The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: TheCat on September 18, 2008, 12:37:34 PM
-
I think I read in the FAQ that the tides are caused by the Earth doing a bit of a wobble or general tilting from side to side.
If the Earth tilts from, say for the sake of argument, East to West and back again the tide will go out and come in on eastern and western beaches. While this is happening, surely the waves observed from the northern and southern beaches will be going from side to side rather than crashing onto the beach and going back out again. Won't they?
-
not if the earth's tilt moving in a circular motion, rather than just from left to right..
that aside, I think they made up a moon or something to explain it. I'm sure an FEer will be along soon enough to explain
-
There's a moon below the Earth, affecting the gravitation effects of the moon above. Or so some of them say.
-
Another moon? Isn't FET getting a bit too far fetched?
-
I wonder how the DE doesn't push that moon to crash in the rocks below us.
-
I wonder how the DE doesn't push that moon to crash in the rocks below us.
Why would the antimoon be accelerating faster than we are?
-
I wonder how the DE doesn't push that moon to crash in the rocks below us.
Why would the antimoon be accelerating faster than we are?
UA + gravitational attraction = anti-moon pushed into bottom of FE
-
UA + gravitational attraction = anti-moon pushed into bottom of FE
Not if it's heavy enough, such that it is accelerated less by Dark Energy.
-
UA + gravitational attraction = anti-moon pushed into bottom of FE
Not if it's heavy enough, such that it is accelerated less by Dark Energy.
So now dark energy knows the mass of objects? Why doesn't the moon and sun accelerate away then? After all, they are much smaller and there mass is much less.
-
So now dark energy knows the mass of objects? Why doesn't the moon and sun accelerate away then? After all, they are much smaller and there mass is much less.
Look up Newton's second law of motion. You might also benefit from looking up the difference between "there" and "their".
-
Once again Steve, you're suggesting that the heavier something is the less the force affecting it.
Newton's II: F= m.a
Steve's I: F = a/m
The two are always contradictory.
Does not compute. Either stick with Steve's I or Newton's II. Don't try and put them both on a plate, 'cos it's just gonna get sent back to the kitchen.
Uh, no...
Not if it's heavy enough, such that it is accelerated less by Dark Energy.
Acceleration ≠ Force
-
But if two objects are accelerated at different rates, the distance between them will vary.
Still confused. Maybe it's the terminology.
The distance between them is trying to decrease due to gravitation, and trying to increase due to Dark Energy. The two balance each other out, which is what you were asking in the first place.
-
not if the earth's tilt moving in a circular motion, rather than just from left to right..
that aside, I think they made up a moon or something to explain it. I'm sure an FEer will be along soon enough to explain
But if the earth is tilting in a circular fashion then the waves viewed from any shore will be going sideways past the shore, won't it?
-
I don't know how distances can try to do things. They're not sentient, just a number representing separation of two points. Anyway...
If the distances try to increase, but can't, then their acceleration is the same.
Still confused.
If they followed geodesics in space time, they would collide. Dark Energy keeps them apart by accelerating the Sun more than the Moon.
-
So now dark energy knows the mass of objects? Why doesn't the moon and sun accelerate away then? After all, they are much smaller and there mass is much less.
Look up Newton's second law of motion. You might also benefit from looking up the difference between "there" and "their".
I know what it is and I know that you have no idea what you are talking about.
-
I know what it is
Then you are trolling.
-
I know what it is
Then you are trolling.
No, I am pointing out your stupidity.
-
No, I am pointing out your stupidity.
Go away.
-
No, I am pointing out your stupidity.
Go away.
Learn something and I will.
-
Go away.
-
Go away.
We are not talking about the sun and the moon. We are talking about the "antimoon" and the bottom of the earth.
-
We are not talking about the sun and the moon. We are talking about the "antimoon" and the bottom of the earth.
Oh, sorry. I got this thread confused with another one. The same principle still applies.
-
So how about my point that if the earth is tilting in various directions the waves will go sideways when observed from the shore?
-
If I'm right, we have the flat earth, just right in top of it the air fading as you go up. Then the DE is pushing the earth from below, so... how DE affects the moon and sun, that are just right above of the earth, and of all the air on it? isn't the earth blocking?
-
We are not talking about the sun and the moon. We are talking about the "antimoon" and the bottom of the earth.
Oh, sorry. I got this thread confused with another one. The same principle still applies.
No, it doesn't.
UA is accelerating (pushing) the FE and the anti-moon upwards. Gravitation wants to attract the anti-moon to the bottom of the FE. Unless the bottom of the FE radiates a DEF, then the DEF would be either balanced all around the anti-moon (effectively neutral) or be directed at the anti-moon towards the bottom of the FE (further pushing the anti-moon upwards).
-
So how about my point that if the earth is tilting in various directions the waves will go sideways when observed from the shore?
I don't like the tilting model.
If I'm right, we have the flat earth, just right in top of it the air fading as you go up. Then the DE is pushing the earth from below, so... how DE affects the moon and sun, that are just right above of the earth, and of all the air on it? isn't the earth blocking?
The Earth shields a certain volume in front of it from Dark Energy. The heavens are outside this.
UA is accelerating (pushing) the FE and the anti-moon upwards. Gravitation wants to attract the anti-moon to the bottom of the FE. Unless the bottom of the FE radiates a DEF, then the DEF would be either balanced all around the anti-moon (effectively neutral) or be directed at the anti-moon towards the bottom of the FE (further pushing the anti-moon upwards).
You forget that Dark Energy is also pushing the Flat Earth upwards, and due to its enormous surface area it is being pushed quite a lot faster than a fairly small anti-moon with high density would be. Without gravitation, the anti-moon would lag behind. Gravitation keeps it where it is.
-
Eh? Geodesics in space time? What are you talking about?
Once again, if the sun accelerates more than the moon then the distances between them will vary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity)
To use the simpler (but incorrect) Newtonian analogy, gravity applies the same force to the Sun and Moon to pull them together as Dark Energy does to push them apart, resulting in zero net force.
-
So now they're not accelerating differently?
In General Relativity, they are. In Newtonian physics, which is incorrect, they are not.
-
Zero net force?
I thought we were accelerating upwards at 9.8ms-2? That takes some hefty force!
Sorry, I'm tired. I meant zero difference between the net forces on each object.
-
But...
In General Relativity, they are. In Newtonian physics, which is incorrect, they are not.
So they really are acclerating apart, but general relativity causes them not to appear to be accelerating apart?
Correct. The Sun's own frame of reference is accelerating faster than the Moon's. General relativity says that due to the curvature of spacetime, they should be attracting each other (though to the Sun, only the Moon appears to accelerate gravitationally, and to the Moon, only the Sun appears to accelerate gravitationally, which is why I said they do not accelerate due to gravitation), and the net effect is that the vertical distance between them is constant.
-
So how about my point that if the earth is tilting in various directions the waves will go sideways when observed from the shore?
I don't like the tilting model.
Ok but if you don't "like" the tilting model does that mean itdoes tilt or it doesn't? Or do you just belive the bits you "like".
But that aside - if the tilting model is wrong what actually causes the tides to ebb and flow?
-
So how about my point that if the earth is tilting in various directions the waves will go sideways when observed from the shore?
I don't like the tilting model.
Ok but if you don't "like" the tilting model does that mean itdoes tilt or it doesn't? Or do you just belive the bits you "like".
But that aside - if the tilting model is wrong what actually causes the tides to ebb and flow?
Anti-moon.
And yeah, in this theory, each believer has his own thoughts and opinions about different facts, great, innit?
-
I think from now on "Not in FAQ" should be an adaquate riposte. Maybe then the FE'ers will sort their act out. I really can't be arsed juggling the DEF with the UA and Einsteins General Relativity, and the anti moon, and the fricking tilt. And the conspiracy. And wonko light, and wonko telescopes, and wonko time.
Is there chocolate with all that Wonka?