1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration Debunked: Equivalence Does Not Apply

« on: February 18, 2016, 08:17:40 PM »

Tell me how it is relevant and I will.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS (as a flat earth believer)

« on: February 18, 2016, 08:15:22 PM »

However, that's irrelevant to this discussion. The satellites don't actually emit information about their location. That is calculated by the GPS device (the receiver).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNSS_positioning_calculation#Calculation_steps

Well, that's a new one.  Discount Chemist is trying to relate not using clocks to GPS, but now...transmitters don't send out their position... 

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 18, 2016, 11:12:15 AM »

I already did. Sorry your grasp of English is worse than your knowledge of physics.

I see you have graduated from the 'Discount Chemist School of Backing up Your Claims'.  I'm disappointed, but not at all surprised.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 18, 2016, 11:09:09 AM »

This does not fit with the current posts here, but it is related to "Flat Earth VS General Relativity".

If we accept relativity, and The Flat Earth Society seems to, then we must accept time dilation, etc.

So, if the earth were to start accelerating at 9.8 m/s² 15 billion years ago[nb]This "maximum time" is chosen to extend the "time since creation" as long as possible![/nb] (I don't know that I agree with the age!) by now, due to time slowing down on the accelerating earth (that is Time Dilation) only 45.5 years would have elapsed on earth!
(see http://convertalot.com/relativistic_star_ship_calculator.html)

Now, since to best of my memory I am rather older than 45.5 years, this all gets a bit hard to explain.

I would love some "expert" to peruse these figures! Any experts on relativity in the house?

Ooh, ooh, pick me!

As Empirical said (we agree on something, finally) in the Earth's frame of reference, you would not know anything different but normal time passage.  Only to someone outside of the accelerated frame of reference, would time be slowing/normal (depends on the frame of reference).

Good try though.  Well, not really.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Inertia, a way to truly prove/disprove the FE.

« on: February 18, 2016, 10:58:15 AM »

The thing is, it looks like he does understand it, he just deliberately leaves stuff out. My hypothesis is that he knows the earth is round, he's just here to troll.

Among most of the people here.

And your stupid enough to misunderstand the OP not to mention believe the earth is flat. What is your point?

Uh, what?

And you don't even understand basic English.

Ironic, since you used 'your' incorrectly in your post. 

Plus, the rest of your post made no sense.  Please try again.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Inertia, a way to truly prove/disprove the FE.

« on: February 18, 2016, 10:55:02 AM »

I'm an engineer.
I design/build rockets.

Prove it. 99.9% chance you're lying, given your constant inability to understand physics or facts.

How would you propose I 'prove it'?  And I obviously understand physics and facts far better than you.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 17, 2016, 10:41:56 PM »

I already did.

I know you already posted irrelevant quotes. 

Please back up your claim with relevant quotes.

8

Flat Earth General / MOVED: The Earth is as Flat as a Pancake

« on: February 17, 2016, 09:31:53 PM »

This topic has been moved to Complete Nonsense.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65919.0

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 17, 2016, 07:34:51 PM »

I'm not saying Gravity is a real force, I am saying that it is a real interaction between mass-energy-momentum that gives rise to a fictitious force. For the Engineer to claim otherwise,

Did I?

Gravity is not real.

Which necessarily means it is not a real interaction. Look!  Wrong!

No, I said gravity is not real.  It is a fictitious force.

I'm not saying Gravity is a real force, I am saying that it is a real interaction between mass-energy-momentum that gives rise to a fictitious force. For the Engineer to claim otherwise,

Did I?

Are you going to show where I claimed otherwise, or are you just going to keep posting irrelevant quotes?

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 17, 2016, 07:31:37 PM »

Let me ask you this:  If I am in space far from any reference points, but in a gravitational field, what fictitious force will I observe?

Gravity.

Lol.  Not even close.  Let's try this again:

I am in space all by my lonesome.  I can't see anything.  I am in a gravitational field.  What fictitious force am I experiencing?  You said the distortion of space time causes a fictitious force.  What is it?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration Debunked: Equivalence Does Not Apply

« on: February 17, 2016, 07:25:35 PM »

What equation on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration requires a clock?

How does that relate to you showing GPS being something other than a locating process?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Inertia, a way to truly prove/disprove the FE.

« on: February 17, 2016, 07:19:07 PM »

And your stupid enough to misunderstand the OP not to mention believe the earth is flat. What is your point?

Uh, what?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration Debunked: Equivalence Does Not Apply

« on: February 17, 2016, 11:25:55 AM »

You want things that are used in GPS that are not part of the location process. I posted two. The location process is Trilateration. Both tracking satellites and keeping time are not part of Trilateration.

This is what you claimed, Discount Chemist, not me. 

You were supposed to be backing up your claim that GPS is 'much more' than just a locating process.  So to back up your argument, you offered trilateration and said that keeping time and tracking satellites are not part of trilateration.  Which is true...if you are not talking about GPS.  So, which is it:  are you wrong in your example, or were you just making a statement about trilateration that was not meant to backup your claim?  It has to be one or the other.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 17, 2016, 11:14:28 AM »

I'm not saying Gravity is a real force, I am saying that it is a real interaction between mass-energy-momentum that gives rise to a fictitious force. For the Engineer to claim otherwise,

Did I?

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 17, 2016, 11:13:38 AM »

This real distortion causes a fictitious force to appear.

No, it doesn't.

You are wrong. GR says that gravity is a distortion of space time.
Are you saying this equation isn't describing space  time being distorted
This is an equation from GR that says mass will curve space time, hence causing gravity, hence you were wrong to say gravity isn't real.

Let me ask you this:  If I am in space far from any reference points, but in a gravitational field, what fictitious force will I observe?

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 16, 2016, 10:15:26 PM »

How?  Show me.

Because that definition states that I am right.  The fact that you don't understand what it means has no bearing on my correctness.  I am correct whether you understand what you are talking about or not.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration Debunked: Equivalence Does Not Apply

« on: February 16, 2016, 10:13:04 PM »

So...GPS doesn't require clocks.  Interesting.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 16, 2016, 08:09:54 PM »

noun, Physics.
1.
any force that is postulated to account for apparent deviations from Newton's laws of motion appearing in an accelerated reference system.

*Sigh* Right there.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration Debunked: Equivalence Does Not Apply

« on: February 16, 2016, 07:52:22 PM »

You want things that are used in GPS that are not part of the location process. I posted two. The location process is Trilateration. Both tracking satellites and keeping time are not part of Trilateration.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 16, 2016, 07:51:23 PM »

This real distortion causes a fictitious force to appear.

No, it doesn't. 

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 16, 2016, 07:47:45 PM »

No where in the definition of fictional force is non-existence or unreality postulated.

Uh, that's exactly what it postulates.  Lol!

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Inertia, a way to truly prove/disprove the FE.

« on: February 16, 2016, 07:44:46 PM »

Well, maybe I should have said, "a week and a half"....  Few days to me is about 10 at the most, we all have different ideas of "few" I suppose.

Seeing as the world record for a powered vessel to circumnavigate the Earth is about 45 days, I will say you are full of crap.  If you truly owned a yacht, you would know the top speed of your craft and how long it would take for you to just get around Florida and the Caribbean.

I have been on 4 space shuttle missions, I am a former astronaut living in Titusville, FL.

Now that is funny.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: So gravity waves prove that gravity exists, hense earth is round.

« on: February 16, 2016, 07:30:37 PM »

I'm suspecting TheEngineer may be a bot.  He doesn't seem capable of cognition, just repeating points ad nauseam.

I understand your conclusion 100%, but he is capable of cognition. Engy really personifies the meaning of 'confirmation bias'. Even when the evidence (including his own) stacks up against him. Case in point:

All you are doing is putting your ignorance on display.

Breast augmentation surgery is the #1 cosmetic surgery in the US.  By far, the largest age group to get this surgery is 30 to 39 year olds.  Why this group?  It is after most women have given birth.  After child birth/feeding, breast volume is lost.  The only way to get this volume back is to perform a breast augmentation.  Not to make them bigger, but to restore them to their original size and shape.

Per the American Society of Plastic Surgeons:
"Breast augmentation surgery, also known as augmentation mammaplasty, is the surgical placement of breast implants to increase fullness and improve symmetry of the breasts, or to restore breast volume lost after weight reduction or pregnancy."

So please, go on about breast augmentations only being for enlargement.  I have facts and data on my side.  Please continue to put your ignorance on display.

The argument started when I said that breast augmentation surgery is only for enlarging breasts.

aug·ment
verb
ôɡˈment/
1.
make (something) greater by adding to it; increase.
"he augmented his summer income by painting houses"

^Straight from Google. See, Engy has a way with words. He really does, I'll give him that. He can find little bits of inferred information to totally skew the actual meaning of something. In his argument, he states that 'restor[ing]' breast volume is not the same as 'increasing' volume. This is why he is on TFES. He doesn't actually believe that the Earth is flat. He is simply a psychopath on an ego trip trying to see how many people he can convince to believe something that isn't true. When you point out his errors he ignores them, because to psychopaths, it doesn't exist if they don't want it to.

So you can't read?  Figures. 

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 16, 2016, 11:33:31 AM »

Nowhere does it say gravity is not real.  It only says gravity is a fictitious force.  Once again a fictitious force is:

noun, Physics.
1.
any force that is postulated to account for apparent deviations from Newton's laws of motion appearing in an accelerated reference system.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fictitious-force?s=t

So, you are wrong.  And keep insisting on being wrong.

How am I wrong?  What you just posted shows that I am correct.  Good try, though.  I mean 'good try' assuming your intention is to look like an idiot.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration Debunked: Equivalence Does Not Apply

« on: February 16, 2016, 11:28:56 AM »

There you go, that is actually my quote. It is a true quote at that. Trilateration does not require clocks.

So how does GPS work if it doesn't require clocks?

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration Debunked: Equivalence Does Not Apply

« on: February 16, 2016, 08:07:50 AM »

You want things that are used in GPS that are not part of the location process. I posted two. The location process is Trilateration. Both tracking satellites and keeping time are not part of Trilateration.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: So gravity waves prove that gravity exists, hense earth is round.

« on: February 16, 2016, 07:50:42 AM »

That isn't what GR says, if it did then the equivalence principle would apply to any experiment, not just local one's.
Also, if gravity isn't real, what the hell causes gravity waves, which are predicted by GR.

Did you forget the post where I showed you how gravity wasn't real?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 16, 2016, 07:49:18 AM »

GR says gravity is real, this means you are wrong to say that GR says gravity isn't real. And you have shown no evidence to back up your point that gravity isn't real.

A fictitious force on an object arises when the frame of reference used to describe the object's motion is accelerating compared to a non-accelerating frame.
...
Gravity as a fictitious force
Main article: General relativity
The notion of "fictitious force" comes up in general relativity.[15][16] All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity.[17] This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity.

I'm glad that is settled.  You are welcome.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth VS General Relativity

« on: February 16, 2016, 07:47:28 AM »

Except I have shown that gravity is fictitious.  Hence, I am correct.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Inertia, a way to truly prove/disprove the FE.

« on: February 16, 2016, 07:44:41 AM »

Go to space gentlemen, or at least believe those of us who have been there. 

You've been to space?  When/how?

It would be interesting to poll the ages and experiences of the flat earth society.  My bet is the majority of them are under 30 and unemployed, and don't own any property.

I'll start:
I'm an engineer.
I design/build rockets.
I work for a very large defense contractor.
I am in my mid 30s.
I have 3 kids.
I have a wife.
I have lived in 3 different states.
I am a pilot.
I own a house.
I have owned a boat.

And this is hilarious:

I have a 40 foot yacht docked at Cape Canaveral.  I would be more than happy to sail it AROUND the world for you and leave Florida's east coast and arrive at Los Angeles Harbor a few days later!

Just a few days, huh?  That's one fast yacht you've got.  Or, let's be honest: don't have.  Amiright?