The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Bushido on May 04, 2007, 12:35:40 PM
-
Since the word sphere implies a round shape, I've changed the term to atmoplane. How does the atmoplane stay close to the Earth and doesn't 'leak off' from the edges (note: The Ice Wall can't hold it)?
-
Whose to say that the Flat Earth even has an edge?
Rowbotham said nothing about an edge.
-
So we're completely abandoning science in all its forms and delving into pure fantasy now, are we, Tom?
-
If space can be infinite I see no reason why the tundra of ice and snow beyond the Ice Wall cannot also be infinite.
Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham held that knowing exactly what is at the end of the earth will forever be beyond the capability of any man or machine.
-
Space is not infinite. It has an edge. It's like a giant four-dimensional sphere.
Implying that the earth has no end implies an infinitely large, infinitely powerful Universal Accelerator.
Are infinite perpetual motion machines now part of science, Tom?
-
Space is infinite in the sense that one could travel into the depths of space indefinitely and never reach the end.
The Universal Accelerator does not exist in Rowbotham's model.
-
Space is infinite in the sense that one could travel into the depths of space indefinitely and never reach the end.
The Universal Accelerator does not exist in Rowbotham's model.
Stephen Hawking said that given an infinite amount of time, if you traveled in a straight line long enough you'd end up back where you started, same as on earth. You can only "never reach the end" in the same sense that you can never reach the end of the earth. There is none. It's a sphere. Do you consider the RE model to be infinite?
If the UA doesn't exist in Rowbotham's model what substitutes for gravity?
-
And once again, Tom furiously scours the internet, looking for something, ANYTHING, to back his point up. ;D
-
OK Tom, now ur just spouting ill-informed male cow feaces.
You were furiously arguing the UA a few topics ago
-
Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham held that knowing exactly what is at the end of the earth will forever be beyond the capability of any man or machine.
Well duh, it's impossible to find an edge of a sphere.... Anyhow, Rowbothom lived a long time ago, I doubt he could imagine what we have now.
-
Since the word sphere implies a round shape, I've changed the term to atmoplane. How does the atmoplane stay close to the Earth and doesn't 'leak off' from the edges (note: The Ice Wall can't hold it)?
Your initial premise is faulty. Why can't the Ice Wall hold it?
-
How could it hold it?
-
Anyhow, Rowbothom lived a long time ago, I doubt he could imagine what we have now.
Astronomy, Calculus, Trig, and Exploration didn't exist in the mid 1800's? ???
-
Since the word sphere implies a round shape, I've changed the term to atmoplane. How does the atmoplane stay close to the Earth and doesn't 'leak off' from the edges (note: The Ice Wall can't hold it)?
Your initial premise is faulty. Why can't the Ice Wall hold it?
The atmoplane/sphere spans above 150 ft in height which is the height of the Ice Wall.
P.S.
Don't try to look smart by using words like 'premise' because I did not make any conclusions. I just asked a simple question and wanted a simple reply, like the atmosphere can not 'leak off' because the Earth is round and there is no edge or something according to the FE theory.
-
Astronomy, Calculus, Trig, and Exploration didn't exist in the mid 1800's?
Smart ass, you know what he's talking about, and if you don't you're moronic.
-
The earth cannot be infinite.
-
The earth cannot be infinite.
Why not, exactly?
-
The earth cannot be infinite.
Why not, exactly?
If the Earth had been infinite in size it would have had infinite mass and it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it.
-
The earth cannot be infinite.
Why not, exactly?
If the Earth had been infinite in size it would have had infinite mass and it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it.
If the universe could be infinite in size than it could contain infinite energy and an infinite mass such as the earth.
-
The earth cannot be infinite.
Why not, exactly?
Because that would require infinite everything, and there is not infinite everything.
The universe in not infinite.
-
The earth cannot be infinite.
Why not, exactly?
If the Earth had been infinite in size it would have had infinite mass and it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it.
If the universe could be infinite in size than it could contain infinite energy and an infinite mass such as the earth.
Yes, but then 'most' of the Universe would have been filled by the Earth.
-
The earth cannot be infinite.
Why not, exactly?
Because that would require infinite everything, and there is not infinite everything.
Many modern top scientists believe in the possibility of an infinite universe.
-
The earth cannot be infinite.
Why not, exactly?
If the Earth had been infinite in size it would have had infinite mass and it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it.
If the universe could be infinite in size than it could contain infinite energy and an infinite mass such as the earth.
Yes, but then 'most' of the Universe would have been filled by the Earth.
you cant fill most of an intinite universe. even with an infinite object in it, there is infinitely more room.
-
The earth cannot be infinite.
Why not, exactly?
If the Earth had been infinite in size it would have had infinite mass and it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it.
If the universe could be infinite in size than it could contain infinite energy and an infinite mass such as the earth.
Yes, but then 'most' of the Universe would have been filled by the Earth.
you cant fill most of an intinite universe. even with an infinite object in it, there is infinitely more room.
This is true, but it's also true that whatever direction you have started going in that Universe, you would have ended up on the infinite Earth. Also, the infinite plane would cut the space in two parts. If you had been 'above' the Earth, you would have surely fallen on it, so the Sun and the Moon and the Stars would have colided with the Earth long ago.
-
The earth cannot be infinite.
Why not, exactly?
Because that would require infinite everything, and there is not infinite everything.
Many modern top scientists believe in the possibility of an infinite universe.
I have never seen someone say its infinite.
-
look at page 1 of this thread, someone says it there
-
Infinity is not a number, it's just a concept. If a number is sufficiently large in its application then it is, for all intents of such application, infinite. Take for instance sticking tweezers in an outlet. To those tweezers and to you there is an infinite power source supplying current and voltage through the tweezers. Ignoring the limits of power house-wiring can handle, there is no change in the voltage drop across the two lines even though there is essentially zero resistance between the two lines. This is only possible with an infinite power source, which is obvious when looking at the equation for power:
P = V2/R.
If voltage does not change when resistance goes to zero, then power goes quickly to infinity. That's the benefit of breaker switches and fuses.
In reality there is a voltage drop in such a case, but it's not due to the power source but to the amount of power a 12-gage house wire can handle. If you put tweezers between high-power transmission lines then there truly would not be a change in the voltage drop across the lines. But we know this is not an infinite power because there is a specific amount of finite energy supplied by a relatively small number of power plants. Brown-outs and black-outs are good evidence that it is not an infinite power source, too. But, that requires a very large sample in order to reach that conclusion. Tweezers cannot draw enough power to conclude that there is anything other than infinite power in an outlet.
One cannot go throwing "infinity this" or "infinity is impossible" around willy nilly. You have to be very specific about the method of determining a quantity is infinite. In the case of distance: how are you going to measure this distance and how long will you have been deceased before it can be concluded the distance is infinite or not? What does an infinite distance to travel mean given the limits of humans?
edited for your mom
-
Infinite means endless, period. A googolplex has 10,000 zeroes after it and it does not equate to infinity. That explanation was ridiculous.
How can you measure whether the universe is truly infinite or not? You can't, of course. You might as well try to disprove the existence of God. But our theoretical understanding of the universe, based on the expansion caused by the Big Bang, is that it is finite. I do not believe in an infinite universe and I do not believe in an infinite flat earth. And doesn't the concept of an infinite universe contradict Newton's theories of thermodynamics? I thought there was a limit to the amount of energy that can exist in the universe. I'm no expert on physics, so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
-
look at page 1 of this thread, someone says it there
I meant scientists.
-
So, to return to the topic of the thread, it has been concluded that the Flat Earth has to have infinite surface area if it supposed to hold on to its atmolayer.
This means the Universe is divided into two semispaces. One 'below' the Earth (the underworld), from where the Universal Accelerator operates, and one from 'above' the Earth (the heavens), where everything we see is situated.
I draw your attention to a thread posted by 'leclerc' (Is the Moon flat too in FE? (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12119.0)), where 'Mr. Ireland' proposed the only possible solution to the problem which was discussed, but that can not work in an infinite Flat Earth.
Also, due to Foucault pandulum, it has become accepted to consider the Earth as rotating about a perpendicular axis through the North Pole. It seems we are a negligable distance from the center of this inifinite plane. There is also the problem of the distance from a rotating center. The greatest distance from the center is:
rmax = c/ω
where ω is the angular velocity of rotation, because points further from this distance would have rotational velocities greater than the speed of light c. Also, as the distance grows larger, the centrifugal tensile stress grows larger, so the Earth would tear apart (unless it is also infinitely thick, which would leave no place for the UA) from these stresses.
-
If space can be infinite I see no reason why the tundra of ice and snow beyond the Ice Wall cannot also be infinite.
Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham held that knowing exactly what is at the end of the earth will forever be beyond the capability of any man or machine.
Because infinite matter defies the laws of physics. Also, most physicists who know what they're on about say there is an edge.
But I'm sure that infinite ice defying the laws of physics says nothing to you. I mean, everything else you say seems to defy physics and you ignore the fact that what you say is impossible.
-
Smart ass, you know what he's talking about, and if you don't you're moronic.
I don't see what has changed since the mid 1800's which has enabled a person to study the shape of the earth. What didn't the people of the Victorian age have? If anything, Dr. Rowbotham was better suited to study the shape of the earth than any modern person or scientist. He was a wealthy inventor and astronomer who used his wealth to explore the world and gather evidence for the Flat Earth.
The universe in not infinite.
The RE universe didn't just start at a single point in space and expand outwards. That's a dummied down explanation for elementary schools. If you look into the actual Big Bang theory you will find that the Big Bang happened everywhere at once. The stars and galaxies of the universe stretch forever into the depths of space, the vast majority of which are invisible due to our Hubble sphere of vision. The light from stars 16 billion light years away have not reached us.
-
The RE universe didn't just start at a single point in space and expand outwards. That's a dummied down explanation for elementary schools. If you look into the actual Big Bang theory you will find that the Big Bang happened everywhere at once. The stars and galaxies of the universe stretch forever into the depths of space, the vast majority of which are invisible due to our Hubble sphere of vision. The light from stars 16 billion light years away have not reached us.
Tom, you make me cringe. You just do, I'm sorry. How to put this then...
Ok, I'll try like this: the entire universe took part in the big bang because that tiny point was the entire universe. Like a balloon, it grows in size but remains the same thing as it once was when it was smaller.
The universe is like a balloon. Take an (uninflated) balloon and put dots on with a marker. Then blow it up. The balloon grows and the dots get further apart.
There, Big Bang for dummies :p.
-
Smart ass, you know what he's talking about, and if you don't you're moronic.
I don't see what has changed since the mid 1800's which has enabled a person to study the shape of the earth. What didn't the people of the Victorian age have? If anything, Dr. Rowbotham was better suited to study the shape of the earth than any modern person or scientist. He was a wealthy inventor and astronomer who used his wealth to explore the world and gather evidence for the Flat Earth.
The universe in not infinite.
The RE universe didn't just start at a single point in space and expand outwards. That's a dummied down explanation for elementary schools. If you look into the actual Big Bang theory you will find that the Big Bang happened everywhere at once. The stars and galaxies of the universe stretch forever into the depths of space, the vast majority of which are invisible due to our Hubble sphere of vision. The light from stars 16 billion light years away have not reached us.
So what about the gaseous mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxyde? Why doesn't it leak off of the edge of the Flat Earth, Tom?
-
So what about the gaseous mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxyde? Why doesn't it leak off of the edge of the Flat Earth, Tom?
Did you read Earth Not a Globe? Past the Ice Wall the tundra of ice and snow stretches perpetually in all directions.
-
So what about the gaseous mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxyde? Why doesn't it leak off of the edge of the Flat Earth, Tom?
Did you read Earth Not a Globe? Past the Ice Wall the tundra of ice and snow stretches perpetually in all directions.
And your proof is what? O thats right you don't have any.
-
Until an edge is found Zetetic reasoning percludes that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever.
Why do you think so many Antarctic explorers have gone missing?
-
Infinite means endless, period. A googolplex has 10,000 zeroes after it and it does not equate to infinity. That explanation was ridiculous.
Yeah, it does not equate to infinity because infinity is not a number. But still, a sufficiently large quantity in some application is the same as an infinitely large quantity. Should we take this to another thread?
How can you measure whether the universe is truly infinite or not? You can't, of course. You might as well try to disprove the existence of God. But our theoretical understanding of the universe, based on the expansion caused by the Big Bang, is that it is finite. I do not believe in an infinite universe and I do not believe in an infinite flat earth. And doesn't the concept of an infinite universe contradict Newton's theories of thermodynamics? I thought there was a limit to the amount of energy that can exist in the universe. I'm no expert on physics, so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
I wasn't talking about the univers, I was talking about the flat earth. If the flat earth were very very large it could create the appearance of an infinite size in some aspect -- like the consistent pressure in the atmosphere, for example -- when it is truly not infinite, just like in my ridiculous explanation last post.
If the size of the flat earth were great enough (and / or there were great mountains around the perimeter) there would be very small time-rate-of-change of pressure through human history. The size of the flat Earth, or the height of the 'ice wall' does not have to be infinite to maintain a consistent pressure over a long period of time. It does have to be very very large, but not infinite.
-
Until an edge is found Zetetic reasoning assumes that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever.
Why do you think so many Antarctic explorers have gone missing?
FE: Because the conspiracy shot them.
RE: Because it is really, really cold. And windy.
And what evidence is there to back up your "zetetic" logic? What you just did sounds pretty theoretical to me.
-
FE: Because the conspiracy shot them.
RE: Because it is really, really cold. And windy.
And what evidence is there to back up your "zetetic" logic? What you just did sounds pretty theoretical to me.
Why would the Conspiracy need to shoot anyone? There are no guards on the Ice Wall. Only DiegoDraw believes in a army of Ice Wall guards stationed on Antarctica. Anyone is welcome to visit. Those Antarctic explorers went missing because temperatures approach absolute zero the further one explores outwards. Exploration in that type of pitch black freezing environment is impossible for any man or machine.
Edge of the known world: http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/images/gallery/B15Aedge.jpg
When we visit the Ice Wall we can see that the tundra of ice and snow seems to stretch forever. Until the outer tundra is explored in full we must assume that it is endless.
-
Until an edge is found Zetetic reasoning percludes that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever.
Why do you think so many Antarctic explorers have gone missing?
And all the people that came back?
-
And all the people that came back?
Who came back? Almost everyone who attempted a crossing either went missing or aborted prematurely.
There is only one man who claims to have made a successful transcontinental crossing of Antarctica. He did it with a plane using "guesswork" since compasses do not work past the Antarctic circle. They spin around wildly because magnetic field lines in the entire area are almost completely vertical.
His plane reached the Antarctic circle and he set off to a T over the Ice Wall. Since it is near impossible to keep a perfectly straight heading without a compass the plane eventually turned degree by degree until it reached the coast again several thousand miles later.
-
And all the people that came back?
Who came back? Almost everyone who attempted a crossing went missing or aborted prematurely.
There is only one man who claims to have made a successful transcontinental crossing of Antarctica. He did it with a plane using "guesswork" since compasses do not work past the Antarctic circle. They spin around wildly because magnetic field lines in the entire area are almost completely vertical.
His plane reached the Antarctic circle and he set off to a T over the Ice Wall. Since it is near impossible to keep a perfectly straight heading without a compass the plane eventually turned degree by degree until it reached the coast again several thousand miles later.
Hate to rain on your parade but explorers aren’t the only one that go there.
-
Hate to rain on your parade but explorers aren’t the only one that go there.
That's right. The March of the Penguins was filmed there, too. We can clearly see the Ice Wall in the background of many shots.
-
Hate to rain on your parade but explorers aren’t the only one that go there.
That's right. The March of the Penguins was filmed there, too. We can clearly see the Ice Wall in the background of many shots.
As was some of Planet Earth and don't forget all the researchers that are down there.
-
So what about the gaseous mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxyde? Why doesn't it leak off of the edge of the Flat Earth, Tom?
Did you read Earth Not a Globe? Past the Ice Wall the tundra of ice and snow stretches perpetually in all directions.
But the FAQ says:
Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"
A: "Circumference: 78225 miles, Diameter: 24,900 miles
I am starting to think that you are changing the book 'Earth Not a Globe' as you go along, Mr.Bishop.
-
That's what the FAQ says, not what the book says.
-
So, why does 'the book' give a different model of the Flat Earth as this Society, when this Society acknowledges the validity of ‘the book’?
Also, please read the difficulties I mentioned about an infinite plane Earth above in this thread.
So, to return to the topic of the thread, it has been concluded that the Flat Earth has to have infinite surface area if it supposed to hold on to its atmolayer.
This means the Universe is divided into two semispaces. One 'below' the Earth (the underworld), from where the Universal Accelerator operates, and one from 'above' the Earth (the heavens), where everything we see is situated.
I draw your attention to a thread posted by 'leclerc' (Is the Moon flat too in FE? (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12119.0)), where 'Mr. Ireland' proposed the only possible solution to the problem which was discussed, but that can not work in an infinite Flat Earth.
Also, due to Foucault pandulum, it has become accepted to consider the Earth as rotating about a perpendicular axis through the North Pole. It seems we are a negligable distance from the center of this inifinite plane. There is also the problem of the distance from a rotating center. The greatest distance from the center is:
rmax = c/ω
where ω is the angular velocity of rotation, because points further from this distance would have rotational velocities greater than the speed of light c. Also, as the distance grows larger, the centrifugal tensile stress grows larger, so the Earth would tear apart (unless it is also infinitely thick, which would leave no place for the UA) from these stresses.
-
So, why does 'the book' give a different model of the Flat Earth as this Society, when this Society acknowledges the validity of ‘the book’?
The Society and Tom are not the same thing.
-
Never mind Mr.Bishop. The Society also quotes this book in the FAQ.
-
So out of all this shit, all I have to ask is the earth can't be infinite because with rotation it would reach speeds past that of the speed of light if it were to extend past a certain point in diameter?
-
So what about the gaseous mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxyde? Why doesn't it leak off of the edge of the Flat Earth, Tom?
Did you read Earth Not a Globe? Past the Ice Wall the tundra of ice and snow stretches perpetually in all directions.
But the FAQ says:
Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"
A: "Circumference: 78225 miles, Diameter: 24,900 miles
I am starting to think that you are changing the book 'Earth Not a Globe' as you go along, Mr.Bishop.
Those are the dimensions of the "known" world.
-
So there's a huge unknown world now?
-
So there's a huge unknown world now?
I don't know, it's unknown... But we have never found the edge, so it might go on for a very long distance.
-
There's no edge because the earth is round.
-
Don't be silly. This is the place for discussing the Flat Earth.
-
The diameter quoted in the FAQ is a figure for the area of the known world - the circle of land upon which the light of the sun touches. No one has returned from exploring the pitch black freezing tundra - a place where compasses do not work and temperatures approach absolute zero.
The Flat Earth does not rotate in Dr. Rowbotham's model. The very title page of the book says that the earth has no orbital or axial motion.
-
The diameter quoted in the FAQ is a figure for the area of the known world - the circle of land upon which the light of the sun touches. No one has returned from exploring the pitch black freezing tundra.
You don't even know there is a pitch black freezing tundra.
-
Now he's just pulling shit from out of his ass!
"Pitch-black freezing tundra"? You silly son of a bitch, Tom! People have been to ANTARCTICA, the continent, and returned! There are permanent bases there, for God's sake!
See this link for more information: http://www.70south.com/resources/antarctic-bases (http://www.70south.com/resources/antarctic-bases)
By the way, I measured the perimeter of Antarctica on Google Earth and got only around 11,500 miles. With all those bases around the perimeter, surely we would know the perimeter of the continent, and if Ross measured 60,000 miles, he was mistaken?
-
The perimeter of a continent is a fractal and has no distinct quantity. The closer you look the longer it gets.
-
Dude, 100km is 100km no matter where you look at it from.
-
The perimeter of a continent is a fractal and has no distinct quantity. The closer you look the longer it gets.
You've gotta be fucking kidding me.
-
"Pitch-black freezing tundra"? You silly son of a bitch, Tom! People have been to ANTARCTICA, the continent, and returned! There are permanent bases there, for God's sake!
Those bases aren't permanent. If you read the bios most of the bases were built and occupied for a short time for biological or meteorological research and then abandoned. Those scientists simply traveled to the Ice Wall, studied the mating habits of some penguins and left the way they came. That's all.
If there were two science teams from different nation on the Ice Wall simultaneously, what incentive would they have to visit each other? How would they even know who's on Antarctica at what time? It's not as if there's a Antarctica bulletin board where the countries of the world coordinate meetups and study sessions. These bases are entirely independent from each other.
Additionally, some of those listed "bases" are actually just tents where polar explorers settled and camped out for a while at some point during the last 100 years.
By the way, I measured the perimeter of Antarctica on Google Earth and got only around 11,500 miles. With all those bases around the perimeter, surely we would know the perimeter of the continent, and if Ross measured 60,000 miles, he was mistaken?
That's because Google assumes the earth is a sphere.
It's not.
-
The perimeter of a continent is a fractal and has no distinct quantity. The closer you look the longer it gets.
You've gotta be fucking kidding me.
http://polymer.bu.edu/java/java/coastline/coastline.html (http://polymer.bu.edu/java/java/coastline/coastline.html)
or for seemingly infinite number of results:
Google search for "fractal costline" (http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=qok&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=coastline+fractal&spell=1)
-
I understand what fractals are and I get what you were saying. My point is, if I can draw a line around Antarctica on Google Earth that is only 11,500 miles, it is not as big as Tom Bishop implies it is by saying that Ross measured 60,000 miles around it. As a matter of fact, you really prove my point.
"Pitch-black freezing tundra"? You silly son of a bitch, Tom! People have been to ANTARCTICA, the continent, and returned! There are permanent bases there, for God's sake!
Those bases aren't permanent. If you read the bios most of the bases were built and occupied for a short time for biological or meteorological research and then abandoned. Those scientists simply traveled to the Ice Wall, studied the mating habits of some penguins and left the way they came. That's all.
This goes directly against your assertion that no one has ever been to the Ice Wall and returned. Small wonder that.
That's because Google assumes the earth is a sphere.
It's not.
::)
-
He said no one has ever crossed the ice wall and returned.
And no I didn't prove your point. Nor did you.
We're not getting anywhere. Let's get back to the topic of the atmosphere.
I mean atmoplane
-
This is the last on-topic post (because I say it is so), two pages ago. I claim the flat earth does not need to be truly infinite in order to contain the atmosphere over the course of human history.
Infinite means endless, period. A googolplex has 10,000 zeroes after it and it does not equate to infinity. That explanation was ridiculous.
Yeah, it does not equate to infinity because infinity is not a number. But still, a sufficiently large quantity in some application is the same as an infinitely large quantity. Should we take this to another thread?
How can you measure whether the universe is truly infinite or not? You can't, of course. You might as well try to disprove the existence of God. But our theoretical understanding of the universe, based on the expansion caused by the Big Bang, is that it is finite. I do not believe in an infinite universe and I do not believe in an infinite flat earth. And doesn't the concept of an infinite universe contradict Newton's theories of thermodynamics? I thought there was a limit to the amount of energy that can exist in the universe. I'm no expert on physics, so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
I wasn't talking about the univers, I was talking about the flat earth. If the flat earth were very very large it could create the appearance of an infinite size in some aspect -- like the consistent pressure in the atmosphere, for example -- when it is truly not infinite, just like in my ridiculous explanation last post.
If the size of the flat earth were great enough (and / or there were great mountains around the perimeter) there would be very small time-rate-of-change of pressure through human history. The size of the flat Earth, or the height of the 'ice wall' does not have to be infinite to maintain a consistent pressure over a long period of time. It does have to be very very large, but not infinite.
-
If the Earth is infinite then perhaps there are more suns, creating more 'earths' or inhabitable regions on the disc. Most likely been brought up before but ah well.
Plus, the earth cannae be infinite. because then magnetism can't work because there won't be a 'south pole' for the magnet of the earth
but I've already said how an infinitely big Earth could make a good book, so keep the dream, Tom
-
Yes the sun things has been suggested before.
Magnetism can work if you don't assume the magnet is as big as the Earth.
-
If the Earth is rotating, it can not be infinite. Not just because points that are very far from the axis of rotation would have arbitrary large rotational speeds, but also because the mechanical stresses caused by the centrifugal forces would tear any material from which the Earth is made of because they also grow infinitely large.
-
So it's not infinite and/or it's not rotating.
-
If the "atmoplane" was infinite there would be nothing stopping the warmer air around us from trying to heat up at the cold air in the infinite plane past the icewall. Thus the earth woudl nto support much life since it would be much to cold. The sun couldn’t provide enough energy to keep it warm. Think about it, cold winds come in from the north pole and Canada all the time. Now imagine a cold front from over the ice wall coming in. It would be in colder then anything place found on earth, negative a few hundred.
-
Where there is no pressure differential caused by the sun heating the air there are no wind currents. Some distance past the icewall there is no wind because there is no local pressure differential. Very little of this "coldest" air is blown anywhere. On another note, air is not a very good conductor of heat making the cold outer areas somewhat insulated.
-
Does that really matter anymore since the earth really can't be an infinite plane or not rotating (which it is, and leaves us with the no infinite plane again)? Or maybe, the most logical answer, the earth is round...
-
Where there is no pressure differential caused by the sun heating the air there are no wind currents. Some distance past the icewall there is no wind because there is no local pressure differential. Very little of this "coldest" air is blown anywhere. On another note, air is not a very good conductor of heat making the cold outer areas somewhat insulated.
The problem is the air currents are not going to stop at the icewall. Its not really a wall. Out air would mix with the air beyond wall. And while it is true there would be no pressure differences out there we would be quite a bit more pressure then out there. So it would try and even out. So basically our air would constantly move out creating strange ass wind patterns that are never seen.
-
If the "atmoplane" was infinite there would be nothing stopping the warmer air around us from trying to heat up at the cold air in the infinite plane past the icewall. Thus the earth woudl nto support much life since it would be much to cold. The sun couldn’t provide enough energy to keep it warm. Think about it, cold winds come in from the north pole and Canada all the time. Now imagine a cold front from over the ice wall coming in. It would be in colder then anything place found on earth, negative a few hundred.
You make a great point. The Sun is a finite energy source that has a finite power output. A finite power output would 'heat' an atmosphere to absolute zero(0 K), or, equvialently, it would take an infinite amount of time to heat the infinite atmoplane to a nonzero temperature. Altough the air is a poor thermal conductor, it will eventualy equate its temperature (to 0 K) in a very long time. (Just like your room will soon be at the outside temperature in winter if there is no heating, even if the doors and windows are closed).
-
So it's not infinite and/or it's not rotating.
No, if it is rotating, it is not infinite. (Or, with contraposition, if it is infinite it is not rotating). If it isn't infinite (or if it is finite :)), it can not hold it's atmolayer. But the Earth is rotating and it holds its atmolayer. So, we find ourselves in a logical paradox. The reason is, of course, the hidden assumption that it is FLAT. Namely, a round Earth can be finite, rotate and hold its atmosphere at the same time. AMAZING, isn't it?
-
So it's not infinite and/or it's not rotating.
No, if it is rotating, it is not infinite. (Or, with contraposition, if it is infinite it is not rotating). If it isn't infinite (or if it is finite :)), it can not hold it's atmolayer. But the Earth is rotating and it holds its atmolayer. So, we find ourselves in a logical paradox. The reason is, of course, the hidden assumption that it is FLAT. Namely, a round Earth can be finite, rotate and hold its atmosphere at the same time. AMAZING, isn't it?
I love the way you threw the assumption part in. And it's a good point, either the FE is rotating or infinite; not both.
-
So it's not infinite and/or it's not rotating.
No, if it is rotating, it is not infinite. (Or, with contraposition, if it is infinite it is not rotating). If it isn't infinite (or if it is finite :)), it can not hold it's atmolayer. But the Earth is rotating and it holds its atmolayer. So, we find ourselves in a logical paradox. The reason is, of course, the hidden assumption that it is FLAT. Namely, a round Earth can be finite, rotate and hold its atmosphere at the same time. AMAZING, isn't it?
No, we find ourselves with you, who does not read anyone else's posts but his own and Tom's. It can hold its atmolayer if it is finite.
I love the way you threw the assumption part in. And it's a good point, either the FE is rotating or infinite; not both.
Don't inflate his head anymore, it might not fit in this thread. These things have been established already once or twice on this very page.
-
No, we find ourselves with you, who does not read anyone else's posts but his own and Tom's. It can hold its atmolayer if it is finite.
How?
-
Don't inflate his head anymore, it might not fit in this thread. These things have been established already once or twice on this very page.
But not with that great of sarcasm.
-
We wouldn't be able to go out onto this infinite plane anyway because a few billion miles from the sun, the air would freeze before absolute zero
-
I guess it's the end of the line for this thread. Proved a point, though. ;D
-
The earth cannot be infinite.
Why not, exactly?
If the Earth had been infinite in size it would have had infinite mass and it would have taken an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it.
If the universe could be infinite in size than it could contain infinite energy and an infinite mass such as the earth.
It could contain this infinite amount of mass but the infinite amount of mass wouldn't do anything because it would require an infinite amount of energy to move. With energy prices these days, who could afford that?
-
If the Earth is flat, infinite and rotating then this means that the farther we go from the center then the speed of that particular point increases.
Therefore the outer most margins of the Earth are moving at speeds faster than the speed of light?
-
It could contain this infinite amount of mass but the infinite amount of mass wouldn't do anything because it would require an infinite amount of energy to move. With energy prices these days, who could afford that?
Something that isn't a someone and doesn't have to pay for anything. Infinite earth idea is dumb.
-
To the OP: I've always held that the Ice Wall is at least 40000 feet high.
Also, we've already started calling it the atmolayer.
The Ice Wall can, and does hold in both the atmolayer and the oceans.
-
Dogplatter, Gulliver and co make some good points about the impossibility of the atmoplane/layer/sphere not flying off into space in this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15685.0). How do you counter their arguments?
-
It could contain this infinite amount of mass but the infinite amount of mass wouldn't do anything because it would require an infinite amount of energy to move. With energy prices these days, who could afford that?
Something that isn't a someone and doesn't have to pay for anything. Infinite earth idea is dumb.
Darn! I knew I forgot something! **add's a dash of sarcasm**
-
Dogplatter, Gulliver and co make some good points about the impossibility of the atmoplane/layer/sphere not flying off into space in this thread (http://). How do you counter their arguments?
Please fix the link :)
-
Dogplatter, Gulliver and co make some good points about the impossibility of the atmoplane/layer/sphere not flying off into space in this thread (http://). How do you counter their arguments?
Ya, fix the link please.
-
I think the broken link was intentional, as we all know the atmosphere has not left the earth.
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15685.0
Sorry. ;D
-
It's 8 pages long, but based on the first page I'd say that the REers are failing to take into account two important facts -
1: The Ice Wall is as tall or taller than the atmolayer.
2: Universal Acceleration acts to negate the diffusion of matter (in this case that of the atmolayer). In order for the atmolayer to leak over the Ice Wall, its particles would have to sustain a hypothetical speed greater than that of the Earth, which is a logical impossibility.
-
I think it's your response to # 2 that they were really arguing about.
Gulliver and co, your response?
-
The FE atmosphere is denser (colder) at the southern rim. As the earth accelerates into the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes thinner at the rim.
-
Are you arguing with Dogplatter's explanation of the phenomenon or -- ???
-
It would be interesting -- when given molecular sizes and masses, acceleration of the Earth, volume of atmosphere, and pressure at sea level -- to estimate the height of the ice wall needed to contain some 'x' range of pressures for some 'y' amount of time. If these time and pressure ranges are sufficient to support life I will give the "ice wall contains the atmosphere" theory much more weight. I don't really want to do that calculation, though.
Err, I say all that because there IS diffusion of the atmosphere over the ice wall, no matter how tall said wall is.
-
Are you arguing with Dogplatter's explanation of the phenomenon or -- ???
2 seperate factors.
It would be interesting -- when given molecular sizes and masses, acceleration of the Earth, volume of atmosphere, and pressure at sea level -- to estimate the height of the ice wall needed to contain some 'x' range of pressures for some 'y' amount of time. If these time and pressure ranges are sufficient to support life I will give the "ice wall contains the atmosphere" theory much more weight. I don't really want to do that calculation, though.
I love this idea.
-
It's 8 pages long, but based on the first page I'd say that the REers are failing to take into account two important facts -
1: The Ice Wall is as tall or taller than the atmolayer.
2: Universal Acceleration acts to negate the diffusion of matter (in this case that of the atmolayer). In order for the atmolayer to leak over the Ice Wall, its particles would have to sustain a hypothetical speed greater than that of the Earth, which is a logical impossibility.
And you are failing to take into account physics.
So the icewall is over 50 miles high?
-
It's 8 pages long, but based on the first page I'd say that the REers are failing to take into account two important facts -
1: The Ice Wall is as tall or taller than the atmolayer.
2: Universal Acceleration acts to negate the diffusion of matter (in this case that of the atmolayer). In order for the atmolayer to leak over the Ice Wall, its particles would have to sustain a hypothetical speed greater than that of the Earth, which is a logical impossibility.
1. This is absurd.
a) dogplatter is arguing for a structure 70 miles (Reference: ou (http://okfirst.ocs.ou.edu/train/meteorology/VertStructure2.html)), 78,225 miles long (Reference FE FAQs), and airtight. This is beyond all reasonable engineering.
b) Such a structure would be detected, blocking stars, from hundreds of miles away. It hasn't been.
2. This is wrong.
a) First, the particles in a solution can reach speeds greater than the solution. Please read and understand Brownian motion.
b) Second, in order for the atmosphere to lea, it would need only to move over the edge, not move faster than the edge. Please read and understand velocities and vectors from a secondary school physics text.
If you have questions about any of these points, don't hesitate to ask.
-
It's 8 pages long, but based on the first page I'd say that the REers are failing to take into account two important facts -
1: The Ice Wall is as tall or taller than the atmolayer.
2: Universal Acceleration acts to negate the diffusion of matter (in this case that of the atmolayer). In order for the atmolayer to leak over the Ice Wall, its particles would have to sustain a hypothetical speed greater than that of the Earth, which is a logical impossibility.
Given perfect conditions, this would be true, but there are local disturbances (weather) which may allow some air to leak out.
Think about this argument: In order for water to evaporate, it has to boil. Hence, it has to be at 100 degrees Celsius (at 1 atmospheric pressure unit). Whence, water at room temperature cannot evaporate, because it doesn't reach 100 degrees Celsius.
-
Not entirely sure why this thread was locked, so I'm re-opening it pending further explanation by another mod.
It would be interesting -- when given molecular sizes and masses, acceleration of the Earth, volume of atmosphere, and pressure at sea level -- to estimate the height of the ice wall needed to contain some 'x' range of pressures for some 'y' amount of time. If these time and pressure ranges are sufficient to support life I will give the "ice wall contains the atmosphere" theory much more weight. I don't really want to do that calculation, though.
Wouldn't thickness relate to ability to withstand pressure more than height? And yes, this would perhaps be a worthwhile endeavour.
Err, I say all that because there IS diffusion of the atmosphere over the ice wall, no matter how tall said wall is.
It's not the Ice Wall's height which inherently prevents diffusion, it's Universal Acceleration. Once any given particle leaves the atmolayer, it is outside the local area in which Earth-style physics (based loosely on the balance between Universal Acceleration and the air resistance of air also being Accelerated) applies, meaning the Earth would re-collide with it at what is, for the sake of argument, an essentially infinite speed. This makes the vertical escape of any matter to all intents and purposes impossible.
And you are failing to take into account physics.
So the icewall is over 50 miles high?
Um, no. A liberal estimate would put its apex at no more than 9.5 miles above sea level.
1. This is absurd.
a) dogplatter is arguing for a structure 70 miles (Reference: ou), 78,225 miles long (Reference FE FAQs), and airtight. This is beyond all reasonable engineering.
Two things:
1: No I'm not, (see above), and
2: There's no "engineering" involved - the Ice Wall is a natural structure. How would life have evolved to construct it without the atmosphere it provides?
b) Such a structure would be detected, blocking stars, from hundreds of miles away. It hasn't been.
Nope, we did the maths on this in a previous thread. An Ice Wall of even 10 miles would only noticably block stars at fairly close proximity - much further and they'd be blocked by atmospheric distortion anyway.
2. This is wrong.
a) First, the particles in a solution can reach speeds greater than the solution. Please read and understand Brownian motion.
Notice my use of the word SUSTAIN. While in the "solution" of the atmolayer, individual particles could reach non-local speeds marginally higher than the Earth's hypothetical speed. In space, they're outside the "solution", and they couldn't maintain such a speed for any significant amount of time.
b) Second, in order for the atmosphere to lea, it would need only to move over the edge, not move faster than the edge. Please read and understand velocities and vectors from a secondary school physics text.
Yes, but once a tiny portion of the atmosphere HAD leaked at some point in ancient prehistory, a "lip" of ice is left preventing further spillage. An analogy: a bowl which is perfectly full of water leaks water very easily, take out a couple of milimeters and the same motion will not cause spillage.
Given perfect conditions, this would be true, but there are local disturbances (weather) which may allow some air to leak out.
Some. This would have occured millions of years ago until the atmolayer's volume had been reduced to such an extent that this no longer occured - bear in mind the intense difficulty which particles would have leaving the atmolayer in the first place.
-
It's not the Ice Wall's height which inherently prevents diffusion, it's Universal Acceleration. Once any given particle leaves the atmolayer, it is outside the local area in which Earth-style physics (based loosely on the balance between Universal Acceleration and the air resistance of air also being Accelerated) applies, meaning the Earth would re-collide with it at what is, for the sake of argument, an essentially infinite speed. This makes the vertical escape of any matter to all intents and purposes impossible.
Nope. This explanation defies Special Relativity. The particle that moves over the edge horizontally would be traveling upwards at the exact same upwards speed as the Earth. It would not collide with the Earth as it's over the edge and as it's traveling at the same speed. Your lack of understanding is a real problem here. Maybe you should ask for assistance.And you are failing to take into account physics.
So the icewall is over 50 miles high?
Um, no. A liberal estimate would put its apex at no more than 9.5 miles above sea level.
Um. yes. The atmosphere is over 50 miles high and we've demonstrated that your UA collision hypothesis is incorrect. 1. This is absurd.
a) dogplatter is arguing for a structure 70 miles (Reference: ou), 78,225 miles long (Reference FE FAQs), and airtight. This is beyond all reasonable engineering.
Two things:
1: No I'm not, (see above), and
2: There's no "engineering" involved - the Ice Wall is a natural structure. How would life have evolved to construct it without the atmosphere it provides?
Two things.
1: Then you fail.
2: I really don't care who engineered it (man, God, nature, etc.). It still requires engineering far beyond what we've ever encountered.b) Such a structure would be detected, blocking stars, from hundreds of miles away. It hasn't been.
Nope, we did the maths on this in a previous thread. An Ice Wall of even 10 miles would only noticably block stars at fairly close proximity - much further and they'd be blocked by atmospheric distortion anyway.
The mathematics do not support you as you claim. Furthermore over Antarctica viewing conditions are excellent. They are no atmospheric distortion that last for decades that would support your hypothesis.2. This is wrong.
a) First, the particles in a solution can reach speeds greater than the solution. Please read and understand Brownian motion.
Notice my use of the word SUSTAIN. While in the "solution" of the atmolayer, individual particles could reach non-local speeds marginally higher than the Earth's hypothetical speed. In space, they're outside the "solution", and they couldn't maintain such a speed for any significant amount of time.
SUSTAIN doesn't solve your problem. You forget Newton Law that a object in motion tends to remain in motion. These particles are traveling horizontally over the edge with a speed they will maintain. You'd run out of air fast.
b) Second, in order for the atmosphere to lea, it would need only to move over the edge, not move faster than the edge. Please read and understand velocities and vectors from a secondary school physics text.
Yes, but once a tiny portion of the atmosphere HAD leaked at some point in ancient prehistory, a "lip" of ice is left preventing further spillage. An analogy: a bowl which is perfectly full of water leaks water very easily, take out a couple of milimeters and the same motion will not cause spillage.
No, it would not. Brownian motion would cause ALL the atmosphere to leak out. You need to contain air not water. Air is much more energetic and prone to escape.Given perfect conditions, this would be true, but there are local disturbances (weather) which may allow some air to leak out.
Some. This would have occured millions of years ago until the atmolayer's volume had been reduced to such an extent that this no longer occured - bear in mind the intense difficulty which particles would have leaving the atmolayer in the first place.
You're quite wrong here too. There is no intense difficulty as explained above.
-
It's not the Ice Wall's height which inherently prevents diffusion, it's Universal Acceleration. Once any given particle leaves the atmolayer, it is outside the local area in which Earth-style physics (based loosely on the balance between Universal Acceleration and the air resistance of air also being Accelerated) applies, meaning the Earth would re-collide with it at what is, for the sake of argument, an essentially infinite speed. This makes the vertical escape of any matter to all intents and purposes impossible.
If your idea worked then yes air couldnt escpae because the earth would hit catch the particle. But the earth in not at infinite speed.
Um, no. A liberal estimate would put its apex at no more than 9.5 miles above sea level.
The atmosphere is taller than 9.5 miles.
Two things:
1: No I'm not, (see above), and
2: There's no "engineering" involved - the Ice Wall is a natural structure. How would life have evolved to construct it without the atmosphere it provides?
Mt Everest is not 10 miles high for a reason. There is a thing called weather.
Nope, we did the maths on this in a previous thread. An Ice Wall of even 10 miles would only noticably block stars at fairly close proximity - much further and they'd be blocked by atmospheric distortion anyway.
An object almost twice as tall as the tallest mountain would be noticed.
Some. This would have occured millions of years ago until the atmolayer's volume had been reduced to such an extent that this no longer occured - bear in mind the intense difficulty which particles would have leaving the atmolayer in the first place.
It would be quite easy for particles to leave int he first place because gases never stop moving.
-
Nope. This explanation defies Special Relativity. The particle that moves over the edge horizontally would be traveling upwards at the exact same upwards speed as the Earth. It would not collide with the Earth as it's over the edge and as it's traveling at the same speed. Your lack of understanding is a real problem here. Maybe you should ask for assistance.
The Earth is accelerating, not travelling at a constant speed. The particle would have the same speed as the Earth's hypothetical speed at the time of ejection, which would quickly change at such a steep acceleration.
Um. yes. The atmosphere is over 50 miles high and we've demonstrated that your UA collision hypothesis is incorrect.
It isn't. The atmosphere is no higher than 40-50 thousand feet, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
2: I really don't care who engineered it (man, God, nature, etc.). It still requires engineering far beyond what we've ever encountered.
You don't get it. "Engineered" IMPLIES human endeavour. The Atlantic Ocean is beyond any conceivable feat of engineering, yet it exists.
The mathematics do not support you as you claim. Furthermore over Antarctica viewing conditions are excellent. They are no atmospheric distortion that last for decades that would support your hypothesis.
In the thread I'm talking about, they did. FE basically won the thread.
Atmospheric distortion occurs wherever there is atmosphere.
SUSTAIN doesn't solve your problem. You forget Newton Law that a object in motion tends to remain in motion. These particles are traveling horizontally over the edge with a speed they will maintain. You'd run out of air fast.
To escape they have to sustain a speed greater than that of the Earth. The Earth's hypothetical speed is constantly, sharply increasing. While a small number of particles can gradually escape, no significant body of air will make it out.
You need to contain air not water. Air is much more energetic and prone to escape.
Bad analogy. However, it's still not prone enough to overcome, with sufficient frequency, the odds against its escape.
You're quite wrong here too. There is no intense difficulty as explained above.
No you're wrong, there is.
-
That was easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_balloon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_altitude_balloon)
-
"There is no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. It slowly becomes thinner and fades into space. Three quarters of the atmosphere's mass is within 11 km of the planetary surface."
-
"There is no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. It slowly becomes thinner and fades into space. Three quarters of the atmosphere's mass is within 11 km of the planetary surface."
So say the Conspiracy. How does a quote which merely re-asserts the original claim constitute legitimate evidence?
The Earth is not a globe.
...the surface of all the waters of the earth is horizontal.
-
So say the Conspiracy. How does a quote which merely re-asserts the original claim constitute legitimate evidence?
I would take Wikipedia's peer-reviewed nature over a single scientists or organizations claims any day.
-
I would take Wikipedia's peer-reviewed nature over a single scientists or organizations claims any day.
Peer-reviewed? Is that a joke? A webpage which can be edited by anyone is not peer-reviewed.
-
Peer-reviewed? Is that a joke? A webpage which can be edited by anyone is not peer-reviewed.
It can't be edited by anyone. Especially not the ones pertaining to actual scientific information. Their mods are rather good at their jobs.
Also, people of the same profession, and such would read and contest anything with proof, hence peer review. People that have distrust in Wikipedia have misconceptions about how it really works.
-
Nope. This explanation defies Special Relativity. The particle that moves over the edge horizontally would be traveling upwards at the exact same upwards speed as the Earth. It would not collide with the Earth as it's over the edge and as it's traveling at the same speed. Your lack of understanding is a real problem here. Maybe you should ask for assistance.
The Earth is accelerating, not travelling at a constant speed. The particle would have the same speed as the Earth's hypothetical speed at the time of ejection, which would quickly change at such a steep acceleration.
Once the particle is over the edge and traveling away from the Earth, no amount of acceleration will cause the Earth to catch up with it again. You continue to spout nonsense.Um. yes. The atmosphere is over 50 miles high and we've demonstrated that your UA collision hypothesis is incorrect.
It isn't. The atmosphere is no higher than 40-50 thousand feet, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
sokural has already answered the call.2: I really don't care who engineered it (man, God, nature, etc.). It still requires engineering far beyond what we've ever encountered.
You don't get it. "Engineered" IMPLIES human endeavour. The Atlantic Ocean is beyond any conceivable feat of engineering, yet it exists.
I really can't prevent you from making incorrect inferences. Geology explains the mechanism for the creation of the Atlantic Ocean. An atmospheric container as you described is just another wild idea without explanation.The mathematics do not support you as you claim. Furthermore over Antarctica viewing conditions are excellent. They are no atmospheric distortion that last for decades that would support your hypothesis.
In the thread I'm talking about, they did. FE basically won the thread.
Atmospheric distortion occurs wherever there is atmosphere.
No doubt this was a thread just like the photoelectric effect one. Your credibility still suffers from that. You always seem to remember these threads incorrectly as supporting FE.SUSTAIN doesn't solve your problem. You forget Newton Law that a object in motion tends to remain in motion. These particles are traveling horizontally over the edge with a speed they will maintain. You'd run out of air fast.
To escape they have to sustain a speed greater than that of the Earth. The Earth's hypothetical speed is constantly, sharply increasing. While a small number of particles can gradually escape, no significant body of air will make it out.
You need to contain air not water. Air is much more energetic and prone to escape.
Bad analogy. However, it's still not prone enough to overcome, with sufficient frequency, the odds against its escape.
You don't understand probability. The RE atmosphere must be replenished constantly even with its thousand-mile-high container. A fifty-mile high container would not even come close to filling the bill. Have you done the mathematics required to support your claim?
You're quite wrong here too. There is no intense difficulty as explained above.
No you're wrong, there is.
Then show us the mathematics that show you're right.
-
Another phantom locking. I'm guessing the OP is repeatedly closing his own post, but I'll keep unlocking it as long as I'm online.
Once the particle is over the edge and traveling away from the Earth, no amount of acceleration will cause the Earth to catch up with it again. You continue to spout nonsense.
But air particle X has to get itself so that it is no longer vertically aligned with the Earth. I'm saying common sense dictates that this happens infrequently enough that no significant depletion occurs.
Another thing to take into account by the way, and you'll berate me for not bringing this up ealier, is that the Ice Wall's apex is easily one of the coldest points on the planet. Air particles near the edge are moving far slower than they normally would anyway.
It all stacks up to reveal that yes, particles could, theoretically spill over the edge, but cases of this are unlikely enough that the atmolayer does not significantly deplete.
sokural has already answered the call.
The say-so of the Conspiracy doesn't do it for me. I need hard evidence.
I really can't prevent you from making incorrect inferences. Geology explains the mechanism for the creation of the Atlantic Ocean. An atmospheric container as you described is just another wild idea without explanation.
Engineered always implies design, but whatever, enough word games.
There's a robust explanation for the generation of the Ice Wall too - perhaps you'd like to add it to your primer if you think "how was the Ice Wall made" is a viable criticism of FET. The path of the Sun in FET (remember that it cycles above the equator) is such that the North and South "poles" receive the least heat. The Ice Wall is the furthest Earthly point from the Sun - it represents the coldest possible locus which still remains on the Earth's surface, so naturally water there is frozen. There's nothing fanciful about the Ice Wall.
No doubt this was a thread just like the photoelectric effect one. Your credibility still suffers from that. You always seem to remember these threads incorrectly as supporting FE.
You're actually crying Conspiracy for thread display issues on this site? To think the FEers get accused of foil-hattism.
Anyway, try the search terms "waves" and "obscure". It's the one with the diagrams by yours truly, and started as an attempted attack on the law of natural perspective/a clarification of waves or something.
You don't understand probability. The RE atmosphere must be replenished constantly even with its thousand-mile-high container. A fifty-mile high container would not even come close to filling the bill. Have you done the mathematics required to support your claim?
I assume you're talking about replenishment from Earthly sources. I've never claimed that this sort of thing doesn't occur through photosynthesis, burning and all the other processes which do this.
And stop trying to debunk a 50-mile Ice Wall, I'm not arguing for that and I never have.
Then show us the mathematics that show you're right.
It's not mathematics, it's common sense. Given all the contributing factors, the escape of particles is unlikely and infrequent enough not to pose a serious threat to the Earth's atmolayer as a whole.
-
"There is no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. It slowly becomes thinner and fades into space. Three quarters of the atmosphere's mass is within 11 km of the planetary surface."
So say the Conspiracy. How does a quote which merely re-asserts the original claim constitute legitimate evidence?
Hmmm. You've yet to provide any support for your figure on the height of the atmosphere.
Here's the link that I've already posted that shows the atmosphere extending over 70 miles: ou (http://okfirst.ocs.ou.edu/train/meteorology/VertStructure2.html).
-
Hmmm. You've yet to provide any support for your figure on the height of the atmosphere.
Here's the link that I've already posted that shows the atmosphere extending over 70 miles: ou (http://okfirst.ocs.ou.edu/train/meteorology/VertStructure2.html).
I know full well what REers believe about their spherical atmolayer. That link offers nothing in the way of evidence, only a breakdown of what REers believe.
-
Hmmm. You've yet to provide any support for your figure on the height of the atmosphere.
Here's the link that I've already posted that shows the atmosphere extending over 70 miles: ou (http://okfirst.ocs.ou.edu/train/meteorology/VertStructure2.html).
I know full well what REers believe about their spherical atmolayer. That link offers nothing in the way of evidence, only a breakdown of what REers believe.
And I know full well that you will not change your stance no matter how many times we prove it. The atmosphere is much higher then you think. To say its not is to add a few more million people to the conspiracy.
-
.
Once the particle is over the edge and traveling away from the Earth, no amount of acceleration will cause the Earth to catch up with it again. You continue to spout nonsense.
But air particle X has to get itself so that it is no longer vertically aligned with the Earth. I'm saying common sense dictates that this happens infrequently enough that no significant depletion occurs.
Another thing to take into account by the way, and you'll berate me for not bringing this up ealier, is that the Ice Wall's apex is easily one of the coldest points on the planet. Air particles near the edge are moving far slower than they normally would anyway.
It all stacks up to reveal that yes, particles could, theoretically spill over the edge, but cases of this are unlikely enough that the atmolayer does not significantly deplete.
Okay, so I take it that you've given up of the ludicrous "UA catches up with the escaping particle" idea.
Your common sense is faulty. If you understood Brownian motion, you'd quickly understand that the same principle that inflates a balloon means the FE atmosphere will leak out. The air molecules bump into each other, the air moves outward. Air moves from high pressure to low pressure. Over the edge there is no pressure, so air would move other the edge. It's basic science.
-
Have you proven that experimentally on your own?
-
I really can't prevent you from making incorrect inferences. Geology explains the mechanism for the creation of the Atlantic Ocean. An atmospheric container as you described is just another wild idea without explanation.
Engineered always implies design, but whatever, enough word games.
There's a robust explanation for the generation of the Ice Wall too - perhaps you'd like to add it to your primer if you think "how was the Ice Wall made" is a viable criticism of FET. The path of the Sun in FET (remember that it cycles above the equator) is such that the North and South "poles" receive the least heat. The Ice Wall is the furthest Earthly point from the Sun - it represents the coldest possible locus which still remains on the Earth's surface, so naturally water there is frozen. There's nothing fanciful about the Ice Wall.
You fail here since the North Pole doesn't have a mile-high spire of naturally frozen water.
-
http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/a-new-form-of-sky-diving-if-your-crazy/ (http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/a-new-form-of-sky-diving-if-your-crazy/)
You should tell these people the atmosphere is only 9.5 miles high.
-
No doubt this was a thread just like the photoelectric effect one. Your credibility still suffers from that. You always seem to remember these threads incorrectly as supporting FE.
You're actually crying Conspiracy for thread display issues on this site? To think the FEers get accused of foil-hattism.
Anyway, try the search terms "waves" and "obscure". It's the one with the diagrams by yours truly, and started as an attempted attack on the law of natural perspective/a clarification of waves or something.
You attack a straw man. I never said "conspiracy". I do, however, call you on your credibility in referencing other threads. The last time you referenced a nondescript thread we found there wasn't one. We just don't believe you anymore.
I too can play the nondescript thread game. Watch: We've totally refuted that claim in a thread on another issue. Anyway, try the search terms "horse" and "feathers". It's the one with the diagrams by Elvis.
If you want us to believe you, post a link to a working thread. Otherwise, we'll just assume that you're making things up again.
-
And I know full well that you will not change your stance no matter how many times we prove it. The atmosphere is much higher then you think. To say its not is to add a few more million people to the conspiracy.
Did you even read what I posted? I said a re-iteration of your beliefs is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a proof.
Okay, so I take it that you've given up of the ludicrous "UA catches up with the escaping particle" idea.
Of course I haven't, stop putting words in my mouth. The UA has to catch up with the particle. The particle cannot maintain an acceleration greater than 9.8m/s^2. It's ridiculous to even think that it might happen - the particle isn't going to outspeed the Earth for any sustained period of time.
Your common sense is faulty. If you understood Brownian motion, you'd quickly understand that the same principle that inflates a balloon means the FE atmosphere will leak out. The air molecules bump into each other, the air moves outward. Air moves from high pressure to low pressure. Over the edge there is no pressure, so air would move other the edge. It's basic science.
I'm not denying these rudimentary principles like you want to believe I am. Vertically, diffusion is contradicted because the Earth is RACING THROUGH SPACE at incalculable speeds. Sideways, the air has to diffuse through the several-mile-thick Ice Wall, which doesn't happen.
-
You attack a straw man. I never said "conspiracy". I do, however, call you on your credibility in referencing other threads. The last time you referenced a nondescript thread we found there wasn't one. We just don't believe you anymore.
I too can play the nondescript thread game. Watch: We've totally refuted that claim in a thread on another issue. Anyway, try the search terms "horse" and "feathers". It's the one with the diagrams by Elvis.
If you want us to believe you, post a link to a working thread. Otherwise, we'll just assume that you're making things up again.
Look, there's no way I could be responsible for the state of the photoelectric thread. I don't have the ability to mysteriously gut a thread's contents, and I wouldn't want to in that case either, as I know full well that it not displaying makes me look like an idiot. The thread about the waves actually exists. You can find it if you want, not if you don't.
-
Did you even read what I posted? I said a re-iteration of your beliefs is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a proof.
No, but the millions or articles are proof. The fact that people are going to ride balloons higher then 9.5 miles and then jump out is proof. It adds up, now stop staring at a tree and saying its not there.
I'm not denying these rudimentary principles like you want to believe I am. Vertically, diffusion is contradicted because the Earth is RACING THROUGH SPACE at incalculable speeds. Sideways, the air has to diffuse through the several-mile-thick Ice Wall, which doesn't happen.
The speed of the earth cannot be greater then the speed of light.
So now the icewall is also several miles thick. Now you are just making things up.
-
You don't understand probability. The RE atmosphere must be replenished constantly even with its thousand-mile-high container. A fifty-mile high container would not even come close to filling the bill. Have you done the mathematics required to support your claim?
I assume you're talking about replenishment from Earthly sources. I've never claimed that this sort of thing doesn't occur through photosynthesis, burning and all the other processes which do this.
And stop trying to debunk a 50-mile Ice Wall, I'm not arguing for that and I never have.
Then show us the mathematics that show you're right.
It's not mathematics, it's common sense. Given all the contributing factors, the escape of particles is unlikely and infrequent enough not to pose a serious threat to the Earth's atmolayer as a whole.
The RE looses atmosphere with its thousand-mile high "walls". And you want to go with 10-mile high Ice Wall? Sure, that just make the case as easy one for RE win. At 10 miles there is still 50 millibars of pressure pushing the atmosphere out. Once we loose the stratosphere and higher layers of the atmosphere, the troposphere's pressure would drop by 50 millibars. That should be enough to destroy all economic activity on Earth, but the disaster would continue as the air would move up and our even more. Death would come quickly for all the planet. That's science.
-
You fail here since the North Pole doesn't have a mile-high spire of naturally frozen water.
There is a northern Ice Wall! If you think I'm just making it up as I go along, I'll let you know that Rowbotham pre-empted you 127 years ago...
If we travel by land or sea, from any part of the earth in the direction of any meridian line, and towards the northern central star called "Polaris," we come to one and the same place, a region of ice, where the star which has been our guide is directly above us, or vertical to our position. This region is really THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH; and recent observations seem to prove that it is a vast central tidal sea, nearly a thousand miles in diameter, and surrounded by a great wall or barrier of ice, eighty to a hundred miles in breadth.
-
Hmmm. You've yet to provide any support for your figure on the height of the atmosphere.
Here's the link that I've already posted that shows the atmosphere extending over 70 miles: ou (http://okfirst.ocs.ou.edu/train/meteorology/VertStructure2.html).
I know full well what REers believe about their spherical atmolayer. That link offers nothing in the way of evidence, only a breakdown of what REers believe.
It's sad that you can't accept scientific authority. You claim the atmosphere doesn't extend more than 10 miles in height. What evidence makes you believe that? What evidence do you need to believe otherwise. I'd suggest that if a credible university showed you that the atmosphere extended fifty miles that any reasonable person would accept that figure--until he or she found another source or another experiment to justify changing his or her acceptance.
-
The RE looses atmosphere with its thousand-mile high "walls". And you want to go with 10-mile high Ice Wall? Sure, that just make the case as easy one for RE win. At 10 miles there is still 50 millibars of pressure pushing the atmosphere out. Once we loose the stratosphere and higher layers of the atmosphere, the troposphere's pressure would drop by 50 millibars. That should be enough to destroy all economic activity on Earth, but the disaster would continue as the air would move up and our even more. Death would come quickly for all the planet. That's science.
That's science fiction. Honestly, you just made up this completely fanciful atmo-apocalypse and shoved in some pseudo-science buzzwords. Demonstrate WHY this would happen.
No, but the millions or articles are proof. The fact that people are going to ride balloons higher then 9.5 miles and then jump out is proof. It adds up, now stop staring at a tree and saying its not there.
There are millions of articles about God. There are millions of articles about Allah, and Zeus, and the underground Dero hellworms, but volume does not equal any sort of proof. I can write "the sky is green" a billion times and it won't make it any truer.
The speed of the earth cannot be greater then the speed of light.
It can, it is, and this statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the UA model.
So now the icewall is also several miles thick. Now you are just making things up.
Find a single instance where I have claimed anything to the contrary. The Ice Wall has always been several miles thick.
-
Okay, so I take it that you've given up of the ludicrous "UA catches up with the escaping particle" idea.
Of course I haven't, stop putting words in my mouth. The UA has to catch up with the particle. The particle cannot maintain an acceleration greater than 9.8m/s^2. It's ridiculous to even think that it might happen - the particle isn't going to outspeed the Earth for any sustained period of time.
Why does a particle have to travel faster than the Earth to escape it? If a particle moves over the edge, then its momentum will continue to carry it away from the Earth. The Earth will continue to accelerate upwards and away from the particle and never again encounter it. You seem not to understand basic kinetics.
-
It's sad that you can't accept scientific authority.
No, it's sensible. Why would taking their word for it be any different from taking the word of say, the Church, or L Ron Hubbard? That's partly what REers need to learn from this website! Taking people's word for it is not good enough on important issues of science and philosophy.
You claim the atmosphere doesn't extend more than 10 miles in height. What evidence makes you believe that? What evidence do you need to believe otherwise. I'd suggest that if a credible university showed you that the atmosphere extended fifty miles that any reasonable person would accept that figure--until he or she found another source or another experiment to justify changing his or her acceptance.
Well no - what evidence do you have for it being any higher, Mr. Occam's-Razor? I have personally witnessed the atmolayer being at least 40000 feet high. There is no reason for me to believe that it's any higher, except that scientists with a motive to lie about it tell me it's higher.
-
That's science fiction. Honestly, you just made up this completely fanciful atmo-apocalypse and shoved in some pseudo-science buzzwords. Demonstrate WHY this would happen.
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT SCIENTIFIC FICTION.
There are millions of articles about God. There are millions of articles about Allah, and Zeus, and the underground Dero hellworms, but volume does not equal any sort of proof. I can write "the sky is green" a billion times and it won't make it any truer.
The articles I refer to have numbers in them. They have experiments in them. They have proof in them. What are you going to say when the guy jumps from 25 miles up? (discounting the fact that someone has already jumped from super high up.)
It can, it is, and this statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the UA model.
Please, by all means, disprove Einstein. You are going to need to post some math though, not your opinion.
Find a single instance where I have claimed anything to the contrary. The Ice Wall has always been several miles thick.
I'm sure its sitting next to your proof the icewall exists. You have no proof for how tall the icewall is yet alone how thick it is.
-
Your common sense is faulty. If you understood Brownian motion, you'd quickly understand that the same principle that inflates a balloon means the FE atmosphere will leak out. The air molecules bump into each other, the air moves outward. Air moves from high pressure to low pressure. Over the edge there is no pressure, so air would move other the edge. It's basic science.
I'm not denying these rudimentary principles like you want to believe I am. Vertically, diffusion is contradicted because the Earth is RACING THROUGH SPACE at incalculable speeds. Sideways, the air has to diffuse through the several-mile-thick Ice Wall, which doesn't happen.
For Pete's sake, it doesn't matter how fast the Earth is racing through space. It will carry its atmosphere with it at the same velocity. A particle need only move vertically over the edge to escape and air pressure will cause that to happen for the stratosphere and higher layers very quickly. Why do you think that the thickness of the Ice Wall has any effect on this? How do you know that the Ice Wall is that thick?
-
Why does a particle have to travel faster than the Earth to escape it? If a particle moves over the edge, then its momentum will continue to carry it away from the Earth. The Earth will continue to accelerate upwards and away from the particle and never again encounter it. You seem not to understand basic kinetics.
Well because in order to go OVER the edge, it has to be OVER the Earth to start with, which requires it to leave the atmolayer by travelling faster than the Earth. It then has to sustain that speed (and an acceleration greater than that of the Earth) for long enough for it to get over the edge.
-
You attack a straw man. I never said "conspiracy". I do, however, call you on your credibility in referencing other threads. The last time you referenced a nondescript thread we found there wasn't one. We just don't believe you anymore.
I too can play the nondescript thread game. Watch: We've totally refuted that claim in a thread on another issue. Anyway, try the search terms "horse" and "feathers". It's the one with the diagrams by Elvis.
If you want us to believe you, post a link to a working thread. Otherwise, we'll just assume that you're making things up again.
Look, there's no way I could be responsible for the state of the photoelectric thread. I don't have the ability to mysteriously gut a thread's contents, and I wouldn't want to in that case either, as I know full well that it not displaying makes me look like an idiot. The thread about the waves actually exists. You can find it if you want, not if you don't.
If you want us to believe you, then post a link. If you don't, you know what we'll think of you.
-
You fail here since the North Pole doesn't have a mile-high spire of naturally frozen water.
There is a northern Ice Wall! If you think I'm just making it up as I go along, I'll let you know that Rowbotham pre-empted you 127 years ago...
If we travel by land or sea, from any part of the earth in the direction of any meridian line, and towards the northern central star called "Polaris," we come to one and the same place, a region of ice, where the star which has been our guide is directly above us, or vertical to our position. This region is really THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH; and recent observations seem to prove that it is a vast central tidal sea, nearly a thousand miles in diameter, and surrounded by a great wall or barrier of ice, eighty to a hundred miles in breadth.
I must again point out to you that your argument that being distant from the Sun causes an Ice Wall in the South, then being equally distant from the South would cause an Ice Spire in the North. Since there is demonstratively no such spire, your argument fails.
Oh, and I have no interest in anything Parallax imagined.
-
The RE looses atmosphere with its thousand-mile high "walls". And you want to go with 10-mile high Ice Wall? Sure, that just make the case as easy one for RE win. At 10 miles there is still 50 millibars of pressure pushing the atmosphere out. Once we loose the stratosphere and higher layers of the atmosphere, the troposphere's pressure would drop by 50 millibars. That should be enough to destroy all economic activity on Earth, but the disaster would continue as the air would move up and our even more. Death would come quickly for all the planet. That's science.
That's science fiction. Honestly, you just made up this completely fanciful atmo-apocalypse and shoved in some pseudo-science buzzwords. Demonstrate WHY this would happen.
Gee, high school chemistry should have taught you the reason such a calamity would occur. Do you want us to conduct a review session about the gas laws in this thread? Perhaps, you'd consider cracking open a good chemistry text to the relevant chapters.
-
This argument is stupid. Every where you look you see that the hight of the atmosphere is much taller then 9.5 miles. Everywhere from weather balloons to planes to new extreme sports. I'm out.
Capt. Joe W. Kittinger achieved the highest parachute jump in history on August 16, 1960 as part of a United States Air Force program testing high-altitude escape systems. Wearing a pressure suit, Capt. Kittinger ascended for an hour and a half in an open gondola attached to a balloon to an altitude of 102,800 feet, where he then jumped. The fall lasted 4 minutes and 36 seconds, during which Capt. Kittinger reached speeds exceeding 700 miles per hour. The air in the upper atmosphere is less dense and thus leads to lower air-resistance and a much higher terminal velocity.
-
JUST BECAUSE YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT SCIENTIFIC FICTION.
I understand what he posted perfectly well. What he posted was MADE UP. He literally made up that this wacky apocalypse would happen. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR WHAT HE POSTED.
The articles I refer to have numbers in them. They have experiments in them. They have proof in them. What are you going to say when the guy jumps from 25 miles up? (discounting the fact that someone has already jumped from super high up.) .
Numbers? Golly gosh! E:NaG contains both numbers and experiments. This alone does not make them prove anything, as I'm sure you'll agree. They have to be - you know - correct, to prove anything.
Please, by all means, disprove Einstein. You are going to need to post some math though, not your opinion.
There's no maths involved, it's a question of logic. The Earth's acceleration is 9.8m/s^2. It has been accelerating at this rate for a good few billion years. Since there is no independant frame of reference (there's nothing outside what is being accelerated, because everything is), the Earth has a HYPOTHETICAL speed which is greater than that of the local speed of light.
I'm sure its sitting next to your proof the icewall exists. You have no proof for how tall the icewall is yet alone how thick it is.
It would have to be several miles thick in order to be structurally integral.
If you want us to believe you, then post a link. If you don't, you know what we'll think of you.
What you, Gulliver, think of me is something I care little about. Think what you want.
-
The speed of the earth cannot be greater then the speed of light.
It can, it is, and this statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the UA model.
You fail here. SR prohibits the earth from ever traveling faster than the speed of light in any observer's frame of reference. Period. No exceptions. Do not pass "GO".
-
You fail here. SR prohibits the earth from ever traveling faster than the speed of light in any observer's frame of reference. Period. No exceptions. Do not pass "GO".
So a hypothetical speed greater than the speed of light is impossible because... Einstein said so.
I know how much you bum scientific authority, but being Einstein doesn't automatically make you infallible. Einstein was capable of error.
-
I say I'm leaving and you post this stupid shit.
There's no maths involved, it's a question of logic. The Earth's acceleration is 9.8m/s^2. It has been accelerating at this rate for a good few billion years. Since there is no independant frame of reference (there's nothing outside what is being accelerated, because everything is), the Earth has a HYPOTHETICAL speed which is greater than that of the local speed of light.
You are singlehandedly trying to disprove Einstein and others with logic. That DOES NOT WORK. Physics states that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, who are you to say things can?
No frame of reference will save you from your stupid.
-
It's sad that you can't accept scientific authority.
No, it's sensible. Why would taking their word for it be any different from taking the word of say, the Church, or L Ron Hubbard? That's partly what REers need to learn from this website! Taking people's word for it is not good enough on important issues of science and philosophy.
I hope that no one ever learns that from any site ever. It's wrong and harmful. We must build upon each other's work. Without that trust and teamwork, we'd not have the technologies that we're using in this thread.
I would say that we should always be ready to dismiss a claim or to hold our opinion in abeyance on even the most fundamental principle. To reject an authority's work just because it doesn't agree with your prized idea is a mistake of grave proportions.
I'm convinced that the atmosphere is that high. I understand the gas laws, the impact on gravity on the atmosphere, and the physics of Brownian motion. I respect others and their efforts. I approach each with a thirst for understanding and with skepticism.
I do agree that no one should take the word of someone unless they are respected in their field and able to document their lab work. You fail here. The lost thread. The Earth travels faster than light statement. The lost documentation on the measurement of "g". You are not earning any respect.
-
You claim the atmosphere doesn't extend more than 10 miles in height. What evidence makes you believe that? What evidence do you need to believe otherwise. I'd suggest that if a credible university showed you that the atmosphere extended fifty miles that any reasonable person would accept that figure--until he or she found another source or another experiment to justify changing his or her acceptance.
Well no - what evidence do you have for it being any higher, Mr. Occam's-Razor? I have personally witnessed the atmolayer being at least 40000 feet high. There is no reason for me to believe that it's any higher, except that scientists with a motive to lie about it tell me it's higher.
I've measured the sound from meteorites in an astronomy lab that demonstrated a high atmosphere. I rely on the good work of meteorologists. I can post links to numerous experiments that demonstrate the height of the atmosphere. You can calculate the height of the atmosphere by taking the gas laws and basic physics. I imagine that there are numerous other ways to document this. Do we really need to show you such basic observational values? You're starting to look like a lost cause, willing to suspend belief in anyone or anything if it conflicts with your idea of FE.
-
I say I'm leaving and you post this stupid shit.
Welcome back :D
You are singlehandedly trying to disprove Einstein and others with logic. That DOES NOT WORK. Physics states that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, who are you to say things can?
No frame of reference will save you from your stupid.
"Physics states"? Physics is just the say-so of scientists. Your argument boils down to "Earth's Hypothetical Speed is impossible BECAUSE SCIENTISTS SAID SO". Don't you see the fallacy? The appeal to authority? Back up your statements or leave the thread as you had planned to.
I hope that no one ever learns that from any site ever. It's wrong and harmful. We must build upon each other's work. Without that trust and teamwork, we'd not have the technologies that we're using in this thread.
So where do we draw the line? Why shouldn't I just send all my money to the church of scientology - I mean, I should just trust that what they say is correct, right?
I would say that we should always be ready to dismiss a claim or to hold our opinion in abeyance on even the most fundamental principle. To reject an authority's work just because it doesn't agree with your prized idea is a mistake of grave proportions.
Those two sentences are in direct contradiction...
I'm convinced that the atmosphere is that high. I understand the gas laws, the impact on gravity on the atmosphere, and the physics of Brownian motion. I respect others and their efforts. I approach each with a thirst for understanding and with skepticism.
So you admittedly enter into a discussion with the pre-conceived notion that you are right. It certainly shows in your tone of debate.
I do agree that no one should take the word of someone unless they are respected in their field and able to document their lab work. You fail here. The lost thread. The Earth travels faster than light statement. The lost documentation on the measurement of "g". You are not earning any respect.
But respect-in-field has no bearing on whether you're right or wrong! Both you and Sokarul are guilty of an appaling appeal to authority. You just cannot accept that a scientist might be wrong about something.
-
Why does a particle have to travel faster than the Earth to escape it? If a particle moves over the edge, then its momentum will continue to carry it away from the Earth. The Earth will continue to accelerate upwards and away from the particle and never again encounter it. You seem not to understand basic kinetics.
Well because in order to go OVER the edge, it has to be OVER the Earth to start with, which requires it to leave the atmolayer by travelling faster than the Earth. It then has to sustain that speed (and an acceleration greater than that of the Earth) for long enough for it to get over the edge.
No. Simply no. You're wrong. You're basically saying you can't throw an apple out of your car because your car is accelerating. You can.
You can also see that you're wrong by answering the question: How wide is the edge of the Earth? The answer is: It isn't wide. The edge is a line without thickness. So in your argument, the air needs to maintain its acceleration for no time as it travels over the edge.
-
Please, by all means, disprove Einstein. You are going to need to post some math though, not your opinion.
There's no maths involved, it's a question of logic. The Earth's acceleration is 9.8m/s^2. It has been accelerating at this rate for a good few billion years. Since there is no independant frame of reference (there's nothing outside what is being accelerated, because everything is), the Earth has a HYPOTHETICAL speed which is greater than that of the local speed of light.
Yes, there is an independent FoR. It's the history FoR, where we were when. It doesn't go away just because we've accelerated out of it.
No, your logic is preposterous. There is no "local" speed of light. The speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant for all observers. There is no such thing as a "HYPOTHETICAL" speed for the Earth. You are demonstrating that you don't know science and that you can't use logic, repeatedly.
-
No. Simply no. You're wrong. You're basically saying you can't throw an apple out of your car because your car is accelerating. You can.
Your car doesn't normally accelerate vertically at 9.8m/s^2 - if it does, you should worry.
You can also see that you're wrong by answering the question: How wide is the edge of the Earth? The answer is: It isn't wide. The edge is a line without thickness. So in your argument, the air needs to maintain its acceleration for no time as it travels over the edge.
The Ice Wall is quite thick - DIDN'T JUST MAKE IT UP, said it earlier in this very thread.
-
Yes, there is an independent FoR. It's the history FoR, where we were when. It doesn't go away just because we've accelerated out of it.
You're right it doesn't. It goes away because time passes.
No, your logic is preposterous. There is no "local" speed of light. The speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant for all observers. There is no such thing as a "HYPOTHETICAL" speed for the Earth. You are demonstrating that you don't know science and that you can't use logic, repeatedly.
You're just stating your beliefs, not bringing any legitimate evidence to the table, and here's why - your only evidence is that Einstein says so and Einstein has to be right about everything. It's not that I "don't know science", it's that I don't BELIEVE in YOUR science. There's a huge difference.
-
You fail here. SR prohibits the earth from ever traveling faster than the speed of light in any observer's frame of reference. Period. No exceptions. Do not pass "GO".
So a hypothetical speed greater than the speed of light is impossible because... Einstein said so.
I know how much you bum scientific authority, but being Einstein doesn't automatically make you infallible. Einstein was capable of error.
If you think that you've found an error by Einstein, do pray tell enlighten all of us! If not, then admit that you're wrong, again.
It's interesting that you argue that since you've not personally experienced the atmosphere above 40,000 feet that you know that it's not there. But you also argue that even though you've only travel personally at 600 MPH that you know that there are speeds greater than 300,000 m/s. It seems to be that your belief system varies with the need to support your FE idea.
-
I hope that no one ever learns that from any site ever. It's wrong and harmful. We must build upon each other's work. Without that trust and teamwork, we'd not have the technologies that we're using in this thread.
So where do we draw the line? Why shouldn't I just send all my money to the church of scientology - I mean, I should just trust that what they say is correct, right?
I leave it to you to draw your line. I've drawn my line. I read the work involved. I talk with my peers. I evaluate. I study. I question. Then, and only then, do I accept, reject, or hold in abeyance.
I refuse to reject without reason though. You do.
-
If you think that you've found an error by Einstein, do pray tell enlighten all of us! If not, then admit that you're wrong, again.
It doesn't work like that - Einstein is not de-facto correct. Our investigation does not start with a state of innate Einstein-correctness. Einstein's implied claim that nothing can travel faster than the universal speed of light must be demonstrated.
It's interesting that you argue that since you've not personally experienced the atmosphere above 40,000 feet that you know that it's not there.
Not what I said. It's that I don't know it IS there, and I have no reason to think it's there, except people saying so. It's the same with God. I have no reason to suspect he exists except people telling me he does.
But you also argue that even though you've only travel personally at 600 MPH that you know that there are speeds greater than 300,000 m/s. It seems to be that your belief system varies with the need to support your FE idea.
that there can be speeds greater than 600 MPH is self-evident, because speed doesn't "exist" in the same way that God, or the atmolayer-above-40k-feet MIGHT exist. Speed is a measure of something, so debating its existence is nonsensical. It's like asking if the number 194932832948293829103 exists. I have never personally counted to 194932832948293829103, but its existence is a given because of what it is. It does not require verification, it exists by its own nature.
-
It doesn't work like that - Einstein is not de-facto correct. Our investigation does not start with a state of innate Einstein-correctness. Einstein's implied claim that nothing can travel faster than the universal speed of light must be demonstrated.
I believe, and someone else can hopefully back me up here, that Einstein doesn't say nothing can travel faster than c, but nothing can accelerate to c.
-
"Physics states"? Physics is just the say-so of scientists. Your argument boils down to "Earth's Hypothetical Speed is impossible BECAUSE SCIENTISTS SAID SO". Don't you see the fallacy? The appeal to authority? Back up your statements or leave the thread as you had planned to.
Opposed to appealing to a book? Physics does not change. We just don't understand all of it yet. We change what we know but we cant change absolute physics.
There are many experiments that show GR as right.
You're just stating your beliefs, not bringing any legitimate evidence to the table, and here's why - your only evidence is that Einstein says so and Einstein has to be right about everything. It's not that I "don't know science", it's that I don't BELIEVE in YOUR science. There's a huge difference.
You don't believe is science because it goes against your view.
You talk about and ask for proof yet you have no proof about anything you have claimed. Show us your proof then or leave as you say.
-
I refuse to reject without reason though. You do.
No. You categorically reject any claim which might suggest that globularism is incorrect, and actively, fiercly and with blind enthusiasm seek ways to make said claims seem false.
Face it - every time you log into the FES forums, you have a preconceived notion of what is true, and you will not, under any circumstances, revise that opinion despite compelling evidence to the contrary.
-
I refuse to reject without reason though. You do.
No. You categorically reject any claim which might suggest that globularism is incorrect, and actively, fiercly and with blind enthusiasm seek ways to make said claims seem false.
Face it - every time you log into the FES forums, you have a preconceived notion of what is true, and you will not, under any circumstances, revise that opinion despite compelling evidence to the contrary.
And?
I sure do. I have never seen one argument on here that makes me thing the planet is anything other then round.
You are guilty of it too. You just can't believe that people and balloons have been 25 miles up and still been in the atmosphere.
-
I would say that we should always be ready to dismiss a claim or to hold our opinion in abeyance on even the most fundamental principle. To reject an authority's work just because it doesn't agree with your prized idea is a mistake of grave proportions.
Those two sentences are in direct contradiction...
No, they're not.
-
No. Simply no. You're wrong. You're basically saying you can't throw an apple out of your car because your car is accelerating. You can.
Your car doesn't normally accelerate vertically at 9.8m/s^2 - if it does, you should worry.
You avoid the challenge. Coward.
-
You can also see that you're wrong by answering the question: How wide is the edge of the Earth? The answer is: It isn't wide. The edge is a line without thickness. So in your argument, the air needs to maintain its acceleration for no time as it travels over the edge.
The Ice Wall is quite thick - DIDN'T JUST MAKE IT UP, said it earlier in this very thread.
The thickness of the Ice Wall is not related to the width of the edge. The Ice Wall can support the air above it.
Oh, and just how do you KNOW that the Ice Wall is thick? I say you, or some other FEer, just made the thickness figure up, like you do with so many numbers.
-
I'm convinced that the atmosphere is that high. I understand the gas laws, the impact on gravity on the atmosphere, and the physics of Brownian motion. I respect others and their efforts. I approach each with a thirst for understanding and with skepticism.
So you admittedly enter into a discussion with the pre-conceived notion that you are right. It certainly shows in your tone of debate.
I do agree that no one should take the word of someone unless they are respected in their field and able to document their lab work. You fail here. The lost thread. The Earth travels faster than light statement. The lost documentation on the measurement of "g". You are not earning any respect.
But respect-in-field has no bearing on whether you're right or wrong! Both you and Sokarul are guilty of an appaling appeal to authority. You just cannot accept that a scientist might be wrong about something.
We can most certainly accept that a scientist might be wrong about something. You attack a straw man. You need to make a concrete documented case for your theory. Document your evidence. You have nearly 30 documented experiments in the RE Primer to answer. The Forum's FAQ is out of date, inaccurate, and in places just plain stupid. You've left the photoelectric effort and UA argument hanging for a month. If you want us to believe you over a reputable scientists, you have work to do. Don't blame us for insisting that you support your idea with evidence and repeatable experiments. That's science.
-
The thickness of the Ice Wall is not related to the width of the edge. The Ice Wall can support the air above it.
Oh, and just how do you KNOW that the Ice Wall is thick? I say you, or some other FEer, just made the thickness figure up, like you do with so many numbers.
Of course the numbers are made up. None of them really coincide with observable evidence, and the lack of revision in accordance with challenge and evidence is what is hurting the FET argument.
-
I'm convinced that the atmosphere is that high. I understand the gas laws, the impact on gravity on the atmosphere, and the physics of Brownian motion. I respect others and their efforts. I approach each with a thirst for understanding and with skepticism.
So you admittedly enter into a discussion with the pre-conceived notion that you are right. It certainly shows in your tone of debate.
I do agree that no one should take the word of someone unless they are respected in their field and able to document their lab work. You fail here. The lost thread. The Earth travels faster than light statement. The lost documentation on the measurement of "g". You are not earning any respect.
But respect-in-field has no bearing on whether you're right or wrong! Both you and Sokarul are guilty of an appaling appeal to authority. You just cannot accept that a scientist might be wrong about something.
We can most certainly accept that a scientist might be wrong about something. You attack a straw man. You need to make a concrete documented case for your theory. Document your evidence. You have nearly 30 documented experiments in the RE Primer to answer. The Forum's FAQ is out of date, inaccurate, and in places just plain stupid. You've left the photoelectric effort and UA argument hanging for a month. If you want us to believe you over a reputable scientists, you have work to do. Don't blame us for insisting that you support your idea with evidence and repeatable experiments. That's science.
Gulliver, Dogplatter is currently (or in the very near future) compiling his model. You might want to hold your questions until you can see the model in its entirety. This will, hopefully, simplify these arguments.
-
Yes, there is an independent FoR. It's the history FoR, where we were when. It doesn't go away just because we've accelerated out of it.
You're right it doesn't. It goes away because time passes.
Nope. A FoR is not a dairy product. You need to stop just guessing about science.
-
I'm convinced that the atmosphere is that high. I understand the gas laws, the impact on gravity on the atmosphere, and the physics of Brownian motion. I respect others and their efforts. I approach each with a thirst for understanding and with skepticism.
So you admittedly enter into a discussion with the pre-conceived notion that you are right. It certainly shows in your tone of debate.
I do agree that no one should take the word of someone unless they are respected in their field and able to document their lab work. You fail here. The lost thread. The Earth travels faster than light statement. The lost documentation on the measurement of "g". You are not earning any respect.
But respect-in-field has no bearing on whether you're right or wrong! Both you and Sokarul are guilty of an appaling appeal to authority. You just cannot accept that a scientist might be wrong about something.
We can most certainly accept that a scientist might be wrong about something. You attack a straw man. You need to make a concrete documented case for your theory. Document your evidence. You have nearly 30 documented experiments in the RE Primer to answer. The Forum's FAQ is out of date, inaccurate, and in places just plain stupid. You've left the photoelectric effort and UA argument hanging for a month. If you want us to believe you over a reputable scientists, you have work to do. Don't blame us for insisting that you support your idea with evidence and repeatable experiments. That's science.
Gulliver, Dogplatter is currently (or in the very near future) compiling his model. You might want to hold your questions until you can see the model in its entirety. This will, hopefully, simplify these arguments.
Just keep thinking that.
-
Considering I only just asked him to, and he said he would, and I have no reason not to believe him, I will.
-
If you think that you've found an error by Einstein, do pray tell enlighten all of us! If not, then admit that you're wrong, again.
It doesn't work like that - Einstein is not de-facto correct. Our investigation does not start with a state of innate Einstein-correctness. Einstein's implied claim that nothing can travel faster than the universal speed of light must be demonstrated.
Sorry, but you're wrong, again. Einstein is demonstratively correct. SR and GR have been backed by more experimental evidence and scrutinized by harsh critics. Einstein's various works have been evaluated. Some have been rejected, but most are currently accepted. It is inane that your investigation picks and chooses which parts of science to accept, even seeming to vary by day which you believe. (Eramus has a post referenced in the FAQ that used the velocity addition formula from SR that you today seem to reject with your hypothetical speed greater than the speed of light.)
It must be difficult to keep straight what laws of physics and chemistry you believe in.
-
It's interesting that you argue that since you've not personally experienced the atmosphere above 40,000 feet that you know that it's not there.
Not what I said. It's that I don't know it IS there, and I have no reason to think it's there, except people saying so. It's the same with God. I have no reason to suspect he exists except people telling me he does.
But you also argue that even though you've only travel personally at 600 MPH that you know that there are speeds greater than 300,000 m/s. It seems to be that your belief system varies with the need to support your FE idea.
that there can be speeds greater than 600 MPH is self-evident, because speed doesn't "exist" in the same way that God, or the atmolayer-above-40k-feet MIGHT exist. Speed is a measure of something, so debating its existence is nonsensical. It's like asking if the number 194932832948293829103 exists. I have never personally counted to 194932832948293829103, but its existence is a given because of what it is. It does not require verification, it exists by its own nature.
Your argument is without merit. You argue one way or the other based only on what you want.
-
I refuse to reject without reason though. You do.
No. You categorically reject any claim which might suggest that globularism is incorrect, and actively, fiercly and with blind enthusiasm seek ways to make said claims seem false.
Face it - every time you log into the FES forums, you have a preconceived notion of what is true, and you will not, under any circumstances, revise that opinion despite compelling evidence to the contrary.
Nope. I did perform my own experiment and described its design here and documented the results right here. My dog didn't eat my lab report. I made up my mind based on the results. I then worked with the RE team here to document 70 challenges to FE, 29 experiments, and a host of flaws in FE and consolidated the consensus in the 80-page RE Primer. That's work, scientific work. It does convince me that RE is correct--until the FE presents a better case. Do you believe enough in your cause to produce the level of evidence that we have?
-
The thickness of the Ice Wall is not related to the width of the edge. The Ice Wall can support the air above it.
Oh, and just how do you KNOW that the Ice Wall is thick? I say you, or some other FEer, just made the thickness figure up, like you do with so many numbers.
Of course the numbers are made up. None of them really coincide with observable evidence, and the lack of revision in accordance with challenge and evidence is what is hurting the FET argument.
Well said, sir. Well said.
-
...
Gulliver, Dogplatter is currently (or in the very near future) compiling his model. You might want to hold your questions until you can see the model in its entirety. This will, hopefully, simplify these arguments.
I'll believe that when we see it. dogplatter has let me down of a number of commitments. I'll try to respect your request, though.
-
No. Simply no. You're wrong. You're basically saying you can't throw an apple out of your car because your car is accelerating. You can.
Your car doesn't normally accelerate vertically at 9.8m/s^2 - if it does, you should worry.
As long as my car is in contact with the Earth, according to FE, it's accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2. I can throw an apple out the window. So you must be wrong, again.
-
>>>As long as my car is in contact with the Earth, according to FE, it's accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2. I can throw an apple out the window. So you must be wrong, again.<<<
Gulliver you have 1000's of posts , I'm not having a go at you , but why do you bother?
-
Thank you for joining us for the Gulliver show.
-
Reading through Gulliver's posts I am reminded of a moth banging its head against a hot light bulb over and over and over and over and over and over .......
-
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-Albert Einstein.
That's Gulliver all right!
-
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-Albert Einstein.
That's Gulliver all right!
No.
Dogplatter pussed out so Gulliver had time to answer every response.
-
No.
Dogplatter pussed out so Gulliver had time to answer every response.
Or I went away from my computer for a couple of days to visit my family while Gulliver nit-picked my every word.