The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: fearfulone on August 30, 2008, 07:32:49 PM
-
Seperate misunderstanding. Where does FE find the energy for its constant acceleration?
-
they havent constructed a theory yet. youre gonna have to wait till the "global" mods of a flat earth come up with a good one.
-
Where does the ever expanding universe in RET find the energy for its constant expansion?
-
We're not talking about an expanding universe. We're talking about a linear acceleration. A so far unfueled linear acceleration.
-
Same difference. You tell me whats fueling the ever expanding RET universe and I will tell you whats fueling the FET acceleration.
-
Same difference. You tell me whats fueling the ever expanding RET universe and I will tell you whats fueling the FET acceleration.
you cant do that. his question came first. if you have no answer - just say you have no answer - dont be scared.
-
I have a answer I swear. If I don't may I serve a 6 month ban from FES.
-
I have a answer I swear. If I don't may I serve a 6 month ban from FES.
/me grins...
-
There you go. Now the mods are involved.
-
May I hear the answer?
-
I have a answer I swear. If I don't may I serve a 6 month ban from FES.
well lets hear it, yo! im all ears, um, i mean eyes.
-
You first.
-
The energy expelled from the Big Bang. But the universe moves at a constant rate, or may even be slowing down, showing a finite quantity. A constant acceleration requires a constant supply of energy. From where?
-
The energy expelled from the Big Bang, we just haven't run out yet, and probably won't for a long time to come. And whose to say when it does run out the FE wont flip over and begin accelerating back to its starting point?
-
if we weve been accelerating upwards for so long - why havent we run into anything yet?
-
We are accelerating into a void. There is nothing to run into.
-
Flipping over... But that either wouldn't happen, or would result in destruction, because if FE is infinite, eventually part of it would have to have a linear speed of over c. If anything, it would fall back the way it is, and we'd all fly off. But that's a different matter.
-
if we weve been accelerating upwards for so long - why havent we run into anything yet?
How is it possible for people to be this stupid? Questions like this don't deserve an answer.
-
We are accelerating into a void. There is nothing to run into.
stars are stupid? or wait, they dont exist?
have to run into something at some point. your idea of running into nothing is just as stupid as we think a flat earth is.
-
I never said a flat earth was stupid. I just disagree with some of their implementations.
-
Well, I can only only thank Wardogg for his patience with me, and show my dissappointment in our elusive friend Mr. Bin Laden for his unfounded aggression, and distasteful choice of username.
-
The mechanism that causes the acceleration is as yet unknown, but is given the placeholder name of Dark Energy.
-
Well, I can only only thank Wardogg for his patience with me, and show my dissappointment in our elusive friend Mr. Bin Laden for his unfounded aggression, and distasteful choice of username.
What is wrong with my username? I am Osama bin Laden, and I have the right to be known as such.
-
Well, I can only only thank Wardogg for his patience with me, and show my dissappointment in our elusive friend Mr. Bin Laden for his unfounded aggression, and distasteful choice of username.
BTW dude Im with you. The earth is round these guys are nutz
You havent met Saddam yet. Im numb to the offensiveness.
-
What is wrong with my username? I am Osama bin Laden, and I have the right to be known as such.
Don't make me prove the contrary...
-
What is wrong with my username? I am Osama bin Laden, and I have the right to be known as such.
Don't make me prove the contrary...
Stop spamming the thread and post some decent content or I am moving the thread and giving a 2 day ban.
-
So...*nervous laugh*
Wouldn't the exchange from "Dark" into kinetic energy cause some sort of detectable trail? e.g heat, sound, light, EM...
-
Obviously not.
-
But the laws of thermodynamics say "obviously so," do they not?
-
It's hard to post decent content on a forum this ridiculous. There is no such thing as perpetual energy, and that is what would be required to keep the Earth accelerating upwards constantly. Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.
-
Obviously not.
-
Global Moderators are so smart!
-
Global Moderators are so smart!
Well, I can't speak for the others, but I certainly am.
-
Global Moderators are so smart!
But you aren't.
-
Global Moderators are so smart!
But you aren't.
Prove it.
-
...I was told you were good at physics, too. Good argument, I'll remember that one for my dissertation...
-
Global Moderators are so smart!
But you aren't.
Prove it.
Ok.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=15398;sa=showPosts
-
Global Moderators are so smart!
But you aren't.
Prove it.
Ok.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=15398;sa=showPosts
If I wanted a link to my recent posts, I would have asked for it; however, I asked for you to prove that I'm not smart. At this point in time, you have failed to do so.
-
No, I proved it all right. I am sure others will agree.
-
Erm...in the name of science, could I ask you two to...take it outside? You threatened us with bans for doing the same thing.
-
What do you call this (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22842.msg471107#msg471107) then?
Please leave moderation to the one's that are actually moderators.
-
Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.
Less than the speed of light is most certainly fathomable.
-
Aaah, sorry. I didn't realize you were a tyrant kind of mod. "These are the rules I don't have to follow," and all that. Go ahead. But remember your SS badge next time, to save confusion.
-
And it's "ones" not "one's". Leave the oppresion to the Grammar Nazis
-
Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.
Less than the speed of light is most certainly fathomable.
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be moving at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.
EDIT: This is assuming that the space the Earth was moving through is a vacuum.
-
Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.
Less than the speed of light is most certainly fathomable.
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.
EDIT: This is assuming that the space the Earth was moving through is a vacuum.
You haven't taken relativity into effect.
-
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be moving at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.
High school physics would lead you to believe this. Fortunately, the earth does not adhere to said physics.
-
Another thing is, if the earth were accelerating, isn't that saying that the first second the Earth existed, it was going 9.8m/s. The second second the Earth would be going 19.6m/s. By this time, the Earth would be going so incredibly fast, it's not even fathomable.
Less than the speed of light is most certainly fathomable.
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.
EDIT: This is assuming that the space the Earth was moving through is a vacuum.
You haven't taken relativity into effect.
Even then, would the G-force not be unbearable by the time it reached maximum velocity?
-
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be moving at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.
High school physics would lead you to believe this. Fortunately, the earth does not adhere to said physics.
How can you prove this?
-
Sure it would. We only experience 1g at all times. But we are accelerating with the earth as well. Why would you think that as the earth accelerates at 1g, that we would experience 1g on itself exponentially? I don't feel any heavier than I did an hour ago.
Besides, that doesn't have to do with relativity, which you completely ignored.
-
Sure it would. We only experience 1g at all times. But we are accelerating with the earth as well. Why would you think that as the earth accelerates at 1g, that we would experience 1g on itself exponentially? I don't feel any heavier than I did an hour ago.
Besides, that doesn't have to do with relativity, which you completely ignored.
Anyways.
A semi-off-topic question: What lead you to believe the Earth was flat? When did you start believe the world was flat?
-
Even then, would the G-force not be unbearable by the time it reached maximum velocity?
Uh, no, the acceleration is constant.
-
Sure it would. We only experience 1g at all times. But we are accelerating with the earth as well. Why would you think that as the earth accelerates at 1g, that we would experience 1g on itself exponentially? I don't feel any heavier than I did an hour ago.
Besides, that doesn't have to do with relativity, which you completely ignored.
Anyways.
A semi-off-topic question: What lead you to believe the Earth was flat? When did you start believe the world was flat?
Look out your window.
-
How can you prove this?
See: Special Relativity.
-
Obviously, but the theory you guys stated was that Earth is being pushed upward at a constant acceleration on 9.8/m/s^2. If I'm not mistaken, the speed of light is a defined number (appr. 300,000,000m/s). Assuming your theory is correct, in about 355 days, the Earth would be moving at a velocity greater than that of the speed of light.
High school physics would lead you to believe this. Fortunately, the earth does not adhere to said physics.
Oh Oh...my favorite topic.
Your number is a little off. Its about 340 days. At which point we did exceed the speed of light. Do we slap high fives now? Quantum tunneling Its neat.
-
Global Moderators are so smart!
Well, I can't speak for the others, but I certainly am.
And modest too.
-
I understand, by the read FE'ers arguments, that "accelerating" means "mantaining" the velocity of elevation constantly, anyway, I'm gonna talk about the posts in the first page.
Big bang theory is not valid, most of the scientists don't believe the energy of the big bang is ethernal, for them everytime we are expanding slower, 'til a point where we'll stop/break in pieces/or will get all together again, unfortunately there ain't a clear theory about this. So you cannot use the big bang to explain an infinity force of movement, because it was an explosion, and the strength will become weaker with time. So although you are FE'er if you believe in big bang, you have to look for a better explanation.
-
I understand, by the read FE'ers arguments, that "accelerating" means "mantaining" the velocity of elevation constantly, anyway, I'm gonna talk about the posts in the first page.
Big bang theory is not valid, most of the scientists don't believe the energy of the big bang is ethernal, for them everytime we are expanding slower, 'til a point where we'll stop/break in pieces/or will get all together again, unfortunately there ain't a clear theory about this. So you cannot use the big bang to explain an infinity force of movement, because it was an explosion, and the strength will become weaker with time. So although you are FE'er if you believe in big bang, you have to look for a better explanation.
(http://i37.tinypic.com/24cb79c.jpg)
-
Read the first page, if not, ask me direct questions; will be easier for both of us.
-
The energy expelled from the Big Bang, we just haven't run out yet, and probably won't for a long time to come. And whose to say when it does run out the FE wont flip over and begin accelerating back to its starting point?
Hi this is my first post here. My brother Philip Marfuta is a grad student at Princeton University, you'll be seeing posts from him soon :), and he would tell you otherwise. See, him and his fiancee, Judy M Lau, worked on this thing called the YMAP. What's YMAP you may ask? Well it pretty much mapped the universe by using the background radiation from the Big Bang, albeit the map shows a younger version. Anyways, YMAP also showed, don't ask me how Wiki it or check princeton.org, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate because of dark energy. The reason for this is because the Big Bang was caused by Dark Energy and the gravitational forces caused by matter and dark matter. When the universe was young the univser would expand really slowly, but basically, as the universe expanded the Dark Energy would gain the advantage. Gravity is stronger the more matter there is, so as the matter spread out gravitational forces weakened. This explains the accelerating expansion of the universe. The problem is we don't know what in the world Dark matter is, even worse is that we don't know what Dark Energy is, besides the points i just explained.
My point is, the only reason i would see FE accelerating upwards, is because of Dark Energy pushing it, causing a gravitational effect on us, which could work and not work at the same time its odd.
TL;DR
Dark energy makes the universe expand at an accelerating rate, which could possibly allow FE's acceleration upwards.
Edit fixed quote.
-
Sure it would. We only experience 1g at all times. But we are accelerating with the earth as well. Why would you think that as the earth accelerates at 1g, that we would experience 1g on itself exponentially? I don't feel any heavier than I did an hour ago.
Besides, that doesn't have to do with relativity, which you completely ignored.
So you're saying, if i jump out of a plane, then the reason I'm accelerating downwards is cause the earth is moving towards me? If you're on a rollercoaster though, you experience more G's, which you ride. Why wouldn't this work with a planet/flat thing?
-
You experience more Gs because you body is trying to go in hte direction the roller coaster was going before it turned or did the loop or whatnot. Its a pseudo force.
-
You experience more Gs because you body is trying to go in hte direction the roller coaster was going before it turned or did the loop or whatnot. Its a pseudo force.
Why does paper fold under my pressure of moving it upward when i don't from this planet thing? Atmosphere isn't constant i thought if gravity didn't exist, unless I am wrong. Wouldn't the planet just move through the gas anyways without gravity? It still could make sense for gravity to exist but have dark energy prevent it from collapsing on itself.
I saw the thread about atmosphere just now, but it has more holes in it than 10 blowup fun dolls. A universal accelerator would work in one direction only, it can't have a counter force to specifically keep a atmosphere on our special plain thing, it would cause our FE to stop moving.
-
How many threads are there on this now?
-
Fifty seven eleventeen?
-
dont worry, a good reliable source told me they will stop in neverary.
-
Even then, would the G-force not be unbearable by the time it reached maximum velocity?
In our frame of reference, g will always be 9.8m-1s-2. In the Earth's frame of reference (observed by a stationary observer), Earth's acceleration decreases as it approaches c.
-
9.8m-1s-2
I don't think those are units of acceleration.
-
I guess I made a mistake on the -1.
-
can we get back onto topic as opposed to pointing out other peoples grammatical errorrs.
(the spelling mistake is intentional)
-
The m-1 is not a grammatical error, it makes the equation dimensionally incorrect... it's the sort of thing that if not picked up right away will lead to people arguing for 5 pages about... That's why Osama and Jack sorted it that quickly...
-
fair point. shall we get back on topic?
-
Sure why not? :)
Source of energy for FE UA mechanism... same as for RE dark energy?