The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: The_Smee on May 11, 2006, 01:29:45 PM
-
ok theres a lot of slagging off of this theory, understandable. so im going to try and have a rational debate with you flat earthers. bring forward your reasons, and i mean REASONS not just "the government is covering up" i need evidence of this.
and dont give me that bullshit about "no evidence for one thing doesnt mean the opposite is correct" because in this case, it does.
-
I think the earth is flat because when I look outside, I see flat.
I think the earth is flat because if it was a ball, people would fall off the other side, and I've never really been sold on the whole "gravity" thing.
I think the earth is flat because that was my first hunch, and none of the "evidence" to the contrary has been convincing enough for me.
Why do you think the earth is round?
-
and dont give me that bullshit about "no evidence for one thing doesnt mean the opposite is correct" because in this case, it does.
Really? Is this just some arbitrary decision you've made, or can you support this ridiculous, nearly medieval, logic?
-
I think the earth is flat because when I look outside, I see flat.
I think the earth is flat because if it was a ball, people would fall off the other side, and I've never really been sold on the whole "gravity" thing.
I think the earth is flat because that was my first hunch, and none of the "evidence" to the contrary has been convincing enough for me.
Why do you think the earth is round?
Hello believers and non believers...this is my first post on the forum and I would like to state that I agree whole heartedly with the theory of a flat earth.
I agree that when I look outside of my window, I see no curve in the earth that REer's seem to find so evident. And as far as the idea of gravity, it truly makes no sense. We aren't held to the ground by a theory, but instead we are being virtually pressed to the ground by the earths upward movement at 9.8 m/s. I think the idea of the earth moving up as a flat plane is far more realistic.
-
I agree that when I look outside of my window, I see no curve in the earth that REer's seem to find so evident.
That's too bad for you. I mean, it's too bad that that's your only source of knowledge, if it indeed is.
And as far as the idea of gravity, it truly makes no sense. We aren't held to the ground by a theory, but instead we are being virtually pressed to the ground by the earths upward movement at 9.8 m/s.
Um, isn't the statement, "The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2" a theory? I don't think it can hold me to the ground any more than general relativity can.
I think the idea of the earth moving up as a flat plane is far more realistic.
Thanks for contributing your opinion.
-Erasmus
-
I think the earth is flat because if it was a ball, people would fall off the other side, and I've never really been sold on the whole "gravity" thing.
Firstly, what is there instead of gravity?... Please... Just please don't say "Intelligent Falling" as we all know that site is now seen as a pratical joke.
I agree that when I look outside of my window, I see no curve in the earth that REer's seem to find so evident.
Please before you say something like, don't be retarded... Try taking a holiday or something (hints at Paris) and go to the Eiffel Tower and then say that.
Why do you think the earth is round?
I believe in a Round Earth because the Earth could be put together without a focal point in the center, if the world was flat you would have a center (in a manner of speaking) but all things would point towards this, instead when you talk about a center you mean like a middle point. When I talk about a center I talk about the actual focal point of where the energy is so great it pulls things into it. Hence Gravitiy...
Please if this is wrong (in RE terms) please tell me as I am no physist.
-
ok let me tell you where my evidence comes from. i've been around the world, to south africa, to the equator and to the antipodes. All by aeroplane. and out of the windows, you can clearly see the shape of the earth. and i think that perspective is much more likely to be accurate than that of someone looking out of their window. are you telling me that the government replaced my eyes with fakes?
Then there is the fact that if gravity doesnt exist, as you people keep insisting, why does the earth have to move at 9.8m/s. That is only the speed at which things fall BECAUSE OF GRAVITY and you wouldnt need your stupid attempt at covering up your ignorance if you didnt at some level accept the truth that gravity is real.
so lets recap. Ive been around the world. Gravity relies on roughly spherical mass to provide a constant gravitational effect all over the earth. When 'down under' the gravity was the same, thus the two theories back each other up. they prove each other's points. IT WORKS.
its not some shite about having lamps in the sky. there is no logic or reasoning behind this. you have to back it up with evidence! you have none. therefore, i (and every other rational thinking, non inbred hick and redneck who sleeps with his sister/brother/cousin/mum) find it more reasonable to accept the most feasible theory, in this case, a ROUND EARTH.
good day, sirs.
-
therefore, i (and every other rational thinking, non inbred hick and redneck who sleeps with his sister/brother/cousin/mum)
good day, sirs.
I believe thats the best evidence supporting us RE'ers
-
Firstly, what is there instead of gravity?
The FAQ is quite clear on the subject.
so lets recap. Ive been around the world. Gravity relies on roughly spherical mass to provide a constant gravitational effect all over the earth. When 'down under' the gravity was the same, thus the two theories back each other up. they prove each other's points. IT WORKS.
That's funny, the equivilent FE argument might look something like this:
so lets recap. Ive been accross the world. Linear acceleration relies on roughly flat plane to provide a constant acceleration effect all over the earth. When 'down under' the acceleration was the same, thus the two theories back each other up. they prove each other's points. IT WORKS.
And strangely the FE argument is no less valid.
-
no, the FAQ states some implausible nonsense about the earth travelling upwards. there is no evidence for this.
and clearly linear acceleration isnt an issue. who taught you physics? your cousin/mother/sister?
-
no, the FAQ states some implausible nonsense about the earth travelling upwards. there is no evidence for this.
Sure there is. Why, just yesterday I dropped something and the floor accelerated upwards to hit it.
and clearly linear acceleration isnt an issue. who taught you physics? your cousin/mother/sister?
Stellar argument. Although it usually works better when the person you're arguing against is, you know, wrong about something. Since when has linear acceleration become a non-issue?
-
I agree that when I look outside of my window, I see no curve in the earth that REer's seem to find so evident.
That's too bad for you. I mean, it's too bad that that's your only source of knowledge, if it indeed is.
And as far as the idea of gravity, it truly makes no sense. We aren't held to the ground by a theory, but instead we are being virtually pressed to the ground by the earths upward movement at 9.8 m/s.
Um, isn't the statement, "The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2" a theory? I don't think it can hold me to the ground any more than general relativity can.
I think the idea of the earth moving up as a flat plane is far more realistic.
Thanks for contributing your opinion.
-Erasmus
In response to the first part, it isn't my only source of knowledge. If anything, it was somewhat of an inspiration to look further into FE theory. Also, referring to the second response to my post, it is a theory, but it happens to be a theory I believe in. For comparison, look at many that believe in christianity. They do not state that they believe in the theory of creationism, but instead they know because of their faith that creationism is indeed how we were created (I am not saying that I believe that either). And Erasmus, thank for respecting my opinions, as the last time I had checked to make sure, this was an open forum of discussion and opinion, so I thank you.
-
In response to the first part, it isn't my only source of knowledge.
Point was: you don't see the curve. So what?
Also, referring to the second response to my post, it is a theory, but it happens to be a theory I believe in.
That seems to bear no relation to your objection to the mainstream understanding of why gravity works. You said, We aren't held to the ground by a theory,
which to me seems smallminded at best, and at worst, an outright lie, presented for purely inflammatory reasons.
If the former, then because it's quite clear that theories are descriptive, not prescriptive; if the latter, then because you went ahead and stated some other theory and said that it holds us to the ground, i.e., you said, "We're held to the ground by some theory."
And Erasmus, thank for respecting my opinions, as the last time I had checked to make sure, this was an open forum of discussion and opinion, so I thank you.
It is good that we are both well versed in sarcastism. I don't respect your opinion; opinions are mostly worthless (that's a fact, not an opinion). If you have an argument to back up any of the things you've stated, I'll respect them provided they are rational. Until then, what's the point of statements like, "It makes no sense", and "Such-and-such is far more realistic than ..."?
-Erasmus
-
Sure there is. Why, just yesterday I dropped something and the floor accelerated upwards to hit it.
[Stellar argument. Although it usually works better when the person you're arguing against is, you know, wrong about something. Since when has linear acceleration become a non-issue?
LEt's see if we look at the past 10000 years that most societies have agreed people have been around for, and have a speed of 9 meters per second per second, that puts us at 315,576,000,000 seconds squared ....Darn, my computer doesn't calculate that many digits.....How many times the speed of light? linear acceleration is a big problem.
-
LEt's see if we look at the past 10000 years that most societies have agreed people have been around for, and have a speed of 9 meters per second per second, that puts us at 315,576,000,000 seconds squared ....Darn, my computer doesn't calculate that many digits.....How many times the speed of light? linear acceleration is a big problem.
Wrong.
-
my point about linear acceleration and planes was not one of physics. it was the point that from such a high altitude, you can see an obvious curve in the earth's surface.
secondly, linear acceleration doesnt require a flat earth. i dont get what your point is. you arent making any sense (suprise suprise)
-
my point about linear acceleration ... was not one of physics. it was the point that from such a high altitude, you can see an obvious curve in the earth's surface.
And what does curvature have to do with linear acceleration?
secondly, linear acceleration doesnt require a flat earth.
No, but a flat Earth does require linear acceleration. Get your conditionals straightened out.
-Erasmus
-
my point about linear acceleration ... was not one of physics. it was the point that from such a high altitude, you can see an obvious curve in the earth's surface.
And what does curvature have to do with linear acceleration?
secondly, linear acceleration doesnt require a flat earth.
No, but a flat Earth does require linear acceleration. Get your conditionals straightened out.
-Erasmus
my point was that he was questioning my point of perspectives with a dodgy point about physics. trying to dodge the question.
-
my point was that he was questioning my point of perspectives with a dodgy point about physics. trying to dodge the question.
I think I now understand the exact way(s) in which you are wrong.
To address the "dodging" issue: Then there is the fact that if gravity doesnt exist, as you people keep insisting, why does the earth have to move at 9.8m/s. That is only the speed at which things fall BECAUSE OF GRAVITY and you wouldnt need your stupid attempt at covering up your ignorance if you didnt at some level accept the truth that gravity is real.
So nobody was dodging your "perspectives" point: they were addressing your other point.
By the way, you may be interesed to know that all of your statements about gravity constitute one gigantic wet noodle of circular reasoning.
To address the "perspectives" issue: The curvature you see while in an airplane does not demonstrate that the Earth is a sphere. Also, having visiting many parts of the world does not demonstrate that the Earth is a sphere. Also, I'm not sure which antipodes you've been too (I'm guessing Australia / New Zealand), but what proof do you have that they were in fact antipodes?
-Erasmus
-
Can you tell me how this accelerating Earth thoery changes the weight of objects? If the world was speeding, things would fall at the same speed.
But since a thin slice of paper falls really slow, and a anvil would fall really fast. Your accelerating Earth fails to explain this.
-
Can you tell me how this accelerating Earth thoery changes the weight of objects? If the world was speeding, things would fall at the same speed.
But since a thin slice of paper falls really slow, and a anvil would fall really fast. Your accelerating Earth fails to explain this.
I can't believe I'm reading this...
Sven, you my friend, need to spend a little less time critiquing things you don't understand, and a little more time paying attention in your physics class; things DO fall at the same rate, even accepting gravity. The reason paper fall slower than an anvil is because of the air under said objects pushing up on the object, and the paper, being so thin, is more suceptible to air resistance.
Honestly Sven, if your going to try to drag this theory through the dirt, at least try to do so competently.
-
Can you tell me how this accelerating Earth thoery changes the weight of objects? If the world was speeding, things would fall at the same speed.
Everything falls at the same speed on a round earth. A peice of paper only seems to fall slower than an anvil because of air resistance.
Edit: 6strings beat me to it.
-
hehe, sorry EP.
-
If the earth accelerates upwards at a uniform rate of 9.8 m/s2 while all objects are stationary relative to it, how does air resistance work? The anvil and the piece of paper are equally stationary yet the anvil will hit the ground first... its not like the ground under the anvil can accelerate faster to meet the anvil earlier, according to the flat earth model the air resistance should be acting effectively on the earth as a whole, yet it is the air resistance profile of individual falling objects that seems to determine how fast they fall through the air. Thus the earth must not be accelerating upwards and you need to find a new model to explain why things fall... (might I suggest that the work of a certain I. Newton is very convincing).
-
If the earth accelerates upwards at a uniform rate of 9.8 m/s2 while all objects are stationary relative to it, how does air resistance work? The anvil and the piece of paper are equally stationary yet the anvil will hit the ground first... its not like the ground under the anvil can accelerate faster to meet the anvil earlier, according to the flat earth model the air resistance should be acting effectively on the earth as a whole, yet it is the air resistance profile of individual falling objects that seems to determine how fast they fall through the air. Thus the earth must not be accelerating upwards and you need to find a new model to explain why things fall... (might I suggest that the work of a certain I. Newton is very convincing).
not necessarily, because there would still be air moving at 9.8m/s up, and they would provide the air resistance.
ever heard of thomas quine's belief web paradigms? like, the most consistent set of theories is the basis of beliefs? well basically it is floored because of the fact that people can say things like "when the wind blows the trees move their branches. therefore, trees make wind"
in the same way, some people say "all things fall down when dropped, therefore the earth must be moving upwards"
now, what is more likely, that a gigantic rock is moving up through space, with no discernable cause, or that the gravitational forces caused by large objects attracting each other. well, i'll let you decide seeing as some people are too stubborn to realise the truth.
finally, no ones answered my previous question about stars. dodging the bullet?
-
now, what is more likely, that a gigantic rock is moving up through space, with no discernable cause, or that the gravitational forces caused by large objects attracting each other. well, i'll let you decide seeing as some people are too stubborn to realise the truth.
How can you prove to me that gravity is any more likely than something moving upwards? From where I stand it sounds like you're just calling magic by the name of "gravity": Why do things fall down? Errr....they're attracted to large objects? Really, what proof, besides what's spoon-fed to you by institutions of "education" do you have? Well...none, but it's just more plausible that really big things attract smaller things than to believe that things fall as a result of a phenomenon I can prove in my everyday life...
Abracadabra.
-
Can you tell me how this accelerating Earth thoery changes the weight of objects? If the world was speeding, things would fall at the same speed.
Everything falls at the same speed on a round earth. A peice of paper only seems to fall slower than an anvil because of air resistance.
Edit: 6strings beat me to it.
But this wouldn't work with your accelrating theory. The world travels upwards? Anything in mid air would have hit the ground. Now if you said gravity can do this, sure air resistance can work. But with an accelerating Earth. Say for example that peice of paper, the Earth would have already cought up to the height of that paper, the same would happen with the anvil.
If even the air was moving at 9.8m/s... This would affect the *weight of things*.
-
I'm going to start with the final point of your post, because the rest was poorly structured incoherence (or maybe it was very well structured incoherence...)
If even the air was moving at 9.8m/s... This would affect the *weight of things*.
No, it wouldn't. Crack open a physics textbook, read the bit where it tells you that gravity causes acceleration, and, as such, gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, then come back and appologize. Of course, if you have some insight as to why acceleration affects the weight of things, I'd be grateful to hear it, as would the totality of the academic community I'm sure.
But this wouldn't work with your accelrating theory. The world travels upwards? Anything in mid air would have hit the ground. Now if you said gravity can do this, sure air resistance can work. But with an accelerating Earth. Say for example that peice of paper, the Earth would have already cought up to the height of that paper, the same would happen with the anvil.
This is incoherent and unintelligible, please restructure if you wish to attempt to get your point across.[/quote]
-
If even the air was moving at 9.8m/s... This would affect the *weight of things*.
No, it wouldn't. Crack open a physics textbook, read the bit where it tells you that gravity causes acceleration, and, as such, gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, then come back and appologize. Of course, if you have some insight as to why acceleration affects the weight of things, I'd be grateful to hear it, as would the totality of the academic community I'm sure.
Meh, I appologize for the fact I just woke when I said that :S
What I ment was wouldn't**
What I ment with the randomness of my first point is...
If an object was in mid air, but the Earth is accelerating at the speed of 9.8m/s, everything would fall at the same speed.
Since people have completely discredited Gravitiy(or tired), this "things falling at the same speed" would remain to be true. But this does not work with certian objects, like I said in the examples.
Air resistance is peoples response for a retort. I can see how this works, if things falls faster than the air is traveling there is a resistance. But since the planet is accelerating upwards, wouldn't it be saying that the object doesn't move but the planet moves to the object, thus objects should fall (or apear to fall) at the same rate.
If there was gravity, things would be pulled the planet yes?
If there was the acceleration theory, things can't be pulled to the planet, but instead the planet keeps things on the ground by moving towards these items.
In saying this, if objects were chucked vertically up or dropped down. For example the anvil. Wind could move this yes? If this acceleration theory is correct now the anvil will not land in the same place.
Since the planet is accelerating round and only keep objects to the floor because it moves towards them, the planet would of moved slightly to the left or right because the way orbit. (or do we orbit? because apparently the sun is smaller than the earth and the sun orbits round us?) We do go round in a circle on the solar system still in the FE theory yes?
Damn... If I could draw this it would be much easier to show...
How would I get an image to show on this? I can't do it through my computer?
-
look, im not a physicist, im a biologist. i dont know the real theory behind gravity, only the basics. my brother however, has a masters in astrophyics, and could tell you exactly why you're wrong. but you accept magnetism? why isnt that magic? because theres no justification to it being magic. its called being logical and rational.
and your still not answering my questions about the stars.
-
To sven and Smee, and everybody else who keeps making this mistake, which at first glance means just sven and Smee: the FE theory is not that the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s -- this is incoherent, as 9.8 m/s is a speed -- but that it is accelerating upwards at 1g = 9.8 m/s^2.
The practical importance of this distinction -- aside from being an indication that perhaps you should brush up on your backgrounds in basic mechanics before you try to make arguments about it -- is that the rate of motion of the Earth is constantly increasing, whereas the rate of motion of everything that isn't rigidly connected to the Earth is not constantly increasing in the same way.
-Erasmus
-
So speed changes depending on weight? Isn't that gravity?
-
my brother however, has a masters in astrophyics, and could tell you exactly why you're wrong.
Maybe he could, but then his masters in astrophysics wouldn't be good anwhere except maybe the 19th century, before Einstein formulated the principle of equivalence.
I'm guessing that you -- who lacks a masters degree in astrophysics -- really have no idea what your brother would say to us, and are just betting that he would side with you out of family solidarity.
but you accept magnetism? why isnt that magic?
It may interest you to know that the Standard Model -- which describes the fundamental particles and their interactions -- has a lot to say about electromagnetism, but makes no mention of gravity.
and your still not answering my questions about the stars.
I don't remember any "questions" about the stars; just some small-minded inflammatory garbage about how "it's not some shite about lamps in the sky", where you don't really say what "it" is or what this sentence is supposed to mean.
I'd ask it to reask your question in a civil, clear, intelligent manner, but I'm pretty sure my request would be in vain.
-Erasmus
-
yes, yes you are absolutely right. there are no new avenues of research for theoretical physics.
as for magnetism, i wasnt linking it to gravity, i was making a point. ie. you cant see the interractions but you accept they are there.
and finally, for the stars, i guess i must have pressed the preview button instead. my bad. my point was that if you travel to the antipodes (and yes, you are right. they are not antipodal to my location. im 100miles too far north) and look up on a clear night, whilst facing north, you will see a completely different set of stars to those in the northern hemisphere. how does that work then?
as for my point about lamps up in the sky, i was pointing out that there is no evidence for it. if its true, why dont you people take your own damn photos and post them on here?
-
So speed changes depending on weight? Isn't that gravity?
*coughs*
-
If the earth is accelerating upwards, why do things weigh less at the tops of mountains?
If gravity does not work it seems like an awfully big coincidence that all our observations of the planets in our solar system and the stars in our galaxy conform very closely to a theory of gravity. If the stars and planets are just dots moving around a couple of thousand miles up, why do they do so exactly as if they were in fact massive bodies under the influence of gravity as described by modern physics? Given no prior predisposition to either theory, it seems sensible to follow Occams Razor and accept the least complicated theory to which all the evidence conforms. That would be gravity in this case.
-
So speed changes depending on weight?
An objects speed while falling on the earth has nothing to do with it's weight. All objects accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second towards the ground. The only reason objects like paper "fall" more slowly is because of air resistance (paper is less dense that an anvil, so it has a harder time moving the air out of it's way).
-
yes, yes you are absolutely right. there are no new avenues of research for theoretical physics.
Save your sarcasm for those affected by that sort of thing: I never said anything like that. On the other hand, I suggest that an interesting avenue of research would be to find an answer to the age-old question:
if you travel to the antipodes and look up on a clear night, whilst facing north, you will see a completely different set of stars to those in the northern hemisphere. how does that work then?
as for my point about lamps up in the sky, i was pointing out that there is no evidence for it. if its true, why dont you people take your own damn photos and post them on here?
Do you really want me to download a picture of the night sky and post it, and say, "Look, lamps!"?
-Erasmus
-
So speed changes depending on weight?
An objects speed while falling on the earth has nothing to do with it's weight. All objects accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second towards the ground. The only reason objects like paper "fall" more slowly is because of air resistance (paper is less dense that an anvil, so it has a harder time moving the air out of it's way).
No you've changed the equation.
1g = 9.8m/s^
If it's 2g?
-
No you've changed the equation.
1g = 9.8m/s^
If it's 2g?
What?
-
What do you mean
What?
You heard.
Q: "What about gravity?"
A1: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity.
1g equals that. What about 2g?
-
What do you mean What?
I mean "what do you mean by "No you've changed the equation"
-
Yes you said that all objects travel at 9.8m/s^ or whatever.
But since the equation says:
1g (9.8m/s-2)
It's wieght relative, if something was 2g, it would fall faster?
-
Yes you said that all objects travel at 9.8m/s^ or whatever.
I said that all objects falling in earths gravity accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 towards the earth, regardless of weight.
It's wieght relative, if something was 2g, it would fall faster?
A "g" isn't a measure of weight.
"g"=an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 (or 32 feet per second per second if you prefere).
-
Oh you're using an Algebric function?
Acceleration is normally refered as A...
-
Oh you're using an Algebric function?
Acceleration is normally refered as A...
Don't even try to use words like "algebraic"; you simply aren't qualified.
"g" refers to a unit of acceleration, equal to the downward acceleration of an object in freefall in a vacuum at sea level on the Earth, or approximately 9.8 m/s^2. So "2g" would be twice that acceleration, or approximately 19.6 m/s^2. No object in freefall accelerates at this rate; it would have to be subject to some external force.
-Erasmus
-
ok theres a lot of slagging off of this theory, understandable. so im going to try and have a rational debate with you flat earthers. bring forward your reasons, and i mean REASONS not just "the government is covering up" i need evidence of this.
and dont give me that bullshit about "no evidence for one thing doesnt mean the opposite is correct" because in this case, it does.
First of all. G in relation to 9.8m/s^2 is the force of Gravity. Hence 1g, 2g, etc... Using G to define the force pushing the Flat Earth is like saying gravity doesn't pull objects down, it in fact pushes the ground up at that rate constantly. Sorry. That isn't logical.
There is no force strong enough to be pushing our little flat world along at that rate. *shakes head*
Secondly. Go to a highpoint. A tall building. Or a tall mountain. Look out at the horizon. It curves. Hence the world is not flat. Curvature = a distinct lack of flatness. This is especially obvious from a plane in a cloudless sky.
Thirdly. If I were to assume for the sake of argurment the world is flat and looks like a map of the Flat Earth. We would all be dead. I'll try not to get all scientific and I will explain this as easily as I can. The Atmosphere is an all encompasing ball around the Round Earth. If the Earth were flat Atmosphere would not exist. The sun which is a lamp in the sky would not produce enough heat to sustain plant life. Life would never have evolved. And if we say, "Well wait, we are here and the earth is flat." Then atmosphere would be continously leaking away. We would litterally have to be in a self contained Biome in order for us to exist. If that were the case, we would have already destroyed our biome with our polution. And I hate to say it but no one has climbed any ice walls at the edge of the Earth and run into invisible walls.
And Fourth point. Geothermal energy/activity wouldn't exist because there would not be enough pressure in the earths crust to create the tectonics and heat we have proved lie below the surface. So the earth Must be round and Gravity Must exist.
Edit:
Main topic is at top. I am supporting the main topic and refuting any theories that a Flat Earth is possible. Therefore, I am indeed on topic.
Explain Atomic Theory in relation to Flat Earth Theory. Atoms exist. Explain the fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force in your flat earth reality. Explain chaos theory. Explain string theory. Explain astrophysics. Explain satelites. Explain Space. Explain gamma radiation. Explain xrays. Explain Solar flares. Explain the Earths Magnetic field. Explain the aurora borealis. Explain tides. Explain time zones. Explain the horizon. Explain the space shuttle. (Which I have seen lift off with my own eyes.) Explain the international space station. Explain weightlessness. Explain why planes in flight are not constantly climbing but fly at cruising altitudes and the ground doesn't get closer. Explain Rockets. Explain Meteors. Explain Comets. Explain the other Planets. Explain pictures of the others planets we have in graphic detail from passing satellites. Explain nebulae. Explain gas clouds. Dark Matter. The big bang. Cosmology. Physics.
Do I need to go on?
-
First of all. G in relation to 9.8m/s^2 is the force of Gravity. Hence 1g, 2g, etc... Using G to define the force pushing the Flat Earth is like saying gravity doesn't pull objects down, it in fact pushes the ground up at that rate constantly. Sorry. That isn't logical.
I think it's a lot more logical than some "there's this wierd force we can't explain at all and we don't know why it happens but for some reason massive objects just attract each other". If you think I'm wrong about that, you're going to have to explain why.
As for the rest of your post, it's completely off topic. Please post a new thread to discuss any of those points, or better yet use the search function to read some discussions that have already taken place.
-
]I think it's a lot more logical than some "there's this wierd force we can't explain at all and we don't know why it happens but for some reason massive objects just attract each other".
Actually, it is much more logical. The whole "mysterious force" known as gravity was invented by Isaac Newton to explain why he observed the planets to be disobeying his law of inertia. Einstein pretty much destroyed that notion of gravity with his theory of general relativity.
-
Actually, it is much more logical. The whole "mysterious force" known as gravity was invented by Isaac Newton to explain why he observed the planets to be disobeying his law of inertia. Einstein pretty much destroyed that notion of gravity with his theory of general relativity.
I think you're leaving out Kinetic and Potential Energy. But what do I know.
-
I think you're leaving out Kinetic and Potential Energy. But what do I know.
Pretty much nothing, as what you said has virtually no coherent connection to what EP said.
-
im not sure im going to even bother, as all argument with a bunch of retards who just say "its a conspiracy" to everything isnt going to acheive anything, but i was referring to the star positions. like, different star charts for different hemispheres. if the earth really was flat, this wouldnt be the case, as the star charts would be essentially the same, with just some reorientation needed for different areas. however, im pretty sure that centuries of accurate navigation are part of the conspiracy. how else did they get by before GPS? (oh, wait, that doesnt exist either, does it)
secondly, all of today's maintstream (ie. correct) theories are backed up by mathematical proofs. they work in maths, and this can be related to the real world, albeit with some discrepancies to allow for the chaotic nature of this universe.
-
im not sure im going to even bother, as all argument with a bunch of retards who just say "its a conspiracy" to everything isnt going to acheive anything
You might find it interesting that you are the very first person to mention the conspiracy in this thread. I noticed you RE'ers tend to fall back on the "everything's a conspiracy" thing whenever you don't feel like discussing something logically. You should stop that.
how else did they get by before GPS? (oh, wait, that doesnt exist either, does it)
Sure it does.
-
Oh the conspiracy is very much so real, and I just happen to know what the motive is.
-
well done, again you avoid the real point of my post.
and stop contradicting yourself. GPS cant exist if satelites are a hoax.
-
and stop contradicting yourself. GPS cant exist if satelites are a hoax.
Stop embarassing yourself and read the FAQ.
On a flat earth GPS would work flawlessly if the signals came from very tall radio towers.
-
no, i think you'll find that GPS stands for Global Positioning Satelite.
SATELITE.
dickhead.
and try answering the REAL question.
-
Hey guys,
This is my first post here. Although I am a round earth believer, I have a bit of a problem with RE and FE believers in here alike in their inability to understand gravity. As an engineering major at a large university I know this like the back of my hand. Gravity is the force of attraction of two objects towards each other. Whether this is the Earth and a person, or two in animate objects, the same equation holds true:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/0/b/d0b8d26f1025fddb87622732bc995c86.png)
Where G is a gravitational constant : (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/e/a/3ea5baee4bfa9d5976c506a74f15d1fa.png)
The F is what some people are refering to "g" which is in fact the force that attracts. The force of gravity of the Earth is this acceleration of -9.81 m/s^2 you have been refering too. m1 and m2 are the two masses, and r is the distance apart from the two mass centers. These formulas have been proven time and time again with many objects even at the atomic level, hence where the equation comes from.
As a RE believer, it is my opinoin that this theory that all objects with mass are attracted to each other makes more sense than a so-called 9.81 acceration of the earth plane upwards. I'm failing to see what is causing this accereation upward? Who is behind this? If some FE'ers can inform me it would be appreciated. I hope some of my information has helped.
-
Wrong.
Cute...Wrong where?
That the earth has existed for at least 315,576,000,000 seconds?
That if there was a constant rate of acceleration of 9 meters per second squared for a third of a trillion seconds we would be at many times the speed of light (299,792,458 m / s).
Or is Einstein wrong, all of the particle accelerator experiments faked, and the speed of light is not a limit to acceleration regardless of the reason?
Perhaps you are using the term "Linear Acceleration" in a way other than it's normal definition? If not, than the idea of the Earth Accelerating at a rate of 9M^s past the speed of light would seem to be a problem.
Or am Iwrong that my computer does not calculate to that many digits?
(O.K. it can, that was just hyperbole. The answer comes out to 2,989,714,657,811,705 times the speed of light in the past 10,000 years of acceleration)
-
Smee, stop being churlish,
no, i think you'll find that GPS stands for Global Positioning Satelite.
SATELITE.
dickhead.
You'll find that he meant that the "phenomenon" which you describe as GPS could easily be due to tall radio towers, and the name, would then, clearly be simple propaganda to convince you space travel is possible.
Hey guys,
This is my first post here. Although I am a round earth believer, I have a bit of a problem with RE and FE believers in here alike in their inability to understand gravity. As an engineering major at a large university I know this like the back of my hand. Gravity is the force of attraction of two objects towards each other. Whether this is the Earth and a person, or two in animate objects, the same equation holds true:
Where G is a gravitational constant :
The F is what some people are refering to "g" which is in fact the force that attracts. The force of gravity of the Earth is this acceleration of -9.81 m/s^2 you have been refering too. m1 and m2 are the two masses, and r is the distance apart from the two mass centers. These formulas have been proven time and time again with many objects even at the atomic level, hence where the equation comes from.
You'll find that most FEers here do, in fact, have a fairly firm grasp of what gravity is. We're familiar with the equations you present, but unless you can prove to me, in an experiment I can replicate, that this phenomenon you call gravity exists, I see no reason to believe that large masses cause a curve in space-time, which causes acceleration towards the mass.
The standard FE response for "what is propelling the earth?" seems to have become "dark energy", which is another thinly veiled term for magic, which is why Erasmus proposed a new model, accepting gravity as true, wherein the earth is simply the surface area of the top of a large cylinder.
Cute...Wrong where?
That the earth has existed for at least 315,576,000,000 seconds?
That if there was a constant rate of acceleration of 9 meters per second squared for a third of a trillion seconds we would be at many times the speed of light (299,792,458 m / s).
Or is Einstein wrong, all of the particle accelerator experiments faked, and the speed of light is not a limit to acceleration regardless of the reason?
Perhaps you are using the term "Linear Acceleration" in a way other than it's normal definition? If not, than the idea of the Earth Accelerating at a rate of 9M^s past the speed of light would seem to be a problem.
Or am Iwrong that my computer does not calculate to that many digits?
(O.K. it can, that was just hyperbole. The answer comes out to 2,989,714,657,811,705 times the speed of light in the past 10,000 years of acceleration)
The reason everyone is so terse in answering this question is because it's been done to death, avail yourself of the search function to save yourself further embarassment, because no one here feels like endlessly reiterating why the speed of light is not a "speed limit" to someone who is overly confident in that "B" they got as a grade in their grade 10 physics course.
-
Sorry, I just found this amusing:
As an engineering major at a large university I know this like the back of my hand.
-
The reason everyone is so terse in answering this question is because it's been done to death, avail yourself of the search function to save yourself further embarassment, because no one here feels like endlessly reiterating why the speed of light is not a "speed limit" to someone who is overly confident in that "B" they got as a grade in their grade 10 physics course.
maybe it's done to death because the counter-arguments ignore most of the practicle experiments, as well as theory involved.
Einstein's theories include temporal as well as physical distortion as you approach light speeds. The temporal distortion was proven in partical accelarators, using radioactive particles with a known half life. The increase of energy required to achieve near light speed also supports Einstein's theories and is ignored by most of your posters.
To use the spaceship example sited elsewhere, at lightspeed minus 1, you appear to travel from point a on the ship, foward to point b at a set speed. Relative to your frame of referance you move at your normal rate. Relative to someone standing on planet, it may take you centuries to complete your walk.
If you want to avoid the faster than light arguments, change your paradigm. Why bother with linear acceleration? Circular acceleration, with centrifical force providing the psuedo gravity would work, not require near infinite energy, and with a couple of adjustments to offset tidal forces, almost work, but any acceleration based model also has to explain how the atmosphere can extend beyond the "Ice Barrier". The air must be trapped here, or we would be accelerating through it. The earth, sun, moon, and planets would have to be part of a single unit accelerating together, with some form of ether holding it all in place.
-
no, i think you'll find that GPS stands for Global Positioning Satelite.
SATELITE.
Turns out:
a) the "S" in "GPS" stands for "system". Look it up.
b) you spelled "satellite" wrong anyway.
More to the point (i.e. you don't have to response to points (a) and (b) please):
c) even if it did stand for "satellite", so what? Presumably FEers believe that just because the space shuttle is called the space shuttle doesn't mean it really goes into space, or that just because a globe is called a globe doesn't mean it's really spherical (the real thing I mean, not the models), etc.
Man. If the government can fool people like you just by "carefully" picking the names of things, then in all sincerity I have no trouble believing that they can pull of the round-Earth hoax.
-Erasmus
-
maybe it's done to death because the counter-arguments ignore most of the practicle experiments, as well as theory involved.
Um nope, they're terse for exactly the reasons 6string gave. The acceleration model simply does not disagree with relativity, in theory or in experiments. The slightly less terse version is: what frame of reference are we in? and Please investigate the Principle of Equivalence.
I won't get any less terse than that; any further mention of this issue will just go ignored (by me, at least).
I suppose an exception would be a post that demonstrates to my satisfaction (a) that the poster fully understands the (allegedly errnoneous) justification of the model, (b) that the justification is erroneous, via a well-reasoned, clear refutation of the justification based in the principles of relativity, (c) that no other justification is possible, proven formally.
At all times while examining a post for these criteria I will insist on the highest standards of mathematical rigor combined with unparalleled ability to convey intuition. Failure to meet the criteria will result in no response.
This is my final word on the matter.
-Erasmus
-
no, i think you'll find that GPS stands for Global Positioning Satelite.
SATELITE.
Turns out:
a) the "S" in "GPS" stands for "system". Look it up.
b) you spelled "satellite" wrong anyway.
More to the point (i.e. you don't have to response to points (a) and (b) please):
c) even if it did stand for "satellite", so what? Presumably FEers believe that just because the space shuttle is called the space shuttle doesn't mean it really goes into space, or that just because a globe is called a globe doesn't mean it's really spherical (the real thing I mean, not the models), etc.
Man. If the government can fool people like you just by "carefully" picking the names of things, then in all sincerity I have no trouble believing that they can pull of the round-Earth hoax.
-Erasmus
you spelt off wrong.
-
(b) that the justification is erroneous, via a well-reasoned, clear refutation of the justification based in the principles of relativity
O.K I will attempt to demonstrate under you (b) clause:
If you want nice math and diagrams then go to:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/FOUNDATIONS/01/found01.html#s7
I would start with the fact that it has been shown that light propagates from it's source without the momentum of it's source. In other words, the speed of light within a specific medium is a set speed, you can't speed it up by speeding up the source. This leads to the "Red Shift" that you mentioned as distant object move away from the earth, consistent to the expending universe theories. In simple terms, the Doppler Effect.
Just a pilot of a jet plane that exceeds the speed of sound can not hear his engines through the air, any object traveling at the speed of light or faster could not see light reflected off of itself, as the light could not keep up. You would see the entire star field as point towards which you are traveling, and any stars on the horizon would seem to vanish.
In almost every section of the link I provided, there is proof of why we can not be hurdling through space faster than light.
-
This thread ( http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1326 ) contains a worth-reading discussion regarding the speed of light and it's function as a "barrier".
-
In almost every section of the link I provided, there is proof of why we can not be hurdling through space faster than light.
But I never said the Earth was travelling faster than light. Or at any particular speed at all. I don't know what it means for an object to be travelling at a certain speed, actually.
-Erasmus
-
But I never said the Earth was travelling faster than light. Or at any particular speed at all. I don't know what it means for an object to be travelling at a certain speed, actually.
-Erasmus
OK, if I understand you, speed is a relative concept. Therefore, ignoring light for a moment, it is impossible to establish your absolute speed, infact relativity basically states that there is not "Absolute Zero" when it comes to motion.
However, within the model of a constantly accelerating system, you can pick any arbitrary point of time from which you can calculate your relative speed to a theoretical location that is not accelerating. I used ten thousand years, in a similar vein one of the other posters used his own birth.
Under both frames of reference the speed of light must be exceeded if the flat earth is maintaining a rate of acceleration the is equivalent to gravity.
-
However, within the model of a constantly accelerating system, you can pick any arbitrary point of time from which you can calculate your relative speed to a theoretical location that is not accelerating. I used ten thousand years, in a similar vein one of the other posters used his own birth.
Under both frames of reference the speed of light must be exceeded if the flat earth is maintaining a rate of acceleration the is equivalent to gravity.
That's just it. If you were to get in a rocket and accelerate upwards with a constant thrust and drop some sort of reflective object out behind you, and regularly measured your speed relative to it, it would never appear to be moving faster than the speed of light away from you. It's not that the speed of light "must be" exceeded in the model; it simply isn't the case that the way you measure my speed/acceleration and the way I measure it will be the same. And we only care about how we measure it.
What do you think would happen when you are going slightly slower than light and still accelerating? Suddenly you'd just stop accelerating? Furthermore, do you think that no part of the ship (such as a passenger) would be able to accelerate further?
As long as a constant force is applied, a constant force will be felt. The effect will be different to outside observers, but the same to you on the ship.
-Erasmus
-
What do you think would happen when you are going slightly slower than light and still accelerating? Suddenly you'd just stop accelerating? Furthermore, do you think that no part of the ship (such as a passenger) would be able to accelerate further?
As long as a constant force is applied, a constant force will be felt. The effect will be different to outside observers, but the same to you on the ship.
-Erasmus
Actually, according to Einstein, your last conjecture is wrong. While the warping of the dimensions would cause those inside the ship to not notice most of the effects, the amount of force needed to accelerate an object increases dramatically because it's mass increases as you approach light speed. This is proven by the energy curve required as they increase the maximum speed particles can be acceleterated in particle accelerators.
So if a constant force is applied, eventually the effect will , not just consistant with Einstein, but thermodynamics too.
as for Furthermore, do you think that no part of the ship (such as a passenger) would be able to accelerate further?
I'm researching that one. Since time and spacial distortion is only significant at speed a small fraction below light, the question of a light inside the ship shining forward while the ship travels at anyspeed becomes a paradox. So far the only physicist I have on tap has given me a cop out answer...that since there is no way to determine the speed that does not rely on measurements occuring at the speed of light or less, there's not way to prove that there is indeed a paradox...not a satisfactory answer to me, just because it is not observed directly, does not mean it does not exist.
-
the amount of force needed to accelerate an object increases dramatically because it's mass increases as you approach light speed. ...
So if a constant force is applied, eventually the effect will , not just consistant with Einstein, but thermodynamics too.
Yeah but I get to pick the frame of reference from which I measure mass. I choose the frame in which I am at rest, which, conveniently, is the Earth/spaceship. Thus any time I measure the mass of something (like myself), I measure it to be the rest mass, so it doesn't take any more than the "usual" force to provide the desired acceleration (again, acceleration is measured in my frame of reference).
In otherwords, as long as the force is constant in my frame of reference, so is the acceleration.
Since time and spacial distortion is only significant at speed a small fraction below light, the question of a light inside the ship shining forward while the ship travels at anyspeed becomes a paradox.
I'm not sure that this is the case, or, of what you mean by "a small fraction."
So far the only physicist I have on tap has given me a cop out answer...that since there is no way to determine the speed that does not rely on measurements occuring at the speed of light or less, there's not way to prove that there is indeed a paradox...not a satisfactory answer to me, just because it is not observed directly, does not mean it does not exist.
Actually, relativity in important ways does depends on this whole how-long-it-takes-information-to-travel thing. And it's not exactly in the negativist sense of "because we can't measure it, it doesn't exist", but rather, "it is, to so-and-so, the way so-and-so measures it."
Again I'm not really sure what paradox you're referring to, but if you could explain it I could probably consider it better.
-Erasmus
-
LEt's see if we look at the past 10000 years that most societies have agreed people have been around for, and have a speed of 9 meters per second per second, that puts us at 315,576,000,000 seconds squared ....Darn, my computer doesn't calculate that many digits.....How many times the speed of light? linear acceleration is a big problem.
Wrong.
How old is earth ? Please do an own calculation of our current speed.
-
Yeah but I get to pick the frame of reference from which I measure mass. I choose the frame in which I am at rest, which, conveniently, is the Earth/spaceship.
No, you don't. This is where relativity get's more flakey. Mass increase due to acceleration is not relative. There is a theoretical point where the mass is at it's abolute lowest. In relativity it's one of the few things that is not relative to it's frame of reference.
In otherwords, as long as the force is constant in my frame of reference, so is the acceleration.
If that was true, then you would not be suject to the psuedo gravity of acceleration, and everything would be in freefall.
I'm not sure that this is the case, or, of what you mean by "a small fraction."
A small fraction is going above 99% light speed, anything lower than that the dimentional changes are miniscule. So the light shining inside the spaceship traveling at 99% the speed of light is shining at 199% the speed of light relative to the theoretical point of minimal mass.
Actually, relativity in important ways does depends on this whole how-long-it-takes-information-to-travel thing. And it's not exactly in the negativist sense of "because we can't measure it, it doesn't exist", but rather, "it is, to so-and-so, the way so-and-so measures it."
Again I'm not really sure what paradox you're referring to, but if you could explain it I could probably consider it better.
-Erasmus
The first point of paradox is the two object would seem to be able to move in relationship to each other at just below twice the speed of light.
The second is that if you could reach 99.9999% of light speed or so, to the point where time dialation occurs, and you were racing a light ray, the closer you go to light speed, the faster the light would seem to be passing you because time for it is going faster than time for you.
-
LEt's see if we look at the past 10000 years that most societies have agreed people have been around for, and have a speed of 9 meters per second per second, that puts us at 315,576,000,000 seconds squared ....Darn, my computer doesn't calculate that many digits.....How many times the speed of light? linear acceleration is a big problem.
Wrong.
How old is earth ? Please do an own calculation of our current speed.
I'll say at least 21 years old and 0 m/s referential to itself.
How would you answer the same quesiton for the round earth?
-
How would you answer the same quesiton for the round earth?
What question?
The age of the earth? I believe the current estimates are around 6.5 billion years, roughly half the age of the universe.
Rate of Acceleration? We travel at about 1000 miles a minute, and about 1 degree of Arc per day. So we are constantly accelerating, with a constant speed, which allows the planet to stay in a relatively stable orbit. We acccelerate falling to the sun, but our angular momentum allows us to miss - so we are in orbit.
-
first off i think the earth is ROUND because of the changes in seasons. i think the earth is ROUND becuase its been proven by countless evidance
-
First off, I think the earth is ROUND because of the changes in seasons. I think the earth is ROUND becuase its been proven by countless evidence.
The changing seasons work just fine on a flat Earth, why wouldn't they?
-
How would you answer the same quesiton for the round earth?
What question?
The age of the earth? I believe the current estimates are around 6.5 billion years, roughly half the age of the universe.
Rate of Acceleration? We travel at about 1000 miles a minute, and about 1 degree of Arc per day. So we are constantly accelerating, with a constant speed, which allows the planet to stay in a relatively stable orbit. We acccelerate falling to the sun, but our angular momentum allows us to miss - so we are in orbit.
It sounds like you're measuring the Earth's speed with regard to the sun. Why did you pick that particular star? Isn't that kinda an arbitrary reference point? Don't you think the sun is "moving" as well?
What I'm trying to get at is that any definition of speed requires a reference point. You chose the sun, but that's as arbitrary a reference as anywhere else in the universe. Since every definition of speed is relative, the idea of a "speed limit" at C is equally subject to that referential necessity. You can't just say something like "Yeah but the flat earth would be travelling 1000000000 times the speed of light so that's impossible" without defining a reference point, and no such reference point exists.
-
No, you don't. This is where relativity get's more flakey.
Certainly not. It's quite clear on what happens to mass in different reference frames.
Mass increase due to acceleration is not relative. There is a theoretical point where the mass is at it's abolute lowest. In relativity it's one of the few things that is not relative to it's frame of reference.
Mass, in fact, is relative. We give a special name to the mass we measure of an object at rest with respect to us: that's its "rest mass" or its "inertial mass". We can then define its relativistic mass as a function of this mass and the relative speed of the object.
Nothing flakey about it.
In otherwords, as long as the force is constant in my frame of reference, so is the acceleration.
If that was true, then you would not be suject to the psuedo gravity of acceleration, and everything would be in freefall.
Hm, again I'm not sure I'm following you. I know that acceleration is locally indistinguishable from gravitation, and that we are not in freefall as long as the ground is pushing up on us.
What I was referring to is that, in the Earth's frame of reference, if there is a constant force on it, the Earth will accelerate at a constant rate, and every object rigidly attached to the Earth will accelerate at the same rate.
A small fraction is going above 99% light speed, anything lower than that the dimentional changes are miniscule.
In fact, Lorentz contraction and time dilation are noticeable at much slower speeds than that. For example, at sqrt(3)/2*c (approximately 87% the speed of light) objects are reduced to half their rest length. At half the speed of light, objects are reduced to 87% their rest length. I would say these changes are quite the opposite of miniscule.
The first point of paradox is the two object would seem to be able to move in relationship to each other at just below twice the speed of light.
That's not really a paradox. Relativity does not state that this is impossible; only that it is impossible for a signal (information) to travel faster than light. If these two objects were signalling each other, then to them, the signals would appear to be travelling at light speed or less.
The second is that if you could reach 99.9999% of light speed or so, to the point where time dialation occurs, and you were racing a light ray, the closer you go to light speed, the faster the light would seem to be passing you because time for it is going faster than time for you.
No. The speed of light (in a vacuum) is always the same. Under no conditions (says Einstein) will its speed appear to be anything other than c.
-Erasmus
-
That is correct. That is why it is given the letter c. The speed of light is a constant. It never changes (except in different mediums), no matter the frame of reference.
-
You can't just say something like "Yeah but the flat earth would be travelling 1000000000 times the speed of light so that's impossible" without defining a reference point, and no such reference point exists.
That's untrue, and the point I'm trying to clarify with Erasmus.
The speed of light in a particular medium is fixed, regardless of frame of reference.
Also as for mass, I asked my physicist about how there was no fixed point where velocity or acceleration can be determined, his reply:
"When you say "fixed point", I assume you mean that there is no point that is not moving. However, since relativity indicates that mass increases with velocity, it would be possible to determine a state of "zero velocity" by firing rocket, etc until you have minimized your mass. Of course, the actual mass increases at normal speeds is so small that actually achieving this state resides solely in the relm of theory."
There is another, theoretically simple way of telling the difference from acceleration and Gravity, but not very practicle...Gravity also travels at the speed of light (interesting what you can learn watching Nova), eliminate the source of gravity and the effect spreads at the speed of light, in the accelerating model, there would be no effect, unless the oject eliminated is the source of acceleration.
But much more simple is the demonstration that objects radiate gravity, a massive object, suspended next to an extremely light object, which is also suspended, with the same electronic potential (to eliminate static electrical effects) will measurably effect the position of the lighter object following the equations established for gravitational effects. How does acceleration account for that? Also the path of celestial objects, such as meteorites, comets and the like, have their paths affected by the gravity of the object they pass. Also, comet tails point away from the sun, Even the paths of the planets make no sense until you plot them as making circles around the sun, with the earth joining them. That's why they were called planets.
-
That is correct. That is why it is given the letter c. The speed of light is a constant. It never changes (except in different mediums), no matter the frame of reference.
According a team of Australian scientists, you are mistaken. Speed of light is not constatnt it is in fact slowing down.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
-
That is correct. That is why it is given the letter c. The speed of light is a constant. It never changes (except in different mediums), no matter the frame of reference.
According a team of Australian scientists, you are mistaken. Speed of light is not constatnt it is in fact slowing down.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
Even in science, it is not wise to just take something as gospel without at least checking around:
From a NASA article:
(http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/lightspeed_031217.html)
The speed of light, one of the constants scientists rely on to study the universe, appears to have held its ground under some tight NASA scrutiny despite other theories that it may slow as it moves through space.
By comparing gamma ray observations of two nearby galaxies, a NASA researcher found evidence that the speed of light is still traveling as fast as it ever has. The finding reinforces the relevance of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, which depends on a constant speed of light as the maximum speed attainable by any object.
"Special relativity is, of course, one of the backbones of modern physics," said theoretical physicist Floyd Stecker, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who conducted the study. "It's affirmation of violation, even in small amounts, would be fundamentally significant."
Stecker studied two galaxies, Markarian (Mkn) 421 and Mkn 501, with supermassive black holes at their cores, each sitting about a half a billion light-years away. The black holes in both galaxies spew intense gamma ray photons at Earth that can be seen colliding with infrared photons and annihilating one another.
If the particles were moving slower than the accepted speed of light - 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second - they wouldn't have enough energy to annihilate each other. The research is based in part on his past collaboration with Sheldon Glashow of Boston University and appears in the November issue of the journal Astroparticle Physics.
-
First off, I think the earth is ROUND because of the changes in seasons. I think the earth is ROUND becuase its been proven by countless evidence.
The changing seasons work just fine on a flat Earth, why wouldn't they?
if you notices the sun is different each season. on winter days the sun shines less during the day.
with the round earth it is easely explained because the earth rotates on its axis. if the flat earth thery was to be correct then the sun would shine equaly long on each day. which is does not(of course if this is also part of the "conspiricy")
still another reason is the correolis effect.
if you want more evidence i can continue to explain.
one other major factor is the changes in the zodiac. on a flat earth why do the stars change?
still the major factor i see is the reason for this consipiricy. i am an arch conspiricy therist BUT there is no reason for the goverment to try and convince us that the earth is flat.
and still if it has been going on for such a long time someone would have come clean by now!
-
Your grammar makes my brain hurt...
-
Hm, again I'm not sure I'm following you. I know that acceleration is locally indistinguishable from gravitation, and that we are not in freefall as long as the ground is pushing up on us.
What I was referring to is that, in the Earth's frame of reference, if there is a constant force on it, the Earth will accelerate at a constant rate, and every object rigidly attached to the Earth will accelerate at the same rate.
But your idea of acceleration is as hampered by the frame of reference as the counter argument of the speed of light. What are you accelerating in reference to? Acceleration is a change in velocity or direction. Whatever is your frame of reference that you are accelerating from, is also my basis for reference in stating that you are exceeding the speed of light after about a year, if you are in fact accelerating in a linear fashion.
Then there is the question of the ever increasing force required to continue the accceleration. Even without relativity causing the energy requirements to curve to the ifinite, the energy required to accelerate the mass of the earth for the time that it can be reasonably determined that it has experience the force we (RE) term gravity would be increadible. And as with any force, what is the equal but opposite reaction?
If you are infact accelerating in a circular fashion, you need not be increasing speed, only direction, and the speed of light is not violated, but that leads to other factors such as tidal shear.
-
You can't just say something like "Yeah but the flat earth would be travelling 1000000000 times the speed of light so that's impossible" without defining a reference point, and no such reference point exists.
That's untrue, and the point I'm trying to clarify with Erasmus.
The speed of light in a particular medium is fixed, regardless of frame of reference.
That has nothing to do with anything I was saying.
-
That has nothing to do with anything I was saying.
I am trying to establish that even in regards to relativity there can be established a fixed point of reference. And that in the most extreem case, you can still only have two objects traveling in relationship to each at a speed of just less than twice the speed of light. The sustained acceleration needed to provide a constant pseudo gravity of 1G is physically impossible under the theory of relativity.
But, to be clear, you stated "No such reference point exists", I disagree and have posted my reasoning, so yes, it has something to do with what you are saying.
-
So you're claiming that the speed of light can be used as a reference for our own velocity? How?
[Edit]Or was this where your relative mass argument comes in?
-
if you notices the sun is different each season. on winter days the sun shines less during the day.
with the round earth it is easely explained because the earth rotates on its axis. if the flat earth thery was to be correct then the sun would shine equaly long on each day. which is does not(of course if this is also part of the "conspiricy")
With the flat Earth seasons are easily explained because the sun orbits the equator over the course of the year and wobbles a bit from north to south, as I'm sure you read in the FAQ. What this means is that the seasons would work exactly the same as they would on a RE, the sun not shining equally each day is not the cause of the seasons, rather, it is a result of the suns apparent movement from north to south over the course of a year. The only difference between the FE and RE versions of seasons is that on the RE model the Earth rotates the sun, whereas on the FE model it is the sun that moves about the Earth.
still another reason is the correolis effect.
The Coriolis effect has never been satisfactorily explained for a FE, but even on the RE it has nothing to do with Earths movement around the sun, it is caused by Earths rotation from East to west.
-
No, you don't. This is where relativity get's more flakey. Mass increase due to acceleration is not relative.
Quick question (I don't care who answers). If acceleration is relative, how can the mass increase due to acceleration not be relative?
-
Also as for mass, I asked my physicist about how there was no fixed point where velocity or acceleration can be determined, his reply:
"When you say "fixed point", I assume you mean that there is no point that is not moving. However, since relativity indicates that mass increases with velocity, it would be possible to determine a state of "zero velocity" by firing rocket, etc until you have minimized your mass. Of course, the actual mass increases at normal speeds is so small that actually achieving this state resides solely in the relm of theory."
Interesting.... it sounds like he's suggesting that as we fire a rocket that we're sitting on/in/whatever, our mass will increase. This is not the case: since we are always moving the same speed relative to ourselves, we will always only measure our rest mass.
If you believe relativity, you believe that there is no fixed frame of reference for position or velocity.
I could just be misreading the quote, of course.
eliminate the source of gravity and the effect spreads at the speed of light, in the accelerating model, there would be no effect, unless the oject eliminated is the source of acceleration.
Well that's a pretty big "unless": turns out if you make the flat Earth not be there anymore, then the thing that was pushing up on you isn't there to push up on you, so you feel no acceleration.
The only way to tell the difference between gravity and acceleration is to make nonlocal measurements of the curvature of spacetime. I.e. one measurement here, and another over there. If you come up with some other way to determine what you're experiencing, either it won't work or it will be equivalent to this method.
But much more simple is the demonstration that objects radiate gravity, a massive object, suspended next to an extremely light object, which is also suspended, with the same electronic potential (to eliminate static electrical effects) will measurably effect the position of the lighter object following the equations established for gravitational effects. How does acceleration account for that?
Acceleration doesn't, but then again, it's a nonlocal measurement.
Also, comet tails point away from the sun,
That's an electromagnetic effect, not a gravitational one.
Even the paths of the planets make no sense until you plot them as making circles around the sun, with the earth joining them. That's why they were called planets.
Well, you can use interrotating ellipses, actually. They seem to do a pretty good job of modelling planet's geocentric motion.
And, the reason they are called planets is because they don't stay in one place relative to the "fixed" stars.
-Erasmus
-
Quick question (I don't care who answers). If acceleration is relative, how can the mass increase due to acceleration not be relative?
Mass is not a function of acceleration, but of relative velocity. In other words, an object can be accelerating very fast but moving very slow and would thus have little relativistic mass. Or, the object could be moving very very fast but at a constant rate and thus have high relativistic mass.
The whole way in which it's relative is that it's different depending on relative velocity.
-Erasmus
-
From a NASA article:
(http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/lightspeed_031217.html)
I wouldn't trust NASA with computations too much, after all they are the ones that forgot to convert metric units into american and wrecked Mars orbiter a while ago, not to mention that they are involved in the conspiracy against FE.
There is a much easier way to find out if light is slowing down or not. Simply collect all data on the light speed since it was first measured and compare it. Because when you start playing with cosmic rays and radiation of distant galaxies, assumptions, unknown and uncontrolable variables start to pop up like mushroom after the rain.
-
I wouldn't trust NASA with computations too much, after all they are the ones that forgot to convert metric units into american and wrecked Mars orbiter a while ago,
I'm pretty sure that at some point you made a spelling mistake, so obviously I shouldn't trust anything you say. It's just too error prone.
Oh, and, you haven't exactly built any large, complex mechanical devices that actually worked, to make up for your error.
-Erasmus
-
The only way to tell the difference between gravity and acceleration is to make nonlocal measurements of the curvature of spacetime. I.e. one measurement here, and another over there. If you come up with some other way to determine what you're experiencing, either it won't work or it will be equivalent to this method.
So the fact that weight is different on top of a high mountain, or at the poles when compaired to weight at the equator is definitive proof?
-
So the fact that weight is different on top of a high mountain, or at the poles when compaired to weight at the equator is definitive proof?
Well it would definitely be definitive proof that the FE explanation for gravity isn't complete, but it wouldn't be definitive proof that the FE explanation for gravity is completely wrong.
Also, it would be preferable to have an experiment we can do ourselves. The mountaintop thing is potentially good for that, but I think you need fairly sensitive equipment.
On a round Earth, the difference in the weight of an object atop, say, Mt. Everest. Rough calculations show that an object atop Mt. Everest would way 99.723% its sea-level weight. I imagine it will be difficult to carry sufficiently sensitive equipment to the summit. At lower elevations, obviously, the difference will be even smaller.
-Erasmus
-
On a round Earth, the difference in the weight of an object atop, say, Mt. Everest. Rough calculations show that an object atop Mt. Everest would way 99.723% its sea-level weight. I imagine it will be difficult to carry sufficiently sensitive equipment to the summit. At lower elevations, obviously, the difference will be even smaller.
-Erasmus
Matched what I posted in the Gravity thread, actually I was picturing doing the experiment with a high altitude weather balloon, but there would be a few technical difficulties there too.
Had a stray thought with the celestial bodies portion of the Flat Earth. Is it the common conjecture that the Earth is stationary with respect to the stars, and that they are moving?
-
So speed changes depending on weight?
An objects speed while falling on the earth has nothing to do with it's weight. All objects accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second towards the ground. The only reason objects like paper "fall" more slowly is because of air resistance (paper is less dense that an anvil, so it has a harder time moving the air out of it's way).
Air resistance would mean the paper is FALLING.
If the earth was moving UP the paper would go down at the same speed an anvil would
-
Air resistance would mean the paper is FALLING.
If the earth was moving UP the paper would go down at the same speed an anvil would
Not since the ground would also be pushing the air up, which would in turn be pushing the paper. The anvil? Not so much. Air resistance and terminal velocity works the same in accelerating FE as it does in gravitational RE.
-
Need I reiterate? The round Earth and flat Earth models of gravity are locally the same. We can stop talking about this now.
-Erasmus
-
Need I reiterate? The round Earth and flat Earth models of gravity are locally the same. We can stop talking about this now.
-Erasmus
There are one or two important differences.
With gravity, the atmosphere need not be contained, with a flat earth, the ice wall would need to be high enough to contain the air, not just what we breath, and what we see airplanes fly through, but high enough that a column of air weigh 14+ lbs at the base.
There is the fact that gravity has been demonstraited, so even if most of the downward pull we experience is really acceleration, there still is garity to take into account, and with gravity, the flat earth becomes unbalanced.
-
With gravity, the atmosphere need not be contained, with a flat earth, the ice wall would need to be high enough to contain the air, not just what we breath, and what we see airplanes fly through, but high enough that a column of air weigh 14+ lbs at the base.
This is not a "difference" between FE gravity and RE gravity, but it is a good point.
According to my calculations, assuming the atmosphere doesn't get less dense as you go up in altitude, it must be over 8.6 km thick in order to induce the pressure we experience at sea level (101.3 kPa).
If you believe the atmosphere does indeed get thinner as you go up, then this is just a lower bound, since we need a thicker atmosphere to compensate for the thinner air.
Thus whatever extra effect you're going to heap on top of the Ice Wall to explain why the air doesn't flow off the edge of the Earth needs to support an atmosphere almost 9 km thick.
-Erasmus