61

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

« on: June 08, 2006, 03:31:24 PM »

I'm partially, but not entirely, convinced by your argument.  The bit I'm most unhappy about is

With light, the apparent speed can not be anything other than light speed, so instead of a faster impact, the result is blue shifting.

I don't see the immediate, mathematical validity of "instead of a faster impact, the result is blue shifting".  Why?

Shift to a wave model of light.

The light can only come at us at the speed of light.  If we were at a steady speed the waves would hit us in a regular frequency.  As we accelerate towards the source the waves hit us more frequently, thus the blue shift.  This is one of the core points of Relativity, is it not?

62

Flat Earth Q&A / other planets

« on: June 08, 2006, 03:25:15 PM »

I didn't say it's lit only by the sun.  However, in my triangle model (which I hope you agree is a correct description of things) even when the moon is close to the sun (in the sky) it can still be visibly lit by the sun.

It's tough keeping up with the variations of models from FE to RE.  In the RE model the triangle can not work when the angle from the sun to the earth to the moon is small, since the moon is close to the earth compared to the sun.. If the Sun and moon were nearly the same distance an dnot prefectly flat, then I can build model where the sun light still shines on the face of the moon even at a small angle.

63

Flat Earth Q&A / Lots of questions (I read the FAQ)

« on: June 08, 2006, 03:14:16 PM »

We can explain what causes gravity.

Cool, because I've heard a lot about the effects, and theories, and possible connection string theory, but so far I've read or head of anyone explaining what causes it.  Since it seems to be a force, and does not seem to deplete the energy or mass of the objects involved, I would appriciate you starting with the source of the energy of gravity, and build from there.

Oh, and can you do the same with magnitism...that one seems to be a little odd to me too.

64

Flat Earth Q&A / other planets

« on: June 08, 2006, 12:51:31 PM »

i'd be able to notice moonshine on the earth

I could use some moonshine right now  

65

Flat Earth Q&A / A Question Concerning Coasts

« on: June 08, 2006, 12:47:22 PM »

If you're on land you're going to have a tough time proving it's not just a hill. This is why the ocean has been adopted as the official backdrop for the conversation.

You never answer why the effect occurs with the Rocky Mountains.  I can prove there's no hill, because water flows from the mountains down to the plains.  If you are down stream, there can't be an interposing hill.

66

Flat Earth Q&A / What is the conspiracy?

« on: June 08, 2006, 12:43:48 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.

67

Flat Earth Q&A / What is the conspiracy?

« on: June 08, 2006, 12:42:35 PM »

it is kind of because the main flat earth argument is 'the earth is flat because it looks flat'.  good work!

I think the argument "It's flat because it looks flat" still easily wins over the argument "It's round because it is round". The former is at least based on observation, while the latter is purely a circular argument.

Hey, was that supposed to be a pun!  I guess any round earth logic must be a circular argument.

68

Flat Earth Q&A / Travelling South.

« on: June 08, 2006, 12:32:55 PM »

Heres the kicker, I live in SOUTH AUSTRALIA - on the southern hemisphere. Yay for me!

Actually if you do live in the souther half of the world, the FE is much easier to disprove.  

One degree of latitude south of the equator should be larger than on the equator, on a round earth it would be shorter.  You will have to determine how to ensure you have measured on degree, without relying on a GPS, Map, star chart, or posted information (I suggest triangulation off of a fixed point).  But it could be done.  If you can travel more than 112KM due east or west and not have exceded 1 degree than the world is flat.  If you can go more than 1 degree and not have traveled 111 KM then the world is a sphere.

69

Flat Earth Q&A / Call me a heretic....

« on: June 08, 2006, 12:13:32 PM »

I never said anything about it being easy, I said not possible.  It is the nature of the material.  Just because the metal feels smooth to your fingers, doesn't mean the actual microscopic surface is smooth.

Does not need to be, you just need a large sample of very large "Tubs" made as well as possible, and to repeat the experiment many times.  Not all will have the same result, but there should be a net trend.

The larger the surface of the tub, and the higher the ratio between the circumferance of the tub and the diameter of the drain, the greater influence the corialis effect will have.

70

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

« on: June 08, 2006, 12:09:09 PM »

That the stars are accelerating with us does not affect the doppler effect.  If we were travelling at a steady rate it would.

I'm pretty sure this can't be right.

But how can it be wrong?

Slow down the model.  1000 meters above you, you have a gun that fires 1 bullet a minute, at 1000 meters an hour.    Without acceleration/Gravity the bullet would hit after 1 hour in 1 minute intervals at 1000 meters per hour.

With acceleration of 12960 KM /Hr the bullets would average 6480 kph, taking about 10 minutes to hit.  In the gravity model, the acceleration is not steady, but follows the inverse square law, so the bullets take closer to the full hour.

With light, the apparent speed can not be anything other than light speed, so instead of a faster impact, the result is blue shifting.

Consider the horizontal view:
The light appears in an arc, due to acceleration.  Since the light must travel at the speed of light to itself, and to the observer on the ground, and travels in a straight line in repsect to it'sself and an arc to the observer, than it must red shift the closer to the horizon it comes.  Thus a star would go from blue shift when perpendicular to the horizon, red shift as it approaches, and quickly disappear as the arc takes it below the horizon.  Since Gravity would affect it equally regardless, no change occurs, other than the expected affect of the atmospheric interference as it approaches the hoizon.


Equivalence is for small systems, as soon as variations of gravity due to distance come into affect, equivalence no longer applies.

71

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Call me a heretic....

« on: June 08, 2006, 10:47:25 AM »

You could never remove those factors.... These interactions would create eddies in the water that would destoroy any angular motion the coriolis force may have imparted on the water.

Never said it would be easy, but I'm not theEngineer.

72

Flat Earth Q&A / Travelling South.

« on: June 08, 2006, 10:17:45 AM »

Once again, really long peice of string.

That would take the biggest ball of twine in Minnesota!

73

Flat Earth Q&A / Simple question

« on: June 08, 2006, 10:14:00 AM »

Escape velocity from an accelerating body is an ever increasing variable,

Um, that doesn't seem very likely to me.  Note that the escape velocity of an inertial body is zero.

Furthermore, note that gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration.  So if a gravitational field doesn't have an ever increasing escape velocity, then neither does an accelerated reference frame.

An accelerating model does not have escape velocity,  a gravitational model does.  Equivalence only works in small systems by definition.

Under an acceleration model the object would need to continue to accelerate to "Out Pace" the earth.  But, oh how to prove that you can do it?  Got any spare Titan Rockets laying around?

74

Flat Earth Q&A / Simple question

« on: June 08, 2006, 10:09:06 AM »

Escape velocity from the Earth is 11.2KM/Second, is a constant and is measurable, check it out. Escape velocity from an accelerating body is an ever increasing variable, therefore the physics of launching a craft from one as opposed to the other are in NO ways similar.
Is that a bit too difficult to understand for you?

Escape velocity assumes gravity.   Under an accelerating system it has no meaning.  So all you have to do to prove that there is gravity is prove that you have launced something which will not fall back to earth.

And no, stating that NASA or a similar agency has done it is not proof.

But you never mentioned trying to reach escape velocity, only going high enough to take the pictures.

75

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Travelling South.

« on: June 08, 2006, 08:14:48 AM »

I believe I understand your idea of a FE.

Basically the edge of the world is the South Pole.
Or for whatever reason you call it... an "Ice Wall".

Anyhow, my scenario is as follows.

I stand on any point on the Earth, and hold one end of a really light string, 1km long, and my friend holds the other end. We make sure that the string is taut.

We both hold compasses which point due North. Now both of us attempt to travel 10 kilometres in the opposite direction.

According to your FE model, this is impossible, as we will infact travel away from each other.

If someone is able to do something like this, would this disprove your theory of a FE?

Um...Same thing would happen on a round earth,  there is a difference in the amount of distance you would travel apart, but only a small one.

If you could prove the distance to the equator from the north pole, and the exact distance covered by the equator you could prove the round earth vs Flat earth, but how to prove your measurements?

(On a Round earth, the equator is about 40,000 KM (by definition the distance from the Pole to the equator is 10000 KM(+/-), in a flat Earth, it would be over 60,000)  (2 * 3.14 * 10,000)

76

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Lots of questions (I read the FAQ)

« on: June 08, 2006, 08:02:27 AM »

no because if it was accelerating upwards then you wouldnt get terminal velocity. you lose star trek geek!

Do you even know what Terminal Velocity is?  What does it have to do with anything mentioned here?

77

Flat Earth Q&A / Simple question

« on: June 08, 2006, 07:54:35 AM »

But as we have established we cannot view it from above because it is traveling upwards so fast that we would be smashed to death. Sorry, your logic remains flawed.

Only round earther's maintain such a ridiculous statement.  The physics of launching a craft from a flat accelerating earth are similar to one pulling things to it with gravity, as long as you are not dealing with relativistic speeds.  You can find several threads where that angle is or has been debated, but the natives will get restless if you just bring up the same old arguments without adding anything new.

I believe the current theory about viewing it from above is that, all methods of getting pictures from above the atmosphere are suspect because they are taken by groups controlled by or influenced by the government (for example NASA)

78

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How would natural forces create a flat suspended object

« on: June 08, 2006, 07:14:14 AM »

One thing everybody can agree on is the earth is suspended in a medium called "space." One simple question for the FE's is why, if the earth is a result of natural formation why it would result in anything other than a spherical shape? Are there immense forces that squeezed all the matter into a flat object during it's formation? Was the "dark energy" that propels earth upwards now the same energy that caused earth to be flat? if so, why would it not flatten all the objects on earth right now due to it's obvious immense amount of force acting on the planet?

This is a very basic question I have not seen brought up and have not seen an explanation for and I have seen evidence firsthand that would support a round earth theory due to natural occurence. For instance, take a lava lamp, a device that is constantly taking matter and forming shapes that are suspended in water. What shape is the lava after it breaks off from the bottom? Sphere, just like earth. I for one have never, ever seen a flat circle or rectangle shape float to the top of my lamp.

Ever watch someone make a pizza crust?  A little spin is all it takes.

79

Flat Earth Q&A / Lots of questions (I read the FAQ)

« on: June 08, 2006, 07:11:52 AM »

no one is actually stupid enough to believe in a flat earth. these people are really just star trek geeks having fun.

You say that like it's a bad thing.  And I'm more of a StarGate Geek than a Star Trek Geek these days.

80

Flat Earth Q&A / What is the conspiracy?

« on: June 08, 2006, 06:55:06 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.

81

Flat Earth Q&A / other planets

« on: June 07, 2006, 02:54:27 PM »

I know that.  My point is that the daytime sky is usually too bring to see the dark side of the moon through.

The scenario is: is Earthshine on the moon visible during the day?  I claim: no.  You say: well then it would be invisible during an eclipse.  Maybe, maybe not: if the eclipse is not total, then the blue sky might still be bright enough to obscure the Earthshine.  If the eclipse is total, then there probably won't be enough Earthshine to light the moon.
-Erasmus

If the moon is only lit by the Sun, using your triangle model, then the moon should be at best a dark spot, or not visable in the day time when it is close to the sun.

Having looked at the partial eclipses that occur every year or so, the moon is visablebefore and after the eclipse.  Even items like planets and stars which are vlotted out by the sun, are visable using telescopes or from the bottom of a deep hole that cuts out the sun light.

82

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

« on: June 07, 2006, 02:47:16 PM »

If all the stars are accelerating with us, then none of the stars are moving relative to us.  Blue shift is only a function of relative movement, so none of the stars would be blue shifted.

This sounds a little confused.... the speed of light is not dependent on the emitter's speed.  Doppler shift is only a function of relative movement.  No relative movement = no shift.
-Erasmus

You've cut out related points, but even within this context,

That the stars are accelerating with us does not affect the doppler effect.  If we were travelling at a steady rate it would.  Once something is "Released" whether it is a ball thrown in the air, or a light wave from a star, it is no longer accelerating so the ball falls, or the light wave, which must travel at the speed of light with respect us, to blue shift.  We are closer to the point that the light was released with each wave, therefore the wave frequency appears to increase causing the doppler blue shift.

If the light particles continue to accelerate after being released, some force must be acting on them, but that does not explain the apparent arc the light takes when being "pulled" into our gravity.  Or the apparent curve the photon takes as it travels a straight line but we acccelerate past it.

83

Flat Earth Q&A / other planets

« on: June 07, 2006, 01:19:42 PM »

how do we see the moon as other than a black disk before and after an eclipse?

Black as in unlit?

Sort of, The moon appears as a silver disk in the sky even when it is daylight and it is crossing in from of the sun.  It is only in the most extreem eclipses that it is truly an unlit disk blocking the sun.

Likewise, on a full moon night, the dark side of the earth can be fairly well lit by moon light.

84

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Call me a heretic....

« on: June 07, 2006, 01:09:33 PM »

I'll refer you to the Urban Legends Reference Page on this issue. I'll quote the key sentence: "The configuration of taps and drains is responsible for the direction of spin given to water draining from sinks and bathtubs" and that is true whether or not you believe in a flat Earth.

True and not true.  Yes for the toilet and most drains, design is the major factor of the direction of spin, however, you can remove those factors and use careful observation to see the effect.

What Snopes leaves out is the conservation of angular momentum.  Like a Skater pulling in her arms in a spin to speed up, as the water with the very slight effect of spin from the coriolis effect is magnified as the water is drawn from the rim of the tub to the center.

85

Flat Earth Q&A / Call me a heretic....

« on: June 07, 2006, 12:54:30 PM »

I don't think the FE "spins", and so no centripetal is involved.

Then what causes the Coriolis affect?

What makes a large pendulum appear to rotate it's swing in precise synchronation with the time?

86

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

« on: June 07, 2006, 12:44:13 PM »

You would see that the FE's acceleration and the RE's gravity theories both describe physical events that we witness on earth.  THEY ARE EQUIVALENT!

I think I finally found the proof that we can not be accelerating in the manner described.

One prediction that Einstein deduced his theory is that starlight will have an angular deflection of 1.75 seconds of arc.

Such an effect was observed in 1919. Astronomers waited until for a good solar eclipse, in order to get a better view of starlight grazing the Sun. The stars appeared shifted from their true positions, which had been obstructed (following a straight-line path) by the Sun.

How does this apply?

One way is Gravitational lensing. The light from stars is bent by the Sun, when observe near the solar disc during an eclipse.

In addition, if we were accelerating and the stars with us,  then stars above us should be blue shifted, and stars to the sides not.  Since light to our frame of reference must stay at C, then as we accelerate twords light the has been emmitted,  it should doppler shift.  Since light emmitted lateraly to us is not doppler shifted, it should just seem bent as we accelerate past it.

But under the idea of gravity, all light coming towards us should be redshifted, which astronomy tells us it is.

87

Flat Earth Q&A / I've ridden in the Concorde (FES related)

« on: June 07, 2006, 10:32:10 AM »

wouldnt u go off the side of the FE if u traveled in one direction for long enough?

Wouldn't you fly off the face of the earth much quicker is you flew in a straight line on a spherical earth?

Place a ruler over a plate, and a ruler next to a ball, which leaves the suface quicker?

88

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Call me a heretic....

« on: June 07, 2006, 10:13:56 AM »

Q~ Airline routes. Why is it faster to travel against the assumed rotation of a supposed round Earth than it is to traverse the apparently spirit-level-friendly third rock from the sun chasing said rotation?

Are you suggesting that an aircraft travelling east to west travels faster than on travelling west to east becasue the earth is moving underneath it?

I quess then a balloon that goes into the air can travle around the world in 24 hours by staying in place.

In the areas north of the equator the jet stream tends to blow from west to east, it is faster to fly with the stream, west to east, than against it, east to west.

But under both FE and RE, there would not be any differences in the Norther Hemisphere, but in the southern there might be a bit of a stickler involving centripital force, since the radius is double that of the equator, the speed that something travels at the ice wall is considerably faster than at the equator.

hummm...I tried to work out the difference, but instead came up with some interesting questions for a FE'er.

89

Flat Earth Q&A / other planets

« on: June 07, 2006, 07:21:19 AM »

"Earthshine" is not visible (to the naked eye) during the daytime on the Earth; it isn't bright enough.

You must be mistaken, or else how do we see the moon as other than a black disk before and after an eclipse?

90

Flat Earth Q&A / other planets

« on: June 06, 2006, 08:46:31 PM »

i guess what i meant to ask is "if the sun is a "spotlight", how can we see the other planets, do they emit their own light"....

Under the round earth senerio, how do we see the moon at daytime, shouldn't the dark side be towards us?

The sunlight shines on the earth, and reflects upwards to the moon.  The moon phases may be caused when t is only being hit by part of the reflected light.  Planets are much smaller, so we don't notice this effect (but can sometimes with a good telescope).