The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Guns N. Roses on November 20, 2007, 02:12:51 PM
-
So I was reading the new FAQ when I saw
Introduction:
Q: Why does gravitational pull decrease as my height increases?
A: Because you are closer to the stars, which do have a gravitational pull.
So I was wondering, why is this so. When you look up at the sky they are tiny compared to the sun and moon but only about 3% farther away. So they are obviously very small but THEY'RE GRAVITATIONAL PULL FROM 5000 KILOMETERS CAN MAKE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE!?! Assuming they are so dense, why don't they affect each other?
-
So I was reading the new FAQ when I saw
Introduction:
Q: Why does gravitational pull decrease as my height increases?
A: Because you are closer to the stars, which do have a gravitational pull.
So I was wondering, why is this so. When you look up at the sky they are tiny compared to the sun and moon but only about 3% farther away. So they are obviously very small but THEY'RE GRAVITATIONAL PULL FROM 5000 KILOMETERS CAN MAKE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE!?! Assuming they are so dense, why don't they affect each other?
They do affect each other. Otherwise they wouldn't be moving in relation to each other.
-
So I was reading the new FAQ when I saw
Introduction:
Q: Why does gravitational pull decrease as my height increases?
A: Because you are closer to the stars, which do have a gravitational pull.
So I was wondering, why is this so. When you look up at the sky they are tiny compared to the sun and moon but only about 3% farther away. So they are obviously very small but THEY'RE GRAVITATIONAL PULL FROM 5000 KILOMETERS CAN MAKE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE!?! Assuming they are so dense, why don't they affect each other?
They do affect each other. Otherwise they wouldn't be moving in relation to each other.
They are in fact, moving away from us... It's called the Doppler effect and it involves redshift. An object moving away from us emits lower frequency light than something standing still or moving towards us. So how do you explain this?
-
Shouldn't they be "sucking" each other in?
-
Shouldn't they be "sucking" each other in?
If they were very small and had intensive mass like the FE theory states, then yes.
But in real life, it's not. They're lighyears away and have about the same mass as the sun. Also, they're moving away from each other because of the initial expansion at the formation of the cosmos.
-
The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Is it different in RE?
-
The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Is it different in RE?
Not quite that different at all. In RE everything expands at a constant speed.
Also, if in FE the universe would expanding using with acceleration of 9,8m/sē, then we would accerelate limitlessly. Probably approaching the speed of light within a year.
-
The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Is it different in RE?
Not quite that different at all. In RE everything expands at a constant speed.
Also, if in FE the universe would expanding using with acceleration of 9,8m/sē, then we would accerelate limitlessly. Probably approaching the speed of light within a year.
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
-
So I was reading the new FAQ when I saw
Introduction:
Q: Why does gravitational pull decrease as my height increases?
A: Because you are closer to the stars, which do have a gravitational pull.
So I was wondering, why is this so. When you look up at the sky they are tiny compared to the sun and moon but only about 3% farther away. So they are obviously very small but THEY'RE GRAVITATIONAL PULL FROM 5000 KILOMETERS CAN MAKE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE!?! Assuming they are so dense, why don't they affect each other?
They do affect each other. Otherwise they wouldn't be moving in relation to each other.
How do you explain them moving across the sky then? If they are all affecting each other, then each pass should be in a different place in the sky.
-
The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Is it different in RE?
Not quite that different at all. In RE everything expands at a constant speed.
Also, if in FE the universe would expanding using with acceleration of 9,8m/sē, then we would accerelate limitlessly. Probably approaching the speed of light within a year.
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
Are you suggesting that the FE model is impossible?
-
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!
That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!
a = 9m/s per second (9m/sē)
c = 2.99792485 * 10^8 m/s
So I'm going to calculate how long it takes to reach lightspeed using gravitational acceleration:
2.99792485 * 10^8 / 9 = 33310273.11 seconds = 9253 hours = 385.5 years
If gravity was produced by gravitational acceleration, we'd approach lightspeed within a year. Seeing that earth has been around longer than that, it's impossible. Even if you take in the fact that reaching lightspeed is an impossibility, parts CAN approach the speed of light. I have observed and studied the effects electrons reaching c, and it's madness.
-
The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Is it different in RE?
Not quite that different at all. In RE everything expands at a constant speed.
Also, if in FE the universe would expanding using with acceleration of 9,8m/sē, then we would accerelate limitlessly. Probably approaching the speed of light within a year.
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
Are you suggesting that the FE model is impossible?
No... I'm saying that it's impossible to reach the speed of light. Look up relativity. If you do a search you can probably find a more technical explanation as to why the earth can accelerate constantly and never reach the speed of light. I think it is accelerating at that rate from our frame of reference but not from that of an outside observer.
-
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!
That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!
a = 9m/s per second (9m/sē)
c = 2.99792485 * 10^8 m/s
So I'm going to calculate how long it takes to reach lightspeed using gravitational acceleration:
2.99792485 * 10^8 / 9 = 33310273.11 seconds = 9253 hours = 385.5 years
If gravity was produced by gravitational acceleration, we'd approach lightspeed within a year. Seeing that earth has been around longer than that, it's impossible. Even if you take in the fact that reaching lightspeed is an impossibility, parts CAN approach the speed of light. I have observed and studied the effects electrons reaching c, and it's madness.
You are a god. you just explained perfectly what i tried to do 6 months ago but failed at the calculations. i bow upon thee.
-
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!
That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!
I'm trying to point out that it can! :'(
-
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!
That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!
I'm trying to point out that it can! :'(
AND I JUST FREAKING PROVED IT CAN'T BE DONE! Using a statement you said yourself: It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
-
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!
That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!
I'm trying to point out that it can! :'(
AND I JUST FREAKING PROVED IT CAN'T BE DONE! Using a statement you said yourself: It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
No you didn't. You're not taking relativity into account. Go back to the FAQ where there should be a link to an explanation about frames of reference and how an object like the earth could accelerate infinitely without ever reaching the speed of light.
In simple terms, relative to us observers on earth, the earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s2. But, relative to an outside observer (not on earth), it would appear as if the earth were slowing down.
-
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!
That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!
I'm trying to point out that it can! :'(
AND I JUST FREAKING PROVED IT CAN'T BE DONE! Using a statement you said yourself: It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
No, you fail.
-
I find it hard to believe you are a scientist or even educated.
-
The FE theory is that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Is it different in RE?
Not quite that different at all. In RE everything expands at a constant speed.
Also, if in FE the universe would expanding using with acceleration of 9,8m/sē, then we would accerelate limitlessly. Probably approaching the speed of light within a year.
False.
Special Relativity forbids an object from ever reaching the speed of light.
w = (u + v)
(1 + u*v/c2)
Where w is the new velocity, u (or 0m/s in this case) is the initial velocity, and v is the final velocity (or 9.8m/s for 1 second from universal acceleration). Now, after you find the w, plug it into the u on the new equation. Keep doing it until you reach 299,792,458m/s. Good luck.
-
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!
That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!
a = 9m/s per second (9m/sē)
c = 2.99792485 * 10^8 m/s
So I'm going to calculate how long it takes to reach lightspeed using gravitational acceleration:
2.99792485 * 10^8 / 9 = 33310273.11 seconds = 9253 hours = 385.5 years
If gravity was produced by gravitational acceleration, we'd approach lightspeed within a year. Seeing that earth has been around longer than that, it's impossible. Even if you take in the fact that reaching lightspeed is an impossibility, parts CAN approach the speed of light. I have observed and studied the effects electrons reaching c, and it's madness.
Your equations are wrong. Also, no electron has ever reached c. Saying otherwise is madness.
-
he said the flat earth would "approach" lightspeed, i.e. 99.99% of lightspeed, in a year.
this reminds me of something i mentioned in a different thread: 2 atomic clocks were sycronized, then one was loaded onto an airplane and lifted to 30,000 feet. then their times were compared, and the one in the air was running slightly faster, EXACTLY like einstein's relativity said it would!
but FErs don't believe in gravity, they babble about "dark energy" and "universal accelleration" instead!
also, it has been PROVEN that objects WEIGH less at high altitude than at ground level, which contradicts "dark energy".
-
But, gravity does not exist. Einsteins relativity states this.
Gravitation from celestial bodies acts on objects at high altitude, reducing their apparent weight.
-
he said the flat earth would "approach" lightspeed, i.e. 99.99% of lightspeed, in a year.
this reminds me of something i mentioned in a different thread: 2 atomic clocks were sycronized, then one was loaded onto an airplane and lifted to 30,000 feet. then their times were compared, and the one in the air was running slightly faster, EXACTLY like einstein's relativity said it would!
but FErs don't believe in gravity, they babble about "dark energy" and "universal accelleration" instead!
also, it has been PROVEN that objects WEIGH less at high altitude than at ground level, which contradicts "dark energy".
Bullshits and internets are indistinguishable.
-
It is impossible to reach the speed of light.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK?!
That's what I am trying to point out: using gravitational acceleration to account for gravity can't be done!
a = 9m/s per second (9m/sē)
c = 2.99792485 * 10^8 m/s
So I'm going to calculate how long it takes to reach lightspeed using gravitational acceleration:
2.99792485 * 10^8 / 9 = 33310273.11 seconds = 9253 hours = 385.5 years
If gravity was produced by gravitational acceleration, we'd approach lightspeed within a year. Seeing that earth has been around longer than that, it's impossible. Even if you take in the fact that reaching lightspeed is an impossibility, parts CAN approach the speed of light. I have observed and studied the effects electrons reaching c, and it's madness.
Your equations are wrong. Also, no electron has ever reached c. Saying otherwise is madness.
Madness!? This! Is! SPARTA!!!
-
he said the flat earth would "approach" lightspeed, i.e. 99.99% of lightspeed, in a year.
this reminds me of something i mentioned in a different thread: 2 atomic clocks were sycronized, then one was loaded onto an airplane and lifted to 30,000 feet. then their times were compared, and the one in the air was running slightly faster, EXACTLY like einstein's relativity said it would!
but FErs don't believe in gravity, they babble about "dark energy" and "universal accelleration" instead!
also, it has been PROVEN that objects WEIGH less at high altitude than at ground level, which contradicts "dark energy".
What?
-
he said the flat earth would "approach" lightspeed, i.e. 99.99% of lightspeed, in a year.
this reminds me of something i mentioned in a different thread: 2 atomic clocks were sycronized, then one was loaded onto an airplane and lifted to 30,000 feet. then their times were compared, and the one in the air was running slightly faster, EXACTLY like einstein's relativity said it would!
but FErs don't believe in gravity, they babble about "dark energy" and "universal accelleration" instead!
also, it has been PROVEN that objects WEIGH less at high altitude than at ground level, which contradicts "dark energy".
What?
We are accellerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2
-
Yes, and?
-
We are accellerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2
Maybe downwards or sideways depending on what is observing us. According to FE theory, the earth is accelerating northwards. Not only is it correct terminology, it should irritate a few FE'ers.
-
Northwards? That doesn't even make sense.
-
We are accellerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2
Maybe downwards or sideways depending on what is observing us. According to FE theory, the earth is accelerating northwards. Not only is it correct terminology, it should irritate a few FE'ers.
We're accelerating toward the center of the disc? ???
-
What?
Lame. This was your ten thousandth post. It should be more impressive. ;D
-
We are accellerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2
Maybe downwards or sideways depending on what is observing us. According to FE theory, the earth is accelerating northwards. Not only is it correct terminology, it should irritate a few FE'ers.
Relative to us we're moving 'up'. Northwards? lol
What?
Lame. This was your ten thousandth post. It should be more impressive. ;D
I didn't know.
-
What?
Lame. This was your ten thousandth post. It should be more impressive. ;D
Yeah, he sucks
-
ok, FErs believe EVERYTHING is accellerating in ONE direction, which just HAPPENS to match..."straight up" from the north pole.
so earth can't be round, or everything south of the equator would fly off into space... (a very old argument that pre-dates Newton!)
-
We are accellerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2
Maybe downwards or sideways depending on what is observing us. According to FE theory, the earth is accelerating northwards. Not only is it correct terminology, it should irritate a few FE'ers.
Relative to us we're moving 'up'. Northwards? lol
What?
Lame. This was your ten thousandth post. It should be more impressive. ;D
I didn't know.
HAH you cocked up your 10000th
-
ok, FErs believe EVERYTHING is accellerating in ONE direction, which just HAPPENS to match..."straight up" from the north pole.
so earth can't be round, or everything south of the equator would fly off into space... (a very old argument that pre-dates Newton!)
If you're going to make an outlandish claim like this can you at least explain exactly why this would happen?
-
that's a quote from one of the old pro-FE books Tom Bishop keeps refering me to! (i forget which)
-
HAH you cocked up your 10000th
Yea...
-
that's a quote from one of the old pro-FE books Tom Bishop keeps refering me to! (i forget which)
Oh, I think I see what you're saying now. Yes, that's a silly proof. Some of those early FEers were just crazy!
-
HAH you cocked up your 10000th
Yea...
you suck
-
HAH you cocked up your 10000th
Yea...
you suck
You did it wrong. You suck.
-
how?
-
It need to be 'You suck.' with no variation (well, maybe with fonts and stuff).