1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: THE BET TO SETTLE THIS ARGUMENT

« on: June 21, 2006, 06:21:10 PM »

ok i already proposed this to my new friend "unimportant", but i feel this is worthy of it's own post.

...

who's got the stones to take this bet?

It would be a silly bet to take as a flat earther.  

My life is worth more than $1,000,000 .  Put $10,000,000 in escrow to be collected by my widow when we do not return, and we might be able to work something out.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 16, 2006, 07:07:47 PM »

But if gravtational attraction is:
gravity = (mass1 * mass2  * k) / distance2

And Mass1 = 0 then Gravity = 0

Valid argument.  However, it turns out that that is not gravitational attraction.  Not in GR, anyway.

 I tried to find the "Proper Formula", I'm afraid I don't know tensor math.

What's worse is the site I found tried to explain my time paradox, after do ing a lot of graghing and math it says "What this paradox illustrates is that in Special Relativity simultaneity is relative." http://www.friesian.com/separat.htm  So even "Now" has no meaning .

3

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 16, 2006, 02:11:43 PM »

That can not be true.  What is a photon's invariant mass? 0.  If only invariant mass contributes to gravitation, than a photon would not be diverted by gravity.

Completely wrong.  You don't have to "contribute to gravitation" in order to fall towards gravitationally "attractive" bodies.  This is because each massive body curves the spacetime around it.  Even if you have no mass, you're still travelling through curved space.

But if gravtational attraction is:
gravity = (mass1 * mass2  * k) / distance2

And Mass1 = 0 then Gravity = 0

4

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 16, 2006, 02:00:26 PM »

While the "Local" frame of reference may still have a velocity of zero.  It's velocity can also be referenced from the frame of it's position in the past.

What do you think about the accelerating astronaut?  Suppose he measures his acceleration to be, say, 0.1c/s, and he leaves his jet pack on for twenty seconds.  What's his velocity at this point?

Also, if you're going to say that it's not possible for him to accelerate at 0.1c/s for  twenty seconds, are you going to suggest that somehow the force of his jetpack decreased over his time so that to his perception, after a while he felt like he wasn't accelerating anymore?  If so, I'd like you to give a formula for what force he feels as a function of time.

Is that a trick question?  Acceleration is a function of time, the gravity effect of acceleration is a force felt as a function of time.

Also, the math behind relativity account for part of what you describe, to the space station Alice is flying past, her rate of acceleration would gradually decrease as she approaches C.

But on a more practical level, the jet pack has a limit to the velocity of it's exhaust.  Like your car, once you've floored it, you reach a point where it will not accelerate.

Using a rocket whose maximum exhaust velocity is .5C, If I traveled from the hypotetical round earth to the hypothetical sun, assuming your .1C accleration, it would take about 16 minutes to make the trip.  To the pilot, it would be slightly less time due to time dialation, but even to the pilot it would not continue to acclerate at a steady rate, the effectivenss of the thrust decreases as the ship's velocity approaches exhaust velocity.

To explain: Suppose that, from some "past reference frame", our astronaut applies impulse A to accelerate to 0.9c and then stops accelerating.  Pick a reference frame F after this acceleration is done.  The astronaut is at rest in reference frame F now.  Now have him apply impulse A again.  He's now at rest in a frame F', but measured in reference frame F, he is travelling at 0.9c.

According to relativity, this is not true.  Velocities are not additive in relativistic speeds. To reference frame F you are traveling about .98c not 1.8c.  You are trying to use Newtons laws and apply Relativity.
EvenI know enough of Einstien's theories to know you can't do that.
[/quote]

Basically, you insist on the existence of preferred reference frames.  The most fundamental premise of relativity is that no such thing exists.

Yet you too are insisting that your perfered frame (the Flat Earth) does not have to comply to any other frame.

I can see how, the FE could experience continued acceleration at 1 G, but could not be part of this universe while doing it.  As this universe is belived to have a finite duration, and perhaps even finite dimentions, you would literally run out of time, as subjective time on your flat earth would slow down as your velocity approached light with respect to the universe.

Now my head is really spinning.  If we are speeding away from the event point of the "Big Bang", we judge 13+ billion years to have passed.  If you were the point in space where the Big Bang happened how much time would have passed?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 16, 2006, 11:40:54 AM »

Now to the particle, it is still, but the earth is moving, but where is the force coming from to move the earth to 14%C?

If the particle can tell that it is accelerating relative to the Earth, then it can conclude that there is some force acting on it.

So motion is relative but force is not? alice knows the the jetpack is applying force to her, but the station is moving raltive to her.

Doesn't that contradict Relativity, which states the the laws of Physics should be valid for all frames of reference.  If so, then to move an object relative to something, there needs to be force applied to the object.

The particle is in the earths gravitation, and therefore the particle's mass should likewise increase.

No.  Gravity has no effect on your mass.

If Gravity is not distinguishable from accleration, then Gravity must affect your relativistic Mass, because acceleration does.

Now we step outside of the elevator car.  It acclerates to near light speed, it's mass and the mass of everything inside should increase, to the external observer.  So if inside the elevator I hang two objects, and their mass increases, then their gavitational attraction should increace pulling them together.  Yet to the person inside the elevator, there should be no difference. Do the objects pull together or not?

The "mass" that would increase to the external observer is the mass  in F=ma.  That is, it appears to the external observer that it takes a greater force to apply a given acceleration to the object.  It doesn't contribute to the gravitational field.  Only invariant mass contributes to the gravitational field.

That can not be true.  What is a photon's invariant mass? 0.  If only invariant mass contributes to gravitation, than a photon would not be diverted by gravity.  Also, it is not in accordance with what I've been reading:

Whereas the sources of the electric field, the electric charges of particles, have values independent of the state of motion of the instruments by which these charges are measured, the source of the gravitational field, the mass of a particle, varies with the speed of the particle relative to the frame of reference in which it is determined and hence will have different values in different frames of reference. This complicating factor introduces into the task of constructing a relativistic theory of the gravitational field a measure of ambiguity

Equivilence is interesting, but not really true.  We may lack the ability to measure the differences, but theoretically an object under gravity would weigh more at the floor of the elevator than at the ceiling. Sure the difference is only about (6357 * 6357 / 6357.003 * 6357.003) on the surface of a round earth, but it is still there.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 16, 2006, 10:48:22 AM »

I'll try to separate ideas to make it a little more clear (and the posts a little smaller).

I'm not sure I follow you in this most recent post, but I'll try to address it anyway.

But you seem to argue against a temporally displaced frame of reference.

Here's one of the places that I've really lost you.

Acceleration shows a change in velocity over a period of time.
Likewise the change in velocity, and the amount of force required to achieve that change can be calulated knowing the rate of acceleration, the mass of the object being accelerated and the tim eperiod of acceleration.

While the "Local" frame of reference may still have a velocity of zero.  It's velocity can also be referenced from the frame of it's position in the past.

As the past is simple displacement in the "fourth dimention" which is recognized by Relativity, and Relativity states that you can not have a velocity faster than light if you have mass, than your velocity can not increase beyond C relative to your past.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Stellar Death

« on: June 16, 2006, 09:24:34 AM »

they follow you because you are in power and sound smarter, its kind of like how those little gophers or groundhogs race off the edge of a cliff because they dont want to be left behind

Firstly, that's totally an unfair characterization.

Secondly, it's lemmings -- not gophers or groundhogs -- and you can prevent that by designating one of the lemmings as a blocker and then another as maybe a builder or digger.  Or if you have enough umbrellas you can hand them out and the lemmings can use them as parachutes.  Yeah.

Just an FYI:The Lemming suicide stuff is bogus.  It was staged by the film crew making the Disney Documentary.  Not important to the discussion, but like the toilet thing, and many other "Facts that everyone knows" untrue.

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Terminal Velocity

« on: June 15, 2006, 03:02:32 PM »

That doesn't really work, the air is being pushed up irrespective, that implies that we should feel uplift as we walk around on the ground

Why, we are being pushed up with it.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / New'er Question

« on: June 15, 2006, 09:44:21 AM »

it isn't possible to have the magnetic field in the FE model at both the North and South pole, ...even if you had a radial "magnet" such that you had a north pole at the centre and a south pole all around the outside, the nature of the magnet would make the centre much stronger magnetically than the outside, and you still wouldn't get the southern lights

Do the magnets have to be joined?

If the Northern magnetic feild was generated by a "Magnet" who's opposet pole was on the underside of the world disk, and the southern wall had  the opposet charge on the"Upper" side of the disk wouldn't the fields play out the same?

10

Flat Earth Q&A / proof?

« on: June 14, 2006, 07:20:47 PM »

Us Pagans do not believe in friendship.
Sorry.

Speak for yourself.  We pagans thrive on friendship, it's part of the Web of Life.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / The Bible!

« on: June 14, 2006, 05:43:21 PM »

welbourne was right doubter, your theory about gravity is backwords

How so?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Plate tectonics.

« on: June 14, 2006, 08:44:12 AM »

im not gona pretend to understand everything that has been said but if the water boiled or evaoparated or w/e it still wouldnt fill up the hole created by the break and even if it did that is assuming that there is a vaccum right out side the wall of ice which brings me to the question, what then is holding the wall of ice together?

The same thing that holds all solids together.

The Ice wall would have had to form slowly over a large amount of time.  
at a theoretical 10 miles thick, it can hlod back a lot of pressure.  I tried to describe above that in the begining the evaporation of the water due to low pressure, would have absorbed heat from the water near by helping it to freeze, as more water was pulled over the frozen water more water would freeze (kind of like the ice dams on a roof).  A lot of water woudl be lost, but over time the ice build up would dam the water back.  Since there's only a limited amount of heat from the sun reaching the rim, water would also freeze in the more conventional way, which would replace the ice the evaporates into space.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 14, 2006, 07:50:11 AM »

 According to the theory you're talking about, it would seem that we're forced to conclude that it's a gravitational field, since we can't see any objects in a reference frame other than our own.

That clearly violates the principle of equivalence.  There's no way we should be able to tell.

Actually the theory says that there would not be any gravity like effect, nor would there be any centripital force without another frame of reference.

That's where part of my problem lies,  Why should an external oberver make a difference to the internal observer who is not aware of it.


You would not argue that an observer traveling outside of the box (offset on the x, y, or z axis) is a valid reference point for making relative observations.  But you seem to argue against a temporally displaced frame of reference.  

An object is travelling at velocity x, where x can be almost anything but with reference to itself is zero.  After 10 seconds of acceleration a 9 meters per second per second  it as you say, is still travelling at 0 in reference to itself, but has increased in velocity to x + 900 meters per second and displaced 450 meters compared to itself ten seconds ago.

The internal observer has experienced the force, but not the displacement.
Again, I don't think you would argue that to an external observer, there is a limit to the acceleration from the external frame of reference, so what happens internally at that point?  Or during your closed box acceleration after youve accelerated for years, and you open a window and can see an external reference point?

I'm also trying to work out relative Kinetic energy.  Consider a particle accelerator.  If I accelerate a particle to 14%C, it's mass increases 1%.  For further acceleration I need to increase the energy accordingly for the new mass, and so on.

Now to the particle, it is still, but the earth is moving, but where is the force coming from to move the earth to 14%C?  Likewise when you increase the earth's mass by 1% due to it's relative velocity, and now there is the consequence of additional gravity.  The particle is in the earths gravitation, and therefore the particle's mass should likewise increase.

New we put the accelerator into Einstein's elevator.  If sitting in a gravity feild, the effect should be the same.  If accelerating, that would have to mean that the relative velocity of the elevator from the frame of the partical has accelerated, which I believe would have to be accounted for with time dialation. Time has slowed down for the particle, so the external acceleration is faster.

Now, if the particle is a radioactive with a know half life, it should be possible to determine it's time difference due to dialation between it and the elevator.  So if the time dialation was 1% and the experimant runs for 100 seconds there should be an apparent difference in age between the accelerated particle (in the particle accelerator) and a like particle that was not accelerated sitting in the elevator.  From the accelerated particle's frame the other particle experienced a time acceleration during the period it was in the accelerator, which would seem like the opposet of what would be expected. (the elevator accelerated to 14%c from the particles frame, but when motion equalizes 1 extra second passed for the elevator).

Now we step outside of the elevator car.  It acclerates to near light speed, it's mass and the mass of everything inside should increase, to the external observer.  So if inside the elevator I hang two objects, and their mass increases, then their gavitational attraction should increace pulling them together.  Yet to the person inside the elevator, there should be no difference. Do the objects pull together or not?

14

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 13, 2006, 07:43:54 PM »

In some of the reading I have done on the subject, the theory is that without another frame of reference there can not be acceleration, and there would be no gravity-like effect.

Not exactly.  The theory is that without making long-distant measurements, you can't tell the difference between gravity and acceleration.

Again I should have been more clear, when I said "The theory" I wasn't refering directly to to the theory of equivalence.

I will try to dig up the reference.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Plate tectonics.

« on: June 13, 2006, 02:46:55 PM »

That's a good question - What is the temperature difference between the ocean and the cold of space? It's assumed there's an "ice wall" around the flat Earth based on the theory that space is extremely cold. But the theory that space must be extremely cold is based off of the theory that there's an "ice wall" around the planet. A theory branching from another theory. I'm not saying space isn't cold, but how can you know for sure? Please explain without mentioning what you've learned in school or read in books.

Temperature is average heat.  Assuming that space is a vacuum, depending on the amount of radiant heat you are exposed to in space the actual molecules may have alot or a little heat. The sparceness of molecules to carry heat make the temperature of space a moot point.  In vacuum, radiant heat travels well, When it is dark, it is "cold"

In the theoretical Apollo missions, you will find that they rotated the capsule to keep the heat under control.

Liquid Water exposed to the vacuum of space would vaporize, as there is no pressure to hold it, much like the expansion chamber of a refrigerator this would remove the water's heat.
So at one point you have water, at another steam.  But between, you would have liquid water with enough air pressure to not vaporize, exposed to a region of cold steam, which could transport the heat away from the water and allow it to freeze.  The ice might even begin to sublimate, cooling the water behind it.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 13, 2006, 02:33:38 PM »

Basically, you can have a look at the literature, or you can just take my word for it.  I'm happy to try and help you improve your understanding, if you're interested.  Otherwise I don't really think we can communicate on this topic anymore.

O.K.  let's start with a couple of basic ideas.  Tell me where I've gone wrong.

What is acceleration?  A change in Velocity.
What is Velocity?  Relative movement within a reference frame.

What is the velocity of the Earth? 0
What is the velocity of the earth one year from now? 0
What is the change of velocity of the earth over this period? 0
What is the earth's acceleration during this time? 0

Since there has been no change of velocity to the subject on the earth, there has been no acceleration, and therefore no gravity like force.

In some of the reading I have done on the subject, the theory is that without another frame of reference there can not be acceleration, and there would be no gravity-like effect.  

The opposing idea, which I have tried to represent, but apparently badly, is that you would get the effect because you are increasing kinetic energy.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / What is the conspiracy?

« on: June 13, 2006, 01:14:59 PM »

This website is not a joke, nor are we a collective of "guys". We are free thinking christian individuals who endeavour to find truth.
-ujb.

Speak for yourself, I'm Pagan.

You need to be quelled.
-ujb.

They tried in Salem, and many other times and places.  We are everywhere.

Blessed Be.

But we succeeded in Europe, beyond all reasonable doubt.
-ujb.

Oh, ya...There's no more witches in Europe.  Right!

Women were killed in Europe because they were starting to dangerously outnumber men and they were becoming separatists (amazon-types), and men haters. Thank Jesus the Christians of the time culled this movement before it even got pregnant with a philosophy.
-ujb.

Dude, with that kind of idea, who could blame them.  That's just sick.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 12, 2006, 05:29:59 PM »

The only way acceleration can be relative is in regards to the object being accelerated.

I give up on trying to figure out what you mean by this.

Try this:

Acceleration: The rate at which an object's velocity changes with time.  

So any acceleration requires a change of velocity, and time.  

Picture the two us us racing down the road on motorcycles.

I hit the gas, you hit the brakes.  Inertia causes me to pullback on my bike, it cases you to push forward on your handlebars.  We are accelerating in respect to each other and ourselves.

Now same senerio, but you do not brake.  We again are accelerating in respect to each other, but I'm still hanging on to my handle bars, you are not magically pushed forward to you handlebars.  Relative to each other we have accelerated, but within your frame of reference there is no effect, because your Kinetic energy has not changed.

Whether I move in regards to you has no effect on your kinetic energy.

Yes, it does.  Energy is relative too.

[/quote]

Now you  are are really grasping at straws.  Kinetic energy in not relative, Potential energy is.

If My motion affects your Kinetic energy, then you should be able to determine my motion by your kinetic energy.  The difference between my kinetic energy and yours can determine our relative velocities,  it can be used to determine the effect of an impact between us, and various other things, but it is not relative in the same way that velocity is.

As in the motor bike example, my change of kinetic energy does not effect yours.

Look.  How do you measure acceleration?  It's change in velocity over time.  How do you measure velocity?  It's change in position/distance over time.

At some point in time, measure the distance to the ground.  Count to ten.  Measure the distance again.  Same?  Relative velocity is zero, then.  If the relative velocity is zero, the relative kinetic energy is zero.

Yes the RELATIVE kinetic energy is zero, but the Kinetic energy is not.
Do the same experiment in a car, when both objects are at the same speed, the same thing happens.  hit that wall ahead of you, and your relative kinetic energy to the wall is what matters.

I don't see how any of these things prove that no object can travel faster than light.

As v approaches c, m approaches infinity, and so does the kinetic energy.
Since there is finite energy available, you can not increase your kinetic energy infinitely.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 12, 2006, 03:48:35 PM »

That's incoherent.  Your "velocity in the past" isn't defined, nor is your present velocity, except insofar as they are defined in your reference frame.  In your reference frame, velocity is always zero (in the past as well as the present), so acceleration is always zero, according to your definition.

No, just because you write it, does not make it so.  The only way acceleration can be relative is in regards to the object being accelerated.  Whether I move in regards to you has no effect on your kinetic energy.  Your acceleration increases your Kinetic Energy in relation to what it was at a point in the past.  Velocity, Kinetic Energy, and acceleration have no meaning without time.  Since time must enter into the equation there is not reason not to use time as a reference.  Since over time in  accecleration your Kinetic Energy increases, the difference in current and past kinetic energy can describe your acceleration.  Your change in Kinetic energy can also be described by the accumulation of Psuedo Gravity, times the mass of the object.

As I have said several times now, you can't have it both ways, you can not say the you are accelerating to produce your gravitational effect, but not changing your velocity because there is no reference point.  Again, your referece for acceleration is the same as mine for Kinetic energy.

The Speed of Light…It’s not just a good idea, IT’S THE LAW!

Funny.  The law is more cryptic than you think.  Can you prove (mathematically, please) that no objects can travel faster than light?[/quote]

I don't have to, Einstien did with his Velocity-addition formula:  V = (Vsub1 + Vsub2) /  (1 + (vsub1 * Vsub2)/c**)

Or you can use the calculation for Kinetic Energy:
K = m * c * c * ((1 / (sqrt(1-(v/c)*(v/c)) - 1)

As v approaches c, m approaches infinity, and so does the kinetic energy.

Consider Thermodynamics, since no system is perfect, there would need to be "Waste energy" from this "Dark Matter" propulsion.  As the energy requirements increase to continue the acceleration, the amount of energy "wasted" would also increase, consuming the world.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / A Question Concerning Coasts

« on: June 12, 2006, 01:05:52 PM »

This is what happens in a mirage, and the definition of wave behavior as being refraction instead of reflection is, in my mind, semantic.

It is quite clear that the mirage in this photograph is creating a reflected image of the car above. Whether the light bends (refraction) or bounces (reflection) when it hits that medium interface is, frankly, immaterial.

LOL FAKE!

It is also inverted.  Last Time I watch a boat float out of sight, it did not appear upside down.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / The Bible!

« on: June 12, 2006, 01:03:25 PM »

Then is it not safe to say that flat Earth does in fact have a gravitational field? If the acceleration of the Earth brings the same properties to the planet, could you not call that gravity? And if you called that gravity, would you not be right?

No, the effects of gravity are reduces by distance, the effects of Acceleration apply only to those things directly or indirectly having the force applied to them.

Under the FE Senerio, and object on the back side of the moon would have the same psuedo gravity as on on the surface of the earth, and so would every spot in between.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 12, 2006, 12:57:45 PM »

Note that GR predicts a red shift when light travels from a region of high gravitational potential to a region of low potential.

Yes, which helps show that it is Gravity, not Acceleration that we are affected by.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 12, 2006, 12:54:12 PM »

if it only relative acceleration that are interesting to us, than what is the earth accelerating relative to?

Just because acceleration is relative doesn't mean we can't tell that we're accelerating.  All it means is that if somebody else, in a different reference frame, measures our acceleration, he will not get the same result we get when we measure it.

When I said that it's only relative acceleration that's interesting, I was referring only to the frequency shifting phenomenon that you're alleging exists.

O.K. let me see if I can explain another way:

Part of the confusion is because physicists use MASS in two different ways, and Einstein was particularly guilty of switching his usage depending on his audience.

There is M0  and there is MR .

MR is Relativistic Mass, or Kinetic Mass
M0 is Resting Mass.

When Einstein writes an equation such E=MC2 he is referring to Resting Mass, not Kinetic Mass.  
The Rest Mass of a Photon is 0, the Kinetic Mass of a Photon is 1.  

Photons must always have a speed of light, or else MR would be other than 1.

How does this apply?

Two ways, first Kinetic Mass can never exceed M0C , second even if you do not accept the idea of a M0 that is non-relativistic, you can not increase MR by more than MRC.

Now you suggest that you can continue to accelerate indefinitely because you are outside of any other frame of reference to which you can be compared to the speed of light.  Acceleration in a change in Kinetic energy, and the pseudo gravity experienced is due to the inertia resisting the acceleration.  As you must continue to increase the Kinetic Energy to continue to accelerate you will, as has been noted several places elsewhere, in about 1 year exceed the maximum Kinetic Energy increase.

Or to word it in another way:

Acceleration is relative, but only in reference to your velocity in the past. Therefore the “Light Speed” limit can be applied to the difference between your past velocity and your current.

The Speed of Light…It’s not just a good idea, IT’S THE LAW!

24

Flat Earth Q&A / PROOF!

« on: June 12, 2006, 08:57:29 AM »

look if your going to argue corealis then the toilet/basin is a poor example, because water can be manipulated to go either way. done it, been there, couldn't afford the T-Shirt


The way that correalis was thought up, and the way you can prove it is with a free hanging pendulum.

what you do, is get a pendulum (string, lead weight) and let it swing(ideally an airless enviroment, but more likely just one that has no wind). Lift it up and release it and it will make a merry pattern (one that is extremely difficult to replicate i might add). If you design it such that the lead weight slightly touches a sand pit you can leave it over time (or if you are rich you can just use a camcorder) and you can trace its pattern.

If you do the Pattern N. of the Equater and south then they are broadly opposite from each other (however due to slight changing varaibles they will not be exactly opposite)


May i add that this is a well known event, and has been rather important in time keeping before digital and atomic clocks came about.

Given the theoretical shape of the flat earth, with a central point as the north, if it rotated once a day, there would be no reason for any of this not to work.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / New'er Question

« on: June 12, 2006, 08:52:30 AM »

this made no sense

Classical Norse Mythology.

Bifrost bridge, also known as the "Rainbow Bridge"  Connected Asgard (The Norse home od the Gods) to Midgard (THe earth of Mankind).  That was their explaination of the Aurora Borealis.

<in other words...It was just an attempt at a joke, obvious targeted at the wrong audience.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / A problem with your "gravity"

« on: June 12, 2006, 08:47:37 AM »

I am aware of relativistic blueshifting.  Maybe you missed the beginning of the discussion, but Doubter is claiming that blue shifting can occur even when the objects in question are immobile with respect to one another.  That is, the receiver is not moving any closer to or farther from the source.

I guess I did miss it.  When there is no relative movement between the source and reciever, there should be no shifting.

The light is emmited at a specific point and time.  The source is accelerating away, but the light itself is radiating from the point where it was emmited.

The photon once emmitted is no longer subject to the force accelerating the earth and stars, any more than the ball tossed into the air(actually less, the ball is subject to air resistance).

27

Flat Earth Q&A / What is the conspiracy?

« on: June 12, 2006, 08:41:06 AM »

This website is not a joke, nor are we a collective of "guys". We are free thinking christian individuals who endeavour to find truth.
-ujb.

Speak for yourself, I'm Pagan.

You need to be quelled.
-ujb.

They tried in Salem, and many other times and places.  We are everywhere.

Blessed Be.

But we succeeded in Europe, beyond all reasonable doubt.
-ujb.

Oh, ya...There's no more witches in Europe.  Right!

28

Flat Earth Q&A / A Question Concerning Coasts

« on: June 12, 2006, 08:23:27 AM »

When did I say the river had to be 60 miles long?  It was stated that a hill could not be in the line of sight.  Well there can be (just not a very big one).

But the original point was why the Rocky Mountains appear to follow the same "Top First" appearance as a ship approaching from the horizon.  You posilated the an interposing hill could cause the illusion.  I respondes with the existing conditions of why that was an unacceptable explaination.

In order for your suggestion to work, the hill would have to be either far enough from the mountains, or high enough to cause just the peaks to appaer at a great distance.  Either the hill would be closer to the mountains and very noticeable, or further away, and now allow the rivers and streams to flow Eastward from the mountains.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / A Question Concerning Coasts

« on: June 11, 2006, 06:20:11 AM »

Not quite, if the kintic energy at the bottom of the hill was greater than the potential energy of the banks, it would also overflow the banks.

The conservation of momentum would prevent this.  If the water has momentum going forward, it would not suddenly shift its momentum to the left or right to go over the banks.

Except that the momentum has to over come bothe "gravity" and friction for at least 60 miles, and rivers do not travel a straight path, so with the velocity needed, it would overflow the bank of the first curve it reaches.

And since the bed of a river is not smooth, the water is not all traveling with exactly the same vector, so again it just doesn't work.

Too bad though, it would be the wildest white water river ever seen.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / The Bible!

« on: June 10, 2006, 12:43:08 PM »

thats is because the center point of the molten globe is being held in pace, if it were allowed to float freely in space, it would not be spinning only in one direction, it would be rotating as wellmaking all sides sping equally creating a sphere

Bah, only if the various rotations were equal.