The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: XaeXae on September 09, 2015, 04:33:40 PM
-
How is it considered by the FEers ?
-
It proves there is a force. If the disc is rotating, we'd observe something similar: and this is only one possible explanation.
Without a complete model, you can't be answered. There are too many possibilities to list.
-
It proves there is a force. If the disc is rotating, we'd observe something similar: and this is only one possible explanation.
Without a complete model, you can't be answered. There are too many possibilities to list.
Are you aware that what you said is not true at all?
-
It proves there is a force. If the disc is rotating, we'd observe something similar: and this is only one possible explanation.
Without a complete model, you can't be answered. There are too many possibilities to list.
Are you aware that what you said is not true at all?
Wow, a post in which sokarul is not claiming that I am not an electrician or have an engineering degree. Who would have thought it. Perhaps you are going to tell us how you check pee next?
-
It proves there is a force. If the disc is rotating, we'd observe something similar: and this is only one possible explanation.
Without a complete model, you can't be answered. There are too many possibilities to list.
Are you aware that what you said is not true at all?
Wow, a post in which sokarul is not claiming that I am not an electrician or have an engineering degree. Who would have thought it. Perhaps you are going to tell us how you check pee next?
This is Q&A, get your cry baby shit out of this thread.
-
sokarul is right. This is Q&A. I have one question; please explain to us how you check pee for a living.
-
Do you think all yellow liquids are pee?
-
Do you think all yellow liquids are pee?
Oh, do they have you back on oven watch?
-
Do you think all yellow liquids are pee?
Oh, do they have you back on oven watch?
Do you think all autoclaves are ovens?
-
Do you think all yellow liquids are pee?
Oh, do they have you back on oven watch?
Do you think all autoclaves are ovens?
You can't cook a pizza in an autoclaves? Do you even know how thermodynamics work? Maybe I should just ask you what color pee is again. :-\
-
Do you think all yellow liquids are pee?
Oh, do they have you back on oven watch?
Do you think all autoclaves are ovens?
You can't cook a pizza in an autoclaves? Do you even know how thermodynamics work? Maybe I should just ask you what color pee is again. :-\
I guess you could. Wouldn't be the easiest thought and I think all the titanium hardware would be useless. Plus normally one would have liquid in it.
Are you saying you can only cook pizza in an oven?
-
Do you think all yellow liquids are pee?
Oh, do they have you back on oven watch?
Do you think all autoclaves are ovens?
You can't cook a pizza in an autoclaves? Do you even know how thermodynamics work? Maybe I should just ask you what color pee is again. :-\
I guess you could. Wouldn't be the easiest thought and I think all the titanium hardware would be useless. Plus normally one would have liquid in it.
Are you saying you can only cook pizza in an oven?
So, once again, sokarul has been defeated.
-
I think someone had a beers tonight.
-
I think someone had a beers tonight.
I almost put this in the monster fail thread. Have you had one too many?
-
It proves there is a force. If the disc is rotating, we'd observe something similar: and this is only one possible explanation.
Without a complete model, you can't be answered. There are too many possibilities to list.
The speed at which the oscillation plane rotates is dependant on the sine of the latitude. In the equator, it doesnt rotate at all. Since the equator is a internal ring in the FEH plane, a rotating disc fails to expain the evidence.
-
I think someone had a beers tonight.
I almost put this in the monster fail thread. Have you had one too many?
Perhaps read your own post where you did this and then you will see I was making fun of you.
-
It proves there is a force. If the disc is rotating, we'd observe something similar: and this is only one possible explanation.
Without a complete model, you can't be answered. There are too many possibilities to list.
The speed at which the oscillation plane rotates is dependant on the sine of the latitude. In the equator, it doesnt rotate at all. Since the equator is a internal ring in the FEH plane, a rotating disc fails to expain the evidence.
It's worth acknowledging that the speed of rotation would also vary with distance from the centre on a FE. Even so, as I said, I specified 'similar' and 'one possible explanation'.
The problem is that there is not yet a good FE map. I doubt the equator is a concentric circle, so without a gauge of what shape that takes, and if there is anything that falls in line with that.
Perhaps the Earth is a pair of discs folded in four dimensions, with the equator at the centre where they meet, each rotating. Both poles exist, the Pendulum and similar explained... Allowing for a dimensional occurence to explain distances, that could work.
Certainly, it's almost laughable in the details and convenience: I am not seriously proposing it, only pointing out that there are many FE explanations for such an event.
-
You really need to change your name to FEGuesser.
-
You really need to change your name to FEGuesser.
I am still developing my hypothesis. This requires I examine every possibility; all I seek to do is demonstrate that none of what you propose necessarily contradicts FE. I only choose the quickest and easiest to explain options, rather than spend hours outlining detailed hypotheses which would be far too dull for anyone to read, if it's only one response to a minor question.
Judging by the tagline under your icon, you apparently view yourself as quite a debater. Why is it that you refuse to engage in discussion? Almost every post I have seen from you has been an insult or a snide remark rather than any attempt to address the subject matter.
-
You really need to change your name to FEGuesser.
I am still developing my hypothesis. This requires I examine every possibility; all I seek to do is demonstrate that none of what you propose necessarily contradicts FE. I only choose the quickest and easiest to explain options, rather than spend hours outlining detailed hypotheses which would be far too dull for anyone to read, if it's only one response to a minor question.
Judging by the tagline under your icon, you apparently view yourself as quite a debater. Why is it that you refuse to engage in discussion? Almost every post I have seen from you has been an insult or a snide remark rather than any attempt to address the subject matter.
Look harder
-
It proves there is a force. If the disc is rotating, we'd observe something similar: and this is only one possible explanation.
Without a complete model, you can't be answered. There are too many possibilities to list.
The problem with this would be the centrifugal force would create a form of gravity. Depending on the speed, you would feel diagonal at all times, or on a higher scale, the earth would compress into a globe.
-
It proves there is a force. If the disc is rotating, we'd observe something similar: and this is only one possible explanation.
Without a complete model, you can't be answered. There are too many possibilities to list.
The problem with this would be the centrifugal force would create a form of gravity. Depending on the speed, you would feel diagonal at all times, or on a higher scale, the earth would compress into a globe.
Perhaps. As I said, this is one possible explanation. It wouldn't be hard to answer those objections, however: merely include another force.
-
It proves there is a force. If the disc is rotating, we'd observe something similar: and this is only one possible explanation.
Without a complete model, you can't be answered. There are too many possibilities to list.
The problem with this would be the centrifugal force would create a form of gravity. Depending on the speed, you would feel diagonal at all times, or on a higher scale, the earth would compress into a globe.
You now have a hypothesis that doesnt fit observation. Imaginary ad-hoc forces arent the way to go.
Perhaps. As I said, this is one possible explanation. It wouldn't be hard to answer those objections, however: merely include another force.
-
It proves there is a force. If the disc is rotating, we'd observe something similar: and this is only one possible explanation.
Without a complete model, you can't be answered. There are too many possibilities to list.
The problem with this would be the centrifugal force would create a form of gravity. Depending on the speed, you would feel diagonal at all times, or on a higher scale, the earth would compress into a globe.
Perhaps. As I said, this is one possible explanation. It wouldn't be hard to answer those objections, however: merely include another force.
You now have a hypothesis that doesnt fit observation. Imaginary ad-hoc forces arent the way to go.
I think that's the quoting fixed.
It should fit observation easily; it just falters at Occam's Razor. I wasn't seriously proposing such a model.
For the record, I don't think the world rotates: I believe the Sun does however, and whatever is responsible for its motion would likely affect the Earth. Further details cannot be given until I examine the candidates for causing the motion of the Sun.
My point was only that it's easy to come up with an FE model that matches observations. The easiest would be to invoke God and divine will and testing faith to explain any observations that would seemingly imply a RE. Rather than taking shots in the dark (which is really all this is: there's no model specified, nor any made mention of), a better tack for those who accept a RE would be process of elimination. Could this mechanism be responsible? No, no, possible, no...
Eventually there'll be a mere handful of forces and mechanisms to be used in FE, some ad hoc, some not, and you've a far easier job of rebutting FE.
You're at an advantage of answering questions, and a disadvantage when it comes to answering them, and the reason for that is simple: there is no FE model.
-
Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."
-
Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."
So gravity only exists when it's convenient?
If the stars have gravity then that means that the Earth has gravity as well which would crush it into a sphere. That would also explain why Earth looks round.
-
Why would it follow that since the stars exhibit gravitation, that the earth must as well? The stars are tiny specs in the sky and not like the earth at all.
-
Why would it follow that since the stars exhibit gravitation, that the earth must as well? The stars are tiny specs in the sky and not like the earth at all.
All matter exhibits gravitatorial interaction. We know how far the stars are, and we know how massive they are. The gravitational pull of it would be extremelly small. Besides, if it were the stars and not the earth that spinned, they would be moving at speeds greater than the speed of light.
-
So gravity only exists when it's convenient?
If the stars have gravity then that means that the Earth has gravity as well which would crush it into a sphere. That would also explain why Earth looks round.
It's worth acknowledging that this would only be true if the RE model was compeltely accurate. If sources of gravity may 'interfere' with one another, in a similar fashion to magnetic fields, the interaction with the Earth's gravity may not be as predictable as you say.
All matter exhibits gravitatorial interaction. We know how far the stars are, and we know how massive they are. The gravitational pull of it would be extremelly small. Besides, if it were the stars and not the earth that spinned, they would be moving at speeds greater than the speed of light.
This would again also only be true if the RE model is accurate. The Sun is a star and, if the world is flat, Eratosphenes proved that it is not that distant from the Earth. It is likely other stars would be affected similarly: and even if they were not it is possible for something to seem to move faster than the speed of light to an outside observer. It would be the same 'loophole' that would allow for universal acceleration to continue, if the force were found.
-
So gravity only exists when it's convenient?
If the stars have gravity then that means that the Earth has gravity as well which would crush it into a sphere. That would also explain why Earth looks round.
It's worth acknowledging that this would only be true if the RE model was compeltely accurate. If sources of gravity may 'interfere' with one another, in a similar fashion to magnetic fields, the interaction with the Earth's gravity may not be as predictable as you say.
Gravity does not act like electromagnetism. Besides, what you are refering to is what is called the n-body problem, a well known drawback to any model (not just RE, every single model cannot be infinitelly accurate due to this and other problems). However, this problem only applies to a degree of precision, meaning that we can calculate orbital interactions with as much precision as we want, with increased cost of computation.
All matter exhibits gravitatorial interaction. We know how far the stars are, and we know how massive they are. The gravitational pull of it would be extremelly small. Besides, if it were the stars and not the earth that spinned, they would be moving at speeds greater than the speed of light.
This would again also only be true if the RE model is accurate. The Sun is a star and, if the world is flat, Eratosphenes proved that it is not that distant from the Earth. It is likely other stars would be affected similarly: and even if they were not it is possible for something to seem to move faster than the speed of light to an outside observer. It would be the same 'loophole' that would allow for universal acceleration to continue, if the force were found.
Eratosphenes did not have telescopes, or satellites. We can measure the sun's size in many ways, parallax, for example.
The stars wouldnt be moving faster to the speed of light to an outside observer (they already do). The FE model explicitally says that the stars are the ones moving, and since we know (redshift, parallax, even direct observation of bodies) they are so far away, then they would be moving faster than c.
-
Gravity does not act like electromagnetism.
True under the RE model.
Besides, what you are refering to is what is called the n-body problem, a well known drawback to any model (not just RE, every single model cannot be infinitelly accurate due to this and other problems). However, this problem only applies to a degree of precision, meaning that we can calculate orbital interactions with as much precision as we want, with increased cost of computation.
Certainly, but it still holds that another model might be able to answer certain questions where the RE one does not. Alternatives should not be rejected out of hand.
Eratosphenes did not have telescopes, or satellites. We can measure the sun's size in many ways, parallax, for example.
To my knowledge, parallax would only be useful if you assumed you knew the distances to the stars beyond the Sun.
The stars wouldnt be moving faster to the speed of light to an outside observer (they already do). The FE model explicitally says that the stars are the ones moving, and since we know (redshift, parallax, even direct observation of bodies) they are so far away, then they would be moving faster than c.
To my knowledge there is no reason (beyond energy requirements) that the stars could not be moving faster than c. An object can accelerate indefinitely, assuming a constant supply of force: space and time merely warp so that, objectively, it does not exceed the speed of light.
It should also be acknowledged that there is no FE model. A handful of people have varying views, there is far from a consensus. Further, there's no reason a flat disc can't rotate.
-
Conker, this is not a debate forum; it is a Q&A forum. If you do not agree with an answer, you are welcome to debate the answer in the debate forum. Thanks.
-
Yes, because I was the only one debating. Q&A serves no purpose, then, since its basically a copy of Believers.
-
Yes, because I was the only one debating. Q&A serves no purpose, then, since its basically a copy of Believers.
No, Q&A is the place where people who have questions about the flat Earth can ask them without the thread getting derailed by 30 permanoobs jumping in to say, "nu'uh" over and over. That is why we have a debate forum. Believers is for people who do believe in the FET to discus FET among themselves. Do you see the difference?
-
No, Q&A is the place where people who have questions about the flat Earth can ask them without the thread getting derailed by 30 permanoobs jumping in to say, "nu'uh" over and over. That is why we have a debate forum. Believers is for people who do believe in the FET to discus FET among themselves. Do you see the difference?
It seems a useless forum then. The nature of this topic is that everyone is always going to have more questions. It might be better to work more on the wiki (or indeed creating any kind of successful model) rather than a Q&A section where there is not enough consensus for an answer, and an awful lot to cover and explain in any answer, in any case, which is likely to confuse anyone, no matter how new.
Questions like "How is that reconciled with..." are nothing to be feared; either we have an answer, which we should share, or it'll help refine our model.
Otherwise you're more likely to get spammed with new threads for every clarification question: or they won't want to post so many and they'll never get an answer.