The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Feloidea on April 16, 2009, 09:25:29 AM
-
Okay, here we go.
To clarify this first: This will be the only post of mine with this Account. I'll post, check whether it worked or not and delete my Account. Any attempts on critizing my point of view beyond the point of rationality is futile, aswell that I don't do this. I will definetely keep looking in here, but this meant to be the start of an "Let us all be patient, friendly and open minded people, who discuss this topic seriously"-Thread.
Consider this beeing an embassy of rationality. Personal insults, beliefs or disbeliefs are not helpful in any imaginable way. This is primarily meant to extinct any arguements in its roots, so be polite.
I've read through this and that in this forum and to be honest, I couldn't defend myself against a bright smile. This happened on various occasions I read, beeing some RE'ers in their attempt to prove you beeing wrong and some FE'ers reacting quite, ... inadequate to ( considering the Forum rules in here ).
I have a few questions, that in case may have been scratched in your FAQ, but obviously not answered in a satisfying way, otherwise I wouldn't ask.
1.) First, I can not begin without thinking about those points that hit most characteristics of a conspiracy-theories, like the "No Satellites" issue. Please explain what made you consider this beeing an actual point of interest and what reasons evolved whilst deepening this point. Have you acquired approvable facts on which I can rely whilst discussing ( please insert source ) ?
2.) Dark Energy is yet a theory itself. Including the today's scientific paradigma of the existence of dark matter makes this not more valid than me stating that my "recently upbrought theory of Yellow Energy and Yellow Matter" explains the cause Light beeing waves and not current known matter. What reasons can you give, that approve your thoughts beeing valid ( Mathematical- or Physical Formula, etc. ).
3.) The shape of a thing ( in this particular case a planet ) determines its gravity. Although Dark Energy may contribute to various similar effects, your theory flaws more than the Round Earth concept. The scientific philosophy of "Occam's razor" would, neglect your FE-Theory instead of the less flawed RE-Concept. So, obviously, you must have valid information that make your theory seem at least as reasonable as the RE. Apart from NASA, ESA, etc. delivered visual "informations", gravity for example is and plate tectonics contribute to the RE-Concept instead of the FE. Please share those evidents with us, cause simple theories wouldn't overcome Occam's razor.
Whilst in the process of reading, you may find errors ( grammar or vocabulary ). Since I'm no english Native-Speaker, don't mind them unless they cause misunderstandings. I may answer using another Account.
Thank you for reading.
Feloidea
-
None of those points make sense. It's not a grammar thing, I know what the sentences mean separately, they just don't fit into a coherent argument. Still, I'll try...
1) The "no satellites" thing does not have to resort to conspiracy, there are several theories which can involve sustained space travel, and those that don't merely believe such objects to be pseudolites.
2) The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2, something must be causing this. We don't know what this energy is, where it comes from etc, so we'll call it Dark Energy. (for samples of this in mainstream science see X-rays or the more common use of the term dark matter)
3) There is no gravity in FE, ergo this point is kinda void from the start, but Occam's Razor is a fairly bad philosophy in general. It's simpler to believe that there's some sort of magic holding us to the ground as with Newtonian gravity (compared to Einsteinian gravitation to prevent RE bawwing), so by Occam's Razor we should all worship that idiot pseudoscientist.
-
None of those points make sense. It's not a grammar thing, I know what the sentences mean separately, they just don't fit into a coherent argument. Still, I'll try...
1) The "no satellites" thing does not have to resort to conspiracy, there are several theories which can involve sustained space travel, and those that don't merely believe such objects to be pseudolites.
2) The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s^2, something must be causing this. We don't know what this energy is, where it comes from etc, so we'll call it Dark Energy. (for samples of this in mainstream science see X-rays or the more common use of the term dark matter)
3) There is no gravity in FE, ergo this point is kinda void from the start, but Occam's Razor is a fairly bad philosophy in general. It's simpler to believe in a God that made everything, and there can't be any flaws as God is flawless by nature, so by Occam's Razor we should all be fundies.
I just want to comment on two of these arguments:
2) How did you arrive to the conclusion that the earth is accelerating upwards, instead of you getting attracted to the earth by gravity?
What did you observe, except that you fell down? What is the simplest explanation here?
3) By saying that believeing in God that made everything, doesn't automatically mean that this is a simpler solution.
The belief in God is based on faith. God has never been proved in any way.
In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of God does not help to explain the universe, it is argued, God is irrelevant and should be cut away. It is argued to imply that, in the absence of compelling reasons to believe in God, disbelief should be preferred. Such arguments are based on the assertion that belief in God requires more and more complex assumptions to explain the universe than non-belief.
For example, in his documentary "The Root of All Evil?", Richard Dawkins points out that none of the miraculous cures in Lourdes, France, require the existence of a God to explain them; the "cures" are always for diseases that may have gotten better by themselves.
-
2) I do not feel a force pushing me downwards, I only feel the Earth pressing against my feet. Why should I assume some magic force is acting upon me, even though it feels like the Earth is accelerating up against me?
3) The God argument was just to make a point, I don't actually believe that. It just makes my point more clearly than an actual case. If you want, I can change it to the difference between Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravitation if you want.
-
2) I do not feel a force pushing me downwards, I only feel the Earth pressing against my feet. Why should I assume some magic force is acting upon me, even though it feels like the Earth is accelerating up against me?
3) The God argument was just to make a point, I don't actually believe that. It just makes my point more clearly than an actual case. If you want, I can change it to the difference between Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravitation if you want.
2) The force of gravity is not that strong that you'll feel a drag against the earth when you're at its surface.
Try to lay down and stand up. It is not that hard to do, but you can feel some sort of resistance by doing that.
Now why is that?
3) Okay then!
-
2) Inertia.
3) Done.
-
2) Inertia.
3) Done.
2) But why is there resistance when you try to stand up?
-
2) Inertia.
3) Done.
2) But why is there resistance when you try to stand up?
He just told you, you illiterate cretin. Inertia.
-
2) Inertia.
3) Done.
2) But why is there resistance when you try to stand up?
He just told you, you illiterate cretin. Inertia.
What creates the inertia?
Also, keep the insults in Angry Ranting please.
-
What creates the inertia?
Newton's first law of motion.
-
What creates the inertia?
Newton's first law of motion.
So the inertia makes it harder for you to stand up?
If there was no gravity keeping you on the ground,
you should not feel resistance when you get up from
the bed in the morning.
-
So the inertia makes it harder for you to stand up?
If there was no gravity keeping you on the ground,
you should not feel resistance when you get up from
the bed in the morning.
Not if the ground were accelerating up. Which it is.
-
What creates the inertia?
Newton's first law of motion.
So the inertia makes it harder for you to stand up?
If there was no gravity keeping you on the ground,
you should not feel resistance when you get up from
the bed in the morning.
When you next accelerate in your car, try leaning forward. By your logic, you should feel no resistance.
-
What creates the inertia?
Newton's first law of motion.
So the inertia makes it harder for you to stand up?
If there was no gravity keeping you on the ground,
you should not feel resistance when you get up from
the bed in the morning.
When you next accelerate in your car, try leaning forward. By your logic, you should feel no resistance.
I know. I forgot about the never ending accelerating earth for a moment.
One question though: Can the earths acceleration be measured? Where did you get the 9.82 m/s2 from?
-
I think it's called a Newton balance, but it may be something else involving Newton. (Before you say it, Newton never invented it. Like most other things attributed to him, it was just named after him by the inventor.
-
One question though: Can the earths acceleration be measured? Where did you get the 9.82 m/s2 from?
Hold an object a metre above the ground in a vacuum. Release it. Time how long it takes to hit the ground. Then plug in the values u = 0 s, s = 1 m and t being equal to your measured value into the following equation, and solve for a:
s = ut + 0.5at2
-
One question though: Can the earths acceleration be measured? Where did you get the 9.82 m/s2 from?
Hold an object a metre above the ground in a vacuum. Release it. Time how long it takes to hit the ground. Then plug in the values u = 0 s, s = 1 m and t being equal to your measured value into the following equation, and solve for a:
s = ut + 0.5at2
That's one way to measure the speed of gravity.
But I want to know how you did find the constant.
On RE, where gravity exists we got this:
(http://physics.webplasma.com/image/page08/e01.gif)
Where G is the gravitational constant.
Here's the formula for G:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/8/1/981c4a7801639525969c8d798aca28ce.png)
In FE, G is replaced by A right?
So how did you find A?
-
But I want to know how you did find the constant.
We measured it. Just like you did.
-
But I want to know how you did find the constant.
We measured it. Just like you did.
Show me the math then.
-
Show me the math then.
Hold an object a metre above the ground in a vacuum. Release it. Time how long it takes to hit the ground. Then plug in the values u = 0 s, s = 1 m and t being equal to your measured value into the following equation, and solve for a:
s = ut + 0.5at2
-
Show me the math then.
Hold an object a metre above the ground in a vacuum. Release it. Time how long it takes to hit the ground. Then plug in the values u = 0 s, s = 1 m and t being equal to your measured value into the following equation, and solve for a:
s = ut + 0.5at2
So measuring the acceleration of the FE is the same as measuring RE's gravity?
How convenient!
-
So measuring the acceleration of the FE is the same as measuring RE's gravity?
How convenient!
So measuring RE's gravity is the same as measuring the acceleration of the FE?
How convenient!
-
So measuring the acceleration of the FE is the same as measuring RE's gravity?
How convenient!
So measuring RE's gravity is the same as measuring the acceleration of the FE?
How convenient!
Well, you guys copied us. Find me one crerdible source that shows the measuring of FE's accelerating.
-
Well, you guys copied us.
No we didn't. We're both measuring the same thing, dumbfuck. We just have two different explanations for it.
-
Well, you guys copied us.
No we didn't. We're both measuring the same thing, dumbfuck. We just have two different explanations for it.
I can clearly see that, but that's not what I asked shitface.
When did the FET come up with the formula for the acceleration of the earth?
-
Well, you guys copied us.
No we didn't. We're both measuring the same thing, dumbfuck. We just have two different explanations for it.
I can clearly see that, but that's not what I asked shitface.
When did the FET come up with the formula for the acceleration of the earth?
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
-
I can clearly see that, but that's not what I asked shitface.
When did the FET come up with the formula for the acceleration of the earth?
What formula? Who said anything about a formula?
-
That one where you mix the chemicals then do some stuff and 9 months later a baby pops out.
-
I can clearly see that, but that's not what I asked shitface.
When did the FET come up with the formula for the acceleration of the earth?
What formula? Who said anything about a formula?
When did the FET come up with the math for the acceleration of the earth?
-
When did the FET come up with the math for the acceleration of the earth?
Isaac Newton did it in 1687.
-
When did the FET come up with the math for the acceleration of the earth?
Isaac Newton did it in 1687.
I didn't realize that Newton was an FE'er.
-
I didn't realize that Newton was an FE'er.
Newton's personal beliefs are irrelevant to the validity of his scientific work.