The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: WardoggKC130FE on July 02, 2008, 10:13:14 AM
-
If everything is accelerating up why do meteors sometime crash into earth? And with enough force to cause massive craters. Like the Barringer Meteor Crater.
The meteorite which made it was composed almost entirely of nickel-iron, suggesting that it may have originated in the interior of a small planet. It was 150 feet across, weighed roughly 300,000 tons, and was traveling at a speed of 28,600 miles per hour (12 kilometers per second) according to the most recent research.
12km/sec. And that was after it slowed greatly in the atmosphere prior to impact. Why did the UA not provent this?
-
Why would the UA prevent it?
-
If everything is accelerating up why do meteors sometime crash into earth? And with enough force to cause massive craters. Like the Barringer Meteor Crater.
UA only affects certain bodies with special properties, which is why it does not affect us.
I've speculated that the properties Universal Accelerator affects are electromagnetic in nature. All bodies which exhibit a certain level of electromagnetic influence are affected by the UA. All bodies that do not exhibit a certain level of electromagnetic influence are not affected by UA. The bodies who lose their level of electromagnetic influence through collisions in space, half-life degradation, or bits which break off from passing by comets become unaffected by the UA and fall towards the earth.
The properties UA affects could alternatively be related to the energy density of a body; but more research will be done to determine the precise mechanism of UA.
-
Do all these things that lose their electromangy thingy start from approx 3000 miles up?
-
Why would the UA prevent it?
The UNIVERSAL Accelrator accelerates everything in the universe. That's why is UNIVERSAL.
-
Why would the UA prevent it?
The UNIVERSAL Accelrator accelerates everything in the universe. That's why is UNIVERSAL.
No. If that were the case, sustained spaceflight would be no problem (once out of the atmosphere, by that reasoning, a spacecraft would just be accelerated by the UA). I think you're mistaken about our theory.
-
Apparently. So can I get a list of things effected by UA, things not effected by UA, things that start out effected by UA and then eventually are no longer effected by UA?
-
Apparently. So can I get a list of things effected by UA, things not effected by UA, things that start out effected by UA and then eventually are no longer effected by UA?
I don't think anybody's compiled such a list, but I'll give it a go.
The earth is directly affected by the UA, probably because it's the only body that comes in direct physical contact with it. The sun, moon, planets, and stars are clearly propelled upwards by the UA as well. They seem to float at a reasonably constant distance above us; they are caught in the earth's dark energy field but some force (very possibly electromagnetic, as Tom commented) is keeping them suspended. The most reasonable explanation is that such objects are composed of a different sort of material than the earth is. A while back I postulated that when the earth formed, the heaviest materials settled at the bottom and the lightest settled at the top. This is easily observable; rock, then water, then the atmosphere, then the heavens. Thus I feel that the heavens are composed of the lightest material of all, and that has something to do with the fact that they can be caught by the UA without contacting the earth. That's probably not the only possible explanation, and I'm not claiming that it's a certainty to any degree (we can never know, unless we figure out some way to directly observe them), but that's my own theory.
Meteors, of course, are just chunks of rock and/or metal (we know what they're made of since we've had the opportunity to study them directly, as opposed to the aforementioned heavenly bodies). Their origin is unknown and perhaps unknowable, but apparently they just fly around randomly above and around us and sometimes find themselves falling through our atmosphere. In other words, they're simply not subject to whatever force it is that keeps the heavens suspended above us, probably owing to their composition.
-
The problem with your theory is that these meteors dont "find themselves falling through our atmosphere," they find themselves accelerated through our atmosphere. IE the Barringer crater was created by an object that hit at 12km/s. Like I said, that is after slowing greatly when it did hit our atmosphere. Theories on that aspect?
-
Meteors, of course, are just chunks of rock and/or metal (we know what they're made of since we've had the opportunity to study them directly, as opposed to the aforementioned heavenly bodies). Their origin is unknown and perhaps unknowable, but apparently they just fly around randomly above and around us and sometimes find themselves falling through our atmosphere. In other words, they're simply not subject to whatever force it is that keeps the heavens suspended above us, probably owing to their composition.
What about the near earth asteroids that come within several hundred thousand miles of earth (considered a near miss), then turn around and head back out to the great unknowns from whence they came? Do they bounce off of the UA, or do they decide that the the earth some case of interstellar B.O. and leave holding their noses?
-
Meteors, of course, are just chunks of rock and/or metal (we know what they're made of since we've had the opportunity to study them directly, as opposed to the aforementioned heavenly bodies). Their origin is unknown and perhaps unknowable, but apparently they just fly around randomly above and around us and sometimes find themselves falling through our atmosphere. In other words, they're simply not subject to whatever force it is that keeps the heavens suspended above us, probably owing to their composition.
What about the near earth asteroids that come within several hundred thousand miles of earth (considered a near miss), then turn around and head back out to the great unknowns from whence they came? Do they bounce off of the UA, or do they decide that the the earth some case of interstellar B.O. and leave holding their noses?
No, that's all conspiracy nonsense. They probably either miss the disk of the earth and fly past or, if the disk is infinite, collide with it but too far away to be noticed by us.
I am open to the possibility, however, that they do somehow bounce off the UA and fly back into space. The UA is only energy, after all.
-
The problem with your theory is that these meteors dont "find themselves falling through our atmosphere," they find themselves accelerated through our atmosphere. IE the Barringer crater was created by an object that hit at 12km/s. Like I said, that is after slowing greatly when it did hit our atmosphere. Theories on that aspect?
-
The problem with your theory is that these meteors dont "find themselves falling through our atmosphere," they find themselves accelerated through our atmosphere. IE the Barringer crater was created by an object that hit at 12km/s. Like I said, that is after slowing greatly when it did hit our atmosphere. Theories on that aspect?
This guy has a point, but it can easily be disproven most likely with a blanket statement that's retrofit to FE, and then tom will stop posting in the thread
-
He may have already. On a side note that may be relevant, does the moon rotate in FET?
-
He may have already. On a side note that may be relevant, does the moon rotate in FET?
No. ::)
-
Why are you avoiding my main question?
Its ok to not have a theory about it. Just say so. I promise I won't chastise you.
-
I was getting to it. >:(
The problem with your theory is that these meteors dont "find themselves falling through our atmosphere," they find themselves accelerated through our atmosphere. IE the Barringer crater was created by an object that hit at 12km/s. Like I said, that is after slowing greatly when it did hit our atmosphere. Theories on that aspect?
They are accelerating through our atmosphere for the same reason everything of similar consistency (or composition, if you prefer), does.
-
Agreed. Any theory as to what that "reason" is?
-
As its accelerating through the atmosphere, the earth is accelerating up into it.
-
I can't believe he was waiting for a response to the most obvious staple in FET.
-
But why?
If I fell out of an stratofloater (or what ever Tom calls them) at 200,000 ft altitude, would I impact the ground at 12km/s? Or better yet if I dropped something with the same moleculear composite and density as an nickel/iron meteor would it impact at 12km/sec?
-
I can't believe he was waiting for a response to the most obvious staple in FET.
What? That the earth is accelerating? The numbers don't match up though.
-
I can't believe he was waiting for a response to the most obvious staple in FET.
What? That the earth is accelerating? The numbers don't match up though.
In what way? It's been a while since I took earth science (or maybe I'm just tired ;D). Please expain what the difference is in RE, then we'll see if we can work it out.
-
The problem is with FET.
In FET all celestial bodies are approx. 3000 miles up. And they are cruising around at extremely slower rates than what is modeled in RET due to the size and distance to/from the rest of the universe and us. According to Tom(I have forgotten your theory) they lose their electomanatic thingy and the UA no longer effects them. Which means the earth begans to accelerate up to them at 9.8m/s^2. I'm not sure of the math on this one but if you figure out what our velocity would be covering 3000 miles at an accelration rate of 9.8m/s^2 I am sure the impact velocity would not match up to 12km/s.
-
Well I'd love to see the math on it.
-
v2=u2 + 2as
4828032 meters = 3000 miles
9.8m/s^2 acceleration
inital velocity 0 (frame of reference)
Final velocity = 9727.7657866542 m/s
-
Well (assuming your math is correct, but I see your point), as I pointed out, meteors are of unknown origin. They apparently don't come directly from the observable universe (if I'm correct that such materials could not be suspended above the earth). Therefore they must come from outside our observable universe. Who knows how long they've been accelerating?
-
Not just how long they've been accelerating, but it also depends on what other forces have interacted with it.
-
v2=u2 + 2as
4828032 meters = 3000 miles
9.8m/s^2 acceleration
inital velocity 0 (frame of reference)
Final velocity = 9727.7657866542 m/s
You're assuming that when pieces break off comets they just stop accelerating; when it's entirely possible that they can just be accelerating at a different rate.
-
No Tom, I am assuming they are 3000 miles up and the earth accelerates up to them. Hence the 0 initial velocity. In your theory they would be going even faster than the final velocity I came up with.
The question remains what is making them accelerate at all, in any direction contrary to the UA motion that every thing in the universe is effected by in one unilateral direction.
-
No Tom, I am assuming they are 3000 miles up and the earth accelerates up to them. Hence the 0 initial velocity. In your theory they would be going even faster than the final velocity I came up with.
The question remains what is making them accelerate at all, in any direction contrary to the UA motion that every thing in the universe is effected by in one unilateral direction.
The fact that they are composed of materials that aren't suspended by the UA. I think I already explained this.
-
In your theory they would be going even faster than the final velocity I came up with.
Why?
The question remains what is making them accelerate at all, in any direction contrary to the UA motion that every thing in the universe is effected by in one unilateral direction.
Everything in the universe is not affected in one unilateral direction. We know this because of meteors and redshift/blueshift.
-
The fact that they are composed of materials that aren't suspended by the UA. I think I already explained this.
So for that reason meteors and comets(and nothing else) defy all FET UA logic? Interesting. They must feel really special.
In your theory they would be going even faster than the final velocity I came up with.
Why?
The question remains what is making them accelerate at all, in any direction contrary to the UA motion that every thing in the universe is effected by in one unilateral direction.
Everything in the universe is not affected in one unilateral direction. We know this because of meteors and redshift/blueshift.
Why? Becuase the inital velocity would be higher than 0.
Now we are back to the list of things not effected by UA. So far we got meteors and comets due to their composition. Anything else?
-
I don't agree about comets. They are clearly in suspended orbits above us, albeit very long and complicated orbits. They're probably composed of the same sort of material as the planets.
-
So we are down to just meteors and meteors alone that are not effected by UA. Or possibly they are, they just lose their electromagnetic properties and decided today was a good day to die.
-
I don't agree about comets. They are clearly in suspended orbits above us, albeit very long and complicated orbits. They're probably composed of the same sort of material as the planets.
BTW orbits around what?
And what ever the answer is to that question I am going to ask why.
-
My guess is that they orbit the central point above the hub that everything else seems to orbit. But I believe that their paths are affected by the paths of everything else above us that are suspended by the UA. Everything just sort of moves in its own geodesic.
-
Everything just sort of moves in its own geodesic.
FakeEarth's fairy godmother just had to wave her fairy wand.
-
LOL. You don't like me, huh?
-
LOL. You don't like me, huh?
I like you. I just don't like that you pretend to support a pretend theory.
-
The theory itself is not pretend. IE this forum exists to debate RET and FET. If the theory itself was pretend then we would all be pretending to debate it.
-
You're right that this forum exists, and even correct about it's purpose.
FakeEarthists have failed to define an actual theory, rather a loose collection of ideas that are not unified or accurately defined. And don't think I'll accept you as anything more than a troll. You're contributions to FakeEarth theory are null, provide data, predict something, but do not contribute volumes of vacuous argument in hopes it makes you look serious.
-
So I'm guessing Narc -- what do I win?
-
So I'm guessing Narc -- what do I win?
Are you saying that Narcberry is an RE troll now? Sounds about right.
-
So I'm guessing Narc -- what do I win?
My boot up your arse