1
The Lounge / Changing
« on: October 19, 2012, 11:35:26 PM »
I'm going to change my name to Prawn now.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Transit of Venus
« on: May 30, 2012, 03:10:36 PM »Photos are not really evidence; if you'd read the FAQ you'd know that though. Also this really needs to go in the correct thread when another perfectly good thread exists on the matter.Photos are really evidence. There are http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2012/04/13/how-to-tell-if-a-photo-is-authentic-or-altered/ many ways to prove or disprove the authenticity of a photo beyond any doubt. The photo has to be digital and completely unmodified.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54698.0;topicseen
At last, man's greatest fear has been realized: everything is knowable.
3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« on: May 29, 2012, 10:43:16 PM »What, specifically, tells us that the very fabric of space-time is bending, or that it even exists?
Reality exists independent of human observation.
For example, when you use the word 'uncertainty' you mean that you are not certain about something that may or may not happen. You have learnt to use this word in connection with a number of finite situations, such as whether or not it will rain tomorrow. The word is not usually used to mean 'the uncertainty whether anything will go on existing' or 'the uncertainty whether anything is existing now'. It is illegitimate to use the word 'uncertainty' to refer to these kinds of uncertainty, and it is therefore impossible to formulate any statements whatever about them.
In this simple way all discourse about the infinite and inconceivable is eliminated, for it is evident that all human words have actually been developed by finite beings to deal with things they are able to conceive.
There is now no need to think about 'reality' except in the sense of 'what all right-thinking humans are in verbal agreement about'.
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
4
Flat Earth General / Re: It's Game Over for 'Flat Earth' Theorists!
« on: January 03, 2012, 03:15:35 PM »Day and night in FET:It didn't get harder at all. It's as simple as always, and my old explanation matches it perfectly.
The shadow, in that image, seems to be curved. A balloon camera in space just got a lot harder for FET to explain.
The light you drew on the known Earth is just part of the very large circle cast by the Sun. Consider the following:
Picture not to scale, only intended to illustrate the concept.
As we make the lit area larger, the lit area on the Earth becomes progressively closer to half the area of the Earth, whilst remaining curved.
I assume you're talking about the spotlight sun, even though that was previously referred to as the FAQ being wrong.
Also, the line should be straight.
Summer & Winter solcstice:
Vernal & Autumnal Equinoxes:
Of course, if you look at it from various angles, the line will appear to be curved on a sphere. This is not true on a disc. Your circle doesn't solve anything, because the curvature depends on the angle of the view, just like we learned in art class.
To summarize: amateur space pictures will be at different angles when above the Earth's atmosphere, hence changing the curvature. No circle spotlight solves this.
It just goes to show that FE'ers just make stuff up.
5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Belt of Venus Shows the Earth a Globe
« on: January 02, 2012, 10:28:30 PM »
Now, do it, FE'ers. Disprove RET for good. Disprove this. Disprove it all. Make us know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Earth is flat and it always has been flat. Help us see the truth. Help us realize that this entire time, we've been standing, walking, driving, and brushing our teeth on a perfectly flat disc. This entire time, we've been on top of flat, solid ground, not an eternally spinning planet.
This is my challenge. Show me. Prove it to me. I want to know the truth. I can't stand this any longer. Tell me the truth, I want to know the truth, the truth of what's right underneath me, and has been my entire life, and has been for all of time, and always will be. Prove it to me now.
I know you can.
I know you. You are all nothing short of genius.
Prove it. For my sake.
This is my challenge. Show me. Prove it to me. I want to know the truth. I can't stand this any longer. Tell me the truth, I want to know the truth, the truth of what's right underneath me, and has been my entire life, and has been for all of time, and always will be. Prove it to me now.
I know you can.
I know you. You are all nothing short of genius.
Prove it. For my sake.
6
Flat Earth General / Re: It's Game Over for 'Flat Earth' Theorists!
« on: January 02, 2012, 09:26:53 PM »
Day and night in FET:
The shadow, in that image, seems to be curved. A balloon camera in space just got a lot harder for FET to explain.
The shadow, in that image, seems to be curved. A balloon camera in space just got a lot harder for FET to explain.
7
Flat Earth General / Re: Don't Waste Your Money On The Tour de France Training Bike
« on: December 31, 2011, 03:29:50 AM »
France is 674,843 square kilometers. The surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 square kilometers. This is more than 750 times as big. The distortion in France only, in the polar azimuthal equidistant projection, is very low. I can't see it visibly with my eye. I suppose it all depends on whether you're denying the existence the inertia problem, that a circumnavigation of the world is a circle.
Anywho, Pongo had a mean tone, so that's a personal attack, so everything he said is wrong anyway, so it's all irrelevant anyway. I don't know why I'm even arguing it.
As for the false premise thing, here's an idiot-proof (hopefully) example:
1. I am immortal (false premise).
2. I cannot die.
3. If I jump off a cliff, I won't die.
So, what if someone says, "I'll give you five dollars if you jump off that cliff!" So I do it. But, my premise, that I am immortal, was false, so the conclusion, that jumping off a cliff won't kill me, was also false! Imagine that! Starting with a false premise led to a false conclusion. I actually will die if I jump off a cliff, unfortunately.
Anywho, Pongo had a mean tone, so that's a personal attack, so everything he said is wrong anyway, so it's all irrelevant anyway. I don't know why I'm even arguing it.
As for the false premise thing, here's an idiot-proof (hopefully) example:
1. I am immortal (false premise).
2. I cannot die.
3. If I jump off a cliff, I won't die.
So, what if someone says, "I'll give you five dollars if you jump off that cliff!" So I do it. But, my premise, that I am immortal, was false, so the conclusion, that jumping off a cliff won't kill me, was also false! Imagine that! Starting with a false premise led to a false conclusion. I actually will die if I jump off a cliff, unfortunately.
8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Victory
« on: December 27, 2011, 03:09:05 AM »
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:
where:
F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the masses
G is approximately equal to 6.674×10^−11 N m^2 kg^−2
^^The universal law.
Point out temperature. Oh wait, it's not there. Gravity is based on the masses of the two objects, the distance between them, and the constant. Universally.
There are complications, in real life, of course: air resistance happens when particles of air hit a falling object, causing, in Newton's words, an equal and opposite reaction, upwards. The object slows.
Temperature is the velocity of particles in an object. It will make no difference in air resistance unless the temperature is hugely different. I'm talking millions of degrees. And there still has to be air in roughly the same state of pressure, etc., remember, which is impossible in differences of millions of degrees, really.
Magnetism is caused by the spin of electrons, which causes attraction in certain circumstances.
I just don't understand, Silverdane. What you're saying is completely incomprehensible to me.
where:
F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the masses
G is approximately equal to 6.674×10^−11 N m^2 kg^−2
^^The universal law.
Point out temperature. Oh wait, it's not there. Gravity is based on the masses of the two objects, the distance between them, and the constant. Universally.
There are complications, in real life, of course: air resistance happens when particles of air hit a falling object, causing, in Newton's words, an equal and opposite reaction, upwards. The object slows.
Temperature is the velocity of particles in an object. It will make no difference in air resistance unless the temperature is hugely different. I'm talking millions of degrees. And there still has to be air in roughly the same state of pressure, etc., remember, which is impossible in differences of millions of degrees, really.
Magnetism is caused by the spin of electrons, which causes attraction in certain circumstances.
I just don't understand, Silverdane. What you're saying is completely incomprehensible to me.
9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« on: December 27, 2011, 02:28:31 AM »Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold.Yes, he did. Newton was one of those insane geniuses you hear about, like Vincent van Gogh. In fact, the two were very similar. They did not get along with other people. Both were known to become extremely angry when challenged. This does not, however, change the fact that they were geniuses with good ideas. That is true Argumentum ad hominem.
One model should be enough. Imagine this above us.Look closely at the Earth in this image. It is distinctly round. This model works based on a spherical Earth. If you flattened out the Earth, this model would no longer explain the view of Mars in the sky. Look at http://www.jimloy.com/cindy/ptolemy.htm. First diagram shows a red arrow. This is an observer on Earth observing Mars. The planets both move, but the arrow itself slows down, goes backwards, slows, and turns forward again. This is what causes the view to be like the second diagram. Ptolomy believed that the Earth was a sphere in the center of the universe, so his epicycles were his explanation for the behavior. It makes no sense on a flat Earth.
FET only has 5 planets.
Another mind-bendingly obvious FET-is-wrong. Amateur astronomers see them Uranus and Neptune every day.
http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/spacenow/newsitem.aspx/2/990/Launch_Into_Space
[img=http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/18629Uranus_Croped.jpg]http://Uranus[/img]
[img=http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/531220a-med.jpg]http://Neptune and Triton[/img]
[img=http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/5311845-med.jpg]http://Uranus with Oberon and Titania[/img]
A logical answer is, "How do you know those are actually them?" Because they pointed their telescopes at a specific angle to find the planets based on the known RET-based orbits of the planets. Click on the first link again if skeptic.
----
Just to clear things up, these are the days of the week: http://deoxy.org/time/d2k/thedays.htm
There were five planets, a sun, and a moon visible to the ancients in the night sky. This is probably what the seven days in the Bible came from in the first place (just a wild guess).
All in all, the week was based off the celestial bodies, not the other way around, exemplified well by zarg.
10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« on: December 21, 2011, 12:30:12 AM »
This is quite good, I think.
Ptolemy's Epicycles
A good explanation, but works based on an Earth-centric model, when Earth is a sphere. Even those in the Middle Ages didn't think the Earth was flat, they used some other ridiculous notion.
Ptolemy's Epicycles
A good explanation, but works based on an Earth-centric model, when Earth is a sphere. Even those in the Middle Ages didn't think the Earth was flat, they used some other ridiculous notion.
11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'
« on: December 21, 2011, 12:22:01 AM »
In my opinion, there is no Higgs field. The universe began when someone observed it and caused a quantum waveform collapse. So, there must have been someone there. Awesome, huh?
12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 21, 2011, 12:12:58 AM »
If Australia is really bigger than the U.S., then why aren't they a world power? U.S. became a world power after WWI because of its size, industrialization and economy. Australia is big (in fe) and industrialized.
Also, if South America is quite a bit larger than the rest of the world, then why, when Spain colonized it, did they not become a huge world power, with the same reasoning? It should have had a hugely greater effect.
In fact, you can apply FET to any number of historic events. Somebody should rewrite history.
Also, if South America is quite a bit larger than the rest of the world, then why, when Spain colonized it, did they not become a huge world power, with the same reasoning? It should have had a hugely greater effect.
In fact, you can apply FET to any number of historic events. Somebody should rewrite history.
13
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Just a quickie thought
« on: December 20, 2011, 11:44:47 PM »
Oh... Darn it.
14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evolution
« on: December 20, 2011, 11:41:45 PM »Yes. "Sizable" generally means something like "pretty big." So a celestial object of a pretty big mass will always collapse into a sphere due to gravity. A giant cube is a sphere with eight huge mountains that are incredibly unstable and will immediately crash in a huge mess of avalanches and rockslides, etc.Are you saying that irregularly shaped asteroids can't be of a sizable mass (whatever that means)?Way to be willfully obtuse there Markjo. All celestial objects of any sizable mass are spherical.Which one(s)? (let's leave the Earth issue aside, for it hasn't been demonstrated flat)
Most (if not all) asteroids.
In this context, I'd take "sizable" to mean big enough to collapse into a sphere. Of course asteroids aren't spheres, because they aren't a big enough mass to collapse into a sphere, whereas a planar Earth (assuming the mantle and core to still exist underneath) would. Do you know of any other celestial planes?
15
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 20, 2011, 11:30:44 PM »
Well, yes, obviously the Nazis did worse things than the US. I didn't mean to say otherwise. I was just typing it up quickly. The thing is, though, none of these things have I ever experienced, or have affected me greatly. I don't know what to think of much of this. If I experienced those things, or even knew someone who experienced them, I would think of it differently, but I didn't, and I can't really comprehend them. I just can't get worried about it all, and perhaps I shouldn't. So, there you go.
Anyway! About Cubesat, then...
Anyway! About Cubesat, then...
16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« on: December 18, 2011, 07:50:40 PM »Its the exact opposite. You aren't on a little ball, an insignificant dot whirling around an unimaginably large and bleak nothingness after a tiny ball of hot gases. You are in the centre of the Universe. A Universe crafted around your home. Who knows why, by whom, or what for ... but you're at the centre of it all ... you must be important.Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?
17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« on: December 18, 2011, 06:46:06 PM »Oh, dear...I'll never look at you the same way again. You jumped to that because, of course you couldn't resist if you had the slightest reason to say something completely ridiculous. I searched for what the slightest reason was for quite a while, because I don't really see anything, but I think I see it. "You would if they were all only 3100 miles away" you interpreted as "They ARE that far, and then that would be the case if there were that many stars!" So you say, "A-ha! So you must agree that there are fewer!"So clearly there are less. Excellent. I think you are getting it.QuoteI do not think I can withstand the glare of 300 sextillion stars.
You would... if they were all only 3100 miles away.
It's not even clever. No one would have understood it in the slightest.
I'm not going to explicitly state exactly what your problem is, because you know and I know that you know what it is. I just don't know what to do for you. You continue to "debate" that the Earth is flat, angrily, irrationally. You, for some reason, have decided that you really want to believe that the Earth is flat, but you never stop and look, and you haven't realized what you've done. Well, I'll tell you what you've done: you've raped and murdered the beauty of nature, tortured yourself, and built a reality with silly constructs that barely manage to allow you to think the Earth is flat, but what is it? It's a disc with no Antarctica and a sun and moon rotating around a line, and a plane of stars. A pointless, miserable universe to live in. You cannot possibly enjoy believing this.
18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 18, 2011, 06:23:16 PM »May be we get answers from this one?
Maybe we won't. This is the shape of Africa based on known distances.
There is no possible right map. No such thing. An accurate FE map is impossible. Therefore, the Earth is not flat. It just can't be. I can't see any way.
It is, without a doubt, the ultimate challenge for FE'ers.
19
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 18, 2011, 05:55:45 PM »This gets into moral philosophy. You can't really measure and say, "The Nazis had ten thousand bad-units and the US only has 3.5 thousand." How can you measure horror? Does a number of deaths work? Can you use a percentage of the total population? Is that allowed?Well, of course history is going to favour the victors. We can't have us going around feeling bad about our atrocities, can we?
I am an american and i have been taught rigorously about the faults of my own government. Regardless of who won WW2 its simply an extremest position to assert that any single act of prejudice or atrocity was equal to the holocaust. This is not to say that an extremest position is wrong, its just not the majority view among historians from any country. Unless you pick perhaps the Native Americans who really got a the shitty end of the stick. (again though this was not due to a hatred of the Natives so much as disease. There were definitely attacks against the natives but there are also examples of friendships between settlers and Natives (many more attacks). The goal of the settlers was to settle the lands, not exterminate an entire race of people. Thats why the majority view is that the Holocaust is the single worse event in modern history. An entity literally went around exterminating an entire race of people. The Americans have done some horrific things, many in fact, and i certainly have been taught a majority of them that are available to the public as i have had an extremely liberal education, but to suggest that anything committed by the Americans as being equal to the holocaust is stretch that usually can be justified by personal experience.
So can we stop with the one liner atrocity posts? If you have an opinion contrary to the one above that is fine, more than fine, thats great and its what the US stands for. But simply throwing out a single atrocity as if its worse than the Holocaust with no explanation as to why you feel that way is just pointless.
Anyway, you have to remember: Hitler thought he was doing a good thing. No one ever thinks that they're the bad guys. He thought Jews were evil, and he was purifying the world. Likewise, we Americans think that we're the good guys.
20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Special Relativity
« on: December 11, 2011, 10:16:19 PM »
According to Google, the mass of the Earth is 5,974,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms. This is according to RE, of course, but it seems silly to say that the mantle and core don't exist, seeing as we've sensed seismic waves from in them, which still doesn't make sense, but let's just say it's about the same.
Force equals mass times acceleration.
The force is 58,606,902,000,000,000,000,000,000 Newtons, applied continuously to the Earth. Luckily, dark energy is mysterious, and this could be possible, maybe.
Force equals mass times acceleration.
The force is 58,606,902,000,000,000,000,000,000 Newtons, applied continuously to the Earth. Luckily, dark energy is mysterious, and this could be possible, maybe.
21
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 11, 2011, 09:16:10 PM »Ha, this is funny. Plus, the U.S. has committed war crimes far worse than the Nazis. Some of the rules are to never hurt citizens and soldiers indiscriminately, or citizens at all, never go to war unless all possibilities of negotiation are exhausted, and other things like that. One needs only to look at the war in Iraq. Plus, "war crime" is a silly word. In war, all the rules are off. It doesn't make any sense.Gee Tom, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that you were arguing that the German war criminals that the US kidnapped after WWII were able to actually build rockets that really could go into orbit and to the moon.
Fortunately you do know better, and know that isn't my argument.
Plus, I find it funny that you know all these things about design and stuff. You're very intelligent and have well-organized thoughts, and I'm surprised that you think Appollo was a hoax on the grounds that the lander looks funny. You're brilliant, Tom, and if you didn't hold on to such a silly notion, then you would be highly esteemed by everyone, which I'm told is important to you people. You probably are, somewhat, already, but people think you're crazy, I bet.
22
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 11, 2011, 06:55:49 PM »
Sub-orbital is just a word. Like most, if not all, words, it doesn't really mean anything. It's just a string of vocal sounds or characters, based on the Germanic language of English, which evolved from Latin, invented by a tribe called the Latins. The Romans agreed to adopt the language and have a royal marriage to avoid conflict, then the Romans conquered much of the world, and Latin's influence has not been forgotten. All the Romance and Germanic languages have been based off of them, including English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, etc.
"Sub" is a prefix that used to be a preposition in Latin meaning "under." It would have been used like "under the bridge" or something like that, and it became a prefix later. "Orbit" comes from Middle French "Orbite," with the same meaning, which came from the Latin "orbita," which originally referred to the track of the wheel. Then it was used to mean celestial orbit, when this started to become important in religion, as the mediaeval people believed that everything was in orbit of the Earth.
The point is, these are all just words. They don't mean anything. What matters is the nature of reality. Words are a human convention.
Remember, my friends: Triviality in all things.
"Sub" is a prefix that used to be a preposition in Latin meaning "under." It would have been used like "under the bridge" or something like that, and it became a prefix later. "Orbit" comes from Middle French "Orbite," with the same meaning, which came from the Latin "orbita," which originally referred to the track of the wheel. Then it was used to mean celestial orbit, when this started to become important in religion, as the mediaeval people believed that everything was in orbit of the Earth.
The point is, these are all just words. They don't mean anything. What matters is the nature of reality. Words are a human convention.
Remember, my friends: Triviality in all things.
23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)
« on: December 11, 2011, 06:46:57 PM »
^^ the upper two posts are very important. Please explain these.
Also, is there a place where the heavens meet the earth? Because that would be pretty awesome.
Also, is there a place where the heavens meet the earth? Because that would be pretty awesome.
24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of Bendy Light
« on: December 11, 2011, 06:18:11 PM »Never forget this. You claim that the image bends. This explains the fact that the Earth appears round, but we encounter another problem, which is what this thread is about: the image of angles would bend. This renders huge structures based on carefully designed architecture and mathematics to completely collapse. In fact, if it bends as much as it would need to to balance out the view, probably a simple lean-to would be collapse immediately. This does not happen. Therefore, bendy light is untrue.Light produces the image to begin with.Which is exactly why the image bends. Where's the confusion?
25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Special Relativity
« on: December 10, 2011, 09:24:23 PM »Yes, but the problem is, a second for us would be a trillion years for someone in whatever we're moving relative to (what is it?). True, the time would still pass, for us we wouldn't notice it, but you're being unrealistic. The universe isn't perfect. Something large would hit the Earth. Considering how fast we're moving, it would probably destroy the Earth, especially when millions of meteorites of the size that destroyed the dinosaurs would be hitting every second, if you assume that one hits every 65 million years, approximately (and by the way, it's probably a whole lot more than a trillion years anyway). Also, we would observe, through our telescopes, that everything's happening really fast. Not a single hint of anything like this has been observed....But only for the observers not being accelerated by FE's mysterious Dark Energy. From your perspective on the RE, time continues normally.
Time will slow down until it is, essentialy, not moving....
Relativity often trips up REers here. Indeed, I recall reading when the FEers decided to drop normal gravity (as it causes serious problems for FET), they were quite happy that they would be able to confound REers.
Now, if you want to attack this concept in FET, I suggest you look at the energy requirements to maintain that incredible acceleration. FET requires a 'fiat' of energy greater than all energy seen in the Universe it all its history in the next second. See math at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43779.msg1085683#msg1085683.
Also, what are we moving relative to? The way I see it, the entire universe has to be moving with us, or else we would see something coming up to us really fast. Even that's unrealistic, though, because, obviously, if everything's moving, there will be a lot of gravitational effects.
Besides, if the entire universe is moving, then it's not relative to anything and therefore is meaningless. It's like Syndrome said in The Incredibles, "I will sell my inventions, so that everyone can have them! Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super...*cackle* No one is."
If everyone's super, then super is normal, and super is no longer very special. If everything's accelerating, then in Machian relativity, nothing is. We're all just perfectly still and people can float around weightlessly. Man, why can't that be true? I hate gravity.
26
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 10, 2011, 09:08:08 PM »Satellites exist? So this satellite picture of Antarctica is real?So please explain to me why Roundy claims that "the current theory is that there is no Conspiracy". What is your response to this? I think "the current theory" is a constantly fluctuating vagueness that happens to be the opposite of whatever it is that you FE'ers can't think of an answer to at the time.
Please don't misunderstand me; I never meant to imply that the theory that there is no Conspiracy is the only one believed right now. It's simply one that's gained a lot of momentum of late and one that many FEers have come to agree with. Obviously there are still FEers (like Tom) who believe in the Conspiracy.
But you yourself clearly aren't among those who no longer believe in the Conspiracy, as evidenced by the second thread I linked to.
Second thread you linked to where?
I should point out that I sometimes play the part of devil's advocate when it comes to Conspiracy topics, as I haven't completely ruled it out (some of the points, like Tom's about the shoddy appearance of the lunar lander, seem shockingly plausible). But my general belief is that there's sufficient evidence that the Earth appears curved from high above it, and that there sure seem to actually be satellites whizzing high above us, so that the necessity of a Conspiracy is effectively nullified.
The opinion I espouse in this thread represents my sincere belief regarding FET and the Conspiracy.
27
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 10, 2011, 04:33:32 PM »
I would be quite unable to lift Mount Everest. If I tried, I would be filled with an overwhelming sense of impossibility. There is something about trying to do something and failing. So I try to convince myself I never really wanted to. I don't try. Not forever, of course. The thought of never, ever being able to do it is horrifying...but maybe someday...just not today
28
Flat Earth General / Re: Stupid Conspiracy
« on: December 10, 2011, 03:52:03 PM »
Didn't anyone ever watch Appollo 13? Come on, you have to have. Remember the part where one of the astronauts says, "You see, all that separates us from the vacuum of space is a wall thinner than a sheet of foil." Of course, that doesn't mean that it can't possibly work. Space travel is not easy. You have to be innovative and make do with what you have. You can't focus on making your spaceship look good.
29
Flat Earth Debate / Special Relativity
« on: December 09, 2011, 08:53:51 PM »
There has been a lot of talk of Special Relativity, so I'm just going to clear some things up so no one can BS it.
There is a coordinate system K with coordinates x, y, z and a time coordinate t.
There is a coordinate system K', moving at velocity v in the x direction relative to K, with coordinates x', y', z', and a time coordinate t'.
c is the speed of light.
These are the equations:
Where this is the Lorentz Factor:
So just multiply them together. I don't know why they put it like that. Just imagine the Lorentz factor, with the part in the original equation on the top instead of just 1.
The denominator in the Lorentz factor is extremely close to 1 when v is nowhere near c, so you just divide by very near to 1 and the rate of time and distance is not affected greatly, but as we reach the speed of light, as the Earth will after a lot of time, but it cannot reach or pass the speed of light. Time will slow down, which will decrease your relative speed, and distance will grow in the direction you're moving. This will avoid breaking the "cosmic speed limit" of the speed of light.
Relative to ...what? To something, Earth will be moving faster and faster, until time necessarily slows and direction grows, but the speed relative to, um, that same thing, will be decreased. If you go outside of the Earth to whatever the Earth is relative to, then the Earth will no longer be accelerating much, it will just be approaching asymptotically the speed of light, or it will get closer and closer to the speed of light, without reaching it. Which is awesome.
This is bad, but just look at the left half. The x-axis is speed, and the y-axis is the slowing of time or growing of distance. Take your pick.
Time will slow down until it is, essentialy, not moving. It will be lowered every second it constantly accelerates, and time will get slower and slower and never go on, simply be very nearly frozen for all eternity. This would have happened a long time ago, and the year 2011 would never have began. I have determined that it will take 30,559,883.588 seconds to accelerate to this speed, which is 353 days, 16 hours, 51 minutes, and 23.588 seconds.
Of course, time will have slowed down, so we won't be quite at that point yet, so, quite awesomely, this will probably happen after about a year.
But I've been alive for much more than a year, and the point is, time won't even go on, even slowly beyond all imagination, if it's accelerating at an entirely constant rate. To us, theoretically, the moment will pass without our noticing, but the problem is, the moment won't pass. Time will have, essentially, ended.
So, in other words, the end of time will come in one year.
There is a coordinate system K with coordinates x, y, z and a time coordinate t.
There is a coordinate system K', moving at velocity v in the x direction relative to K, with coordinates x', y', z', and a time coordinate t'.
c is the speed of light.
These are the equations:
Where this is the Lorentz Factor:
So just multiply them together. I don't know why they put it like that. Just imagine the Lorentz factor, with the part in the original equation on the top instead of just 1.
The denominator in the Lorentz factor is extremely close to 1 when v is nowhere near c, so you just divide by very near to 1 and the rate of time and distance is not affected greatly, but as we reach the speed of light, as the Earth will after a lot of time, but it cannot reach or pass the speed of light. Time will slow down, which will decrease your relative speed, and distance will grow in the direction you're moving. This will avoid breaking the "cosmic speed limit" of the speed of light.
Relative to ...what? To something, Earth will be moving faster and faster, until time necessarily slows and direction grows, but the speed relative to, um, that same thing, will be decreased. If you go outside of the Earth to whatever the Earth is relative to, then the Earth will no longer be accelerating much, it will just be approaching asymptotically the speed of light, or it will get closer and closer to the speed of light, without reaching it. Which is awesome.
This is bad, but just look at the left half. The x-axis is speed, and the y-axis is the slowing of time or growing of distance. Take your pick.
Time will slow down until it is, essentialy, not moving. It will be lowered every second it constantly accelerates, and time will get slower and slower and never go on, simply be very nearly frozen for all eternity. This would have happened a long time ago, and the year 2011 would never have began. I have determined that it will take 30,559,883.588 seconds to accelerate to this speed, which is 353 days, 16 hours, 51 minutes, and 23.588 seconds.
Of course, time will have slowed down, so we won't be quite at that point yet, so, quite awesomely, this will probably happen after about a year.
But I've been alive for much more than a year, and the point is, time won't even go on, even slowly beyond all imagination, if it's accelerating at an entirely constant rate. To us, theoretically, the moment will pass without our noticing, but the problem is, the moment won't pass. Time will have, essentially, ended.
So, in other words, the end of time will come in one year.
30
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 09, 2011, 07:57:11 PM »So orbit IS possible. It's just caused by magic, not gravity. Why didn't you just say so? Why has everyone always said that orbit is impossible? Why didn't you, when you first saw the thread, said, "Orbit is possible, but it's caused by magic, not gravity."You should really probably read the first post of this thread. This thread is supposed to be about CubeSat, a satellite that orbits the Earth. Did you not know that?You're all doing it wrong then. Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.
That is exactly our point. Nothing orbits Earth in FET, yet here we have something that orbits Earth.
Incorrect.
In FE, it is not the Earth that the satellite is orbiting (see your fellow REer jraffield1's post for clarification). Do you understand that?
Who said orbit is impossible?
It's certainly not in the FAQ, and the only mentions of it I see in this thread is by REers... who have been corrected about their error by FEers. Have you considered visiting www.rif.org? It may change your life.
We are not discussing orbit around the Earth.
Yes we are. I am discussing orbit around Earth; El Cid is discussing orbit around Earth. LinearPlane was discussing orbit around Earth when he posted this thread, iwanttobelieve was discussing orbit around Earth when he claimed it was possible in FET, and then LinearPlane was still discussing orbit around Earth when he replied to that. The only person who is not discussing orbit around Earth is you. Hence, you are accused of distraction techniques and evasiveness.
You're all doing it wrong then. Nothing "orbits the Earth" in FET.