The Flat Earth FAQ Thread

  • 107 Replies
  • 32219 Views
*

Offline joffenz

  • *****
  • 1274
    • View Profile
The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #90 on: April 20, 2006, 01:15:12 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
On notation: I'm thinking we should distinguish between answers that are supported by some documentation, and answers that we on these fora come up with ourselves.  Maybe

A*: This is Samuel Rowbotham's answer
A+: This is the Bible's answer
A?: This is an answer proposed and not yet refuted on the FES website.

Thoughts?

-Erasmus


I agree, but even then there are multiple FE models. We really need a document describing each FE model, with a detailed response to commonly attempted RE refutations of each model plus an FAQ for each model.

The problem is finding the time to write that all up :roll:

*

Offline Erasmus

  • *****
  • 4242
    • View Profile
The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #91 on: April 20, 2006, 03:46:04 PM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
I agree, but even then there are multiple FE models.


Obviously; I'm just suggesting that we annotate the FAQ so that you can easily tell which model a given answer comes from.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

Offline joffenz

  • *****
  • 1274
    • View Profile
The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #92 on: April 21, 2006, 09:01:48 AM »
Quote from: "lizardogre"
Answer instantaneously and I'll never mension the consept of relativity weight or newtons again (unless referring to another topic)


What exactly do you want answered? There is one FE model which states that gravity exist, and there is another which states that the effect of gravity is replicated by the Earth accelerating upwards.

*

Offline Marshy

  • 106
    • View Profile
The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #93 on: April 21, 2006, 09:23:35 AM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Yes it should be authoratitive so debating what the FE's exactly believe is fine.

But it's meant to just be answers to Q's about FE, not where FE's asks RE's questions and vice versa. Eg, if the question was "Why hasn't anyoned fallen off the Earth?" and the response was "There's an ice wall" then that would be fine.

But then asking "How come no one has seen it?" is more of a debate. That's attempting to point out the flaws in the theory, rather than what the theory actually is. Although if they give an answer like "It's a government conspiracy" then that should be acceptable as it's stating a fact (well, they believe it's fact)

The idea behind this thread is so that someone can go in and get the basic ideas of FE theory, so that they can then agree or argue against them in another thread.

Perhaps there should be an RE FAQ thread too?


Sure, why not, theres a crapload more evidence for it anyways.
i]On this issue -- my default assumption is that all members of this forum are male.  I usually expect women to have more sense than to waste their time arguing trivialities over the internet.
[/i]
-Erasmus

*

Offline joffenz

  • *****
  • 1274
    • View Profile
The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #94 on: April 21, 2006, 09:41:48 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"

Obviously; I'm just suggesting that we annotate the FAQ so that you can easily tell which model a given answer comes from.

-Erasmus


Indeed, it's a good idea, but I feel we need more than an FAQ now. Some sort of document which describes the theory would be best, I think. The FAQ could remain for common questions that usually crop up.

And also, what do you think of a seperate FAQ for each model?

The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #95 on: April 27, 2006, 07:40:30 AM »
I'd just like to make a few physics clarifications upon the physics described here, note the points I will bring up are not argue for or against FE, just to clarify some physics :)

Two things from the beginning:

Quote from: "cheesejoff"

Q: "What force is acting on the Earth to make it accelerate?"

A: Dark Energy

Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be travelling at the speed of light, which is impossible?"

A: "From any relative frame of reference in the universe, the Earth is not travelling above the speed of light.

The Earth is only travelling above the speed of light if it's velocity is measured from an absolute frame of reference.

However, the theory of relativitity states there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference, therefore the Earth is not travelling above the speed of light"


You said correctly that there is no absolute frame of reference. I do not understand what you mean by a "relative frame of reference", there are only two types of frames of reference. An accelerated frame of reference, which the earth is (for both flat earth people and not flat earth people). And an inertial frame of reference, which means that the sum of all the forces on your reference frame is zero (aka jumping off the earth for flat earthers or freely floating in space far from any large gravitational body).

What I want to bring up is that in the Flat Earth model, the earth would never appear to go past the speed of light from any observer's point a view.

I will propose two thought experiments, one for flat earthers and one for round earthers.

Flat Earthers:

Imagine you hop off the edge of the earth and are now freely floating through space. Take your frame, which will be inertial, to be at rest. As you jump off you should see the earth accelerating away from you at about 10 m/s^2. So as you measure it's speed from one second to another you'll see that it will be going 10m/s after the first second, 20m/s after the third, and it will continue in this linear fasion for quite a while. As the planet's speed approaches the speed of light it will seem to you that it's picking up less and less speed, although the people who are still on earth will still feel the normal 10m/s^2 acceleration. This is a result of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

Round Earthers:

Imagine you're an astronaut in a deep space mission far away from any galaxies, completely empty space. You are outside your spaceship doing some repairs when your crew decides to pull a cruel joke on you and the ship starts accelerating at a constant 10m/s^2 away from you leaving you stranded. Then the same argument holds, (I will copy and paste here so you don't have to read if you read above) So as you measure it's speed from one second to another you'll see that it will be going 10m/s after the first second, 20m/s after the third, and it will continue in this linear fasion for quite a while. As the planet's speed approaches the speed of light it will seem to you that it's picking up less and less speed, although the people who are still on earth will still feel the normal 10m/s^2 acceleration. This is a result of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.


Thus in any model, the question that "would the earth seem to go past the speed of light" is not a good one, because nothing can go faster than the speed of light (except chuck norris ;) )

*

Offline Erasmus

  • *****
  • 4242
    • View Profile
The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #96 on: April 27, 2006, 11:48:25 AM »
Quote from: "i'm a little slow"
Quote from: "cheesejoff"

A: "From any relative frame of reference in the universe, the Earth is not travelling above the speed of light.

The Earth is only travelling above the speed of light if it's velocity is measured from an absolute frame of reference.

However, the theory of relativitity states there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference, therefore the Earth is not travelling above the speed of light"


This is from an old version of the FAQ; have a look at what it says now.

Quote
What I want to bring up is that in the Flat Earth model, the earth would never appear to go past the speed of light from any observer's point a view.

Quote
As the planet's speed approaches the speed of light it will seem to you that it's picking up less and less speed, although the people who are still on earth will still feel the normal 10m/s^2 acceleration. This is a result of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

...

Thus in any model, the question that "would the earth seem to go past the speed of light" is not a good one, because nothing can go faster than the speed of light (except chuck norris ;) )


Yay!

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #97 on: April 27, 2006, 01:27:53 PM »
Are these "models" actual models (as in a miniature Near-Universe made of clay) or are they a metaphorical way to talk about different ways the Earth could look compared to the rest of the Universe or how the Earth would act with everything else?

Is there a place where I can read about/see the different models?

*

Offline Erasmus

  • *****
  • 4242
    • View Profile
The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #98 on: April 27, 2006, 02:14:45 PM »
Quote from: "lizardogre"
Are these "models" actual models (as in a miniature Near-Universe made of clay) or are they a metaphorical way to talk about different ways the Earth could look compared to the rest of the Universe or how the Earth would act with everything else?


Well, neither.  The models are mathematical -- they formally describe relationships between measureable quantities and adjustable parameters.

Quote
Is there a place where I can read about/see the different models?


The canonical model for a flat Earth as used in this forum was codified by Samuel Rowbotham; there's a link to his book (accessible online) in the FAQ.

For a description of the Standard Model of cosmology, I recommend Wikipedia.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

Offline Marshy

  • 106
    • View Profile
The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #99 on: April 27, 2006, 03:45:31 PM »
I have a q about Dark Energy.

OK so it pushes stuff up like the earth and the moon and the sun and stars:



now then, how does it not push up people? surely if it pushes the stars above the Earth it would push the people on it?
i]On this issue -- my default assumption is that all members of this forum are male.  I usually expect women to have more sense than to waste their time arguing trivialities over the internet.
[/i]
-Erasmus

Dark Energy
« Reply #100 on: April 27, 2006, 06:15:44 PM »
The only thing I can possibly think of is that biological organisms are immune to it's effect, but other things are not. I have no way to back this up, but unless someone can think of a better explanation, that one's the best I've found. I don't believe in the upward motion theory/assertion/whatever, either, for the record.


--Chal

The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #101 on: April 27, 2006, 06:54:56 PM »
In response to Marshy.

The claim is that a "Dark Energy" pushes the earth up. First of all I'd like to clarify another physics concept which is usually confused; the distinction between Force and Energy.

When you push something, you exert a force on it and it causes it to move. Friction is the force that causes most objects on earth to slow down to a stop. So what the flat people mean to say is that some "dark force" is pushing the earth up. The way I interpret this is that the earth is like a plate stuck to the tip of a giant rocket that is propelling it through space. So that would eliminate the need to give biological organisms a special preference since they are in turn pushed up by the earth, which is pushed up by the rocket or whatever.

Science in general doesn't deal with exceptions. Everything is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, so there would be no sensible reason as to why the earth's protons neutrons and electrons are subject to different laws of physics than those that make up organisms.


The concept of energy is a little abstract. I was going to give the example of holding a rock above your head will have a certain "gravitational potential energy" as physicists like to call it, but since certain people here disbelieve the existence of gravity, I'll use a more kosher example.

Imagine you attach a tiny pebble to a rubber band, and stretch it out a certain distance, say 1 foot. You can say that the stretched rubber band has a certain "elastic potential energy" and when you release it, it will transfer all its "energy" to the pebble, which will exhibit it in the form of kinetic energy.


So fundamentally there are only two types of energy, potential and kinetic. Potential can be seen in chemical bonds, stretching rubber bands, nuclear potential energy, and round people also have an extra one called gravitational potential energy (I'm just kidding, flat people have it too, they can just call it differently). There are a bunch more forms of potential energy but I think you get the idea.

The other form is kinetic, which is pretty much the energy of motion. So a car would have kinetic energy, as would a train, etc. What we call temperature is pretty much the average kinetic energy of the small molecules that surround us.


For those of you that saw Star Wars, you'll remember that both the Jedi and the Darth People used "The Force" to push things around and do all sorts of funky stuff, not energy. I guess the dark side of the force explains thing round people call gravity.

*

Offline Marshy

  • 106
    • View Profile
The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #102 on: April 28, 2006, 07:17:34 AM »
I don't think that explains why the stars didnt crash into earth a while ago.
i]On this issue -- my default assumption is that all members of this forum are male.  I usually expect women to have more sense than to waste their time arguing trivialities over the internet.
[/i]
-Erasmus

*

Peet42

A question for the FAQ
« Reply #103 on: June 26, 2006, 03:22:48 AM »
Guys, can you please explain the working of seasons?

Given a flat-earth perspective, the length of time the Sun is in the sky should be the same in the UK and Australia, yet they are manifestly different.  When it's Summer in the UK it's Winter in Australia, and vice-versa.

Does this mean you're going to have to expand your conspiracy theory to include anyone who has ever made a 'phone call form one location to the other and commented on the weather?

Re: A question for the FAQ
« Reply #104 on: December 18, 2006, 08:39:48 PM »
Quote from: "Peet42"
Guys, can you please explain the working of seasons?

Given a flat-earth perspective, the length of time the Sun is in the sky should be the same in the UK and Australia, yet they are manifestly different.  When it's Summer in the UK it's Winter in Australia, and vice-versa.

Does this mean you're going to have to expand your conspiracy theory to include anyone who has ever made a 'phone call form one location to the other and commented on the weather?
You obviously havn't looked into the explanation of seasons already proposed on this site.





When reading through your Flat Earth FAQ, I got to the unanswered questions section and immediately knew the answers to many of the questions. I felt I should share them with you in the hopes of expanding your FAQ.



Q: "How does the atmosphere stay on the Earth?"

A: This argument is a non sequitur, being based on the asumption that NASA is telling the truth about there being no air away from the earth's surface.

Q: Follow-up to previous question: "Then why is air thinner at high altitudes?" & "What about air pressure?"

A: This is a direct result of the earth's upward acceleration and the ice wall encircling it. Air pressure is the equivalent of the wind resistance you can experience by rolling down the window in a moving car. The ice wall helps to contain the air to prevent it from blowing off the edges as the earth moves, making the air relatively stationary across the planet while still being compressed by the air above it. This also explains why high altitudes also tend to have very high winds.


Q: "Explain the Coriolis force."

A: It has now been widely proven by scientists that the ficticious "Coriolis Effect" does not in fact exist. For proof of this claim, feel free to perform a Google search.

A: (in detail) The Coriolis Effect is a false observation based on a rotating point of reference. An object moving in a straight line above a rotating surface will appear to move in a curved line. FE Theory does not necessarily preclude the possibility of the earth spinning through space in a fashion similar to that of a spinning frisbee, which would in turn cause the appearance of the Coriolis Effect on objects moving in a true straight line. Contrary to popular belief, the Coriolis Effect has no affects on stationary objects such as water going down a drain. Again, feel free to do a Google search to verify these claims.


Q: "Why does the hull of a ship disappear over the horizon before the mast does?"

This is an optical illusion caused by the lens distortion effect of the air between you and said distant ship that causes the portion of the ship below a certain height to be indistiguishable from the surface of the water to the human eye. This is why the horizon appears "fuzzy" and there is a limit to line of sight across the earth's surface.


Q: "If the moon is a spotlight, why can I see a "man" in the moon (shadows cast by the sun on the hills and mountains on it) last I checked a light can't contain shadows."

A1: The moon is not a perfect light, and there are some parts dimmer than others. The sun has a similar characteristic called sunspots.

A2: The moon doesn't actually create the light but functions as a large reflecter of the sun's light. Details of this answer were explained in Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"


Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole.

A: All compasses point towards the North pole. There does not need to be a south magnetic pole. It is possible that the opposite poles on compasses and magnets are repelled from the earth's north magnetic pole just as two magnets of the same charge are repulsed from one another. Conversely, the entire ice wall around the outer edge of the earth could have magnetically charged elements within the ice, with some portions having higher concentrations than others giving the appearance of a singular southern pole. As yet another alternate explanation, the other magnetic pole could be located on the opposite geographic face of the planet, i.e. the bottom.
he Engineer is not a douchebag.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein

*

Offline TheEngineer

  • *****
  • 15487
  • GPS does not require satellites.
    • View Profile
Re: A question for the FAQ
« Reply #105 on: December 18, 2006, 09:05:05 PM »
Quote from: "Fredrick"

Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole.

A: All compasses point towards the North pole. There does not need to be a south magnetic pole. It is possible that the opposite poles on compasses and magnets are repelled from the earth's north magnetic pole just as two magnets of the same charge are repulsed from one another.

Good job bumping a 6 month old thread...

You can't have a north pole without a south pole.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: A question for the FAQ
« Reply #106 on: December 18, 2006, 09:52:38 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Fredrick"

Q: Explain magnetism is there is no South pole.

A: All compasses point towards the North pole. There does not need to be a south magnetic pole. It is possible that the opposite poles on compasses and magnets are repelled from the earth's north magnetic pole just as two magnets of the same charge are repulsed from one another.

Good job bumping a 6 month old thread...

You can't have a north pole without a south pole.
EnragedPenguin told me to.

Eh, it was a suggestion. If you'll read the rest, I offered other alternatives.
he Engineer is not a douchebag.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein

Re: The Flat Earth FAQ Thread
« Reply #107 on: November 10, 2007, 09:51:56 AM »
We really need to update this thing.