1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: June 06, 2011, 10:47:53 AM »

No, because the skydiver's fall is equally affected by the force of drag in both models.

Please elaborate.

I'm sorry, do you not understand the concept of drag?  Try wikipedia.

Real mature, I don't remember disrespecting you, why the animosity? I meant, how would the drag be the same if the earth is accelerating? I suppose if you mean the air is also rushing up and accelerating at the same constant. My point is, the longer you're in the air, the more speed the earth is picking up. Even with drag, you'd still notice a decrease in time to reach the earth. Since earth's gravity in RET is, more or less, a 'constant', terminal velocity is a predictable value, but if UA is increasing at a fixed rate, shouldn't the earth still 'catch up' faster, regardless of air resistance?

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: June 05, 2011, 07:07:15 PM »

No, because the skydiver's fall is equally affected by the force of drag in both models.

Please elaborate.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: June 05, 2011, 01:32:29 AM »

... are you even thinking this through at all?

If the apple is stationary on the Earth, than it is being accelerated by the Earth. The Earth is pushing along objects on the Earth, so they are accelerating at G as well.

For the sake of simple math, I am having G = 10m/s²

Lets say there are two apples on a tree handing about 10 meters above the ground. Just before the first apple falls, the Earth is moving at 100 m/s. This means that the tree is also moving at 100m/s, and therefore the apples are too. Now the first apple falls. It is no longer in contact with anything (besides a small cushion of air) so it is no longer accelerating at G. The Earth is accelerating at 10 meters a second², so it meets the apple, and it hits the ground in about one second. Now at that instant, the Earth is at 110m/s, the apple on the ground is moving at 110m/s, and the tree and the second apple hanging on it are moving at 110m/s. The second apple drops. It is no longer in contact with anything (besides a small cushion of air) so it is no longer accelerating at G. The Earth is accelerating at about 10 meters a second², so it meets the apple, and it hits the ground in about one second. At that instant, the whole system is moving at 120m/s and is accelerating at G.

What are you confused about? The Earth is continuously accelerating, but that acceleration is constant.

Ok, how about this. A skydiver jumps out of a plane high in the sky, how can there be UA if a person reaches their terminal velocity and maintains a speed until they release their parachute? Wouldn't UA make the earth 'catch up' much faster?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A few Questions

« on: June 04, 2011, 11:01:35 AM »

You're trying to describe FET in terms of RET. In FET, the Earth is a unique body and, in the Davis model, not a celestial body in any traditional sense.

Hmm, so uniformity doesn't exist in the FET model. I'm wondering, is there any rational thought that went into these speculations? Or did someone come up with theories that specifically couldn't be tested?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A few Questions

« on: June 03, 2011, 09:52:58 PM »

I've been reading a bit of threads that oppose the FET. I've got a few questions of my own:
1. Where is the anti moon that is seemingly only apparent during lunar eclipses(and possibly solar eclipses? )
2. While on the subject of solar eclipses, what causes them? I hadn't seen any explanations in the FAQ. I may have overlooked it.
3. Why is the earth supposedly 'unique'? Is this in conjunction with the theory that we have not found any other life so far?
4. What caused mountains? How can the earth be 9000 years old if mountains take millions of years to form?
5. Does the heat we get come from the sun in the FE models? If so, what kind of reaction causes this release of energy?

I'll probably have more questions later, but we'll start off slow for now. I've tried to ask questions not covered in the FAQ. From what I've seen so far, I've seen a lot of deviation off the main topic on other threads that attempt to 'debunk' the FE theory. I'm looking for straight answers, please.

I'll be honest with you, I believe the earth is round, and think that anyone trying to prove otherwise is doing it for the sake of argument. While I do like a good argument, that's what it seems to be, only an argument. A means to promote deeper thinking. philosophical pondering.

I've seen a bit of question dodging and deflections instead of answers from FE believers. I figure if I try to present a half decent argument, you'll attempt to answer my questions reasonably.

2. Solar eclipses don't exist, the conspiracy made them up.
4. Same as above
5. Same as 2

If I keep seeing posts like this, I'll go with my original theory that this site is all one big troll.

Right, because his 44 posts suggests that he reflects this site as a whole.

No, you're right. That was a rash jump to conclusion on my part. I'm growing rather impatient, seeing as there have been more posts that don't answer my questions that do.

I have been reading other posts in the meantime, and from what I see, no one really looks to prove the FET. Instead, they propose this theory, and seek to disprove all other theories (RET) without providing as much as a shred of proof to their own. Throw in a reason to discredit one of the only ways to get outer space photographs(nasa), and you pretty much have an airtight 'theory'. The FET don't do conventional tests or experiments, instead they challenge the opposition to prove their own theory, deflecting the query of experimentation onto the other. Through this tactic, they look to disprove other theories, and leave their own theory standing. To be honest, I wouldn't even call this (FET) a theory, but more of a postulation. Little to no science support this postulation other than the vague misunderstood science used to defend it. All else is ignored.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A few Questions

« on: June 03, 2011, 08:24:49 PM »

I've been reading a bit of threads that oppose the FET. I've got a few questions of my own:
1. Where is the anti moon that is seemingly only apparent during lunar eclipses(and possibly solar eclipses? )
2. While on the subject of solar eclipses, what causes them? I hadn't seen any explanations in the FAQ. I may have overlooked it.
3. Why is the earth supposedly 'unique'? Is this in conjunction with the theory that we have not found any other life so far?
4. What caused mountains? How can the earth be 9000 years old if mountains take millions of years to form?
5. Does the heat we get come from the sun in the FE models? If so, what kind of reaction causes this release of energy?

I'll probably have more questions later, but we'll start off slow for now. I've tried to ask questions not covered in the FAQ. From what I've seen so far, I've seen a lot of deviation off the main topic on other threads that attempt to 'debunk' the FE theory. I'm looking for straight answers, please.

I'll be honest with you, I believe the earth is round, and think that anyone trying to prove otherwise is doing it for the sake of argument. While I do like a good argument, that's what it seems to be, only an argument. A means to promote deeper thinking. philosophical pondering.

I've seen a bit of question dodging and deflections instead of answers from FE believers. I figure if I try to present a half decent argument, you'll attempt to answer my questions reasonably.

2. Solar eclipses don't exist, the conspiracy made them up.
4. Same as above
5. Same as 2

If I keep seeing posts like this, I'll go with my original theory that this site is all one big troll.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A few Questions

« on: June 03, 2011, 02:23:25 PM »

Yes, but I'd like to ask: What's so strange about that? Each and every celestial body has its unique properties.

Of course.  But I think the OP (and the majority of RE'ers) are conerned with the huge, fundamental difference(s) in properties and characteristics between the "flat Earth" and other celestial bodies.

Yes, this is what I mean.

Another question I've thought of, what illuminates the other planets? Surely it can't be the sun rotating directly above the earth, it isn't powerful enough to give off enough light that we could see other planets? If it could, wouldn't we be fried? I'm also still waiting an aswer to the antimoon questions I've asked earlier.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A few Questions

« on: June 03, 2011, 08:49:26 AM »

Yes, but I'd like to ask: What's so strange about that? Each and every celestial body has its unique properties.

I mean in the sense that other planets have moons that orbit them and are spherical, while the earth is the only body that is flat.

To your answer to my 4th question, I thought I read somewhere that in the flat earth theory, the earth is not approx. 4.6 billion years old, but a much younger 9000 years. Can you please clarify the subject.

About the answer of the antimoon: It seems highly unlikely that the antimoon hasn't been spotted, if an all black body was circling the 'sky', it would most certainly have blocked other stars in the night sky. And where is this body during the 'day'? Also, based on the FAQ, a lunar eclipse is caused by the interception of the antimoon between the moon and sun. If the sun and moon are spotlights, how would this affect the light we receive from the moon? Wouldn't we have noticed another gravitational force at work by looking at the tides?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / A few Questions

« on: June 03, 2011, 01:10:53 AM »

I've been reading a bit of threads that oppose the FET. I've got a few questions of my own:
1. Where is the anti moon that is seemingly only apparent during lunar eclipses(and possibly solar eclipses? )
2. While on the subject of solar eclipses, what causes them? I hadn't seen any explanations in the FAQ. I may have overlooked it.
3. Why is the earth supposedly 'unique'? Is this in conjunction with the theory that we have not found any other life so far?
4. What caused mountains? How can the earth be 9000 years old if mountains take millions of years to form?
5. Does the heat we get come from the sun in the FE models? If so, what kind of reaction causes this release of energy?

I'll probably have more questions later, but we'll start off slow for now. I've tried to ask questions not covered in the FAQ. From what I've seen so far, I've seen a lot of deviation off the main topic on other threads that attempt to 'debunk' the FE theory. I'm looking for straight answers, please.

I'll be honest with you, I believe the earth is round, and think that anyone trying to prove otherwise is doing it for the sake of argument. While I do like a good argument, that's what it seems to be, only an argument. A means to promote deeper thinking. philosophical pondering.

I've seen a bit of question dodging and deflections instead of answers from FE believers. I figure if I try to present a half decent argument, you'll attempt to answer my questions reasonably.