The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: rodeoboy on August 17, 2008, 08:01:14 AM
-
you can measure the earths curvature using this method
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~clark/MeasECBkgd.html (keep clicking next)
If anyone has the sufficent recources, please go ahead and do it
-
win for RE.
ya know.. we REers are really getting tired of being right all the time.. you FEers need to step it up..
-
OK, wait for a very large lake to freeze over, one so big that the 'curvature of the earth' can be seen across it. Go to the middle of the lake "the highest part :)" and put on your ice skates and you'll slide all the way home with out pushing - because the frozen lake will have a curved surface ::)
Pah, as we follow your 'more serious' method to 'prove round' you do these experiments (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm). :)
-
Ok gravity is not universal, everyone is pulled towards the center of the ROUND earth which means it will make you stay the same, its like you think that people would slip and fall off the planet
-
hahahahah phonicbooms repsonse made me laugh very hard
-
hahahahah phonicbooms repsonse made me laugh very hard
lol me to... for such "logical thinkers" they are really "slipping" up lol
-
Ok gravity is not universal, everyone is pulled towards the center of the ROUND earth which means it will make you stay the same, its like you think that people would slip and fall off the planet
If your model was true, you would.
-
OK, wait for a very large lake to freeze over, one so big that the 'curvature of the earth' can be seen across it. Go to the middle of the lake "the highest part :)" and put on your ice skates and you'll slide all the way home with out pushing - because the frozen lake will have a curved surface ::)
What exactly does this prove?
-
OK, wait for a very large lake to freeze over, one so big that the 'curvature of the earth' can be seen across it. Go to the middle of the lake "the highest part :)" and put on your ice skates and you'll slide all the way home with out pushing - because the frozen lake will have a curved surface ::)
What exactly does this prove?
IF the world was curved, then the water surface of the lake, being so large, would be curved too. So, IF the world is round, when it freezes the ice would be curved and someone could start in the middle of the lake and slide to the edge with out applying any force.
That is not the case, as we all know: so, ergo, the world is flat and has no curvature.
-
Yeah, that's not right. In the RE model, "gravity" works perpendicular to you and the surface of the earth, that is entirely vertically. It would not move you in a horizontal direction.
-
Yeah, that's not right. In the RE model, "gravity" works perpendicular to you and the surface of the earth, that is entirely vertically. It would not move you in a horizontal direction.
You can ski down a hill, this is a small scale model of that.
-
on a flat earth, you could find a perfectly flat lake, stand on it and you would slide north towards the centre of the disc, because of gravity.
-
on a flat earth, you could find a perfectly flat lake, stand on it and you would slide north towards the centre of the disc, because of gravity.
Or toward the center because of the capillary action making the edges higher than the center.
-
You can ski down a hill, this is a small scale model of that.
No it isn't. You have no less gravitational potential energy at the edges of the lake than you do at the centre.
-
You can ski down a hill, this is a small scale model of that.
Ahh, no. It's not. In RE you can ski down a hill because the top of the hill is further from the center of the Earth than the bottom of it is. The surface of a frozen lake is all the same distance from the center of the RE Earth.
-
ok, so if a lake on RE and a lake on FE both froze over they would both be flat. One would be Flat Flat and one would be Flat relative to the curve. So take a large block of ice and see if it is flat or curved. If it's flat, so is the world.
I'm trying to do my best to get my head into the FE model (which i like very much but an new to), It makes more sense to me for the world to be flat but all my "education" thus far has been RE so you have to forgive the odd hiccup in logic.
-
So take a large block of ice and see if it is flat or curved. If it's flat, so is the world.
Ahh ... what? Wait, are you saying if you made a large enough block of ice in the RE world then it would have a curved surface? You would be right, but it would have to be an incredibly large block of ice.
And don't worry about throwing theories out and about and seeing what sticks and what not. Lots of friendly people here to answer any questions.
-
So take a large block of ice and see if it is flat or curved. If it's flat, so is the world.
Ahh ... what? Wait, are you saying if you made a large enough block of ice in the RE world then it would have a curved surface? You would be right, but it would have to be an incredibly large block of ice.
And don't worry about throwing theories out and about and seeing what sticks and what not. Lots of friendly people here to answer any questions.
Yes so a 6mile or more block of ice - or something :)
-
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
-
Yes so a 6mile or more block of ice - or something :)
And how would measuring the curvature of such a colossal block of ice without breaking it be any easier than measuring the curvature of the Earth itself?
-
Yes so a 6mile or more block of ice - or something :)
And how would measuring the curvature of such a colossal block of ice without breaking it be any easier than measuring the curvature of the Earth itself?
water is the level used by Birley Rowbotham (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm) so i'm sticking to that. How would it be so difficult to measure such a block of ice? we have lasers and straight edges at our disposal, it took more equipment to start the RE lie and back it up. I'm not asking much :)
-
water is the level used by Birley Rowbotham (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm) so i'm sticking to that. How would it be so difficult to measure such a block of ice? we have lasers and straight edges at our disposal, it took more equipment to start the RE lie and back it up. I'm not asking much :)
Light bends up.
-
water is the level used by Birley Rowbotham (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm) so i'm sticking to that. How would it be so difficult to measure such a block of ice? we have lasers and straight edges at our disposal, it took more equipment to start the RE lie and back it up. I'm not asking much :)
Light bends up.
How does it bend up? is it being accelerated in a single direction?
-
How does it bend up?
The EA.
is it being accelerated in a single direction?
No.
-
How does it bend up?
The EA.
is it being accelerated in a single direction?
No.
So how exactly is is being accelerated? What is the pattern?
-
So how exactly is is being accelerated? What is the pattern?
The acceleration vector is always perpendicular to the velocity vector and oriented so as to minimise the angle between it and a vector pointing directly up. I do not yet have a detailed mathematical description of the magnitude of the acceleration.
-
So how exactly is is being accelerated? What is the pattern?
The acceleration vector is always perpendicular to the velocity vector and oriented so as to minimise the angle between it and a vector pointing directly up. I do not yet have a detailed mathematical description of the magnitude of the acceleration.
And so there is something that applies a force to this light to accelerate it, and this something applies a different force in a different direction depending on the direction the light is travelling in. So each photon gets a unique force dependant on it's exact direction of travel?
And this is done by a natural, rational force?
Edit- Just had to as a LOL to the end here.
-
And so there is something that applies a force to this light to accelerate it, and this something applies a different force in a different direction depending on the direction the light is travelling in. So each photon gets a unique force dependant on it's exact direction of travel?
And this is done by a natural, rational force?
Edit- Just had to as a LOL to the end here.
I'd be LOLing at moving charges in a magnetic field too then, if I were you.
-
And so there is something that applies a force to this light to accelerate it, and this something applies a different force in a different direction depending on the direction the light is travelling in. So each photon gets a unique force dependant on it's exact direction of travel?
And this is done by a natural, rational force?
Edit- Just had to as a LOL to the end here.
I'd be LOLing at moving charges in a magnetic field too then, if I were you.
no, because that makes sense, it is all relative to the field. Your light idea relative to every single place some light reflects from for the light that reflected there but not other light that reflected from somewhere else.
-
no, because that makes sense, it is all relative to the field. Your light idea relative to every single place some light reflects from for the light that reflected there but not other light that reflected from somewhere else.
I'm afraid I don't follow you at all. The magnitude and direction of the acceleration light experiences as a result of the EA is dependent only on the direction of its velocity vector.
-
no, because that makes sense, it is all relative to the field. Your light idea relative to every single place some light reflects from for the light that reflected there but not other light that reflected from somewhere else.
I'm afraid I don't follow you at all. The magnitude and direction of the acceleration light experiences as a result of the EA is dependent only on the direction of its velocity vector.
Yes, which is totaly unlike a moving charge in a magnetic field.
-
Yes, which is totaly unlike a moving charge in a magnetic field.
The magnitude and direction of the force on a moving charge in a magnetic field depends upon the magnitude and direction of the component of its velocity perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field. I fail to see how the concept is greatly different in principle.
-
Yes, which is totaly unlike a moving charge in a magnetic field.
The magnitude and direction of the force on a moving charge in a magnetic field depends upon the magnitude and direction of the component of its velocity perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field. I fail to see how the concept is greatly different in principle.
That's because you don't understand the implication of the force you just made up for light.
-
That's because you don't understand the implication of the force you just made up for light.
Enlighten me, then.
-
That's because you don't understand the implication of the force you just made up for light.
Enlighten me, then.
That force is very simple, it is perpendicular to hte direction of movement, and perpendicular to the field. Very simple,very sensible.
Your idea is that the force is perpenicular to the direction of movement and in any plane perpendicular to the surface of the planet, in whatever direction is required to turn away from the planet, and then stopping at the point when the direction of travel is perpendicular to the surface of the planet. Not simple, not sensible.
-
That force is very simple, it is perpendicular to hte direction of movement, and perpendicular to the field. Very simple,very sensible.
Your idea is that the force is perpenicular to the direction of movement and in any plane perpendicular to the surface of the planet, in whatever direction is required to turn away from the planet, and then stopping at the point when the direction of travel is perpendicular to the surface of the planet. Not simple, not sensible.
Oh, it is perfectly simple. It is simple in that the force tries to act in the direction of the dark energy field, but cannot always do so due to the fact that it cannot change the magnitude of the velocity of light, only its direction. So what happens is that it acts so as to minimise the angle between itself and the dark energy field. Allow me to illustrate:
(http://i34.tinypic.com/jj2uxy.png)
Notice how the magnitude of the force decreases when it acts in a direction that is not parallel to the dark energy field, and reduces to zero when it cannot act at all? Perfectly simple, and perfectly sensible.
-
So this force is sentient? It acts not through the minimisation of energy state, but in anticipation of minimisation of energy state?
-
I think the FE's are the conspirators, How much money do you guys make off of this farse? Who is selling the books and making money off of this?
-
So this force is sentient? It acts not through the minimisation of energy state, but in anticipation of minimisation of energy state?
No. It acts through a mathematical relationship that I am midway through deriving.
-
oh, then explain this:
Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?
That is their assertion, but it is wrong.
Even a simple set-up, something that will fit on a table, would demonstrate the presence of "bendy" light.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg/400px-Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg.png)
As you rotated the experiment in the vertical axis, the interference pattern would be changed by the "bend" of the light waves. Since this is not observed, there is no bend in light waves.
-
So this force is sentient? It acts not through the minimisation of energy state, but in anticipation of minimisation of energy state?
No. It acts through a mathematical relationship that I am midway through deriving.
How come you never finish deriving these mathematical relationships?
-
oh, then explain this:
Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?
That is their assertion, but it is wrong.
Even a simple set-up, something that will fit on a table, would demonstrate the presence of "bendy" light.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg/400px-Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg.png)
As you rotated the experiment in the vertical axis, the interference pattern would be changed by the "bend" of the light waves. Since this is not observed, there is no bend in light waves.
I do not yet have an explanation for that particular phenomenon.
How come you never finish deriving these mathematical relationships?
Because I am pondering the best way to solve this for f(t):
(http://i33.tinypic.com/fmjpeq.png)
-
Yea, tell me how that goes. Whatever happened to your one for downward force being reduced by gravity from stars?
-
Yea, tell me how that goes. Whatever happened to your one for downward force being reduced by gravity from stars?
I was working on the EA derivation first. It is my highest priority with respect to FES at the moment.
-
Yea, tell me how that goes. Whatever happened to your one for downward force being reduced by gravity from stars?
I was working on the EA derivation first. It is my highest priority with respect to FES at the moment.
What problem are you trying to solve, exactly? Maybe I could help.
-
What problem are you trying to solve, exactly? Maybe I could help.
I am trying to figure out what f(t) is. It is a function of t as the notation suggests, but I do not know what the function is. I have managed to relate it to its derivative function, however:
(http://i33.tinypic.com/fmjpeq.png)
Where c and r are constants.
Basically it is one of two parametric equations that describe the parabolic arc in which light is bent with t as the parameter representing time. x = f(t) and y = g(t). Once I know f(t) I can work out g(t), and from there everything will fall into place. Note that it is not the most conventional parametric form of a parabola. I am inclined to suspect that f(t) may be something like an inverse hyperbolic sine curve.
Additional information:
f(t) is an odd function.
f(0) = 0
f'(0) = c
f''(0) = 0
-
OK, I'll grab a piece of paper and start scribbling.
-
How did you arive at that differential equation? Or, what are your initial assumptions for how light must behave in EAT?
I think I have an answer if we assume that the vertical component of light's velocity increases linearly with time (constant acceleration) and that it's velocity must always be c.
-
How did you arive at that differential equation? Or, what are your initial assumptions for how light must behave in EAT?
I think I have an answer if we assume that the vertical component of light's velocity increases linearly with time (constant acceleration) and that it's velocity must always be c.
First, I calculated that y = x2 / 2r if it is to approximate the effect of a round Earth at short distances (r being the radius of the RE). This means that dy / dx = x / r and therefore dy / dt = (x / r) * (dx / dt). Substituting x = f(t) and y = g(t), you get g'(t) = f(t) * f'(t) / r.
Next, if the speed is to remain constant, then by Pythagoras' theorem f'(t)2 + g'(t)2 = c2. Squaring the above equation, c2 - f'(t)2 = f(t)2 * f'(t)2 / r2. Rearranging this gives:
(http://i33.tinypic.com/fmjpeq.png)
What was the answer you got?
-
Hmm, I did it differently. First, I used x(t) and y(t) instead of f(t) and g(t), just because it is more descriptive.
We know (if I understand EAT correctly):
y'(t)2 + x'(t)2 = c2 (speed of light is constant)
y''(t) = a (light accelerates upwards constantly with acceleration a)
y(0) = 0, x(0) = 0, y'(0) = 0 (initial conditions)
y''(t) = a => y'(t) = at => y(t) = at2/2 This is assuming the EA is constant and directed upwards.
So, by pythagoras: (at)2 + x'(t)2 = c2
Re-arrange for x'(t) to get a difficult integral, type into the online integrator (http://integrals.wolfram.com/index.jsp?expr=sqrt(c^2-(ax)^2)&random=false) to get:
x(t) = (c2/2a) arctan (at/{c2-(at)2}0.5) + (t/2)(c2-(at)2)0.5
which is ugly, but there you go.
I think your initial assumption that light follows a parabola is incorrect.
-
y''(t) = a (light accelerates upwards constantly with acceleration a)
This is an incorrect postulate. There cannot be both constant vertical acceleration and constant speed. The acceleration must be perpendicular to the velocity, such that:
x''(t)2 + y''(t)2 = a2
Though a is not constant; it decreases as |dy/dx| increases.
-
y''(t) = a (light accelerates upwards constantly with acceleration a)
This is an incorrect postulate. There cannot be both constant vertical acceleration and constant speed. The acceleration must be perpendicular to the velocity, such that:
x''(t)2 + y''(t)2 = a2
Though a is not constant; it decreases as |dy/dx| increases.
I was going by your original electromagnetic accelerator post. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, maybe the thery has changed a bit.
So what rules govern the path light takes? What direction is a (other than perpendicular to v)? What is its magnitude?
PS: I'm going out now. Hopefully I'll have a look in a few hours.
-
So what rules govern the path light takes? What direction is a (other than perpendicular to v)? What is its magnitude?
That is what I am trying to work out. Also, yes I did have a different idea in the beginning. I only later came to realise that the only way to keep the speed constant was to have the acceleration be perpendicular to the velocity.
-
I do not yet have an explanation for that particular phenomenon.
...Because I am pondering the best way to solve this for f(t):
It would save you time working out differential equations if you accepted that the experimental data means that the effect you are trying to model doesn't exist.
Of course, that would probably defeat the purpose of you arguing in the first place.
-
It would save you time working out differential equations if you accepted that the experimental data means that the effect you are trying to model doesn't exist.
Of course, that would probably defeat the purpose of you arguing in the first place.
Perhaps when RE'ers unanimously accept that gravity does not exist, I will consider accepting that the EA does not exist.
-
let him work it all out. cos then comes the experiment.
-
Where do comets come from? Don't they orbit towards and away from the sun? That can't happen since everything is going the same speed in the same direction. Also where do meteors come from? They to should be going in the same direction, gravity shouldn't be pulling these things in since it doesn't exist?
-
Where do comets come from? Don't they orbit towards and away from the sun? That can't happen since everything is going the same speed in the same direction. Also where do meteors come from? They to should be going in the same direction, gravity shouldn't be pulling these things in since it doesn't exist?
All of these questions have been asked and answered.
-
Ok so answer them.
Oh, I forgot, its a conspiracy..
-
Ok so answer them.
Oh, I forgot, its a conspiracy..
Here is all you need to know. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search)
-
Not any answers are conclusive, It doesn't explain comets that return every 71 years, it thinks that comets and meteors are stationary stuff we run into in space but I thought everything was going the same direction and at the same speed.
Nope, no good,
nada,
Nil
Zilch
Conspiracy
-
Is anyone actually trying the experiment i proposed in the first post?
-
Not any answers are conclusive, It doesn't explain comets that return every 71 years, it thinks that comets and meteors are stationary stuff we run into in space but I thought everything was going the same direction and at the same speed.
So local movements are not allowed if everything is accelerating together? Well then, since the entire Universe is expanding in RET, we must be getting further away from the Sun, and the Earth itself must be getting bigger. Since that isn't observed, RET cannot be correct. Another win for FE!
-
Pah, as we follow your 'more serious' method to 'prove round' you do these experiments (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm). :)
[/quote]
I read through your "experiments." Idiot. Just look at those diagrams! if you extend those curved diagrams out the earth would only be about 30 or 40 miles around and then of course the flags would seem like different heights. But the real earth has a radius of 3,949 miles. A 6 mile arc on a 3,949 miles radius circle would appear as almost* a straight line (*straight enough that a telescope from the 1800s wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If you did those experiments with modern equipment you would see a difference in the heights of the flags.
here is a picture in autocad, to scale, of a round earth (white) with a six mile arc on it (red):
(http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc356/wpleser/Earthzoomedout.jpg)
Here it is zoomed in so you can see that it is basically just a straight line on that scale:
(http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc356/wpleser/zoomedin.jpg)
you're an idiot.
-
huh?, Local movements are not allowed according to your Faq, it states that everything is moving in the same direction and accelerating at the same speed.
Another win for RE's
-
huh?, Local movements are not allowed according to your Faq, it states that everything is moving in the same direction and accelerating at the same speed.
Another win for RE's
The fact that you are an idiot does not automatically create a win for your cause.
-
Who is the bigger idiot. At least I don't think that the world is flat and that there is a conspiracy to cover that up.
and since you cannot answer that question with anything other than a weak remark, Another win for RE.
Your just upset cuz you haven't seen a real girl naked yet.
pow another win
go back and play Dungeons & Dragons and cry in the corner, unless you don't believe in corners either.
ouch
-
Who is the bigger idiot.
You are.
At least I don't think that the world is flat and that there is a conspiracy to cover that up.
At least I end my questions with question marks.
and since you cannot answer that question with anything other than a weak remark, Another win for RE.
Considering where your post goes from here, I'll just chuckle at the irony and move on.
Your just upset cuz you haven't seen a real girl naked yet.
So?
pow another win
I don't think so.
go back and play Dungeons & Dragons and cry in the corner, unless you don't believe in corners either.
I'd rather stay here and make you look like an even bigger fool than you already are.
ouch
Another victory for FE!
-
Well I guess it doesn't need to go anywhere. You have confirmed my victory and also that you have yet to see be with a girl and that you are a geek who plays D & D. Anybody can get a clear picture of you without needing any more information. Thank you for helping me with my punctuation, if that makes you feel any better. Here are some question marks for you.??????????????????????????????
oh I am so foolish, I need to end it all, I think I will go jump off the edge of the earth after I climb up that 150 foot ice wall that goes completely around the earth. Oh the pain, that last idiot remark really got me.
btw you have a Lyco's emblem next to a Bull as your avitar. Do I need to say more? Look I used a question mark.
Owned.
-
Well I guess it doesn't need to go anywhere.
I don't know what this is in reference to, and I'm not going to try to work it out if you aren't going to make it clear.
You have confirmed my victory and also that you have yet to see be with a girl and that you are a geek who plays D & D.
Oh, have I? I must have missed it. Damndest thing.
Anybody can get a clear picture of you without needing any more information.
Any more information than what?
Thank you for helping me with my punctuation, if that makes you feel any better.
You are beyond help.
Here are some question marks for you.??????????????????????????????
Good. Now maybe you can figure out which of your sentences are questions and place them more appropriately.
oh I am so foolish, I need to end it all, I think I will go jump off the edge of the earth after I climb up that 150 foot ice wall that goes completely around the earth. Oh the pain, that last idiot remark really got me.
I don't remember calling you an idiot in my last post. I invite you to prove me wrong, however.
btw you have a Lyco's emblem next to a Bull as your avitar. Do I need to say more? Look I used a question mark.
What the hell is Lyco's?
Owned.
Yes, you were.
-
RoboSteve,
You state all light bends upward. By upwards do you mean "straight up" as in perpendicular to the surface of flat earth?
And is the sun also affected the same way?
First post by the way. VERY interesting site.
-
144.160.5.25
Thank you for providing me with your IP address, citizen of Michigan and subscriber to Ameritech Electronic Commerce. I have saved your IP to a text file on my hard drive for future reference. Good day.
RoboSteve,
You state all light bends upward. By upwards do you mean "straight up" as in perpendicular to the surface of flat earth?
And is the sun also affected the same way?
First post by the way. VERY interesting site.
It is bent in a parabolic arc with upwards concavity. The acceleration is always perpendicular for the velocity because the speed of light is constant. Yes, sunlight is affected in the same way, as are all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Welcome to FES. :)
-
Thanks. I'm enjoying the discussions immensly.
I have other questions but am trying to read up a little more on topics that have been previously discussed. And I'll readily admit I don't have near the background of knowledge of many of the subjects covered that I've seen from both sides of the arguement on this site.
-
Thanks. I'm enjoying the discussions immensly.
I have other questions but am trying to read up a little more on topics that have been previously discussed. And I'll readily admit I don't have near the background of knowledge of many of the subjects covered that I've seen from both sides of the arguement on this site.
You seem like an intelligent character; undoubtedly you shall learn. I have been here not even two months, and already I have learned a lot from this website, perhaps even more than I ever learned at school. Not in terms of the quantity of knowledge, but in terms of the importance of thinking skills.
-
That's what I'm enjoying about it.
The discussions here are not your everyday type. A lot of questioning of scientific theory and things of that nature that I find very interesting.
-
That's what I'm enjoying about it.
The discussions here are not your everyday type. A lot of questioning of scientific theory and things of that nature that I find very interesting.
Yes. I think people could get so much more out of this site if they looked at it from an objective standpoint and not a dogmatic RE one, as most do.
-
wrong state, and wrong service. Nice try. Better work on you look up skills.
-
gaday mate
-
Not any answers are conclusive, It doesn't explain comets that return every 71 years, it thinks that comets and meteors are stationary stuff we run into in space but I thought everything was going the same direction and at the same speed.
So local movements are not allowed if everything is accelerating together? Well then, since the entire Universe is expanding in RET, we must be getting further away from the Sun, and the Earth itself must be getting bigger. Since that isn't observed, RET cannot be correct. Another win for FE!
How the hell did you make that leap of logic? There is a theory that the universe is expanding on a universal scale. Expansion is not experienced galactically or even within the local group. This has never been suggested. Some recent theories suggest that expansion is actually a time dilation effect experienced by us as observers due to our presence in this particular region of space.
Good effort though.
-
I go away for a few days and all these posts!!!
Anyway... somewhere in this thread there seemed to have been a post trying to show how FE takes "gravitationally up" to work. The idea of standing at a center of a lake of ice and seeing which way you slid under "gravity".
Well... first, under RE you would have to calculate the gravitational attraction of a disk as large as the FE'ers claim and assume that there is some tensile strength of the "earth" so as to not auto-collapse in on itself into a sphere. (And oh, you'll have to do these calculations in GR, using the Newtonian short cut will not be acceptable to FEers.)
Assuming for a moment that said calculation indicated some sliding on a flat and otherwise "level" ice lake (gotta wonder how we'd define level in this case), I doubt the FEers would agree with this assumption anyway because, IIRC the FE'ers think that it still wouldn't apply as the actual material that the Earth is made up of is not affected by "gravity".
Could an FE'er agree with this guess on my part? And if so... do we have an FE'er and an RE'er in the house who can perform said calculation?
-
face it robosteve
when you got beat with the UGLY STICK, the stick put up a fight saying "no i dont wanna touch that thing"
BAM another RE victory
-
How the hell did you make that leap of logic? There is a theory that the universe is expanding on a universal scale. Expansion is not experienced galactically or even within the local group. This has never been suggested. Some recent theories suggest that expansion is actually a time dilation effect experienced by us as observers due to our presence in this particular region of space.
Good effort though.
I am aware of that. However, it seems to be a recurring argument against FET that if everything is accelerating together, then we can't collide with meteors and other objects, and that long period comets cannot be explained, because everything is moving at the same speed. Applying that same reasoning to RET, since the whole Universe is expanding, local irregularities cannot be allowed.
face it robosteve
when you got beat with the UGLY STICK, the stick put up a fight saying "no i dont wanna touch that thing"
BAM another RE victory
This is just weak. Take your shit to Angry Ranting, you're not wanted here.
-
It is bent in a parabolic arc with upwards concavity. The acceleration is always perpendicular for the velocity because the speed of light is constant. Yes, sunlight is affected in the same way, as are all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Welcome to FES. :)
Why a parabola, rather than, say, circular motion? Do you have any idea what rules govern the path of light yet, other than it accelerates upwards?
I'm happy to crunch the numbers, but only if I know what problem I'm actually solving.
On another note, I've solved your differential equation, but the answer is implicit and horrible.
If (http://i33.tinypic.com/fmjpeq.png)
then
f * (f2-r2)0.5 - log[ f + (f2-r2)0.5] = +/- 2 r c t
Derived like so:
f2 (df/dt)2 = r2 (c2 - (df/dt)2)
f2 = (rc)2 (dt/df)2 - r2
(f2 + r2)0.5 = +/- rc (dt/df)
Integrate (http://integrals.wolfram.com/index.jsp?expr=sqrt(x^2+%2B+r^2)&random=false) w.r.t. f to get the equation in blue.
-
Why a parabola, rather than, say, circular motion? Do you have any idea what rules govern the path of light yet, other than it accelerates upwards?
A parabola seems to me the most mathematically simple shape that it could take that fits the observations. Circular motion would of course be easier to model, but we don't see light looping around on itself - and in any case, how do we then define what happens to horizontal light, does it bend up or down? I suppose it could be semicircular motion that ends in a vertical straight line. Other alternatives that could fit the observations would be a hyperbolic cosine, a secant curve (which would perfectly emulate the effect of a round Earth) and perhaps a hyperbola, too.
On another note, I've solved your differential equation, but the answer is implicit and horrible.
If (http://i33.tinypic.com/fmjpeq.png)
then
f * (f2-r2)0.5 - log[ f + (f2-r2)0.5] = +/- 2 r c t
Derived like so:
f2 (df/dt)2 = r2 (c2 - (df/dt)2)
f2 = (rc)2 (dt/df)2 - r2
(f2 + r2)0.5 = +/- rc (dt/df)
Integrate (http://integrals.wolfram.com/index.jsp?expr=sqrt(x^2+%2B+r^2)&random=false) w.r.t. f to get the equation in blue.
Thanks for that. It is messy, though interestingly it does give t as an explicit function of x (or f). I'm not certain how best to work out y as a function of t from that, however. I know I could do it with an explicit form of f(t) - do you know if there is a way to get an explicit function out of that?