The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: The Communist on October 12, 2007, 06:23:34 PM
-
Why did you disappear for many moons?
-
Hey LOgic, what was your Round Earth website address?
Nice to have you back
-Geordi la Forge
-
Thanks, nice to be back. :D
The evidence me and others collected are deposited here:
http://roundearth.informe.com/index.php
I left after a brief troll infestation pissed me off. I usually keep browsers open and continually minimize them and reopen them to check forums. After I closed it, I forgot about it and never got around to checking it again. ...Until now.
-
Who are you now?
~D-Draw
-
Actually Diego, we have met. ::)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11997.msg169378#msg169378
-
Welcome back. You're just in time to leave again.
-
I'm sorry, but your failure to leave a standing imprint on my memory is no fault of mine.
Anyways, let's put the past behind us, have a fling in Las Vegas and spontaneously get married, doll face.
~D-Draw
-
Your Round Earth Society forum looks like a good one. I like the layout and the many points and arguments made for a round Earth. I'd have to guess that there aren't many flat earthers going over there to debate it.
-
Thanks, nice to be back. :D
The evidence me and others collected are deposited here:
http://roundearth.informe.com/index.php
Sure, that sounds plausible. First of all, everything radiation patterns from the big bang to carbon dating of rocks in the planet says that the Earth is pretty darn old. If acceleration caused gravity, we would have passed the speed of light a long time ago. Yeah. Exponents can do that.
FLAW IN DEFENSE: SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS AND SUPERPOSITION
One more thing, the deeper people dig, the more compact the rock. If someone goes to say that it is not caused by the compression due to Round Earth gravity but to an external force pushing the disk-shaped Earth up, I would note that this would contradict the explanation of aerial crafts like hang gliders and airplanes.
Classic.
Hahaha! Owned!
Yes, owned indeed.
-
Don't sweat it Diego, I only remember you for your willful incompetence.
-
TheEngineer, you're so harsh.
-
I was hoping Logic would defend his site, but I guess not...
-
You hope for too much.
-
I was hoping Logic would defend his site, but I guess not...
Defend my site? From what offense do need play defense? ???
I assume mocking me without the slightest bit of factual information isn't an actual attack lol?
-
Sure, that sounds plausible. First of all, everything radiation patterns from the big bang to carbon dating of rocks in the planet says that the Earth is pretty darn old. If acceleration caused gravity, we would have passed the speed of light a long time ago. Yeah. Exponents can do that.
FLAW IN DEFENSE: SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS AND SUPERPOSITION
One more thing, the deeper people dig, the more compact the rock. If someone goes to say that it is not caused by the compression due to Round Earth gravity but to an external force pushing the disk-shaped Earth up, I would note that this would contradict the explanation of aerial crafts like hang gliders and airplanes.
What about your facts? Did you just make all this stuff up?
-
Sure, that sounds plausible. First of all, everything radiation patterns from the big bang to carbon dating of rocks in the planet says that the Earth is pretty darn old. If acceleration caused gravity, we would have passed the speed of light a long time ago. Yeah. Exponents can do that.
FLAW IN DEFENSE: SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS AND SUPERPOSITION
One more thing, the deeper people dig, the more compact the rock. If someone goes to say that it is not caused by the compression due to Round Earth gravity but to an external force pushing the disk-shaped Earth up, I would note that this would contradict the explanation of aerial crafts like hang gliders and airplanes.
What about your facts? Did you just make all this stuff up?
I agree, there is some weak theory there.
-
thirded
-
Sure, that sounds plausible. First of all, everything radiation patterns from the big bang to carbon dating of rocks in the planet says that the Earth is pretty darn old. If acceleration caused gravity, we would have passed the speed of light a long time ago. Yeah. Exponents can do that.
FLAW IN DEFENSE: SEDIMENTARY DEPOSITS AND SUPERPOSITION
One more thing, the deeper people dig, the more compact the rock. If someone goes to say that it is not caused by the compression due to Round Earth gravity but to an external force pushing the disk-shaped Earth up, I would note that this would contradict the explanation of aerial crafts like hang gliders and airplanes.
What about your facts? Did you just make all this stuff up?
-
Bump. We are waiting with baited breath, L0gic.
-
...What part of that do you need factual citations on? Note the date that was posted and consider I don't check this section often (general discussion).
-
If acceleration caused gravity, we would have passed the speed of light a long time ago. Yeah. Exponents can do that.
That part.
If someone goes to say that it is not caused by the compression due to Round Earth gravity but to an external force pushing the disk-shaped Earth up, I would note that this would contradict the explanation of aerial crafts like hang gliders and airplanes.
And that part. You know, the parts I quoted.
I just noticed this one on your site too:
The Round Earth theory doesn't leave gaping holes in the sources of such massive amounts of energy.
Dark Energy.
-
Bump. Still waiting.
-
Dark energy has no relation to the shape of the earth D: D: D: D:
-
If acceleration caused gravity, we would have passed the speed of light a long time ago. Yeah. Exponents can do that.
That part.
I have debated that heavily in other threads. What are you looking for then? The derivative relationship of acceleration and velocity? You horribly abuse reference frames to meet your own purposes. Another moderator admits it:
According to the Flat Earthers, Earth is a short, wide cylinder, several thousand miles across but only a few miles thick, and gravity is caused by some force accelerating the whole planet at a constant rate of 9.8m/s/s, meaning Earth would have accelerated past lightspeed one year after acceleration began. Since the Earth has had gravity much longer than one year, this claim is demonstrably false, but that doesn't bother them.
If someone goes to say that it is not caused by the compression due to Round Earth gravity but to an external force pushing the disk-shaped Earth up, I would note that this would contradict the explanation of aerial crafts like hang gliders and airplanes.
And that part. You know, the parts I quoted.
Its hard to believe you do0n't see the problems on your own. Consider a hang glider in RE. He glides on the air resisting gravity by immediate wind power from his own speed creating upward thrust. On the FE model, the Earth is accelerating up to him with him remaining at the same height from a marco-perspective. The problem with this is FE depends on the Earth pushing the air pushing the hang glider in order to maintain distance from the ground. Resiting a still object doesn't require accelerating yourself up at 9.8 to maintain the effect of constant altitude. An immovable object (for hypothetical and demonstrative purposes) would appear to fall at 9.8m/secē. On FE, the earth is accelerating up so the thrust of wind power would not equal the maintaining relative altitude on RE where someone appears suspend by calm gliding.
FE would require the air to push up on the hang glider with near equal force as the Earth while he is in the sky. Your original thought of accelerating the Earth was clever, but you simplified it in your minds to have the same effect in RE and FE leaving you vulnerable to attack. rar.
I just noticed this one on your site too:
The Round Earth theory doesn't leave gaping holes in the sources of such massive amounts of energy.
Dark Energy.
Ah, dark energy: the hypothetical power source for an expanding universe. That's relevant specifically to RE.
-
btw, I would like your thoughts here and here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17436.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17759.0
NOTE: To save you reading, it appears the 4th page isn't filled with anything useful... so far.
-
I have debated that heavily in other threads. What are you looking for then? The derivative relationship of acceleration and velocity?
Yes. I want to see your reasoning, as you are making no sense.
You horribly abuse reference frames to meet your own purposes. Another moderator admits it:
According to the Flat Earthers, Earth is a short, wide cylinder, several thousand miles across but only a few miles thick, and gravity is caused by some force accelerating the whole planet at a constant rate of 9.8m/s/s, meaning Earth would have accelerated past lightspeed one year after acceleration began. Since the Earth has had gravity much longer than one year, this claim is demonstrably false, but that doesn't bother them.
If you notice the date of that post, it was a mere 3 days after he joined. Within the same thread, he sees the error in his thinking:
Ok, according to the guys at physicsforums.com, Erasmus' explanation is correct
Consider a hang glider in RE. He glides on the air resisting gravity by immediate wind power from his own speed creating upward thrust. On the FE model, the Earth is accelerating up to him with him remaining at the same height from a marco-perspective. The problem with this is FE depends on the Earth pushing the air pushing the hang glider in order to maintain distance from the ground. Resiting a still object doesn't require accelerating yourself up at 9.8 to maintain the effect of constant altitude. An immovable object (for hypothetical and demonstrative purposes) would appear to fall at 9.8m/secē. On FE, the earth is accelerating up so the thrust of wind power would not equal the maintaining relative altitude on RE where someone appears suspend by calm gliding.
The earth is accelerating up to him at 9.8m/s^2, so in order for him to maintain his altitude, he must produce an upwards acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 via lift. I fail to see the complication. Perhaps you should brush up on the Equivalence Principle.
The Round Earth theory doesn't leave gaping holes in the sources of such massive amounts of energy.
Ah, dark energy: the hypothetical power source for an expanding universe. That's relevant specifically to RE.
Right. So what about the massive amount of energy?
-
Bump to get an answer.
-
-wonders if L0gic will admit his faults-
-
We should probably relocate this to debate rather than keep it in general discussion.. :D
What are you looking for then? The derivative relationship of acceleration and velocity?
Yes.
Ok then. This seems rather elementary... but anyways:
Velocity is the distance an object travels divided by the time it takes it to do so. (with direction)
Acceleration is the derivative of velocity meaning the change in velocity over time, or distance over time squared. If you have taken a Calculus class, (I'm pretty sure you have) acceleration is the slope of the graph of velocity and time, where velocity is a function of time.
All thats left is plugging in the lowest estimation of the age of the universe and assuming that the Earth's original velocity was nearly the speed of light straight down. (To allow for the greatest time duration of constant acceleration before reaching the speed of light in the opposite direction)
The earth is accelerating up to him at 9.8m/s^2, so in order for him to maintain his altitude, he must produce an upwards acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 via lift. I fail to see the complication. Perhaps you should brush up on the Equivalence Principle.
The equivalence principle applies to standing on the ground and feeling the same effect the if a force is applied. A person in free fall doesn't feel any force but that doesn't necessarily mean one isn't acting on him. (we only detect force by different portions of our bodies accelerating differently than others. For instance, eyes become the primary sensors of movement for astronauts (if you believe in astronauts lol). More to the point, I believe problems arise when you say that the Earth is accelerating at 9.8 m/sē and also claim that that acceleration causes warping of space that attracts objects. Might I ask, how is an object that's in the air not relatively accelerating towards the Earth the full 9.8 m/sē plus additional attraction from the gravitation (from acceleration) of the Earth? Both influences would compound the effect and the object would appear to be more attracted would it not?
Ah, dark energy: the hypothetical power source for an expanding universe. That's relevant specifically to RE.
Right. So what about the massive amount of energy?
I wasn't serious when I said it was relevant or that it was specific to the shape of the Earth. RE theory doesn't depend on dark energy like FE depends on the UA. [sarcasm]Next time I'll use sarcasm tags.[/sarcasm]
-wonders if L0gic will admit his faults-
I have no problem admitting my mistakes, because I know I'm not infallible nor omniscient. Should I come to a conclusion that your theory does have explanations for my thoughts then I will admit it. Besides, carrying an idea further and BS'ing it to death would only prove Narberry and I have something in substantial common. Quite frankly, I rather die. :'(
I would like your thoughts here and here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17436.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17759.0
-
We should probably relocate this to debate rather than keep it in general discussion.. :D
What are you looking for then? The derivative relationship of acceleration and velocity?
Yes.
Ok then. This seems rather elementary... but anyways:
Velocity is the distance an object travels divided by the time it takes it to do so. (with direction)
Acceleration is the derivative of velocity meaning the change in velocity over time, or distance over time squared. If you have taken a Calculus class, (I'm pretty sure you have) acceleration is the slope of the graph of velocity and time, where velocity is a function of time.
Right. And there is your problem. A = dv/dt is a low speed approximation. The FE is not low speed. You need to take relativistic effects into account. Doing so, means an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light. Point to FE.
The equivalence principle applies to standing on the ground and feeling the same effect the if a force is applied.
The Equivalence Principle applies locally, everywhere. It doesn't matter if you are standing on the ground or hanging from a tree swing. There is no local experiment, observation or thought example, that is explained by 'gravity' that can not be explained by acceleration. Thanks be to the Equivalence Principle.
The 9.8m/s^2 acceleration is due to the acceleration of the FE, as the FET holds that the earth does not create a gravitational field.
I wasn't serious when I said it was relevant or that it was specific to the shape of the Earth. RE theory doesn't depend on dark energy like FE depends on the UA.
So? You stated the RE does not have a massive energy source. Dark Energy is one such source. You get to have one, but the FET can't?
-
Moved so that I might actually get an answer today...
-
Right. And there is your problem. A = dv/dt is a low speed approximation. The FE is not low speed. You need to take relativistic effects into account. Doing so, means an object can accelerate at a constant rate forever, and never reach the speed of light. Point to FE.
Ah, you're referring to Lorenz transformations again. This debate is an old one. All I want from you is to show me evidence that it can be used to declare that constant acceleration approaches the speed of light asymptotically. Then I'll be happy ;D.
The Equivalence Principle applies locally, everywhere. It doesn't matter if you are standing on the ground or hanging from a tree swing. There is no local experiment, observation or thought example, that is explained by 'gravity' that can not be explained by acceleration. Thanks be to the Equivalence Principle.
Does it not state that the effects on the under goer are the same? Even though reality of accelerating floor and gravity are different? How is that not one's perception?
The 9.8m/s^2 acceleration is due to the acceleration of the FE, as the FET holds that the earth does not create a gravitational field.
Whoa whoa whoa. The FE explanation for the Sun and Moon orbiting each other was that their acceleration caused gravitational fields. The explanation for weight change at altitude was gravitational fields by stars. When I was still discerning the difference between gravity and gravitation I thought gravity was being used selectively. It was clarified that gravitation exists because the stars are accelerating. Acceleration means gravitation. Was this a miscommunication? ...or is the Earth an exception? ::)
I wasn't serious when I said it was relevant or that it was specific to the shape of the Earth. RE theory doesn't depend on dark energy like FE depends on the UA.
So? You stated the RE does not have a massive energy source. Dark Energy is one such source. You get to have one, but the FET can't?
A better way to state what I meant was RET doesn't imply the use of massive energy sources. FET uses a universal accelerator in order to function, whereas dark matter is a mystery with no impact on the shape of the planet. After all, these forums are dedicated to RE vs. FE. (Dark matter remains irrelevant)
-
btw, I would like your thoughts here and here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17436.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17759.0
NOTE: To save you reading, it appears the 4th page isn't filled with anything useful... so far.
-
Ah, you're referring to Lorenz transformations again. This debate is an old one. All I want from you is to show me evidence that it can be used to declare that constant acceleration approaches the speed of light asymptotically. Then I'll be happy ;D.
Perhaps you should have paid attention in those old debates, as this is the 50th(?) time or so I'm posted this same equation:
w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)
where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s (from the FE accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second), c is the speed of light and w is the new velocity to be used as u in the following iterations.
I'm glad you are happy now.
Does it not state that the effects on the under goer are the same? Even though reality of accelerating floor and gravity are different? How is that not one's perception?
Obviously the effects are the same, as it states that 'gravity' and acceleration are locally indistinguishable.
Whoa whoa whoa. The FE explanation for the Sun and Moon orbiting each other was that their acceleration caused gravitational fields. The explanation for weight change at altitude was gravitational fields by stars. When I was still discerning the difference between gravity and gravitation I thought gravity was being used selectively. It was clarified that gravitation exists because the stars are accelerating. Acceleration means gravitation. Was this a miscommunication? ...or is the Earth an exception? ::)
The FAQ states that just earth may be gravitationally neutral, but that does not imply the other celestial bodies are also.
A better way to state what I meant was RET doesn't imply the use of massive energy sources. FET uses a universal accelerator in order to function, whereas dark matter is a mystery with no impact on the shape of the planet. After all, these forums are dedicated to RE vs. FE. (Dark matter remains irrelevant)
So like I said, the RE gets to have a massive energy source, but the FE does not. That seems fair.
-
lol. Your both wrong. The earth is a tesseract. ;D
Ah, you're referring to Lorenz transformations again. This debate is an old one. All I want from you is to show me evidence that it can be used to declare that constant acceleration approaches the speed of light asymptotically. Then I'll be happy ;D.
Perhaps you should have paid attention in those old debates, as this is the 50th(?) time or so I'm posted this same equation:
w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)
where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s (from the FE accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second), c is the speed of light and w is the new velocity to be used as u in the following iterations.
I'm glad you are happy now.
Where did that equation come from? Sources man. Sources.
Does it not state that the effects on the under goer are the same? Even though reality of accelerating floor and gravity are different? How is that not one's perception?
Obviously the effects are the same, as it states that 'gravity' and acceleration are locally indistinguishable.
A person in free fall doesn't feel any force but that doesn't necessarily mean one isn't acting on him.
Whoa whoa whoa. The FE explanation for the Sun and Moon orbiting each other was that their acceleration caused gravitational fields. The explanation for weight change at altitude was gravitational fields by stars. When I was still discerning the difference between gravity and gravitation I thought gravity was being used selectively. It was clarified that gravitation exists because the stars are accelerating. Acceleration means gravitation. Was this a miscommunication? ...or is the Earth an exception? ::)
The FAQ states that just earth may be gravitationally neutral, but that does not imply the other celestial bodies are also.
So the Earth isn't made out of mass?
A better way to state what I meant was RET doesn't imply the use of massive energy sources. FET uses a universal accelerator in order to function, whereas dark matter is a mystery with no impact on the shape of the planet. After all, these forums are dedicated to RE vs. FE. (Dark matter remains irrelevant)
So like I said, the RE gets to have a massive energy source, but the FE does not. That seems fair.
Do not both theories include this deilemma? Lack of understanding for something universal like laws of physics (what causes electromagnetism for instance) has no ground in an argument over Flat and Round Earths.
-
It comes from Special Relativity, like I said.
But here, so you don't have to do any work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula)
-
Ah, the velocity addition problem. The principle that nothing can travel faster than light, however one could say
If a train travels at 0.75c, and a man runs along the top of the train at 0.75c, then he should be travelling relative to a fixed poistion on the ground at 1.5c. This is an example of simply adding velocities, wheras, at reletavistic speeds, this simple addition no longer applies. So, another equation must be used.
-
Right, which is why the equation I provided is used... ???
-
Exactly. I have seen that equation before.
-
Ok. So, you had no point in posting that quote?
-
So that's one of my questions...
PROGRESS BAR: ;D ??? ???
-
Is the Earth made out of mass?
Yes.
Do both theories have this dilemma?
Yes, that was the point.
-
Is the Earth made out of mass?
Yes.
The point of that question is to see why the Earth doesn't apply to a universal property. Laws of physics only apply where FE needs them to.
Do both theories have this dilemma?
Yes, that was the point.
RE doesn't include this in RE theory. A RE believer may not believe in dark energy. FE directly depends on it as a universal accelerator. Therefore FE has to explain it. ::)
-
Dark Energy is theorized to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe. So like I said, the RE gets to have a massive energy source, but it's not allowed when the FE wants one.
-
Dark Energy is theorized to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe. So like I said, the RE gets to have a massive energy source, but it's not allowed when the FE wants one.
How is a rapidly expanding universe part of the theory stating Earth is round?
-
When did I say it was?
-
When you said Round Earth Theory gets a massive energy source...
-
I said the RE not the RET.
Now, how about a response to the original argument?
-
I said the RE not the RET.
Now, how about a response to the original argument?
The "theory" part doesn't matter. RE doesn't use a massive energy source, and the neither does the theory of RE.
Regarding the other debate, I am currently doing more research as my understanding of Lorenz transformations was only mostly accurate. Stand by. :)
-
So like I said, you get to have a massive energy source, but the FE can't have one? That's not very fair.
-
So like I said, you get to have a massive energy source, but the FE can't have one? That's not very fair.
Sigh. Let's try the Socratic method...
By "you" do you mean RE'ers?
-
Why do you get to have a massive energy source, but the FE theory does not?
This really is not that complicated. You complain about the UA being a massive energy source, therefore, it is stated that it can not possibly exist. Dark Energy is a massive energy source, yet there is no problem there...
-
Why do you get to have a massive energy source, but the FE theory does not?
This really is not that complicated. You complain about the UA being a massive energy source, therefore, it is stated that it can not possibly exist. Dark Energy is a massive energy source, yet there is no problem there...
1. Who said I get a massive energy source? For all you know, I don't believe in Dark Energy. A Round Earth does not imply Dark Energy. By that chain of logic, you could state something like "atheists aren't moral".
2. I never stated the UA couldn't exist.
I think your assuming all RE'ers believe in Dark Energy. Because Dark energy is a massive power source, you feel compelled to compare it to UA to explain how both are similar in nature in an attempt to convince us of the UA being possible.
-
1. Who said I get a massive energy source? For all you know, I don't believe in Dark Energy. A Round Earth does not imply Dark Energy. By that chain of logic, you could state something like "atheists aren't moral".
A flat Earth doesn't imply Dark Energy either. People ask for an energy source, and hey look, there is this hypothesized one known as Dark Energy that could work.
And this isn't a buffet, or Christianity by the way.
I think your assuming all RE'ers believe in Dark Energy. Because Dark energy is a massive power source, you feel compelled to compare it to UA to explain how both are similar in nature in an attempt to convince us of the UA being possible.
It's not compared to the UA.
-
1. Who said I get a massive energy source? For all you know, I don't believe in Dark Energy. A Round Earth does not imply Dark Energy. By that chain of logic, you could state something like "atheists aren't moral".
A flat Earth doesn't imply Dark Energy either. People ask for an energy source, and hey look, there is this hypothesized one known as Dark Energy that could work.
A flat Earth does imply a UA though. FET should explain this, because it depends on it.
I think your assuming all RE'ers believe in Dark Energy. Because Dark energy is a massive power source, you feel compelled to compare it to UA to explain how both are similar in nature in an attempt to convince us of the UA being possible.
It's not compared to the UA.
Compared in the sense that its a massive energy source. Not really beyond that though.
-
A flat Earth does imply a UA though. FET should explain this, because it depends on it.
Kind of depends on whose model you're talking about.
If I were to throw my own thought into the hat, the UA is composed of Dark Matter that is accelerating the Earth upwards. The "source of the power" that allows for this is Dark Energy. Then again, there is always the Quintessence aspect.
"Dark energy may become dark matter when buffeted by baryonic particles, thus leading to particle-like excitations in some type of dynamical field, referred to as quintessence."
Compared in the sense that its a massive energy source. Not really beyond that though.
Again, it depends on the model.
-
A flat Earth does imply a UA though.
No, it does not. Why would it?
-
A flat Earth does imply a UA though.
No, it does not. Why would it?
Sorry, I meant to say this site's version of a Flat Earth. Your FE implies the UA. It's how you explain acceleration like RE's gravity, no? I'm just saying this FET uses the UA and therefore is relevant to discussion and investigation.
-
*cough*
-
A flat Earth does imply a UA though.
No, it does not. Why would it?
Sorry, I meant to say this site's version of a Flat Earth. Your FE implies the UA. It's how you explain acceleration like RE's gravity, no? I'm just saying this FET uses the UA and therefore is relevant to discussion and investigation.
No, my FE does not imply UA.
-
Dark Energy and RET are separate. Much like RET and evolution.
FET directly depends on the UA. Without a UA, FET fails.
Username, I am curious as to how you believe FE works without a UA. A new theory sounds interesting.
-
Dark Energy and RET are separate. Much like RET and evolution.
FET directly depends on the UA. Without a UA, FET fails.
Show this. FE theory was around alot longer than UA.
Username, I am curious as to how you believe FE works without a UA. A new theory sounds interesting.
There are configurations of the earth, both infinite and finite, that would be flat and have the same observed gravitational effects.
-
So like I said, you get to have a massive energy source, but the FE can't have one? That's not very fair.
Now, how about the original debate topic?
-
Dark Energy and RET are separate. Much like RET and evolution.
FET directly depends on the UA. Without a UA, FET fails.
Show this. FE theory was around alot longer than UA.
FE theory started when people thought gravity was a force, believed in intelligent falling (God pushes crap down), or ignored it entirely.
Username, I am curious as to how you believe FE works without a UA. A new theory sounds interesting.
There are configurations of the earth, both infinite and finite, that would be flat and have the same observed gravitational effects.
What the... are you talking about? Is this feigning poor communication skills to avoid a question? Puh-leeese specify clearly.
I mean seriously... What does this mean?:
There exist potential ends to which succeeding points are not announced, both unobservable and observable, specified only by proclamation.
Answer: wtf nothing!!! ;D
PS: sorry you have to dumb it down for meeee.
-
Dark Energy and RET are separate. Much like RET and evolution.
FET directly depends on the UA. Without a UA, FET fails.
Show this. FE theory was around alot longer than UA.
FE theory started when people thought gravity was a force, believed in intelligent falling (God pushes crap down), or ignored it entirely.
Username, I am curious as to how you believe FE works without a UA. A new theory sounds interesting.
There are configurations of the earth, both infinite and finite, that would be flat and have the same observed gravitational effects.
What the... are you talking about? Is this feigning poor communication skills to avoid a question? Puh-leeese specify clearly.
I mean seriously... What does this mean?:
There exist potential ends to which succeeding points are not announced, both unobservable and observable, specified only by proclamation.
Answer: wtf nothing!!! ;D
PS: sorry you have to dumb it down for meeee.
Well for example, it has been shown an infinite earth can exert finite gravitational pull. This, for one, could explain our observations.
Like wise, there are ways a flat finite earth could be created that would also explain our observations. For example, one that was sufficiently large and gradually less dense as you move rimward.
Is that anymore helpful? I can post equations if you want, later when I have some time.
-
Well for example, it has been shown an infinite earth can exert finite gravitational pull. This, for one, could explain our observations.
Except that screws up the sun and moon etc. ???
Like wise, there are ways a flat finite earth could be created that would also explain our observations. For example, one that was sufficiently large and gradually less dense as you move rimward.
So people closer to the edge would feeling gravity pulling them to the side as well as down?
Is that anymore helpful? I can post equations if you want, later when I have some time.
Equations are not needed at the moment.
-
Well for example, it has been shown an infinite earth can exert finite gravitational pull. This, for one, could explain our observations.
Except that screws up the sun and moon etc. ???
Like wise, there are ways a flat finite earth could be created that would also explain our observations. For example, one that was sufficiently large and gradually less dense as you move rimward.
So people closer to the edge would feeling gravity pulling them to the side as well as down?
If they could get that far out, yes. However, that would be a long long long long long long way. Near the Antarctic this would not be observed because you would have about the same amount of gravitation affecting you. The less dense areas are too far away to make a measurable difference.
-
Well for example, it has been shown an infinite earth can exert finite gravitational pull. This, for one, could explain our observations.
Except that screws up the sun and moon etc. ???
Like wise, there are ways a flat finite earth could be created that would also explain our observations. For example, one that was sufficiently large and gradually less dense as you move rimward.
So people closer to the edge would feeling gravity pulling them to the side as well as down?
If they could get that far out, yes. However, that would be a long long long long long long way. Near the Antarctic this would not be observed because you would have about the same amount of gravitation affecting you. The less dense areas are too far away to make a measurable difference.
1. Sun moon still screwed up.
2. gravitation? that means acceleration right? (UA is coming back!!!! :o)
-
Gravitation causes acceleration, but that has nothing to do with UA.
I don't see the problem with the sun and moon, but I'm in a hurry. If you could expalin it, I'll answer it when i get back later tonight or tomorrow.
-
With real gravity (not gravitation) the sun and moon would fall down... right?
-
*cough*
would you like a throat lozenge?
-
Even in round earth there is no "real gravity", just gravitation.
However, there is more gravitational pull from above the moon than from the earth. This is why we can see that the moon is moving away from the earth at about 4cm per year.
-
Still waiting...
-
Even in round earth there is no "real gravity", just gravitation.
However, there is more gravitational pull from above the moon than from the earth. This is why we can see that the moon is moving away from the earth at about 4cm per year.
What's right above the moon pulling it up?
Still waiting...
I seem to recall he wanted responses to his own threads, no?
-
The edges of the infinite earth since the gravitation vectors end up getting stronger int he opposite direction the further up you get
-
wait... what?
-
wait... what?
(http://heartsleeve.net/fe/images/parabolaearth.jpg)
-
So... You're saying the edges of the Earth pull the moon away from Earth?
-
Yes, very slowly.
-
Why would gravitational vectors get stronger in the opposite direction? I thought the effects of gravity were less noticeable far away. (decaying curve) I'm imagining mass repelling other mass because its far away. ??? ??? ???
-
It evens out at the center, and when you move up the horizontal vectors become more and more vertical until eventually they are pulling you upwards, as you are closer to the mass above you than below.
I think I said that right, but I may not have. I'm having a hard time concentrating, alot of noise here. heh
-
I seem to recall he wanted responses to his own threads, no?
And? This is a direct challenge to his posts. I simply want an explanation.
-
I seem to recall he wanted responses to his own threads, no?
And? This is a direct challenge to his posts. I simply want an explanation.
His posts being the "lack of responses" one probably. His round Earth Site seems rather old and debate issues older still. That's just my guess, but what harm is there in answering new topics? ???
In either case, I want to hear more about mass repelling mass from Username! :D
(Specifically sources for this claim)
-
It evens out at the center, and when you move up the horizontal vectors become more and more vertical until eventually they are pulling you upwards, as you are closer to the mass above you than below.
Eh?
-
It evens out at the center, and when you move up the horizontal vectors become more and more vertical until eventually they are pulling you upwards, as you are closer to the mass above you than below.
Eh?
My thoughts exactly... :o
-
Regarding the other debate, I am currently doing more research as my understanding of Lorenz transformations was only mostly accurate. Stand by. :)
-
Upon further investigation I have not found anything I consider reliable that is contrary to what you said.
However, Yiak is right that I would like to discuss issues that haven't been properly addressed.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17908.0
-
That was so anti-climactic.
-
That was so anti-climactic.
Sorry. ;)
What did you want me to say?