The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Kira-SY on September 21, 2008, 02:01:21 PM
-
I promise this is not stupid
Imagine you shoot an arrow aiming the sky, it goes up, then it stops in air for a milisecond and then if falls to the ground making a parabola. In a FE model, wouldn't the earth go up, closing the angle of ascending and "hiting" the arrow? To the shooter, it'd have the effect of the arrow touching the ground in a straight line.
Another one: In RE, more mass, means more attraction, how come in the FE model when you drop something like a lollipop or something with more weight in one extreme, this touches the ground the first of all? Shouldn't it has no effect in the FE model?
-
Yes and No. At the time the arrow was fired it was traveling upwards (due to its location on the FE) at the same speed that the FE was. However, because the FE is in a perpetual state of acceleration the FE continues to accelerate and eventually overtakes the arrow with its greater speed. So yes the Earth does in fact "hit" the arrow. This overtaking has a physical appearance that is the same as the efffects gravity would have on the arrow in the RE model.
Its like releasing a balloon inside of a moving car. As long as the car is moving steadily (and the windows are closed) the balloon will not move to the back of the car.
However, this scenario raises another question:
If gravity does not influence tha falling of an arrow in the flat Earth model, how come an arrow that is fired strait up will fall with the tip (the heaviest part) down?
-
Imagine you shoot an arrow aiming the sky, it goes up, then it stops in air for a milisecond and then if falls to the ground making a parabola. In a FE model, wouldn't the earth go up, closing the angle of ascending and "hiting" the arrow? To the shooter, it'd have the effect of the arrow touching the ground in a straight line.
No, the arrow would follow the exact same path.
Another one: In RE, more mass, means more attraction, how come in the FE model when you drop something like a lollipop or something with more weight in one extreme, this touches the ground the first of all? Shouldn't it has no effect in the FE model?
The effect you are referring to is due to air friction, not gravitation.
-
If gravity does not influence tha falling of an arrow in the flat Earth model, how come an arrow that is fired strait up will fall with the tip (the heaviest part) down?
Air friction. If you shot an arrow in a vacuum it would land at the angle at which it was fired.
-
Air friction?!
Whaaaaa?!
Yes, air friction.
-
If you drop a feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum from the same distance which one hits the ground first?
-
In the way that air friction causes things to fall heaviest side first, since gravity doesn't care what the mass of the object is.
-
It's threads like this that make me wonder how some schools can leave people so hopelessly undereducated in physics, and why they then try to argue from ignorance as though they actually know something. Everything Robbyj has said in this thread is correct.
-
Osama, I wonder who of us (FE & RE) are less educated, but well, that ain't the topic.
Robbyj, you said "gravity", so I'll asume you're taking the RE point of view, and I'm sorry to tell you that we consider that mass DOES affect gravity: More mass, more gravity attraction. That is not a discussion, it's a scientifical fact for RE. And besides, could you please send me some video with an explanation about how it works in the way you say or something else than your words about this air friction making the heaviest part of a body head down? Thank you.
Wardogg, I know you're a RE'er, but I don't see the point in your question.
-
Osama, I wonder who of us (FE & RE) are less educated, but well, that ain't the topic.
Robbyj, you said "gravity", so I'll asume you're taking the RE point of view, and I'm sorry to tell you that we consider that mass DOES affect gravity: More mass, more gravity attraction. That is not a discussion, it's a scientifical fact for RE. And besides, could you please send me some video with an explanation about how it works in the way you say or something else than your words about this air friction making the heaviest part of a body head down? Thank you.
Wardogg, I know you're a RE'er, but I don't see the point in your question.
Do you think he made air friction up? Have you never seen an F1 car?
-
I promise this is not stupid
Not the best start, but let's go with it anyway...
Imagine you shoot an arrow aiming the sky, it goes up, then it stops in air for a milisecond and then if falls to the ground making a parabola. In a FE model, wouldn't the earth go up, closing the angle of ascending and "hiting" the arrow? To the shooter, it'd have the effect of the arrow touching the ground in a straight line.
Another one: In RE, more mass, means more attraction, how come in the FE model when you drop something like a lollipop or something with more weight in one extreme, this touches the ground the first of all? Shouldn't it has no effect in the FE model?
As others have already said, gravitational attraction and the Earth accelerating upwards are exactly equivalent - the effects that we call 'gravity' can be exactly reproduced by sitting in an accelerating reference frame. These diagrams make the comparison nicely:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Elevator_gravity2.png)
As for the argument over atmospheric drag (or 'air resistance'), it is that effect that makes a feather fall slower than a bowling ball on Earth. Gravitational attraction accelerates all masses equally, so in theory if you drop a hammer and a feather at the same time in a vacuum, both will hit the floor at the same time. You can take the NASA Moon landing videos as proof of this principle, where they did this test for real (if you're an FE'er then I suppose this same test could have been done in a large vacuum chamber with time-altered video to mimic the Moon's weaker gravitational field).
Here is the video to prove it. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926891572259784994)
We know that if you drop an arrow from a level position it will rotate to hit the floor point-first. This will not happen in a vacuum, but happens on Earth since the arrow head is more aerodynamic (it experiences less drag) than the feathered other end. The other end is therefore decelerated by drag more, so the arrow rotates.
Does that help clear this up?
-
Here's my explanation:
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/FEDRAG.jpg)
Thus, the heavier side eventually falls first.
-
maybe that's why toast always lands butter side down
-
*waits for the cat with toast on it's back link*
-
wouldn't it make more sense just to butter the cats back? No point wasting a slice of bread.
-
Robbyj, you said "gravity", so I'll asume you're taking the RE point of view, and I'm sorry to tell you that we consider that mass DOES affect gravity: More mass, more gravity attraction. That is not a discussion, it's a scientifical fact for RE. And besides, could you please send me some video with an explanation about how it works in the way you say or something else than your words about this air friction making the heaviest part of a body head down? Thank you.
Did Matrix's post clear that up for you?
-
Osama, I wonder who of us (FE & RE) are less educated, but well, that ain't the topic.
Taking a particular stance in the FE/RE debate has no correlation with education, though most RE'ers on here don't seem to have taken a Physics class in their life.
-
Taking a particular stance in the FE/RE debate has no correlation with education, though most people on here don't seem to have taken a Physics class in their life.
Fix'd
-
I find myself (at least partially) agreeing with Osama. If anything can be said for FE'ers, it's that they know their physics. People should restrict themselves to arguing topics that aren't completely beyond their comprehension.
-
If anything can be said for FE'ers, it's that they know their physics. People should restrict themselves to arguing topics that aren't completely beyond their comprehension.
... :-\
Come on man, seriously? I'd say the FE/RE fail ratio when it comes to physics is pretty close to 1. That excludes trolls and n00bs, of course, who don't know enough to even fail properly.
-
I wasn't generally comparing the scientific knowledge of FE'ers to that of RE'ers. It is undeniable that there are a large number of knowledgable RE'ers on these forums, but when it comes to discussions about conventional scientific theories such as GR, most FE'ers appear to have done their homework. When they aren't using circular logic, or trying to confuse you using "Chewbacca defense"-like arguments, or derailing threads by arguing semantics, FE'ers can actually make very logical scientific arguments (if it suits them).
Flat Earth turd-physics such as bendy light and UA are a whole different subject of course. I'm talking about actual science here.
-
Well, I wanted an explanation, and I obtained it, so I'm thankful.
I ain't gonna to argue 'cause effectively, I'm a letters man, and I don't know much about physics. But I'd like some RE'er able to show how it really work for us.
I'll keep thinking on questions!
-
But I'd like some RE'er able to show how it really work for us.
What do you want to know?
I'll keep thinking on questions!
That's the spirit :D Now all we need is a few more people with the right idea!
-
But I'd like some RE'er able to show how it really work for us.
Matrix's explanation applies to RE.
-
But I'd like some RE'er able to show how it really work for us.
What do you want to know?
I'll keep thinking on questions!
That's the spirit :D Now all we need is a few more people with the right idea!
A: In the void, a hammer, or a lollipop, would fall with the heaviest side down?
B: Do you agree with the FE explanation of the falling arrow? Sometimes I'm a bit lost 'cause of the english, remember it's not my mother tongue :-[
-
A: In the void, a hammer, or a lollipop, would fall with the heaviest side down?
If by void you mean vacuum, no.
-
A: In the void, a hammer, or a lollipop, would fall with the heaviest side down?
B: Do you agree with the FE explanation of the falling arrow? Sometimes I'm a bit lost 'cause of the english, remember it's not my mother tongue :-[
A: Robb's right, the hammer/arrow/whatever will fall exactly as you drop it without rotating
B: I'm a bit lost myself here - which FE explanation are you referring to? I posted my own one earlier which I stick by... Let's say you have a giant, 1 tonne sheet of paper attached to a stick with a bowling ball on the other end - the giant sheet of paper will still fall more slowly since it is not as aerodynamic (it experiences more drag) and so the lighter bowling ball hits the ground first...
-
Since english is a second language I'll show you with math to better understanding.
W = weight M = mass g = gravitation F = force a = acceleration
W = M*g
W = F
F = m*a
a = F/m = W/m = mg/m
a = mg/m = g
a = g
-
If gravity does not influence tha falling of an arrow in the flat Earth model, how come an arrow that is fired strait up will fall with the tip (the heaviest part) down?
Does this mean that if you throw an arrow up with the head pointing down it'll stay pointed down while it's still travelling up?
-
LOL @ Twat's sig ;D
-
Here's my explanation:
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/FEDRAG.jpg)
Thus, the heavier side eventually falls first.
Does anyone see any problems with it? I want to see if I could correct it.
Since the force of gravity doesn't exist, air is always accelerating up, and things don't accelerate once they leave the FE's surface, this diagram could explain why heavier things fall faster than lighter ones when considering Fdrag.
-
That diagram looks fine to me, but REers' minds work in mysterious ways.
-
Here's my explanation:
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/FEDRAG.jpg)
Thus, the heavier side eventually falls first.
Does anyone see any problems with it? I want to see if I could correct it.
Since the force of gravity doesn't exist, air is always accelerating up, and things don't accelerate once they leave the FE's surface, this diagram could explain why heavier things fall faster than lighter ones when considering Fdrag.
I only see a problem, a li'l one, it's the pass from figure 1 to figure 2, if air is pushing up with a constant strength every point in the body, from every side, at the same time, why there's a moment in which it "moves" to face down?
-
It's due to Fdrag/m = a.
-
I just have one question, if objects discontinue their upward acceleration once they leave the earth's surface. What causes the air to accelerate upwards? In any case, assuming the air does follow the earth's acceleration, ya the diagram looks good.
-
I just have one question, if objects discontinue their upward acceleration once they leave the earth's surface. What causes the air to accelerate upwards?
The earth pushing against the air.
-
What causes the air to accelerate upwards?
Would you prefer it to compress into an infinitely dense coating on the surface of the Earth?
-
Yes, but what keeps the air in contact with the earth? Air is rather fluid and will just move out of the way of the upwardly accelerating earth due to inertia, will it not? Some air would continue with the earth, but eventually wouldn't the atmosphere be left behind in space as our Earth travels through it?
-
Yes, but what keeps the air in contact with the earth? Air is rather fluid and will just move out of the way of the upwardly accelerating earth due to inertia, will it not? Some air would continue with the earth, but eventually wouldn't the atmosphere be left behind in space as our Earth travels through it?
How can a gas and a solid coexist in the same region in spacetime? ???
-
We might be on different pages here. Might be my poor way of describing or articulating, so forgive me. What's your question in more detail please? Or at least why are you asking it? It seems a bit non sequitor.
-
Yes, but what keeps the air in contact with the earth? Air is rather fluid and will just move out of the way of the upwardly accelerating earth due to inertia, will it not? Some air would continue with the earth, but eventually wouldn't the atmosphere be left behind in space as our Earth travels through it?
How can a gas and a solid coexist in the same region in spacetime? ???
I think he means the earth travelling through the air like an arrow travels through the air.
-
We might be on different pages here. Might be my poor way of describing or articulating, so forgive me. What's your question in more detail please? Or at least why are you asking it? It seems a bit non sequitor.
For the Earth to travel through the air, the air would need to literally sink into the ground.
-
Oh you're right. I forgot that the ice wall in the FE theory is 150 feet tall. So in practical every day purposes the air would continue with the earth... Nevermind forget I said anything :)
-
However, after 150 feet, would our atmosphere simply not just be moved to the edges of our planet and rush off the sides because there would be no mechanism to keep it in front of our accelerating earth? Much like a car pushes air out of the way as you drive around. Excuse my almost oversimplified example, but I hope you get the idea.
-
The DEF keeps our atmolayer in touch with the Earth.
-
OK, excuse my admittedly small understanding of the entire workings of the FE theory. I read the FAQ and don't remember a DEF. Could you please point to where I can read up on it and become familiar with it? I've new to your theory and I do apologize for any "wasted space" I am creating on this thread.
-
You have nothing to apologize for. Polite questioning is refreshing compared to "WTFTEHEARFISROWND!!!11!!one".
-
Here's my explanation:
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/FEDRAG.jpg)
Thus, the heavier side eventually falls first.
Does anyone see any problems with it? I want to see if I could correct it.
Since the force of gravity doesn't exist, air is always accelerating up, and things don't accelerate once they leave the FE's surface, this diagram could explain why heavier things fall faster than lighter ones when considering Fdrag.
A fairer test would be with a sphere that was made of denser material in one hemisphere - in that case no rotation would be observed in RET or FET. The example you gave could result in the narrow end pointing upwards due to an unstable equilibrium caused by atmospheric drag, but it would depend on the exact geometry of the spike and so on.
-
A fairer test would be with a sphere that was made of denser material in one hemisphere - in that case no rotation would be observed in RET or FET.
Wouldn't there still be a torque on it due to the centre of mass being offset from the centre of drag?
-
Hmm... interesting. Possibly there would, yes. I'll try it out later.
-
OK, excuse my admittedly small understanding of the entire workings of the FE theory. I read the FAQ and don't remember a DEF. Could you please point to where I can read up on it and become familiar with it? I've new to your theory and I do apologize for any "wasted space" I am creating on this thread.
Basically, the DEF is the result when DE, the mechanism behind the Earth's acceleration, encounters an obstacle (the Earth) and forms a "bow shock" shape in front of it. The DEF acts as a lid to hold the massive atmolayer and anything less massive than that. Because of this, the DEF happens to shield us from the accelerating effects of DE. Otherwise, we humans would also be accelerated by DE.
Other people believe in the "pool theory", in which there is a +80,000ft ice wall that holds the atmolayer in place. However, as you've said before, the atmolayer can still be diffused out due to the concentration differences.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23279.msg488808#msg488808
Read further from that post.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23099.msg482683#msg482683
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23083.msg479420#msg479420
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23099.msg482644#msg482644
Here is TheEngineer's explanation on the DEF's structure:
The Dark Energy Field is a vector field. It has a gradient that is smallest at the interaction of the atmosphere and the field, called the boundary layer. The DEF interacts with the magnetic field of the earth at this boundary layer. These vectors produce a force vector that is orthogonal to the other vectors in four dimensional space. This force vector is always normal to the boundary layer, thus providing a type of forced containment for the atmosphere.
-
A fairer test would be with a sphere that was made of denser material in one hemisphere - in that case no rotation would be observed in RET or FET.
Wouldn't there still be a torque on it due to the centre of mass being offset from the centre of drag?
Also, turbulant flow past the object based on reynold's number.
-
Interesting, this would also explain one reason you guys feel space travel is nearly impossible? Due to the fact that you need to exceed the limit of force required to penetrate the DEF? Also, you say that the earth emits to gravity, correct? Conversely, the stars and moon and other celestial objects do exert a gravitational force? <Feel free to correct any misinterpretations that I may have formed> So the objects in the sky exert a gravitational force on the earth, which accounts for the variable "force" experienced at different altitudes that RE claim is gravity and FE says is due to the acceleration of the DE? Now, I'm wondering. Why does the earth not catch up to the other objects due to this ever so slight gravity? Considering that their vectors should be parallel, they should combine into a slightly faster than the DE acceleration that those celestial bodies feel from just the DE?
-
Interesting, this would also explain one reason you guys feel space travel is nearly impossible? Due to the fact that you need to exceed the limit of force required to penetrate the DEF?
Yes.
Also, you say that the earth emits to gravity, correct?
From celestial bodies, yes. Gravitation, or the curvature of space-time, is impossible on FE. Otherwise, FE will eventually crunch into a ball, as stated in the FAQ.
Conversely, the stars and moon and other celestial objects do exert a gravitational force?
Yes.
So the objects in the sky exert a gravitational force on the earth, which accounts for the variable "force" experienced at different altitudes that RE claim is gravity and FE says is due to the acceleration of the DE? Now, I'm wondering.
Well, you can't mix two things into one. The acceleration by DE is not gravitation, although both effects are indistinguishable from each other in our frame of reference.
Why does the earth not catch up to the other objects due to this ever so slight gravity? Considering that their vectors should be parallel, they should combine into a slightly faster than the DE acceleration that those celestial bodies feel from just the DE?
DE accelerates all objects in the universe at the same rate.
-
Also, you say that the earth emits to gravity, correct?
From celestial bodies, yes. Gravitation, or the curvature of space-time, is impossible on FE. Otherwise, FE will eventually crunch into a ball, as stated in the FAQ.
Admittedly, I did typo. I meant does not exert a gravitational force.
So the objects in the sky exert a gravitational force on the earth, which accounts for the variable "force" experienced at different altitudes that RE claim is gravity and FE says is due to the acceleration of the DE? Now, I'm wondering.
Well, you can't mix two things into one. The acceleration by DE is not gravitation, although both effects are indistinguishable from each other in our frame of reference.
I was basically trying to say that the two theories use different reasoning to explain the same phenomenon. I.E. Ya, they are indistinguishable.
Why does the earth not catch up to the other objects due to this ever so slight gravity? Considering that their vectors should be parallel, they should combine into a slightly faster than the DE acceleration that those celestial bodies feel from just the DE?
DE accelerates all objects in the universe at the same rate.
Yes, everything is accelerated at the same rate according to FE model. However, does it also prevent further accelerations from other sources? Because if DE is accelerating earth and our sun for an example at the same rate. Also, the sun is exerting a gravitation on the earth, but not visa versa. Would not the sum of forces on the earth be greater than on earth than on the sun?
-
One additional question, how does the Earth not exert a gravitational force? Does it not have mass even though the soil, crust and many things on it have mass? I may be comprehending a few things wrong, but according to the Gravity thread it would seem that the Earth must exert a gravitational force from the mass that it contains and the warping of spacetime.
-
I was basically trying to say that the two theories use different reasoning to explain the same phenomenon.
One theory is used to explain the indistinguishable effects of gravitation. The other is used to explain gravitational differentiation.
Yes, everything is accelerated at the same rate according to FE model. However, does it also prevent further accelerations from other sources? Because if DE is accelerating earth and our sun for an example at the same rate. Also, the sun is exerting a gravitation on the earth, but not visa versa. Would not the sum of forces on the earth be greater than on earth than on the sun?
The sun exerts gravitation, but its effects are so small that it will not cause the Earth's acceleration to increase. Same goes to the celestial bodies in the universe. We could also say, based on your claim, that the other celestial bodies exerting gravitation on Earth maybe affected by gravitation from other farther celestial bodies. This chain of effects can balance out the sum of acceleration in the universe.
One additional question, how does the Earth not exert a gravitational force? Does it not have mass even though the soil, crust and many things on it have mass? I may be comprehending a few things wrong, but according to the Gravity thread it would seem that the Earth must exert a gravitational force from the mass that it contains and the warping of spacetime.
According to the FAQ, the Earth is far different from the other celestial bodies in the universe. Thus, we can say that the Earth is special and does not exert gravitation. Or, we can say there is a mechanism between the Earth and DE that cancels out the process of space-time curvature. One possible explanation to that is anti-gravitation.
-
Read the FAQ.
-
Since the entire universe in FET appears to be centered around the Earth, and the Flat Earth itself is also mysteriously unique compared to everything else in the "known" FET universe - yes, the it can be considered to be special. But when you think about the person who invented the theory and the reasons for which he did it, it's not surprising.
If you refuse to accept that humans are just glorified monkeys that inhabit a small, insignificant planet in a huge universe that does not appear to have been created six thousand years ago by a loving god.... you might look for an alternative too.
-
Since the entire universe in FET appears to be centered around the Earth, and the Flat Earth itself is also mysteriously unique compared to everything else in the "known" FET universe - yes, the it can be considered to be special. But when you think about the person who invented the theory and the reasons for which he did it, it's not surprising.
The Earth is unique because it is an infinite plane of unknown size and magnitude which cuts the universe in half. It's not a celestial body. It's not a planet. It's an entirely different entity to those things. The earth bisects the universe as our Terra Firma. The earth is the only known material world and the only environment known to support life.
-
Since the entire universe in FET appears to be centered around the Earth, and the Flat Earth itself is also mysteriously unique compared to everything else in the "known" FET universe - yes, the it can be considered to be special. But when you think about the person who invented the theory and the reasons for which he did it, it's not surprising.
The Earth is unique because it is an infinite plane of unknown size and magnitude which cuts the universe in half. It's not a celestial body. It's not a planet. It's an entirely different entity to those things. The earth bisects the universe as our Terra Firma. The earth is the only known material world and the only environment known to support life.
Like I said. Super magical unique and special.
-
Like I said. Super magical unique and special.
There's nothing magical about a plane. It's just a plane. It's not a rock, a ball, or a planet. The earth we live on is just an enormous undefined plane. Any child of five could see that.
-
Like I said. Super magical unique and special.
There's nothing magical about a plane. It's just a plane. It's not a rock, a ball, or a planet. The earth we live on is just an enormous plane. Any child of five could see that.
Okay, so a super non-magical unique and special enourmous plane that is not a celestial object and is governed by laughably inconsistent laws of physics that are also non-magical.
Check.
-
The FAQ does not explain how the earth is special, it only assumes that it is.
Just like you RE'ers assume the Earth is round. Speaking of that, modern science assumes gravity is propagated by a magical particle called "graviton" or by the curvature of space-time, but does not explain the "how".
Your argument is a strawman.
-
Just like you RE'ers assume the Earth is round. Speaking of that, modern science assumes gravity is propagated by a magical particle called "graviton" or by the curvature of space-time, but does not explain the "how".
-
Tom Bishop.
- What is infinite? The earth, or a vast extension of ice in which we are supposely stuck?
- Why this theory is not supported by every FE'er?
- How did you get to this conclusion?
- For an infinite plane to be ascending up, we would need an infinte amount of energy to push it, where does it come from? Or it's a special energy as well that doesn't need an origin or a maintenance?
- Any substancial proof? I mean real, physical.
-
I don't assume anything.
You assume the Earth is round.
The evidence of gravity, that is, the force experienced between two masses, is thoroughly documented. Although the origins are not fully understood, the rules are.
This however is by the by.
The force of gravity does not exist. Welcome to the 21st century.
The FAQ does not explain how the earth is special, it only assumes that it is.
So you really didn't understand my previous statement? Figures.
-
So I won. Thanks for playing.
-
The FAQ does not explain how the earth is special, it only assumes that it is.
The Earth is not special.
-
Oh, I forgot you're gullible and go off everything that you're told. My mistake.
-
Oh, I forgot you're gullible and go off everything that you're told. My mistake.
Trolling doesn't get much more lame than that. Congrats.
-
The FAQ does not explain how the earth is special, it only assumes that it is.
Just like you RE'ers assume the Earth is round. Speaking of that, modern science assumes gravity is propagated by a magical particle called "graviton" or by the curvature of space-time, but does not explain the "how".
Modern science doesn't assume *that*, you idiot. Modern science theorises that gravitons probably exist because of the success of quantum field theory and the "standard model".
Sometimes REers have it so wrong about what science actually is: It's not "absolute truth". It's not "proof". It's just ideas backed up by evidence.
-
Trolling doesn't get much more lame than that. Congrats.
I can't imagine him really being that ignorant and absent-minded to continue like he has until now, so his trolling is worse.
-
So anyway... I gather from the non-insulting and somewhat civil responses that in the FE model the earth either exerts a gravitation from its mass and it's countered by some sort of anti-gravitation? OK.
Since the entire universe in FET appears to be centered around the Earth, and the Flat Earth itself is also mysteriously unique compared to everything else in the "known" FET universe - yes, the it can be considered to be special. But when you think about the person who invented the theory and the reasons for which he did it, it's not surprising.
The Earth is unique because it is an infinite plane of unknown size and magnitude which cuts the universe in half. It's not a celestial body. It's not a planet. It's an entirely different entity to those things. The earth bisects the universe as our Terra Firma. The earth is the only known material world and the only environment known to support life.
Is the only evidence that it is unique the fact that we 've never seen another flat planet? How can we be sure there aren't other flat planets out there in this universe?
I'm also going to second Kira-SY's question. Tom Bishop stated that the earth is infinite. Does the FAQ not say the earth has a diameter? Also, if the earth is an infinite plane. This also contradicts the "bow shock" theory that is prevalent throughout the forums, does it not? If our earth is infinite, there are no edges on which this bow shock can use to form.
Can we please stop all of the sniping and insulting comments? They are in no way shape or form proving anything, being constructive, or providing useful thoughts that I can read. You don't believe the FE modeL? Fine. You don't believe the RE model? Fine. You think that you've made a point that the other person can't counter and is being stubborn? Leave it at that please. However, please leave your demeaning comments off of a board that from what I can tell is here for discussion.
-
Modern science doesn't assume *that*, you idiot. Modern science theorises that gravitons probably exist because of the success of quantum field theory and the "standard model".
Right, the success of the quantum field theory and the Standard Model demands the scientific community to make up a particle for the fourth fundamental interaction, which is the graviton. Thus, assumption.
Here's where you stole that from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
Gravitons are postulated because of the great success of the quantum field theory (in particular, the Standard Model) at modeling the behavior of all other forces of nature with similar particles: electromagnetism with the photon, the strong interaction with the gluons, and the weak interaction with the W and Z bosons. In this framework, the gravitational interaction is mediated by gravitons, instead of being described in terms of curved spacetime as in general relativity. In the classical limit, both approaches give identical results, which are required to conform to Newton's law of gravitation.
And here's the definition of postulate from Dictionary.com:
postulate
–verb (used with object)
1. to ask, demand, or claim.
2. to claim or assume the existence or truth of, esp. as a basis for reasoning or arguing.
3. to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.
4. Mathematics, Logic. to assume as a postulate.
tr.v. pos·tu·lat·ed, pos·tu·lat·ing, pos·tu·lates
1. To make claim for; demand.
2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted.
Sometimes REers have it so wrong about what science actually is: It's not "absolute truth". It's not "proof". It's just ideas backed up by evidence.
Of course, most of the RE'ers are retarded here.
If telling your mom you won the fight gets you a bowl of ice cream and a hug, then I'm happy for you to do that.
Old.
-
To Chamuel85:
The Flat Earth Society does not endorse anything said by Tom Bishop. In fact, just about everything he says is stupid.
-
haha ok E.Jack. Thanks for the heads up :) But is antigravity a theory or hypothesis at this point? I'd be interested in seeing experiments that would show it. Because antigravity would be a useful mechanic
-
Antigravity is as hypothetical as the subatomic particle graviton.
-
Antigravity is as hypothetical as the subatomic particle graviton.
Then you can stop undervalue the graviton as a particle for gravity, while you support the antigravity for your own theory. And I use "you" in the plural sense.
Tom, I'm waiting...
-
I'm not so sure. I'd be willing to argue with that. From my understanding, the gravitron (although has yet to be discovered) has been put into the standard model to explain a particular force (gravitation) or occurance (mass tending towards each other/the bending of space time). I was curious to see if there had been experiments that showed an antigravitational force or not.
Also, a side note... anyone have incite. If Einstein proved that gravity was a fictional force, why would they put a gravitron into our standard model if Einstein showed that mass bends space time which is what gravitation is all about (which we mistook for gravity). Especially since they feel that the elusive Higg's Boson (What the LHC is looking for) is what gives mass?
-
Also, a side note... anyone have incite. If Einstein proved that gravity was a fictional force, why would they put a gravitron into our standard model if Einstein showed that mass bends space time which is what gravitation is all about (which we mistook for gravity). Especially since they feel that the elusive Higg's Boson (What the LHC is looking for) is what gives mass?
I'm no expert, but I think it's because quantum mechanics contradicts that particular aspect of relativity.
-
Then you can stop undervalue the graviton as a particle for gravity, while you support the antigravity for your own theory. And I use "you" in the plural sense.
I don't believe in the graviton. I believe space-time curvature causes gravitation (or "gravity" to dumb it down). Anti-gravitation, the mechanism that neutralizes FE's gravitational field, counters that.
I'm not so sure. I'd be willing to argue with that. From my understanding, the gravitron (although has yet to be discovered) has been put into the standard model to explain a particular force (gravitation) or occurance (mass tending towards each other/the bending of space time). I was curious to see if there had been experiments that showed an antigravitational force or not.
They made up the particle due to the success of the quantum field theory, where the remaining unsolved puzzle is the fourth fundamental force: gravity.
Also, a side note... anyone have incite. If Einstein proved that gravity was a fictional force, why would they put a gravitron into our standard model if Einstein showed that mass bends space time which is what gravitation is all about (which we mistook for gravity). Especially since they feel that the elusive Higg's Boson (What the LHC is looking for) is what gives mass?
That's why there's a contradiction between GR and QM, the two dominant theories in physics. They are planning to unify them by theorizing that the graviton is the "how" behind the curvature of space-time.
-
Ahhhh ok, so that would mean that it isn't necessarily mass that exerts/distorts the space-time would it not? I may be wrong, but then again, I'm not very well versed in this topic. I also believe that according to quantum mechanics right now, they don't know what gives everything mass... the Higgs. Since the LHC is the forerunner for discovering the Higg's particle, we'll see here in a few months. :) Unfortunately, the recent coolant leak setback is going to postpone that for a few months! :(
-
Ahhhh ok, so that would mean that it isn't necessarily mass that exerts/distorts the space-time would it not?
I don't quite get what you mean by that. The bending of space-time affects both massive and massless objects. This explains gravitational lensing, where spacetime curvature affects the path of the photon (massless) around it. This phenomenon exists, thus space-time curvature is necessary in explaining our universe.
-
Well, I understood gravity affects all matter (photons included shown through gravitational lensing of stellar objects: stars, black holes, galaxies). However, I am a very inarticulate person at times. HOWEVER, you need not worry. I have untied Gordion Knot that was my thought process and I get it now. :)
-
I prefer the "Gravity is geometry" idea that GR suggests rather than the graviton idea of the standard model - it just smacks too much of trying to get a square peg through a round hole.
Antigravity could just be negative curvature of space-time, which could be caused by exotic matter with negative energy density...
-
Antigravity could just be negative curvature of space-time, which could be caused by exotic matter with negative energy density...
It makes more sense to me for it to be positive curvature in the opposite direction. That way you can get a sort of antigravitational hill, analogous to a gravitational well.
-
That's the image I had in my head, but I thought that positive curvature was associated with positive energy density and vice versa... meh, I dunno, the fundamental concept is the main thing. I leave the rest to those weirdo theorists.
-
Of course, this begs the question; what would happen if you brought a white hole near a black hole?
Actually, what would happen if you had a black hole leading to a white hole in the same Universe, and you brought the white hole inside the event horizon of the black hole? Inescapable loop in spacetime, anyone?
-
It would probably annihilate in a similar fashion to matter/antimatter, except assuming the white hole has negative curvature and the black hole positive (and as such negative and positive energy densities) both would just disappear - if there was a mass imbalance then one would remain with the appropriate differential mass... Boring but more likely, I guess.