Serious thoughts

I'm ready for that explanation now.

Try to imagine space as something of a trampoline. The Sun is a Bowling ball in the center. Gravity is the force that pulls objects put on the trampoline towards the center.

I'm in a rush so I'll leave you trying to figure the below out:

1.
This explains siesmic waves.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/waves/WaveDemo.htm
And these explain how they can be measured from the other side of the earth
http://www.sci-tech.co.uk/seismic.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-wave
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Earthquake_wave_paths.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/Earthquake_wave_shadow_zone.gif

2.
What about their length? They should be way longer than they are in a little place I like to call "reality".

3.
Vauge? How can clouds go in to the South Pole and come out on the other side of the world in a predictable shape.

4.
Could you convince several million people to keep quiet on the biggest cover up in Earths history? See the main section of my original post and come up with some credible evidence against my take on this "conspiracy". Then come up with a credible motive.

Eclipses?

Try to imagine space as something of a trampoline. The Sun is a Bowling ball in the center. Gravity is the force that pulls objects put on the trampoline towards the center.

Wow.  I thought you could do better.  I asked how gravity eminates from a body.  

The old trampoline example is just that; a way to visualize a complex idea.  With the trampoline, you have gravity acting on the bowling ball whose weight causes the fabric to stretch and distort.  What would happen if you did this in the deep of space where there is no body to pull down on the bowling ball?  How do gravitons know where to go?  How do they know to interact with spacetime?  What is the interaction that causes the warp of space?  How do gravitons know not to interact with each other?

That's what I meant by explain how gravity originates from a body.

Okay, so perhaps the earth could possibly approach light speed without breaking the laws of relativity, but going back to my point about mass, then every object on earth would approach an infinite mass, and would be nearly impossible to impart an acceleration to, even in a direction across the surface of the earth.

Nope, because from our perspective we are not accelerating, and from our perspective our mass remains constant. As our mass increases, we decrease our acceleration relative to objects that are not also traveling near c, because relative to those objects our mass is increasing, and a constant force applied to an increasing mass will cause a decreasing acceleration, but relative to objects that are traveling at a similar velocity, our mass remains constant.

First off, I was in a rush with the last post so I had to water it down as much as humanly possible.

The kicker is this:
The gravitons that this theory relies upon are also required by the FET! Picking holes in this theory is the same as picking holes in yours.

As I have mentioned before now, I am not a physisist. I do not wish to become engrossed in a debate about advanced physics. Right now we are picking holes in gravity! Gravity is required in both theories. A flat Earth might be technically possible in a round earth universe (just different from the one you people have envisioned - ie sans eclipses), just as a round earth would be technically possible in a flat earth universe because they both rely on the same forces and laws of physics, just with different applcations.

Seeing as you seem to be unable or unwilling to read my posts, I will reiterate one of my previous points:

I'm going to keep off the science side of things mostly because I would prefer to keep this debate going in one direction

The point of my argument is this:

Round Earth Theory:
Arrival- Analysis of evidence
Evidence/Support- Every physisist on the planet can testify for it, countless experiments, hundreds of space flights with thousands of pictures from them. Observation of the universe from ground and from space. Thousands of trips around the world with distances that fit with the RET. Accurate explanations and predications for phenomenon that the FET cannot match or disprove, suh as eclipses.
Counter evidence- Experiments carried out using a boat, a telescope and human eyes to measure the minute variations in the hieght of flags 6 miles away, all done in 1880.
Completeness- The Big Bang, Singularities, the expanding universe, blue shift/red shift, gravity, gravitons, quantum field theory, accretion theory, formation of the solar system, the formation/shape/existence/stability of earth. These all fit together! They make sense and can be backed up by elemetary science and observation of the world around us and the universe above us.

Flat Earth Theory:
Arrival- Speculation
Evidence/Support- The aforementioned "scientific" experients and the fact we can't see the curvature of the earth with our naked eyes.
Counter Evidence: Thousands of orbital/near orbital pictures from hundeds of of sources and the testimonies of hundreds of astronauts. Thousands of experiments and observations on the nature of gravity and of earth.
Completeness- No solid or even plausible creation theory. Ditto for many fundamental aspects of the theory such as how and why the earth is moving, why and how the "Ice Wall" was created or why there is a massive cover up.

Basically, it boils down to:
Science vs Speculation
1000s of testimonies, photos and videos vs They are all liars/brainwashed/conspirators
Logic and evidence vs Its all faked (but we don't know why)
Full, scientific theory vs Pseudo science with huge holes. *

So basically, I was wondering why you all choose to believe something that has so many problems? I don't want an advanced scientific discussion on how the FET is physicaly possible; maybe it is, I couldn't say. What I am trying to get across that there is no real evidence against the RET, and no scientific backing for the existence of the FE. To say otherise you are blatenly ignoring mountains of evidence by saying it faked by a global conspiracy of titanic proportions with no discernable motive. We have a phrase for that: Selective Ignorance.

* See the above 4 points (especially the one about seismic waves - it pretty much kills the FET!), and ECLIPSES!

These experiments that are shown as evidence are quite funny. If you complete the circle with the arc angle and distance ratio it shows on experiment one the earth to be around just 36 miles across. You learn something every day.

First off, I was in a rush with the last post so I had to water it down as much as humanly possible.

The kicker is this:
The gravitons that this theory relies upon are also required by the FET! Picking holes in this theory is the same as picking holes in yours.

No, actually, the acceleration of the earth produces the force we feel as gravity.  No need for gravitons from the flat earth!

I'm not picking holes in a theory.  RE'ers always claim that the RE can answer all questions put to it, yet they have no answer for the cause of gravity.

Completeness- The Big Bang, Singularities, the expanding universe, blue shift/red shift, gravity, gravitons, quantum field theory, accretion theory, formation of the solar system, the formation/shape/existence/stability of earth. These all fit together! They make sense and can be backed up by elemetary science and observation of the world around us and the universe above us.

How can it be complete?  You can't explain what gravity is.  No one has discovered the graviton yet.  What happened at the big bang event is still disputed.  Use your elementary science to show me a graviton.

These experiments that are shown as evidence are quite funny. If you complete the circle with the arc angle and distance ratio it shows on experiment one the earth to be around just 36 miles across. You learn something every day.

Please tell me you realize the drawing is not to scale.  If not, I feel sorry for you.

But mass attracts mass in the universe we live in, FE or not. This has been observed as highly sensitive levelling apparatus shows errors in the vicinity of large mountains due to the small gravitational effect of these, to quote one example, so saying that the fact that a graviton has never been observed as evidence against RE is worthless.

Also, you have no evidence that the earth can approach the speed of light without breaking the laws of relativity, all you have to go on is mathematics. Mathematics has predicted the existence of gravitons, giving them the same level of credence as an earth moving at near-light-speed.

But mass attracts mass in the universe we live in, FE or not. This has been observed as highly sensitive levelling apparatus shows errors in the vicinity of large mountains due to the small gravitational effect of these, to quote one example, so saying that the fact that a graviton has never been observed as evidence against RE is worthless.

I have never used the absence of the graviton as evidence against the RE.  Simply that the RE does not have all the answers as RE'ers claim.

Also, you have no evidence that the earth can approach the speed of light without breaking the laws of relativity, all you have to go on is mathematics.

Your whole argument is based on the equation e=mc^2.  But for some reason, the mathematics of the rest of relativity is untrue?

Also, you have no evidence that the earth can approach the speed of light without breaking the laws of relativity, all you have to go on is mathematics.

Your whole argument is based on the equation e=mc^2.  But for some reason, the mathematics of the rest of relativity is untrue?[/quote]

He's making a different point here. He's not saying that your interpretation of relativity is incorrect (though he has elsewhere, but that's another point), rather that it being possible to seem to maintain constant acceleration while never reaching lightspeed is only a prediction of mathematics, just as gravitons are also a prediction of mathematics. The difference between the two is that we know that something does, in fact, cause masses to attract; the fact we haven't fully explained that does not change the fact that it happens; however, we absolutely do NOT know that something does, in fact, cause the Earth to accelerate at 9.8m/s/s, we only know that it is possible, provided a suitable energy source and propulsion mechanism exist, for which there is no evidence.

Actually, I've conceded that the engineer is probably right on the relativity/acceleration thing. Still completely unconvinced on the refraction argument for the horizon though

Still completely unconvinced on the refraction argument for the horizon though

That's probably because its pure BS.

Quote from: "alexj"

These experiments that are shown as evidence are quite funny. If you complete the circle with the arc angle and distance ratio it shows on experiment one the earth to be around just 36 miles across. You learn something every day.

Please tell me you realize the drawing is not to scale.  If not, I feel sorry for you.

Is how misleading the diagram is dumbass. I don't believe either that a man is about an 8th of a mile tall.

If you complete the circle with the arc angle and distance ratio it shows on experiment one the earth to be around just 36 miles across.

Is how misleading the diagram is dumbass. I don't believe either that a man is about an 8th of a mile tall.

However, by your original statement, you said that the arc angle and distance ratio shows the earth to have a circumference of 36 miles.  Please show me your math behind this one.

Quote from: "alexj"

If you complete the circle with the arc angle and distance ratio it shows on experiment one the earth to be around just 36 miles across.

Is how misleading the diagram is dumbass. I don't believe either that a man is about an 8th of a mile tall.

However, by your original statement, you said that the arc angle and distance ratio shows the earth to have a circumference of 36 miles.  Please show me your math behind this one.

I've helpfully marked off on the diagram where i've duplicated and rotated the original diaram which was claimed to be 6 miles, to show that the diagram is misleading in the size of the arc over a six mile length. If you continue that ratio it makes the earth around 36 miles across (around would have been a better word tbh). This is because it took me around 6 mile lengths to complete the full circle which makes the earth according to that diagram, 36 miles around.

That diagram matters alot on that experiment yet it has been altered to prove the point beyond belief.

So, I was right.  You took it to be to scale and I'm the dumbass?

Quote

Completeness- The Big Bang, Singularities, the expanding universe, blue shift/red shift, gravity, gravitons, quantum field theory, accretion theory, formation of the solar system, the formation/shape/existence/stability of earth. These all fit together! They make sense and can be backed up by elemetary science and observation of the world around us and the universe above us.

How can it be complete?  You can't explain what gravity is.  No one has discovered the graviton yet.  What happened at the big bang event is still disputed.  Use your elementary science to show me a graviton.

And no one has discovered, seen or proved the existence of the Ice Wall! Or proved the existence of, or even seen the Dark Energy (another theoretical force, just like gravitons...) apparently pushing the earth up infinately. Show me the Dark Energy under the FE.

Once again, you seem to be completely ignoring my main point:
Science vs Speculation

I know the existence graviton is not confirmed, niether is Dark Energy. Gravitons are one theory among many that explain gravity, relativity (which has cited as the evidence for the possibility of the existence of FE countless times already) is the major alternative, which also fits in with everything else around us and is backed up by elementary science and the smartest people the world has ever seen.

[quote="TheEngineernot serious replies.

-There is an optical distortion effect caused when ships sail away, thus completely invalidating all evidence for the RET.

Refraction, to be exact.
[/quote]

If it is refraction, why is white light not broken up, as different wave lengths refract at different angles, as in a prism?

If it is refraction, why does not the sun appear distorted when low on the horizon, and round out as it approaches noon?

I always understood that the speculation of the exisence of dark matter was due to the fact that in the observable/visible universe there is insufficient matter to account for the gravity required to hold the universe together. In fact it falls short by some 95%.
Therefore by admitting the existence of dark matter/energy do you not also admit the existence of gravity?
Or is that only applicable in the RE model?

So, I was right.  You took it to be to scale and I'm the dumbass?

 :roll:

Sorry when did i say it was scale, i was pointing out if you did take it for scale the earth would be 36 miles around. Thus pointing out the misleading nature of the diagram.

I am sick of this site, theres no one to hold a decent arguement with as the majority are those trying to point out how ridiculous the whole flat earth theory is. Cya i am off.

(I am saying i am rather than im because the damn apostraphe isnt working in firefox)

Correct me if I am wrong, but according to FEers, scientists (using the RE Model), based on data (which is fake) of the RE Universe (which is impossible/non existent) theorised Dark Energy. Yet FEers use Dark Energy to explain how the FE moves upwards?

Pogmothoin, it is my understanding that observations of Redshift have lead scientists to believe the universe is expanding, and to postulate a type of energy (Dark) that automatically fills the spaces in the universe that would occur if it were indeed expanding.

Correct me if I am wrong, but according to FEers, scientists (using the RE Model), based on data (which is fake) of the RE Universe (which is impossible/non existent) theorised Dark Energy. Yet FEers use Dark Energy to explain how the FE moves upwards?

Pogmothoin, it is my understanding that observations of Redshift have lead scientists to believe the universe is expanding, and to postulate a type of energy (Dark) that automatically fills the spaces in the universe that would occur if it were indeed expanding.

Actually, it's known that the universe is expanding, however its expansion appears to be accelerating- which should be impossible because of gravity. Therefore, cosmologists have postulated "dark energy" as additional, unobserved energy that is powering this acceleration. However, dark energy is not so much a real entity as a mathematical convenience, much like Einstein's "Cosmological constant"; it could well be that the equations are wrong. However, it seems to me absolutely ridiculous to take this dark energy, which has never been observed, about the properties of which we know nothing, and to claim that it fuels some unimaginably powerful, never-observed engine that propels the Earth at a constant acceleration of 9.8m/s/s over the last several billion years.

Thank. You.

attempting to know the unknowable is the ultimate pursuit of science isn't it? scientists have always uses a postulation such as electrum, geocentricity, gravitons, dark matter etc,. in order to fill blanks in their knowledge to allow equations to fit the percieved state of affairs. That convention is surely allowable in this case.

An issue arises when scientists become so blinkered, or focused on thier initial theory that it blinds them to experimental data supporting a different conclusion. For example, darwinian evolution versus modern molecular ond cellular biology.

Just a thought.

attempting to know the unknowable is the ultimate pursuit of science isn't it? scientists have always uses a postulation such as electrum, geocentricity, gravitons, dark matter etc,. in order to fill blanks in their knowledge to allow equations to fit the percieved state of affairs. That convention is surely allowable in this case.

An issue arises when scientists become so blinkered, or focused on thier initial theory that it blinds them to experimental data supporting a different conclusion. For example, darwinian evolution versus modern molecular ond cellular biology.

Just a thought.

Um, modern molecular biology does support evolution. You've been reading Michael Behe, haven't you? If so, please come to the evolution thread in "Other Alternative Science" and I will show you why he is wrong.

although I have read Michael Behe, I don't necessarily accept all the things he espouses. My point was that in a universe built out of perception, every major conclusion has to be based upon assumptions. I don't disagree with the concept of geocentricity or the existence of dark matter either. My original statement was directed to the RE guy who rejected the accelerating earth model on the basis that it relies upon an assumption involving dark matter.

I am, however, just going over to the evolution thead you suggested in order to have a browse. Thanks for the tip.

Enlightenment is a wily old fox - what we need is some decent hounds, some horses, and some men in red jackets with little trumpets.

The universe is not expanding, the universe is in chaos! The nearest galaxy to our own is Andromeda, which is in fact moving towards us, guess why? Gravity. The only reason that we have not been flung, at the speed of light, outside of the known universe is because of dark matter. The matter and gravity that holds us in close and ever changing proximity.

The Earth is fucking round you morons!

The universe is not expanding, the universe is in chaos! The nearest galaxy to our own is Andromeda, which is in fact moving towards us, guess why? Gravity. The only reason that we have not been flung, at the speed of light, outside of the known universe is because of dark matter. The matter and gravity that holds us in close and ever changing proximity.

Um, what?

The universe is not expanding, the universe is in chaos! The nearest galaxy to our own is Andromeda, which is in fact moving towards us

Interesting idea, but what makes you think that?  Astronomers report that it is red shifted, which would suggest that it is moving away from us, not towards us.

According to most of what I've seen on the subject, we are still in the expansion phase of the Big Bang, and far way from the time when and if gravity will overcome interia and cause contraction.

Sorry when did i say it was scale, i was pointing out if you did take it for scale the earth would be 36 miles around. Thus pointing out the misleading nature of the diagram.

I guess it would be misleading to someone who can't read or has not passed the 6th grade.  I'm glad you went to all that trouble with your 'clarification' when it wasn't necessary for anyone (except maybe you). :roll: