« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Please explain this, FET

  • 63 Replies
  • 10395 Views
?

EvilJeffy

  • 118
  • I shouldn't waste time here, I have science to do.
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2013, 07:37:07 PM »
Loved the Diskworld reference, "It's turtles all the way down..."

But yeah, in order to refute a theory that has had this much effort of justification dropped into it you would have to take it apart bit by bit, until they realize that they are standing on nothing and have to fall eventually.
Logged
Sometimes on this forum I feel like I am kicking puppies, but I have good boots.  Just in case your curious I also have more science training than you do.
?

neutral22

  • 114
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #31 on: November 01, 2013, 07:56:15 PM »
also, basic physics says that the speed isn't important. If the earth is a disk wafer travelling at speed of 10m/s there would be nothing to keep your feet to the ground. It would have to actually be accelerating constantly at 10m/s. Has anyone mentioned this here on FE forums? there is difference between speed and acceleration, and if it were accelerating constantly, that means the speed would be infinitely increasing too...
that being said, this doesn't disprove FE. It could be that this is simply false, and who came up with those diagrams with a green turtle pushing the wafer :)
Logged
*

Junker

  • 3926
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #32 on: November 01, 2013, 07:59:11 PM »
Quote from: neutral22 on November 01, 2013, 07:56:15 PM
also, basic physics says that the speed isn't important. If the earth is a disk wafer travelling at speed of 10m/s there would be nothing to keep your feet to the ground. It would have to actually be accelerating constantly at 10m/s. Has anyone mentioned this here on FE forums? there is difference between speed and acceleration, and if it were accelerating constantly, that means the speed would be infinitely increasing too...
that being said, this doesn't disprove FE. It could be that this is simply false, and who came up with those diagrams with a green turtle pushing the wafer :)

Yes, which is why UA proponents say it is moving at 9.8m/s^2, no one says it is moving at a constant velocity.  Yes, before you reply, it is possible to accelerate near the speed of light without ever actually reaching it.
Logged
?

neutral22

  • 114
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2013, 08:03:01 PM »
yes, I looked at the FAQ, and was about to delete my thread, but since you responded, I'll let it stay.

Well then, how do you explain that wiki chart of gravity corresponding to height, that must be poppycock?
Logged
*

Junker

  • 3926
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2013, 08:04:59 PM »
Quote from: neutral22 on November 01, 2013, 08:03:01 PM
yes, I looked at the FAQ, and was about to delete my thread, but since you responded, I'll let it stay.

Well then, how do you explain that wiki chart of gravity corresponding to height, that must be poppycock?

Anything I suggest would be speculation.  Some think pressure differences, others think gravitational influence from celestial bodies.  I have not done anything validate any of these claims.
Logged
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2013, 08:06:06 PM »
Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 01, 2013, 07:27:53 PM
Actually I understand gravity very well.  As for the question as to whether you would weigh less on a mountain compared to sea level that would depend on the composition of the mountain, the position of the sun and moon, and the latitude of the mountain, but all of those things being equal you would weigh less at the top of a mountain than you would on the surface.
Air pressure on the body is less up a mountain than at sea level, so in that respect you will appear to weight less, but proper calibration of scales would show this not to be the case in terms of your body mass alone.
Logged
?

EvilJeffy

  • 118
  • I shouldn't waste time here, I have science to do.
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2013, 08:12:41 PM »
It is possible to accelerate near the speed of light, but the energy required to do so is prohibitive, which means that doing so become, in effect, impossible for anything with mass.   I am not going to go into why this works because no one here would understand it...

These guys do a decent job though...

http://electromagneticm12.imascientist.org.uk/2012/03/16/why-cant-a-charged-particle-accelerate-to-the-speed-of-light/

Just in case your wondering accelerating at 9.8 m/s for 4.6 billion years would mean that we would now have reached 1,421,642,880,000,000,000 meters per second, which is 4,738,809,600 times the speed of light.

Now as for the reply about the air pressure causing the weight difference...

You have it backwards.  I said that you would weigh less on a mountain, you said that a reduction in air pressure would cause this.

Actually since the volume of air you displace is constant and now the air you are displacing weighs less that would cause you to weigh more.
Logged
Sometimes on this forum I feel like I am kicking puppies, but I have good boots.  Just in case your curious I also have more science training than you do.
*

Junker

  • 3926
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2013, 08:18:01 PM »
Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 01, 2013, 08:12:41 PM
I am not going to go into why this works because no one here would understand it...
Honestly, stop being a douche.  There are plenty of people here smarter than you, I promise.

Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 01, 2013, 08:12:41 PM
Just in case your wondering accelerating at 9.8 m/s for 4.6 billion years would mean that we would now have reached 1,421,642,880,000,000,000 meters per second, which is 4,738,809,600 times the speed of light.
First, 9.8 m/s is a measurement of velocity, not acceleration.  Also, acceleration near the speed of light is not a linear equation.

But please, tell us more about how smart you are.
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #38 on: November 01, 2013, 08:23:10 PM »
Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 01, 2013, 08:12:41 PM
Just in case your wondering accelerating at 9.8 m/s for 4.6 billion years would mean that we would now have reached 1,421,642,880,000,000,000 meters per second, which is 4,738,809,600 times the speed of light.

In correct.  You are using the wrong equation.  Have you ever heard of relativity? 
Logged
?

neutral22

  • 114
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2013, 08:26:54 PM »
hehe jroa, your avatar is very annoying - i had to delete it in my client with firebug..

as for me, i don't really care about these theories of relativity, speed of light, etc. There are many that debate the validity of this and it's alternatives. Each one of those assertions can become a greater thread than this.

For me, it would be interesting to know about the source. Who actually came up with the idea that FE is accelerating at 10m/s??
Logged
*

Junker

  • 3926
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #40 on: November 01, 2013, 08:27:41 PM »
Quote from: neutral22 on November 01, 2013, 08:26:54 PM
Who actually came up with the idea that FE is accelerating at 10m/s??

No one came up with this idea.
Logged
?

neutral22

  • 114
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #41 on: November 01, 2013, 08:35:13 PM »
I don't see any evidence that 500 years ago (when FE was most popular) thinking this.

it's interesting how people invent plausible theories, and then people accept it as an Axiom.

Did parralax think this too?
Logged
?

EvilJeffy

  • 118
  • I shouldn't waste time here, I have science to do.
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #42 on: November 01, 2013, 08:35:46 PM »
Quote from: Junker on November 01, 2013, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 01, 2013, 08:12:41 PM
I am not going to go into why this works because no one here would understand it...
Honestly, stop being a douche.  There are plenty of people here smarter than you, I promise.

"Plenty of people smarter than me"?  Perhaps, but I haven't found any yet....

Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 01, 2013, 08:12:41 PM
Just in case your wondering accelerating at 9.8 m/s for 4.6 billion years would mean that we would now have reached 1,421,642,880,000,000,000 meters per second, which is 4,738,809,600 times the speed of light.
First, 9.8 m/s is a measurement of velocity, not acceleration.  Also, acceleration near the speed of light is not a linear equation.

But please, tell us more about how smart you are.

9.8 meters per second squared is the acceleration of gravity, this means after one second you have accelerated to 9.8 meters per second....

If you continue accelerating at 9.8 meters per second, per second.....  After each second you add an additional 9.8 meters per second to your initial velocity, or Velocity = Acceleration * Time....

Did you ever take physics?  Like real physics with nasty calculus in it?  What is your education background?

Oh, since you asked, IQ is in the 160+ range, not sure where in that range, the tests don't equate well you the edges of the bell curve....  If your wondering why, look up standard deviation.

In the meantime if your arguments are going to rotate around "I don't believe you because I don't want to (sticks fingers in ears and starts yelling 'Nah nah nah')" you might as well just give up now.
Logged
Sometimes on this forum I feel like I am kicking puppies, but I have good boots.  Just in case your curious I also have more science training than you do.
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #43 on: November 01, 2013, 08:40:57 PM »
Einstein did.  He called it The Equivalence Principle.
Logged
?

EvilJeffy

  • 118
  • I shouldn't waste time here, I have science to do.
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #44 on: November 01, 2013, 08:44:14 PM »
The reality is that the flat Earth isn't accelerating at 9.8 m/s SQUARED because it doesn't exist.  We have a round Earth where everything is attracted to the center of the Earth by gravity.  Gravity being the universal attractions that objects with mass have towards other objects with mass.

This is what causes the tides, as the water is attracted to the moon and the sun, when they line up you get really high tides, when they are offset by 90 degrees you get less intense tides.

For now I am going to go quaff a pint, see how everyone is getting along in a few hours when I get back....

So glad all I have to do this weekend is fix a car, and survey a river so I can calculate the bed shear stress and volume of sediment transport that was present during a 500 year flood event.  Differentiate an equation relating to delta growth rate, and some calculations determining the volume and shape of material present according to surface gravity readings....  I have plenty of time to help with everyone's understanding....
Logged
Sometimes on this forum I feel like I am kicking puppies, but I have good boots.  Just in case your curious I also have more science training than you do.
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #45 on: November 01, 2013, 08:47:36 PM »
EvilJeffy, you keep using the wrong formula.  Look up the relativistic composition law for velocities and learn some more advanced math.  The formulas you are using is only good for calculating a trip to the grocery store.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 08:50:16 PM by jroa »
Logged
*

Junker

  • 3926
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #46 on: November 01, 2013, 08:48:21 PM »
Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 01, 2013, 08:35:46 PM
9.8 meters per second squared is the acceleration of gravity, this means after one second you have accelerated to 9.8 meters per second....

If you continue accelerating at 9.8 meters per second, per second.....  After each second you add an additional 9.8 meters per second to your initial velocity, or Velocity = Acceleration * Time....
Nowhere did you type 9.8 meters per second squared  Acceptable would have been 9.8m/s^2, 9.8m/s/s, 9.8m/s2, etc.  I apologize if you can't be bothered with detail and post speed instead of acceleration.

Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 01, 2013, 08:35:46 PM
Did you ever take physics?  Like real physics with nasty calculus in it? 
Why, yes, I did.  I am not sure what is nasty about calculus, but I am sorry if you struggled with it.

Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 01, 2013, 08:35:46 PM
Oh, since you asked, IQ is in the 160+ range...
I didn't ask  ???  It seems you have an issue with reading comprehension.

Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 01, 2013, 08:35:46 PM
In the meantime if your arguments are going to rotate around "I don't believe you because I don't want to (sticks fingers in ears and starts yelling 'Nah nah nah')" you might as well just give up now.
Give up what?  You haven't made a single valid point.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 08:50:15 PM by Junker »
Logged
?

neutral22

  • 114
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #47 on: November 01, 2013, 08:52:34 PM »
this argument is going in circles, at least 3 times.

but back to what i said:
assuming FE is true, then what if FE is stationary and there is a different reason why we stick to the ground?
Logged
*

Junker

  • 3926
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #48 on: November 01, 2013, 08:53:24 PM »
Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 01, 2013, 08:44:14 PM
So glad all I have to do this weekend is fix a car, and survey a river so I can calculate the bed shear stress and volume of sediment transport that was present during a 500 year flood event.  Differentiate an equation relating to delta growth rate, and some calculations determining the volume and shape of material present according to surface gravity readings....  I have plenty of time to help with everyone's understanding....

Similar to everything you have posted thus far, this is irrelevant.  You realize that on the Internet, no one gives a crap about things you say you are going to do.  You seem to struggle with very basic concepts, I'd think twice about attempting to drive a car that you work on.  It may be a public safety hazard.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 08:55:11 PM by Junker »
Logged
?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2013, 12:26:56 AM »
Accept that some things fall and some don't. Up is up and down is down. And here the earth is flat. Doesn't need a magical meaning. It just is.
With an IQ of (BS) 160 you should of seen that this is the flat earth society.
Logged
?

EvilJeffy

  • 118
  • I shouldn't waste time here, I have science to do.
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #50 on: November 02, 2013, 01:11:51 AM »
Ok, a few things I should mention....

The dentist chick at the party was hot!

jroa really does not understand the consequences of the equation he is posting, yes, approaching relativistic speed with an object with mass is impossible, the reason for this is that as you approach the speed of light the energy to continue the acceleration approaches infinity.  The result of this is that in order to maintain the acceleration required to keep us stuck to the flat surface of Earth an infinite amount of energy would have to be expended, which would occur less than one year after creation, which makes that argument a large pile of BS.

And I love the ad hominem attacks, proves you have nothing to stand on.
Logged
Sometimes on this forum I feel like I am kicking puppies, but I have good boots.  Just in case your curious I also have more science training than you do.
?

iwanttobelieve

  • 5442
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #51 on: November 02, 2013, 06:23:31 AM »
Hey I was just in Esko on the way to Jay Cooke.  Nice little town.
Logged
*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #52 on: November 02, 2013, 11:51:17 AM »
Just wanted to say a few things.
Special relativity is a pile of fallacies.
I've said it before and I'll say it again : Tesla disproved it. Flat-out.
His scalar waves were able to travel up to (Pi/2)*c through a solid medium.
Don't ask me for proof of this. Research it if you are unsure about the validity of my claims.
Also, half of relativity is addressing a thing that you FE'ers don't even believe to exist.
Heck, I don't even believe in General relativity.
Einstein is hardly a credible source, especially for you FE'ers.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 03:23:59 PM by th3rm0m3t3r0 »
Logged


Quote from: sceptimatic on October 16, 2013, 08:29:11 AM
I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #53 on: November 02, 2013, 11:58:23 AM »
Quote from: neutral22 on November 01, 2013, 08:35:13 PM
I don't see any evidence that 500 years ago (when FE was most popular) thinking this.

FE was not popular 500 years ago.
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
?

Umurweird

  • 796
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #54 on: November 02, 2013, 03:15:26 PM »
FE has never been "popular" because the earth isn't flat.
Logged
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa
?

Don Quichotte

  • 253
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #55 on: November 02, 2013, 03:35:25 PM »
Quote from: jroa on October 30, 2013, 10:17:19 PM



You have no idea what the ISS is.  You assume NASA is telling the truth about it.  You assuming something does not make it a fact.

Jroa, for once, just check the ISS tracker and watch the night sky as it passes over your location. You will be able to see it with your own eyes. There are many accounts of people who watched with their telescope to the ISS. The ISS is there, you just do not want to see it for yourself.

Quote from: jroa on October 30, 2013, 10:17:19 PM

There are lots of pictures of the Earth where it looks flat, as well.
If you take into account the earth's curvature is so tiny (about 70 miles for 1 degree drop), you can imagine that the earth looks flat from up close, but pictures from space clearly show a spherical earth.



Quote from: jroa on October 30, 2013, 10:17:19 PM

LIght does not travel well through air. 


C'mon Jroa..?! You clearly haven't been out to see the night sky. Perhaps you live in an urban area, with lots of light, but on remote locations you can see stars just above the horizon. There is a vast collection of night sky time lapses. All show you the same thing. #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Beauty of the Night Sky - Milky Way Time Lapse

You do not see every constellation we know out there at once. The only explanation is the earth being a sphere. That sphere rotates around its axis, is in orbit around the sun and at different times of the years, when the earth turns to the darkness of night, you will be able to see different constellations. Simple as that and the spherical earth still accounts for other observations. I have made two topics about two other things just recently. The flat earth cannot explain it, while the round earth can. Everytime again.
Logged
?

EvilJeffy

  • 118
  • I shouldn't waste time here, I have science to do.
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #56 on: November 02, 2013, 04:27:58 PM »
Jroa can't see the ISS go by because the view out his window does not show things that high in the sky, and to venture outside would put him at risk of being exposed to moonlight....
Logged
Sometimes on this forum I feel like I am kicking puppies, but I have good boots.  Just in case your curious I also have more science training than you do.
?

Don Quichotte

  • 253
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #57 on: November 02, 2013, 04:43:11 PM »
Quote from: EvilJeffy on November 02, 2013, 04:27:58 PM
Jroa can't see the ISS go by because the view out his window does not show things that high in the sky, and to venture outside would put him at risk of being exposed to moonlight....

Go on a moonless night. 
Logged
?

11cookeaw1

Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #58 on: November 02, 2013, 07:42:27 PM »
Quote from: jroa on October 30, 2013, 10:17:19 PM
Quote
Many of us use GPS every day to travel places.  GPS requires satellites (which are made out to be a hoax by most FEs).

Satelites are not required for positioning.  Antennas would work just as well. 

Even in a valley?


Quote
The fact that we've landed on the moon is another one (and once again, most FEs believe it's a hoax).

Most people think it is a hoax, not just FE'ers.

That's false


Quote
The ISS is one

You have no idea what the ISS is.  You assume NASA is telling the truth about it.  You assuming something does not make it a fact.

Their weightless scenes are too long to be vomit comet and there are their is also skylab, which predates good CGI


Quote
The fact that we've taken pictures of earth and shown it's round.

There are lots of pictures of the Earth where it looks flat, as well.

Only near the ground.


Quote
Many scientists throughout history have been able to differentiate equations that explain gravity.

If gravity was real, one single scientist could have made an equation to explain it.  The fact that gravity changes all the time and only works in some situations and not others does not prove that the Earth is any shape.  It just proves that scientists are often wrong.


Quote
Circumnavigation by Magellan and Sir Francis Drake

You can go in a circle around a disk. 


Quote
Not being able to see every constellation in the night sky all at once from every spot on the earth.

LIght does not travel well through air.

It does, above you is the equivalent of 8 kilometres of sea level air. 100 mile view at sea level here. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59073.20.html#.UnWafKXND3c the star never have to travel through more then a few tens of kilometres of air.


Quote
Seasons

Explained in the FAQ and wikki. 


Quote
Night and day

And, again, light can only travel a certain distance through air.  When the sun is too far for the light to reach you, it is dark.

Care to try again?

At midnight at the equator on the equinox sun light only has to travel through the equivalent of 20 to 25 kilometres of sea level air. Also the sun goes below the horizon, not fades away.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 07:57:26 PM by 11cookeaw1 »
Logged
?

EvilJeffy

  • 118
  • I shouldn't waste time here, I have science to do.
Re: Please explain this, FET
« Reply #59 on: November 02, 2013, 08:02:28 PM »
Ok, "light does not travel well through air"....

Lets dispense with that pile first, if that were the case (it isn't, light does not travel well through clouds, but does not have much of an issue with clear air....)  Then during the day the side of the sky where the sun is would be light, and the side of the sky away from the sun would be dark.  Unless light is making some incredible bends for no reason...

Lensing effects, as in that stupid canal experiment, and being able to see long distances over water under certain conditions, are an exception to the rule caused by light traveling from areas of lower density to areas of higher densities, I would recommend you look up Snell's law, it is the same principle, however these effects can only bend light a few degrees over very, very long distances.  Not cause light to work its way around in a loop.
Logged
Sometimes on this forum I feel like I am kicking puppies, but I have good boots.  Just in case your curious I also have more science training than you do.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »