1

Flat Earth Debate / Just after FE's take on this

« on: September 21, 2008, 04:15:09 PM »

Just after FE's take on this

"Explanation: Here is what the Earth looks like during a solar eclipse. The shadow of the Moon can be seen darkening part of Earth. This shadow moved across the Earth at nearly 2000 kilometers per hour. Only observers near the center of the dark circle see a total solar eclipse - others see a partial eclipse where only part of the Sun appears blocked by the Moon. This spectacular picture of the 1999 August 11 solar eclipse was one of the last ever taken from the Mir space station, which was deorbited in a controlled re-entry in 2001. "

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040926.html

I'd be dissapointed in a "Photo Shop" blanket dissmissal.

Brett

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about gravity answered in the FAQ

« on: June 09, 2007, 11:26:55 PM »

>>>However, I'm rather sure that a rigid body cannot accelerate uniformly to relativistic velocities. I wonder if this might be a problem for FE.

Dont think so. (not sure)
Still FE have a lot more problems than that.
Apparently we have been doing G for 4-5 billion years (my calculator just says .9999999 c) CMBR is now a gamma ray source its been blue shifted to the extreme. Cant see the atmosphere being effective barrier against it.I wouldn't like to run into a cloud of dust either.
Then again Ive never been sure what we are accelerating relative to .
And if the Earth is infinite does that mean the UA is infinite?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about gravity answered in the FAQ

« on: June 09, 2007, 10:39:39 PM »

Let me put it this way,
Your accelerating from Earth at 1g
An observer on Earth will see the mass of your ship increase and acceleration decrease,
You on board see no no decrease in acceleration or mass.Your clock is now running slower to complicate things but they are all related.
Its all got to do with Frames of Reference.Yours is now noticeably different to where you left.Neither are incorrect .

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about gravity answered in the FAQ

« on: June 09, 2007, 10:09:50 PM »

>>>Thanks. I'm a little hung-up of the concept of intrinsic acceleration yet, but you're helping.

Cool,

>>> How long could an object accelerate at 9.8 m/s2? When I divide g into c, I get less than 1 year. That would spell the end of FE, would it?

No, if an unbalanced force can be applied the speed will approach but not exceed c ,so theoretically you can accelerate for ever and you will never reach c

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: EARTH ISN'T FLAT

« on: June 09, 2007, 10:04:19 PM »

You mean you will just disagree with the entire scientific community, right?

I'm not sure what you mean , Gravity is one of four "fundamental" forces .
It has never by any text or lecturer been described to me as a pseudo force.
 Gravity results from how energy and momentum curve spacetime in GR , but that is what is happening and is the direct cause of resultant actions, this shouldnt be confused with things like  centrifugal force which is  a pseudo or "fictitious"  force.
OK if the Earth is rising up due to UA then Gravity is neither a real or pseudo

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: EARTH ISN'T FLAT

« on: June 09, 2007, 09:46:41 PM »

Sorry, Thomo, but that is simply incorrect.  Gravity is not a force, it is a pseudo force.  Please look it up before posting again.

Well we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that one Dude

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: EARTH ISN'T FLAT

« on: June 09, 2007, 09:34:40 PM »

Gravity nor gravitation are forces.  Gravity is due to the use of an inertial frame of reference, and gravitation causes objects to accelerate towards each other.

Thats simply incorrect Engineer.

In main stream thought and definition Gravity is a force, or can be described as the curvature of space/time ,Gravitation is a description of the resulting attraction of objects with mass.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about gravity answered in the FAQ

« on: June 09, 2007, 09:27:08 PM »

>>>as mass becomes greater as v approaches c ...Force required increases proportionally

Sorry
To be more accurate the force required to maintain a constant acceleration increases.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about gravity answered in the FAQ

« on: June 09, 2007, 09:23:35 PM »

>>>I've been challenged on this point in another thread. Can an object accelerate forever at a constant rate?<<<

No, "forever" imply s an infinite source of Energy


 >>>Can an object accelerate forever at a constant rate and not require, in known physics, an exponentially increasing force. <<<


No, the momentum of an object moving at speed v is:p = gamma( m v ) where m = mo/(1/sqrt(1-v2/c2)).Note m= mass and mo = rest mass. Force being the rate of change of momentum.... as mass becomes greater as v approaches c ...Force required increases proportionally

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: EARTH ISN'T FLAT

« on: June 09, 2007, 06:31:31 PM »

[/quote]Please don't. There are important issues here.
[/quote]


Do you genuinely think the issues discussed here are important Gulliver?
In what way?
Whilst its an interesting thought experiment to see if the nature of the Universe and Physics can be realized simply from rationalization and observation.I would be hesitant to describe here as a serious science site.
If any of the posters here are genuine FE believers please don't be offended by my remarks I recognize your right to your to your views..particularly without ridicule.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about gravity answered in the FAQ

« on: June 09, 2007, 03:45:14 PM »

>>>TomB, the Expanding Universe does not require the Quintessence. Physics does not have negative energy that I know about. Perhaps you could reference the high-school physics textbook where you learned about "negative energy".



Gulliver, all Tom has done is steal a word from a mainstream science  theory of the possible jerk of the Universe.
Its not negative, rather Dark energy .Quintessence is a hypothetical form of dark energy .

But it sounded good didn't it Tom?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question about gravity answered in the FAQ

« on: June 09, 2007, 12:03:39 AM »

What experimental evidence do you bring to the table of the Quintessence? Of negative energy?

My evidence consists of the Expanding Universe.

What experimental evidence do you bring to the table for the existence of Dark Energy?

If you will recall, Dark Energy must exist in your model of the cosmos as well.

Give this a read and tell us Plebs where its wrong

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0307335

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Green Peace

« on: June 03, 2007, 12:16:42 AM »

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/climate/polartour/pt01.html

Reading about Melting glaciers and ice shelves (a word that is takes on a different meaning here), came across this site.

So Greenpeace is in on the conspiracy?

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Here's one for you FEers

« on: June 01, 2007, 06:14:56 PM »

 A gyrocompass  does not need re alignment
Some Heading indicators do though and they are a type of gyroscope.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / South Pole

« on: June 01, 2007, 04:55:51 PM »

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15742

Seems all the scientists involved are fools or in on the conspiracy.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Here's one for you FEers

« on: June 01, 2007, 04:28:25 PM »

You are actually travelling around a circle.  It only appears you're travelling in a straight line.

Oh don't be so obtuse,
In reference to the Opening Post you are are traveling in a geodesic straight line ,or to put it more accurately   you do not move off the plane described by the great circle .
Flags plated on the equator in FE will to the observer  appear curving when this is not the case ,what is theory as to why it doesn't seem curved?

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Here's one for you FEers

« on: June 01, 2007, 04:14:34 PM »

Um, no.  Explain how you could get back to where you started without travelling in a circle.

Mmmm
 maybe I should be reading the quotes more carefully.
But in a RE you can return to your starting point by traveling in a straight line (geodesicly curved obviously)
How do you  explain traveling in a straight line on the equator of the FE and ending up in the same place?

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Here's one for you FEers

« on: June 01, 2007, 03:32:14 PM »

Guess what? You have to go in a circle in order to get back where you started, even on the Round Earth Model. Imagine that!

~D-Draw

Very clever, but not when
A) traveling in a straight line or
B) taking the shortest route

You really should read all of the post

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Here's one for you FEers

« on: May 30, 2007, 06:03:57 PM »

>>>I read and reread and just can't understand you. Why do need three points and isosceles triangles? Don't two distinct points on a sphere determine exactly one great circle? Please help me in my confusion. Thanks.<<<


Hey Gulliver,
I just re-read that and it is a big garbled.....sorry (was trying to keep math out of it)
Yes. 2 points can (as can 50) describe a great circle.
I was using an isosceles to describe why on a sphere other points relatve to you on the equator are E-W and why that is the shortest route. FE falls down in that regard.
Also most people are familar with 180° triangles.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Here's one for you FEers

« on: May 30, 2007, 05:37:47 PM »

okay, man (or woman) stands on the equator and walks due east (or west) and every now and then he leaves a marker on the ground. after walking for several miles due east he turns around and with a pair of binoculars looks back the way he came at the markers he has left. If the earth really is a flat disc then the markers will not line up however if the earth is a sphere then they will line up (which is what is observed).

What your doing zeromatrix is showing that the Earth is spherical.
For instance you have 3 points all equidistant from each other on the Equator ,This is the greatest size circle you can draw on a sphere and in math its called a great circle.
In FE theory the shortest distance from one point to another is described by an isosceles triangle of 180°
The shortest distance on a sphere is also an isosceles triangle but in spherical geometry the sum of the angles of a spherical triangle is between pi radians and 3 pi radians so at a great circle you get a triangle of 540° , that is why the shortest distance along the equator is 180°  or due East / West.
FE seems to say to travel the shortest distance, you (and everyone else) accidentally follow a curved route and take a longer path.
Hope this helps

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Differences in g - one more you can add to your "unanswered"

« on: April 30, 2007, 03:45:40 AM »

The real answer to your question


http://xkcd.com/c226.html

(just in a silly mood)

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round

« on: April 29, 2007, 03:18:49 AM »

Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round
From http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa029&articleID=6C7D1C56-E7F2-99DF-34B1394F8ABE2BBE

Couldn't resist it
 

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctica

« on: April 25, 2007, 12:03:29 AM »

>>>Essentially he's asking the same question as asked about 14 million times before. I hate to say it, but could you please use the search?<<<

If you hate to say it ......dont.

I know its been asked before but posters come and go as do "current" theory.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Antarctica

« on: April 24, 2007, 02:13:33 AM »

Just wondering how FEers explain the claims of people who profess to have circumnavigated Antarctica .

There would be a) substancial discrepancy in the distance traveled.
                     b) Instead of veering starboard they were veering port (or visa versa)
                     c) There were some other things cant think of them just yet but they seem like big differences

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ok, to the best of your ability, explain the following:

« on: April 22, 2007, 03:28:59 AM »

>>>I don't have proof of that, but it is a hypothesis to explain the creation of the flat shape of the Earth. For that matter, why did the Solar System, according to the accepted views, form?<<<


Hey Bushido ,
Im not here to defend mainstream thought.
Neither am I here to Attack Fe Earth theory .

To current thought a good theory :
Best describe what is observed
Be simple (in view of Occam's razor)
Be predictive
Not rely on anecdotal evidence
Be peer reviewed
Is able to be changed in light of new data

amongst other things ,off the top of my head.

It just seems there is very little direct evidence of the forces and events both past and present in FE theory.

Still as I said before in other threads I'm only here to hear your Point of View ,as long as its thought out

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ok, to the best of your ability, explain the following:

« on: April 22, 2007, 02:40:46 AM »

The technical meaning of 'jerk' is the rate of change of the acceleration. So, the UA jerked to change its acceleration from 0 m/s² to 9.8 m/s². Then, the jerk stopped and the acceleration was constant. Time-varying inertial forces (just as in an elevator starting to move upwards) squashed the Earth as a pancake during the jerk When the jerk had stopped, the inertial force became constant and could not cause deformations any more. The Earth remained in the Flat state (maybe solidified).

Your correct , and the fourth derivative is jounce,but...
You didnt answer the question:

"What proof do you have of that ?
Why has it stopped?"

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Zetetic Conspiracy

« on: April 21, 2007, 10:41:25 PM »

1. Japan did not have a space program at that time for the Conspiracy to infiltrate. It only created a space program after it was defeated by the Allies.

2. The politicians of a country are not aware of the Conspiracy which operates within their own space programs. Countries go to war for other political, financial, or militaristic reasons. The actual number of people involved in the Conspiracy is small.

3. No two country with a space program has ever gone to war.

4. As shown in that video, the Federal Reserve actually profits immensely by encouraging wars with other nations.

5. Historian and author Christine Garwood found that every society and civilization since the dawn of time believed in a Round Earth. We are simply led to believe that the Flat Earth is the primitive belief.

6. The "Round Earth" is the true primitive shape of the world.

Much better Tom,
Do stick to suppositions and conspiracies, but....

>>>3. No country with a space program has ever gone to war.<<<

Please define what you mean by a space program (sounds like fibs)

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Zetetic Conspiracy

« on: April 21, 2007, 08:10:13 PM »

>>>he Federal Reserve is a private corporation with private undeclared shareholders. <<<

Bzzt, wrong.
Really Tom, you should stay away from specifics and concentrate on suppositions and conspiracies. (Like the time you called the Ross ice Shelf the Ice wall)

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ok, to the best of your ability, explain the following:

« on: April 21, 2007, 07:04:30 PM »

>>>When the U(niversal) A(ccelerator) jerked, it created a shockwave that flattened the Earth.<<<

What proof do you have of that ?
Why has it stopped?

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I have a question about the nature of the "flat earth."

« on: April 21, 2007, 12:00:24 AM »

You would probably punch through the other side (though it may take awhile) and send us all to our doom.

Why ?