The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Broojo02 on July 06, 2009, 10:52:01 AM
-
I was gonnna post this in the stupid questions topic but its locked :( Anyway with UA being a very good alternative to gravity that emulates it very well etc I just wanted to know why space travel isn't possible according to the FET. We could overcome gravity with good rocket boosters and stuff so why can't we do it with the UA theory.
I feel like this is a stupid question... please don't troll me. :'(
-
Sustained spaceflight is generally regarded as practically impossible, depending on who you speak to. The amount of fuel which would be needed to escape the earth would make sustained space flight impractical, as the earth is constantly accelerating.
-
But you don't need to escape the earth. You just need to enter the influence of the UA like the sun, moon and other celestial objects.
-
But you don't need to escape the earth. You just need to enter the influence of the UA like the sun, moon and other celestial objects.
.
-
But you don't need to escape the earth. You just need to enter the influence of the UA like the sun, moon and other celestial objects.
And how would this not involve escaping the earth?
That would depend on where the influence of the UA begins.
-
Even in theory, the Saturn V rockets used most of their thrust to get about (my memory is hazy here) 100 miles up. The sun is a lot further away than that.
-
But how do we know that the sun is at the lower limit of the UA's influence? Is the lower limit of the UA's influence even known?
-
But you don't need to escape the earth. You just need to enter the influence of the UA like the sun, moon and other celestial objects.
You have a flawed conception of what the UA is and how it works.
-
But you don't need to escape the earth. You just need to enter the influence of the UA like the sun, moon and other celestial objects.
You have a flawed conception of what the UA is and how it works.
There are many conceptions of the UA that are compatible with observable evidence; among them is markjo's.
-
There are many conceptions of the UA that are compatible with observable evidence; among them is markjo's.
Compatible perhaps, but it requires explanation by appeal to a magical force, which is one of the chief weaknesses of globularism.
-
There are many conceptions of the UA that are compatible with observable evidence; among them is markjo's.
Compatible perhaps, but it requires explanation by appeal to a magical force, which is one of the chief weaknesses of globularism.
If my misconception of the UA is an appeal to a magical force, then it's to FE's magical force, not RE's. Seeing as I'm not a FE'er, most of my arguments are, pretty much by necessity, based on the most widely supported version of FET in general and, in this case, the UA in particular.
-
If my misconception of the UA is an appeal to a magical force, then it's to FE's magical force, not RE's. Seeing as I'm not a FE'er, most of my arguments are, pretty much by necessity, based on the most widely supported version of FET in general and, in this case, the UA in particular.
It doesn't matter whose magical force it is. I am equally dismissive of magical forces of both origins. You also have a flawed conception of "the most widely supported version of FET". The notion you are appealing to has been invented ex nihilo by a handful of devil's advocates, just like you, who don't even believe the Earth is flat in the first place. You are collectively undermining the legitimacy of the theory which is believed by ACTUAL Flat Earthers by posting these absurd fantasies under the guise of zeteticism.
That you are actually a globularist explains your ability to countenance phantasmal science fiction as serious possibility.
Euclid, why are you calling it 'markjo's model' like it's some kind of serious alternative when he freely admits that he doesn't even believe his own completely made-up theory? What's the point in even seriously considering a proposal which is openly disbelieved by its main proponent?
-
If my misconception of the UA is an appeal to a magical force, then it's to FE's magical force, not RE's. Seeing as I'm not a FE'er, most of my arguments are, pretty much by necessity, based on the most widely supported version of FET in general and, in this case, the UA in particular.
It doesn't matter whose magical force it is. I am equally dismissive of magical forces of both origins. You also have a flawed conception of "the most widely supported version of FET". The notion you are appealing to has been invented ex nihilo by a handful of devil's advocates, just like you, who don't even believe the Earth is flat in the first place. You are collectively undermining the legitimacy of the theory which is believed by ACTUAL Flat Earthers by posting these absurd fantasies under the guise of zeteticism.
That you are actually a globularist explains your ability to countenance phantasmal science fiction as serious possibility.
Euclid, why are you calling it 'markjo's model' like it's some kind of serious alternative when he freely admits that he doesn't even believe his own completely made-up theory? What's the point in even seriously considering a proposal which is openly disbelieved by its main proponent?
OK, Dogplatter. I'm willing to consider pretty much anybody's FE model, including yours. Now, let's see if I have this right. You believe that the sun and moon are metallic discs being held aloft by means of photoelectric suspension, correct? Just out of curiosity, do you know what metal(s) make up the sun and/or moon? Do you agree with the 32 mile diameter estimate for the sun and moon? The reason I ask is because I did a few quick calculations and came to the conclusion that a 32 mile diameter, 1 inch thick moon made out of aluminum would weigh a little over 158 million tons. I chose aluminum because it's a light metal, but the actual metal(s) may more dense. I also chose 1 inch thick as a bare minimum thickness, I'm sure that it would need to be much thicker.
So, my question is to you - if there is enough photoelectric energy to support a 158 million ton moon, then why can't the NASA eggheads figure out how to tap into this incredible power source. Also, why hasn't that much photoelectric energy fried us all to a crisp?
-
But you don't need to escape the earth. You just need to enter the influence of the UA like the sun, moon and other celestial objects.
And how would this not involve escaping the earth?
That would depend on where the influence of the UA begins.
The UA begins on the underside of the earth. It extends for billions of miles "up" into space. We may never know exactly where it ends unfortunately.
-
But you don't need to escape the earth. You just need to enter the influence of the UA like the sun, moon and other celestial objects.
And how would this not involve escaping the earth?
That would depend on where the influence of the UA begins.
The UA begins on the underside of the earth. It extends for billions of miles "up" into space. We may never know exactly where it ends unfortunately.
Then according to your description, we are being accelerated by the UA, and are currently floating at the earth's surface. Obviously, that is not the case. Some have suggested that the earth prevents the UA from accelerating us by blocking or deflecting it, yet it accelerates the sun since it is further from the earth. Therefore, at the surface of the earth, the UA has no effect, but at some point between there and the sun, it does. Where is this point?
-
Then according to your description, we are being accelerated by the UA, and are currently floating at the earth's surface. Obviously, that is not the case. Some have suggested that the earth prevents the UA from accelerating us by blocking or deflecting it, yet it accelerates the sun since it is further from the earth. Therefore, at the surface of the earth, the UA has no effect, but at some point between there and the sun, it does. Where is this point?
You clearly do not undertstand how the UA works. You cannot "block" its effects! How would such blocking take place? Perhaps with a large amount of lead lining?!
-
Then according to your description, we are being accelerated by the UA, and are currently floating at the earth's surface. Obviously, that is not the case. Some have suggested that the earth prevents the UA from accelerating us by blocking or deflecting it, yet it accelerates the sun since it is further from the earth. Therefore, at the surface of the earth, the UA has no effect, but at some point between there and the sun, it does. Where is this point?
You clearly do not undertstand how the UA works. You cannot "block" its effects! How would such blocking take place? Perhaps with a large amount of lead lining?!
I never claimed it did. As I said, FET'ers have made that claim. Specifically, I have read that the earth deflects the dark energy and causes a barrier at the edges to hold the atmosphere over the earth. Since you think deflecting the UA is absurd, why do you suggest the UA doesn't accelerate us, since you claim it's effects are present from the bottom of the earth to billions of miles up into space.
-
You clearly do not undertstand how the UA works. You cannot "block" its effects! How would such blocking take place? Perhaps with a large amount of lead lining?!
I think that FE'ers need to get together and agree how the UA works. That would be significant progress.
-
I think that FE'ers need to get together and agree how the UA works. That would be significant progress.
We know how it works. The earth accelerates upwards.
It's actually the RE'ers who need to figure out how "gravitons" work.
-
I think that FE'ers need to get together and agree how the UA works. That would be significant progress.
We know how it works. The earth accelerates upwards.
It's actually the RE'ers who need to figure out how "gravitons" work.
Did you read the thread? Is there an altitude at which the UA would act on objects that leave the surface of the earth? How does the UA accelerate the earth? Does the UA accelerate the sun? Can the dark energy be deflected? Does the deflected dark energy contain the atmosphere? What is your obsession with gravitons? I think the bending of spacetime is the more accepted theory.
-
None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that the earth is accelerating upwards.
-
None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that the earth is accelerating upwards.
It certainly matters relevant to this thread. If the UA can act on a spaceship, space travel is possible. At what height would the spaceship have to reach for the UA to accelerate it along with the earth?
-
As far as I'm aware the UA is pushing the earth upwards as a mechanical action, which makes sustained space travel impossible.
The sun and stars are riding atop the earth, levitated by electric or magnetic interaction.
-
As far as I'm aware the UA is pushing the earth upwards as a mechanical action, which makes sustained space travel impossible.
The sun and stars are riding atop the earth, levitated by electric or magnetic interaction.
Can you describe that "mechanical action"? What is the mechanism? How does it work? Why wouldn't it be possible for a spacecraft to be "levitated by electric or magnetic interaction"?
-
Can you describe that "mechanical action"?
Mechanical action occurs as a result of the earth's upwards movement. We are pinned to the earth because the earth is accelerating upwards and we are not.
What is the mechanism? How does it work?
The mechanism which pushes the earth is unknown.
Why wouldn't it be possible for a spacecraft to be "levitated by electric or magnetic interaction"?
A spacecraft is neither a sun or a star.
-
The mechanism which pushes the earth is unknown.
Sounds like magic to me.
A spacecraft is neither a sun or a star.
What do you believe the sun and the stars are made of? What causes them to levitate "by electric or magnetic interaction"? Some say they are metal discs. We can make metal discs.
-
I think that FE'ers need to get together and agree how the UA works. That would be significant progress.
We know how it works. The earth accelerates upwards.
The 'earth accelerates upwards' is an effect . It does not tell us how it works. My car accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 11 seconds. What type of fuel does it use?
It's actually the RE'ers who need to figure out how "gravitons" work.
I'm sure there are many RE'ers and scientists who would dearly love to know how gravitons work. But to use your own logic, it accelerates objects towards the earth.
So, how does UA work then. What is the 'mechanism' (not the effect)?
-
I think that FE'ers need to get together and agree how the UA works. That would be significant progress.
We know how it works. The earth accelerates upwards.
It's actually the RE'ers who need to figure out how "gravitons" work.
Can you describe that "mechanical action"?
Known or unknown? Which one is it? You seem confused yourself.
Mechanical action occurs as a result of the earth's upwards movement. We are pinned to the earth because the earth is accelerating upwards and we are not.
What is the mechanism? How does it work?
The mechanism which pushes the earth is unknown.
Why wouldn't it be possible for a spacecraft to be "levitated by electric or magnetic interaction"?
A spacecraft is neither a sun or a star.
-
I'm sure there are many RE'ers and scientists who would dearly love to know how gravitons work. But to use your own logic, it accelerates objects towards the earth.
So, how does UA work then. What is the 'mechanism' (not the effect)?
The mechanism which pushes the earth is unknown.
-
I'm sure there are many RE'ers and scientists who would dearly love to know how gravitons work. But to use your own logic, it accelerates objects towards the earth.
So, how does UA work then. What is the 'mechanism' (not the effect)?
The mechanism which pushes the earth is unknown.
As the effect is the same as gravity then, why should UA be more believable? Or are we simply debating the name of the effect?
-
As the effect is the same as gravity then, why should UA be more believable?
Because acceleration is a known physical process. Plenty of things are known to accelerate and plenty of things are known to cause acceleration.
There is nothing "known" about sub-atomic gravitons telling mass which direction to move.
-
As the effect is the same as gravity then, why should UA be more believable?
Because acceleration is a known physical process. Plenty of things are known to accelerate and plenty of things are known to cause acceleration.
There is nothing "known" about sub-atomic gravitons telling mass which direction to move.
Is there more "known" about UA than there is about gravitons then? Because you just said "the mechanism that pushes the earth is unknown".
-
Is there more "known" about UA than there is about gravitons then? Because you just said "the mechanism that pushes the earth is unknown".
Whatever the mechanism is, it can occur by a known physical process. Plenty of things can cause acceleration.
"Gravitons" and "bending space" need entirely new branches of science to exist.
-
Is there more "known" about UA than there is about gravitons then? Because you just said "the mechanism that pushes the earth is unknown".
Whatever the mechanism is, it can occur by a known physical process. Plenty of things can cause acceleration.
"Gravitons" and "bending space" need entirely new branches of science to exist.
Why would the existing branches of science be inadequate? They seem to have done OK so far and quite a bit better than zetetic science has done.
-
Why would the existing branches of science be inadequate? They seem to have done OK so far and quite a bit better than zetetic science has done.
They haven't done "OK". In order for a phenomenon to be valid there must be empirical evidence for that phenomenon. A pile of hypotheticals does not make a theory. It make a hypothesis. Gravity is a hypothesis. There is nothing what-so-ever which demonstrates the existence of Graviton particles, bending space, or anything like that. Gravity cannot tell us how galaxies stay together, nor can it predict the next lunar eclipse (it's predicted by cycles).
In the Round Earth model stellar systems like galaxies aren't supposed to move as if they were solid disks. Describing the movements of galaxies and super clusters has been a challenge to astronomers. According to Newtonian mechanics the bodies towards the interior of the disk should move at a faster rate around the center than the bodies on the outside of the disk. This is exactly opposite of what is observed.
See this quote from softpedia.com (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stars-escaping-out-of-the-Galaxy-17222.shtml):
"According to theory, a galaxy should rotate faster at the center than at the edges. This is similar to how an ice-skater rotates: when she extends her arms she moves more slowly, when she either extends her arms above her head or keeps them close to the body she starts to rotate more rapidly. Taking into consideration how gravitation connects the stars in the galaxy the predicted result is that average orbital speed of a star at a specified distance away from the center would decrease inversely with the square root of the radius of the orbit (the dashed line, A, in figure below). However observations show that the galaxy rotates as if it is a solid disk as if stars are much more strongly connected to each other (the solid line, B, in the figure below)."
No one knows the first thing about Gravity. No one knows how it works, nor can anyone use the equations to predict anything. It's pseudoscience.
-
Why would the existing branches of science be inadequate? They seem to have done OK so far and quite a bit better than zetetic science has done.
Zetetic scientists haven't done "OK". In order for a phenomenon to be valid there must be empirical evidence for that phenomenon. A pile of hypotheticals does not make a theory. It make a hypothesis. UA is a hypothesis. There is nothing what-so-ever which demonstrates the existence of UA. UA cannot tell us how galaxies stay together, nor can it predict the next lunar eclipse (it's predicted by cycles).
It's pseudoscience.
-
Is there more "known" about UA than there is about gravitons then? Because you just said "the mechanism that pushes the earth is unknown".
Whatever the mechanism is, it can occur by a known physical process. Plenty of things can cause acceleration.
"Gravitons" and "bending space" need entirely new branches of science to exist.
You have yet to cite a known physical process which can accelerate the earth.
-
No one knows the first thing about Gravity. No one knows how it works, nor can anyone use the equations to predict anything. It's pseudoscience.
I'm sure that artillery gunners, bombardiers, and stunt men would disagree with you about your assertion that the equations for gravity can't predict anything.
-
I'm sure that artillery gunners, bombardiers, and stunt men would disagree with you about your assertion that the equations for gravity can't predict anything.
Why? What did they use the equations of gravity to predict?
-
I'm sure that artillery gunners, bombardiers, and stunt men would disagree with you about your assertion that the equations for gravity can't predict anything.
Why? What did they use the equations of gravity to predict?
The paths of artillery rounds, bombs and stunt people as they fly through the air. Oh, and Einstein used his equations of gravity to predict the precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun.
-
I'm sure that artillery gunners, bombardiers, and stunt men would disagree with you about your assertion that the equations for gravity can't predict anything.
Why? What did they use the equations of gravity to predict?
The paths of artillery rounds, bombs and stunt people as they fly through the air. Oh, and Einstein used his equations of gravity to predict the precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun.
It's called ballistics. An artillery round or a bullet has a trajectory. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory to improve knowledge through understanding Tom.
-
Yes, so how do ballistics prove the existence of gravity?
-
The same way they prove UA.
The observable earth is flat - that's where UA operates. The whole world is a sphere and that's where gravity is working.
It's really quite simple.
-
So ballistics doesn't prove gravity then? I was just told that it does.
-
So ballistics doesn't prove gravity then? I was just told that it does.
No you weren't.
The word prove was not used. The word predict was used; they do not mean the same thing.
I can predict that you will write the phrases "Read Earth Not a Globe by Stanley Birley Rowbotham" and "Read the literature in my signature link" in the next two days. It doesn't prove that you will.
Below, I've quoted the posts for you to save you the effort of looking back through the thread.
I'm sure that artillery gunners, bombardiers, and stunt men would disagree with you about your assertion that the equations for gravity can't predict anything.
Why? What did they use the equations of gravity to predict?
The paths of artillery rounds, bombs and stunt people as they fly through the air. Oh, and Einstein used his equations of gravity to predict the precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun.
[/quote]
-
So how do ballistics predict gravity again?
-
So how do ballistics predict gravity again?
ITYWF that the assertion was that the predictions for gravity will help artillerymen predict the fall of their rounds.
However, with the amount of times that so called 'Friendly Fire' incidents occur and the fact that the British Army's Royal Artillery are called 'Drop shorts' I sometimes think that all artillerymen must be FE'ers.
-
So how do ballistics predict gravity again?
Well I suppose what they were probably getting at was that the theory of gravity predicts that they will come back down out of the sky. So does the theory of Universal Acceleration, though.
-
So how do ballistics predict gravity again?
Well I suppose what they were probably getting at was that the theory of gravity predicts that they will come back down out of the sky. So does the theory of Universal Acceleration, though.
I never said that UA couldn't make the same predictions. Tom's assertion was that the theory of gravity couldn't be used to predict anything. I simply disagreed with that assertion. Now Tom is trying to save face by deliberately twisting the meaning our responses (as usual).