
Either they ignore or they try come up with another absurd excuses or start attacking you personally. But I must credit you for your long post. There are good points to where other people can refer sometimes when the conspiracy theme comes up in another thread.Hah...I agree.The OP stopped coming to this site a while ago
But it made much more sense than the OP.
Last Active: October 06, 2008, 12:50:42 PM
So, don't expect an answer soon, unless some other FE'er feels like dealing with your tl;dr.
Oh, I'm quite sure they'll ignore it just as they do every other set of facts that effectively topples their tower of BS.
GPS manufacturers? You know, the military uses those things seriously. If they show fake maps of the earth, they would sort of notice.The military knows all and sees all?
Quote from: GUNAnother thing I thought of - you say that the leaders of this conspiracy are getting fat paychecks from the "funding".Neither. All of the money goes towards faking the existance of an entire continent.
But I thought that this "funding" went towards paying for the advanced digital imaging equipment and computers used to fake space exploration.
So which is it?
Quote from: GUNAnother thing I thought of - you say that the leaders of this conspiracy are getting fat paychecks from the "funding".Neither. All of the money goes towards faking the existance of an entire continent.
But I thought that this "funding" went towards paying for the advanced digital imaging equipment and computers used to fake space exploration.
So which is it?
What continent is this?
What about that whole thing of Earth accelerating upwards. That means we wouldn't be going by 1g, so the pressure would eventually kill us. The acceleration means a short hop would hurt a lot. How fast are we accelerating, and how fast are we currently going now? If you are a RE, then we are moving at about 1,000 kilometers per second, if you only count the galaxy, but there is no acceleration or deceleration, so that doesn't matter.
didnt sir richard branson just make a 200,000 dollar space flight possible? yes, i believe he did.
A photon hasnearlyno mass, being a photon.
A photon hasnearlyno mass, being a photon.
Fixed that for you.
1,000 guards..... for the entire "Ice Wall"............. /sign/ Just..... no. And 47 million? Complete garbarge.
He is saying the wall is guarded by 652 men, but cutting it down further when taking into account: apache helicopters, radars, spy-planes and time it takes to get there.
For christ sake, move this piece of shit out of the god damn FAQ.
He is saying the wall is guarded by 652 men, but cutting it down further when taking into account: apache helicopters, radars, spy-planes and time it takes to get there.
That blows his orignal estimate straight out of the water. - A single Apche Helicopter would cost around 15 mil. right off the bat.... and don't get me started on radar installations.
The Conclusive Categorical Conspiracy Compendium
Okay. There has been way too many threads asking about the same damned question, and too many people saying that the governments can't pull together a conspiracy as such, and what not. This will conclusively prove that it is entirely plausible, profitable and, hopefully, probable. Expect me to reference this any time you ask a stupid question about the conspiracy again.
First Topic:
How Can They Afford the Conspiracy?
Bribes
Let's look at this liberally (keep in mind these are probably near maximized estimates). Who actually kneeds to know?
Who DOES Need to Know:
NASA -- Okay, so the top three (at most) need to know, we'll say. These are the guys who actually are controlling the conspiracy, and maybe some of the profit is divided amongst them, but they don't need to be bribed to shut their mouths, and thus have no leverage amongst the others. If we say about three other people in NASA know about it, who are helping with image editing, video editing, and general coverage, but working closely with the top three.
RASA -- The Russians are just about equal if not more active in space exploration as the US, so we'll say these guys have six people helping out with the conspiracy as well. As a matter of fact, tag one more on, just because I'm generous. That leaves us with thirteen people.
China -- Yes, in 2003, China became the third country to independently send a manned spaceship into outer space. However, their space program isn't all that big. As a (very) liberal estimate, we'll say they need about three people. But why don't we tag on one more just to make sure I'm not cheating. That leaves us with seventeen people from the space exploration crews that need to know.
GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.
Public Relations People -- NASA or RASA conspirators could fill this role, too, but again, generosity has the better of me, and I'm going to say that the conspiracy hires people to do this, too, since the guys in the space exploration teams are filled with a bunch of pale, pimply white guys, and therefore aren't good at convincing people of the truth. We'll say they need a couple of these guys, bringing the total up to a whopping twenty people.
People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.
Ice Wall Guards -- These guys don't need to be paid in full, either, as they're only guarding an ice wall. I believe that it was Erasmus who pulled some mathematics on this one, and showed that not that many people were needed to guard the ice wall. As they don't really have any leverage on the conspiracy, they won't count for this part (I'll go back to it later), since this is mostly about who needs to be paid to shut their mouths.
Who Does NOT Need To Know:
PotUS -- Why would the president need to know? All he knows is that he's giving money to what he thinks is a space exploration team, and then he sees exactly what everyone in the world sees on TV. He doesn't ever need to suspect a damned thing.
Members of Space Teams -- They see exactly what we see as well, but they're sitting on the ground looking at it "Live." That doesn't mean that they know that the people are actually in space, but they can make a really convincing argument towards it, perhaps.
Conclusive Mathematics:
Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.
That brings us to 40 x 1,000,000. Forty million dollars plus forty million every year? Sure, it's plenty of cash, but NASA receives so much more money than that from just governmental funds, and while I don't know much about Russian space teams, I'm sure they do, too. They can easily pay for this, and the undernoted requirements for money, without even breaking a sweat; in fact, they'll be probably pulling a profit, just from the government giving them cash.
Maintenance:
There doesn't need to be all that much maintenance, besides damage control. The space exploration programs have maintenance funds from their respective governments, so they're all self-sufficient without having to spend excess money on maintaining the conspiracy (seeing as all the cash they're not spending on research can be spent on the conspiracy).
The only reason extra money might need to be poured into the conspiracy would be for damage control. If we say that this would cost somewhere around five million per year, that still only leaves us with forty-five million per year.
*UPDATED*
Ice Wall Guarding:
If you would take note of Erasmus's calculations as far as guards go:Quote from: ErasmusSupposing for a moment that the government does guard it solely by posting men on it, these men are 150 in the air. From that hight they can see at least 15 miles in every relevant direction (this of course is calculating using the RE model... on a FE they might see farther). Thus you can cover the whole wall with just 78,225/30 = 2608 men.
You can decrease it further by giving them snowmobiles and having them ride between waypoints. If they can ride 10 mph and still keep an eye on things, then in one hour one sixth the previous number -- or 652 men -- can cover the wall in an hour. In fact, doing this gives them better coverage, since this way their 15-mile-radius field of vision doesn't have any holes.
Now take the terrain into account -- much of the Ice Wall is probably unapproachable except by air -- and you can trim down the numbers even further.
Strategically locate some helicopter pads (on the wall or floating) and you can have heavy armament on the scene in thirty minutes. Assuming an Apache helicopter can fly 150 mph, in that time they could fly 75 miles, so we would need to place pads every 150 miles, requiring 521 pads. Obviously, if you don't insist on thirty-minute response time, you can do with fewer. Don't forget that the watchmen can see 15 miles away from the wall, so thirty minutes should be more than enough to intercept any boat that tries to approach, snap pictures, and sail to safety.
Of course, this is all assuming that the only means our governments have of detecting trespassers is by looking with their eyes. We're neglecting radar and high-altitude spyplanes, probably with infrared cameras.
We're also neglecting intelligence. Anybody who wants to travel to the ice wall has to leave from someplace, and these someplaces can be watched by agents as well. There aren't too many good places to set on on such a journey from. Then, such expeditions would also have to be planned, and agents could get words about them before they even start. Once they've started, agents could monitor radio transmissions. If they can discover tresspassers a thousand miles away instead of only fifteen, then maybe they don't need so big a force as you say.
Now, I'm going to take this, and say that we need about one-thousand men guarding the wall, again with two shifts each, if we include cameras, infrared, radar, intelligence, and all that good stuff. This is more than I stated previously, but bear in mind that I had been very generous with the amount those men had been paid. Now, seeing as the men practically have no influence (all they do is guard an ice wall; it's not like it's probable they have a lot of friends at all, let alone ones in high places), they don't necessarily need a very grand rate of pay. Therefore I'm dropping my previous estimate to a simple one-hundred thousand dollars per person. That still leaves us with the same amount of two-million dollars to pay for every guard in the wall forces.
CONSPIRACY MONEY TOTAL = $47,000,000 USD (Forty-Million U.S. Dollars)
Don't you think someone would notice ~~$15.7 million going to the top three NASA guys that should've gone to the actual space program? That means not only would those three need to be involved (as well as countless others, really) but the people who do their finances.
Don't you think someone would notice ~~$15.7 million going to the top three NASA guys that should've gone to the actual space program? That means not only would those three need to be involved (as well as countless others, really) but the people who do their finances.
Since no one can show that a conspiracy would not cost more than an actual space program, this is a moot point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion.
$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion.
I'm not sure how you arrived at your figure of a million a year. Seems arbitrary.Quote$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.
I don't think you'll find anyone who believes conspirators do anything on your list other than "programs to fake images".
Feature: Lighting of the EarthYet again, you have linked to a website that agrees with you but that doesn't actually prove anything. And yet again, there are several theories of how this might be integrated into FET, including my Sky Mirror hypothesis and Wilmore's alternative FE map.
Evidence: Midnight Sun- around the NH winter solstice, antarctica gets 24 hours of light
Source: http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/antarctica/page.html
Explanation in RET: the Earth is tilted 23.5 degrees, so antarctica being south-most, points to the sun always
Why FET isnotdoinitrite: take two opposite points on antartica on the FET map. take the points on that diameter. how could the all the points near the circumference see light, but not all of the points on the diameter?
Australia is a lie perpetuated by the conspiracy. It is in fact part of Africa.
1. OP: Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.
2.
ice wall guards
FAQ:
Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"
A: ... It is also possible that the Conspiracy is guarding the edge to prevent people from getting too close to the truth.
So it costs more to pretend to go into space than to actually go into space? ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion. (source:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#1 )
in just 4 years, a real spaceflight would cost less.
$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.
so yes, it does cost more to fake a space flight than to actually have one.
Sky mirrors (atleast as you are postulating) and Australia not existing are laughable and untenable beliefs held by noone on the forum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion. (source:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#1 )
in just 4 years, a real spaceflight would cost less.
$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.
so yes, it does cost more to fake a space flight than to actually have one.
Not to mention the costs of actually doing the observable day-to-day operations that we can observe NASA doing, along with actually launching fake spaceships all the time.
Sky mirrors (atleast as you are postulating) and Australia not existing are laughable and untenable beliefs held by noone on the forum.
Perhaps you should tell that to the people on the forum who have repeatedly claimed those things.
Sky mirrors (atleast as you are postulating) and Australia not existing are laughable and untenable beliefs held by noone on the forum.
Perhaps you should tell that to the people on the forum who have repeatedly claimed those things.
What, you mean the trolls? That has been said to them many times, but direct confrontations have never stopped trolling on this site before, and I doubt they're going to now. There's only one way to kill a troll, and the only person who has the power to make it happen is the person who's currently feeding the troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion.
I'm not sure how you arrived at your figure of a million a year. Seems arbitrary.Quote$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.
I don't think you'll find anyone who believes conspirators do anything on your list other than "programs to fake images".
1. OP: Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.
Or hows about "we'll kill your family in front of you and torture you until death if you talk; if you don't you'll live comfortably."
so there are five hundred astronauts all being threatened? they would all rebel.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name
548 astronauts, 548,000,000 USD/year, and many more scientists. Now with space tourism, that is going to increase much more. a real spaceflight, is a 1 time cost of $1.7 billion.
I'm not sure how you arrived at your figure of a million a year. Seems arbitrary.Quote$548 million is just for the astronauts, faking Australia, guarding the ice wall, sky mirrors, programs to fake images, etc. all cost money.
I don't think you'll find anyone who believes conspirators do anything on your list other than "programs to fake images".
1. OP: Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.
Or hows about "we'll kill your family in front of you and torture you until death if you talk; if you don't you'll live comfortably."
You seem to think that if there is a conspiracy they are hiring on Monster.com. Those that would be in the conspiracy are there because they either want to be or have no option.
Don't you think someone would notice ~~$15.7 million going to the top three NASA guys that should've gone to the actual space program? That means not only would those three need to be involved (as well as countless others, really) but the people who do their finances.
Since no one can show that a conspiracy would not cost more than an actual space program, this is a moot point.
So it costs more to pretend to go into space than to actually go into space? ???
Ok, I don't have the energy to read the entire 25-pages tread. I just wonder:
The conspiracy couldn't work if not most people believed that the earth is round. How did most people come to believe that?
This is likely part of the issue. The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities. However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.Ok, I don't have the energy to read the entire 25-pages tread. I just wonder:
The conspiracy couldn't work if not most people believed that the earth is round. How did most people come to believe that?
I imagine all the facts and repeatable observations in RET convinced most people that the Earth is round.
Of course not. But most people are surely more likely to follow a theory which they can recreate themselves, and ultimately reproduce the same results as everyone else. Hence RET's mass following.This is likely part of the issue. The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities. However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.Ok, I don't have the energy to read the entire 25-pages tread. I just wonder:
The conspiracy couldn't work if not most people believed that the earth is round. How did most people come to believe that?
I imagine all the facts and repeatable observations in RET convinced most people that the Earth is round.
The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities. However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.
Quote from: rr332211Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.
Gravity makes perfect sense? Can you explain what gravity is? I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.
Quote from: rr332211Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.
Gravity makes perfect sense? Can you explain what gravity is? I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.
I cannot into quantum phisics.
Quote from: rr332211Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.
Gravity makes perfect sense? Can you explain what gravity is? I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.
I cannot into quantum phisics.
Please do not bump a thread unless you have something productive to add to the discussion.
Quote from: rr332211Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.
Gravity makes perfect sense? Can you explain what gravity is? I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.
I cannot into quantum phisics.
Please do not bump a thread unless you have something productive to add to the discussion.
Please do not threaten me.. I plan to post startling new evidence within the next 2 weeks. It will be conclusive evidence for either RE or FE. Hopefully the ban will be over by then.Quote from: rr332211Gravity makes perfect sense, and all the numbers fit.Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.
Gravity makes perfect sense? Can you explain what gravity is? I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.
I cannot into quantum phisics.
Please do not bump a thread unless you have something productive to add to the discussion.
hoppy, consider this a warning. Any more shenanigans and it's a ban.
Please do not bump a thread unless you have something productive to add to the discussion.
I think most, both RE and FE believers find this thread kind of ridiculous. The conspiracy definitely requires more conspirators than what is listed in the OP.
So... why is the earth accelerating? And, with the earth moving upward at 1g, why aren't our legs crushed each time we jump in the air?An accelerating disc with acceleration 1g would simulate gravity pretty neatly(If there was no original gravity). Your mass adopts to the previous speeds, so you would always feel the same kind of force of 9.8N towards the disc.
All mass attracts other mass. Earth has a lot of mass, and we don't, so we get attracted to Earth more than Earth is attracted to us.actually we are attracted with the same force F = -F (Newton's 3rd law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."). But as the Newton second law states that Force = mass*acceleration.
Uh, oh, you said the magic phrase.No one has yet understood why mass creates gravity, but we sure know that it does. You do know that gravitational force is not a constant right? It differs by the location on the earth, being biggest at the poles, and lowest at the equator.
Gravity makes perfect sense? Can you explain what gravity is? I would like to know how this magical 'force' works.
What do you base this on?The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities. However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.
However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
What do you base this on?The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities. However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.
However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
What do you base this on?The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities. However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.
However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
I predict that when I press the power button on my computer, the computer will turn it. I think power buttons turn things on. 10/10 times, it turns on when I press the button.
Upon further investigation, I found that the power buttons turn things on.
Lo! My hypothesis was confirmed by my accurate predictions!
Empirical observations.What do you base this on?The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities. However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.
However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
I predict that when I press the power button on my computer, the computer will turn it. I think power buttons turn things on. 10/10 times, it turns on when I press the button.You've never had a power supply fail, have you?
My point was that the only gauge for "the right direction" you use is an increase in predictive power which may not necessarily be tied to an increase in the inherent truth in the model being represented. For example, Relativity is more accurate than Newtons work. This does not mean Relativity is by nature "more true" than Newtons work - that remains to be seen. It could be just as wrong or even more wrong.Empirical observations.What do you base this on?The RE model is quite robust in its predictive abilities. However, prediction does not imply truth, as can be evidence time and time again even within science and the foundations of science.
However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.I predict that when I press the power button on my computer, the computer will turn it. I think power buttons turn things on. 10/10 times, it turns on when I press the button.You've never had a power supply fail, have you?
However, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
A statement with basis by nature. There is no way for one to know they are "on the right track" towards truth simply due to predictive ability. Only that they are on the right track to create models that predict better.Quote from: MarkjoHowever, accurate predictions are usually a pretty good sign that you're on the right track.
So 40 people earning 1,000,000 $ each each year for keeping their mouth closed?
Only 40? Only 1,000,000 $ each?
What a completely unzetetic claim! (and so preposterous it is really funny).
So 40 people earning 1,000,000 $ each each year for keeping their mouth closed?
Only 40? Only 1,000,000 $ each?
What a completely unzetetic claim! (and so preposterous it is really funny).
Do you think you're the first person to say that in this thread?
Where is the question?So 40 people earning 1,000,000 $ each each year for keeping their mouth closed?
Only 40? Only 1,000,000 $ each?
What a completely unzetetic claim! (and so preposterous it is really funny).
Do you think you're the first person to say that in this thread?
And I will continue to ask this question until I get a plausible answer.
I am looking for a more plausible conspiracy theory. The 40 people just don't make sense.It's not to difficult to deceive/ buy out/ brainwash 500 people, is it? Come on, you can do better than that.
For instance, over 500 astronauts have flown into space (see http://www.spacefacts.de/). are they all part of the conspiracy?
It's not to difficult to deceive/ buy out/ brainwash 500 people, is it? Come on, you can do better than that.
They all think the Earth is round. They don't have to deal with them.It's not to difficult to deceive/ buy out/ brainwash 500 people, is it? Come on, you can do better than that.
Yeah, really? You have any experience/knowledge of that?
And I was merely giving one example.
Here's another one: how many astrophysicists are there in the world? Somewhere around 10.000. So how does the conspiracy deals with all of them?
They think that the Earth is round, that Antarctica is just a continent because they have scientific evidence.Their "evidence" is based on Round Earth theories, and is thus inaccurate.
Skull and Bones part of the conspiracy? How many more people in the conspiracy?Sorry I forgot the link.