The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: jeffro12 on October 26, 2010, 05:35:05 PM
-
FET, while superior to RET, I believe has a few facets which need to be ironed ou or expanded on.
The greatest of these is the Universal Accelerator. I believe we need to develop and perform experiments to concretely prove the existence of the UA as soon as possible.
Furthermore, I think that FET needs to find a way to explain flight (and perhaps spaceflight, as I have seen some versions of FET which allow for spaceflight although those are largely rejected by mainstream FE'ers). There are a great many ways in which flight could be theoretically possible in FET, we just need to experimentally prove one.
Also, I think I think we have a lot to gain from listening to the Re'ers. When they point out a potential weak spot in our theory, we should not immediately deny its existence, but instead look for a way to alter the theory to eliminate the weakness, although I understand how some RE'er arguments are so idiotic that their points can't be counted as much of a weakness.
Finally, as a whole I think we FE'ers need to cite more sources. Many of us argue without actually citing our sources, or citing from Tom Bishop's wiki (which is full of information, but we can't rely on one source like that). I think if we start citing more sources in our arguments, the debates will be more useful as a whole.
-
Welcome. Good luck. ClockTower will be along in a minute to tell you, you are deluded.
However, I applaud your efforts and will be happy to assist in any way you might need.
-
Do you always greet new Fe'ers that way? I'm suprised you get any new believers this way.
How am I deluded again?
-
Do you always greet new Fe'ers that way? I'm suprised you get any new believers this way.
How am I deluded again?
Thork may have signed off for the evening. He is a respected resident and was not saying you are deluded. He was referencing that others may have that tilt towards you. He is a sincere person and was really greeting you cordially...with a warning about what others may say.
-
I totally misread Thork's post, it seems.
I take back what I said.
-
I totally misread Thork's post, it seems.
I take back what I said.
These things happen. Welcome!
-
A genuine question:
Why do FEers choose to follow flat earth theories? As Jeffro said, there are obviously several holes in the theory of a flat earth. I have yet to see a FEer come up with a hole in the round earth theory.
-
A genuine question:
Why do FEers choose to follow flat earth theories? As Jeffro said, there are obviously several holes in the theory of a flat earth. I have yet to see a FEer come up with a hole in the round earth theory.
They are not holes, they are weak spots which could easily be rectified with a little work.
-
A genuine question:
Why do FEers choose to follow flat earth theories? As Jeffro said, there are obviously several holes in the theory of a flat earth. I have yet to see a FEer come up with a hole in the round earth theory.
They are not holes, they are weak spots which could easily be rectified with a little work.
Call them what you will, FE is not as solid a theory as RE. Why follow FE?
-
A genuine question:
Why do FEers choose to follow flat earth theories? As Jeffro said, there are obviously several holes in the theory of a flat earth. I have yet to see a FEer come up with a hole in the round earth theory.
They are not holes, they are weak spots which could easily be rectified with a little work.
Call them what you will, FE is not as solid a theory as RE. Why follow FE?
Define Solid, RE has plenty of shaky tenets.
-
Another legitimate question:
What tenets of RE are shaky? I truly have never heard any.
-
Another legitimate question:
What tenets of RE are shaky? I truly have never heard any.
Then you obviously haven't been here very long, or read up on FET any further than the FAQ. Or both.
-
By your evasive answer, I get the feeling that you do not yourself know any shaky tenets of RE. Do you? Please post some prime examples.
-
By your evasive answer, I get the feeling that you do not yourself know any shaky tenets of RE. Do you? Please post some prime examples.
My answer was not a result of evasion, but of laziness on my part. read through Rowbowtham's Earth Not a Globe first.
-
apparently you were also too lazy to read it because you just dont seem to have answers.
-
apparently you were also too lazy to read it because you just dont seem to have answers.
You aren't going to get anywhere in life if you ask everyone to do everything for you. Essentially, the book points out in various ways the lack of curvature on the Earth.
If you want any more detailed of an explanation, go read the damn book, its not my job to spoonfeed you information.
-
By your evasive answer, I get the feeling that you do not yourself know any shaky tenets of RE. Do you? Please post some prime examples.
My answer was not a result of evasion, but of laziness on my part. read through Rowbowtham's Earth Not a Globe first.
Ignore the troll. He is acting like this in every thread. If you tell him to read anything or do any research he just accuses you of being ignorant.
-
By your evasive answer, I get the feeling that you do not yourself know any shaky tenets of RE. Do you? Please post some prime examples.
My answer was not a result of evasion, but of laziness on my part. read through Rowbowtham's Earth Not a Globe first.
Ignore the troll. He is acting like this in every thread. If you tell him to read anything or do any research he just accuses you of being ignorant.
Indeed, but at least I can say I tried.
-
By your evasive answer, I get the feeling that you do not yourself know any shaky tenets of RE. Do you? Please post some prime examples.
My answer was not a result of evasion, but of laziness on my part. read through Rowbowtham's Earth Not a Globe first.
Ignore the troll. He is acting like this in every thread. If you tell him to read anything or do any research he just accuses you of being ignorant.
Indeed, but at least I can say I tried.
True, true.
-
Lets stop being so angry at each other and make this a civilized discussion. I am not trolling. Why would I spend hours looking up an answer if you could tell me in a minute or two? Just because we have different opinions doesnt mean we should be hostile to each other.
-
Lets stop being so angry at each other and make this a civilized discussion. I am not trolling. Why would I spend hours looking up an answer if you could tell me in a minute or two? Just because we have different opinions doesnt mean we should be hostile to each other.
The fact that you think it takes hours shows you haven't even tried looking. There is a wonderful search tab to use that will help you find an answer in minutes and not only that, but you will be able to read entire discussions so we don't have to do them all over again.
-
For your information, I have tried. Search is not working on my computer. You have spent more time telling me to look things up than it would have taken for you to explain them yourself.
-
For your information, I have tried. Search is not working on my computer. You have spent more time telling me to look things up than it would have taken for you to explain them yourself.
sounds like a personal problem
-
FET, while superior to RET, I believe has a few facets which need to be ironed ou or expanded on.
The greatest of these is the Universal Accelerator. I believe we need to develop and perform experiments to concretely prove the existence of the UA as soon as possible.
Furthermore, I think that FET needs to find a way to explain flight (and perhaps spaceflight, as I have seen some versions of FET which allow for spaceflight although those are largely rejected by mainstream FE'ers). There are a great many ways in which flight could be theoretically possible in FET, we just need to experimentally prove one.
Also, I think I think we have a lot to gain from listening to the Re'ers. When they point out a potential weak spot in our theory, we should not immediately deny its existence, but instead look for a way to alter the theory to eliminate the weakness, although I understand how some RE'er arguments are so idiotic that their points can't be counted as much of a weakness.
Finally, as a whole I think we FE'ers need to cite more sources. Many of us argue without actually citing our sources, or citing from Tom Bishop's wiki (which is full of information, but we can't rely on one source like that). I think if we start citing more sources in our arguments, the debates will be more useful as a whole.
You really are very optimistic. Overly-superly-hyperly and groundlessly optimistic I would say. Still I welcome your optimism about experiments because this is the area which FE totally lacks. Also the sources which aren't some hundred or more years old. An I really hope that someone gets further than just speaking and speculating because all I see is that FE side degrades to fantasizing and inventing things on spot without any observations and experiments.
-
EnglshGentleman and jeffro12 keep posting to deny an answer, when they could just post ONCE answering a direct question, and start a debate or even the work proposed in the OP.
-
Wlecome jeffro 12. It's good to see so many polite and well-mannered users joining th eboards at the moment. As this thread is kind of about FE'ers rather than FET, I'm going to move it to Flat Earth General, but keep up the good posting!
-
FET, while superior to RET, I believe has a few facets which need to be ironed ou or expanded on.
The greatest of these is the Universal Accelerator. I believe we need to develop and perform experiments to concretely prove the existence of the UA as soon as possible.
Furthermore, I think that FET needs to find a way to explain flight (and perhaps spaceflight, as I have seen some versions of FET which allow for spaceflight although those are largely rejected by mainstream FE'ers). There are a great many ways in which flight could be theoretically possible in FET, we just need to experimentally prove one.
Also, I think I think we have a lot to gain from listening to the Re'ers. When they point out a potential weak spot in our theory, we should not immediately deny its existence, but instead look for a way to alter the theory to eliminate the weakness, although I understand how some RE'er arguments are so idiotic that their points can't be counted as much of a weakness.
Finally, as a whole I think we FE'ers need to cite more sources. Many of us argue without actually citing our sources, or citing from Tom Bishop's wiki (which is full of information, but we can't rely on one source like that). I think if we start citing more sources in our arguments, the debates will be more useful as a whole.
Yeah, the thing is that UA only works via magic. Meteor strikes blow the entire theory out of the water, I have not heard a single valid explanation for them in FET. Good luck with it.
-
I totally misread Thork's post, it seems.
I take back what I said.
Indeed. You are welcomed, but you have chosen a rocky path. There will be criticism of your work, but you will also find support.
I will drag the thread back on topic
UA
UA itself hasn't historically been a problem. The equivelence principle in the FAQ seems not a problem to RErs.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle/?set_language=en
The FAQ also states that the earth cannot accelerate past light speed mathematically.
I have in the past proved mathematically, that UA would not allow this at 9.81m/s^2, so that holds up ok.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43405.msg1075981#msg1075981
I have also demonstrated that you can use working formulae to calculate UA
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43249.msg1073613#msg1073613
So UA as a concept does not bother Round Earthers. Their problem with it, stems from the power required to give earth this constant acceleration. Dark Energy
Dark Energy
Now here is where REr double standards come in.
Whilst God can readily be used to explain creation or the big bang, FErs are not allowed to invoke God to explain DE.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43410.msg1076051#msg1076051
And whilst dark matter can be applied to explain the missing pieces of Round Earth universal physics by inference (It must be there because the effects are measurable, even though we can't detect it), FErs are unfairly not allowed to use inference for Dark Energy even though the effect (UA) is measurable.
Round Earthers claim the energy required is ridiculous. So I am now going to show how much energy is required by Dark Energy to accelerate the earth constantly at 9.81m/s^2
E=mc^2
Mass of the earth is 5.9742 * 10^24 kg
We will assume c to be the speed of light. UA is will always be close to but less so we will give RErs the benefit of the doubt and assume it is light speed.
5.9742 * 10^24 kg * 299 792 458 m/s^2
5.369343188809495944888e+47 kgm/s^2 or Newtons.
Now that is a very large number, but it is the amount of energy required from the beginning of the acceleration to get earth to light speed. The number will also be less than that and tending towards it, as light speed is unachievable as shown above.
The instantaneous value or constant force can be calculated by
F=Ma
5.9742 * 10^24 kg * 9.81 m/s^2
= 574933708620000000000000000 Newtons or 5.7493370862 * 10^26N
Again a big number so lets get some perspective.
Lets look at the super massive black hole in the centre of the milky way. It has 3.7million solar masses.
The mass of the sun is
1.98892 * 10^30 kg
So the mass of this black hole is 3.7 mill * 1.98892 * 10^30 = 7.359004e+36 kg
So how far would earth be from this hole to detect the same amount of acceleration using RE's unexplained crutch ... gravity?
F=(m1*m2)/d^2 .... Gravity formula
Rearrange gives
= F/(m1*m2)=1/d^2
= sqrt((m1*m2)/F) = d
= sqrt((7.359004e+36*5.9742e+24)/5.7493370862e+26) = d (in metres)
= 276528891111517116.56731144698749 metres or 276,528,891,111,517 km so 276,528 trillion km.
29.2 Light years!
So dark energy is the same as the force as the gravity exerted by the milky way's central black hole on earth at a distance of 29.2 light years. The distance to the nearest star for RE is 4.22 light years and gravity weakens inversely with distance. So when put into perspective, Dark Energy isn't that powerful on a cosmological scale. Its actually quite a weak force like gravity to RErs.
So now all that is left is what caused it? Well I am not the FE version of Stephen Hawking who has incidentally failed to provide answers like what caused the big bang. It is a question for philosophers. Beyond scientific realms at this present time.
I welcome comments from both sides as long as they are constructive. This thread is about constructively filling in the gaps for UA, so lets try to do that. :)
-
That's not my main issue. My problem is that some things are magically exempt from the UA (which is a contradiction, as it is universal)> I mean, if the sun and moon are affected by it, then why are spacecraft, meteors etc not?
-
That's not my main issue. My problem is that some things are magically exempt from the UA (which is a contradiction, as it is universal)> I mean, if the sun and moon are affected by it, then why are spacecraft, meteors etc not?
If you are happy with what I have written above then we can move on to address your concerns.
The earth, sun and moon have all have a lot of time to get to the speed they are. Yes they are different masses but like dropping a kilo and a 2 kilo weight on earth in a vacuum they accelerate at the same speed as gravity's/UA acceleration is constant 9.81 m/s. But when you throw in transient objects like meteors, that have not been accelerating with the earth and sun and moon for all time, its acceleration will be different. Who knows where the meteor came from or how fast it has accelerated to? It is on a different trajectory so its acceleration in relation to our own UA, will of course be different. Its not exempt. It has just been accelerated from a different point in space. Some may be faster if the are older than earth. Some will be slower.
-
In that case Universal Acceleration is a contradiction in terms. If it's not actually universal, then think of a better name. And if it is above us, then it is clearly being accelerated at the same rate, otherwise it would either be below us or smashing into us.
-
Everything is accelerated it is universal, but not all things were created at the same time. Most matter has come from the supernova of a huge star. Earth being one such example. Now if the star from which our planet is born exploded 10 billion years ago, and a meteorite comes from a star that exploded only 2 billion years ago, it will clearly not have accelerated to the same speed. It will also be on a different trajectory as whatever sent the meteor in motion. So if it is 8 billion years younger than the primordial soup our earth came from but in front of us, we will catch it if we have been accelerating longer. It will then appear to be over head and indeed come crashing down as we accelerate into it having been set in motion longer.
-
I thought FE stars were positively tiny compared to RE ones. ???
-
I thought FE stars were positively tiny compared to RE ones. ???
They are, but they are not insubstantial.
-
First of all, Thork, the mass of the Earth is not known in FE. Secondly, you calculate the needed energy with the E=mc2?
In my knowledge you don't use that formula to calculate the energy needed to accelerate something to the near speed of light. Trig has posted about this subject many messages, for example (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42967.msg1067594#msg1067594). You may use the search function for more messages.
-
First of all, Thork, the mass of the Earth is not known in FE. Secondly, you calculate the needed energy with the E=mc2?
In my knowledge you don't use that formula to calculate the energy needed to accelerate something to the near speed of light. Trig has posted about this subject many messages, for example (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42967.msg1067594#msg1067594). You may use the search function for more messages.
First thank you for the link and the constructive criticism. I will look into it now. There are dozens of threads saying all kinds of things. I linked 3 threads in my earlier post. Hopefully we can use this thread to pool together all the most accurate information we have, and they clarify the UA theory a bit better. I will research Trig's answer and come back to this.
-
On inspection Trig only says the energy needed is enormous. I concur and have quantified it earlier. But on a cosmological scale as I demonstrated the energy required isn't that much. Its actually quite feeble.
-
On inspection Trig only says the energy needed is enormous. I concur and have quantified it earlier. But on a cosmological scale as I demonstrated the energy required isn't that much. Its actually quite feeble.
Please lurk moar. I have demonstrated several time that the energy required is far beyond even cosmological scales.
where v' is the portion of the speed of light the FE is traveling
T = atanh(v')/1.03 years where T is the time required to reach v' from the FoR of the FE.
v' = tanh(1.03 T)
So lets say 4.6 billion years for T.
I cannot find a calculator that can handle the needed precision. The velocity would be so close to the c that 64-bit arithmetic can't measure the difference.
So the amount of energy required to accelerate the FE at 1g at this time would be greater that the total energy of all of the mass of the Universe by 100s of orders of magnitude.
Let's just say... Tilt. It can't be imagined.
-
Your formula is to calculate time. I too linked the exact same version of the calc myself earlier, where I had done it. But you only go on to say the energy is immeasurable. I have calculated instantaneous force required to be 5.7493370862 * 10^26N. Do you disagree with my calculation and if not, please point out my mistake so we can get closer to a UA theory. If we can nail down everything in one thread, it is a single thread we can all refer to.
-
Another legitimate question:
What tenets of RE are shaky? I truly have never heard any.
Then you obviously haven't been here very long, or read up on FET any further than the FAQ. Or both.
I read both, and I haven't found any weak spots in RET. Would you kindly point a few out? (here's a hint: they RET isn't wrong because it's incompatible with FET, so don't mention inconsistencies between the two. Rather, find observable phenomena that shouldn't actually work on a round Earth)
-
Your formula is to calculate time. I too linked the exact same version of the calc myself earlier, where I had done it. But you only go on to say the energy is immeasurable. I have calculated instantaneous force required to be 5.7493370862 * 10^26N. Do you disagree with my calculation and if not, please point out my mistake so we can get closer to a UA theory. If we can nail down everything in one thread, it is a single thread we can all refer to.
It doesn't matter what time you use, after 4.6 billion years. The energy required is unfathomable.
I see that you've already been pointed to one of your errors, you plugged in the mass of the RE to the energy equation. Choosing the RE mass is silly. But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous. (They've gone to plaid.)
-
Your formula is to calculate time. I too linked the exact same version of the calc myself earlier, where I had done it. But you only go on to say the energy is immeasurable. I have calculated instantaneous force required to be 5.7493370862 * 10^26N. Do you disagree with my calculation and if not, please point out my mistake so we can get closer to a UA theory. If we can nail down everything in one thread, it is a single thread we can all refer to.
It doesn't matter what time you use, after 4.6 billion years. The energy required is unfathomable.
I see that you've already been pointed to one of your errors, you plugged in the mass of the RE to the energy equation. Choosing the RE mass is silly. But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous. (They've gone to plaid.)
You are looking at the energy over time for billions of years. No one looks at how much force the sun has due to gravity over millions of years - That number too would be incalcuable. What is important is the force it exerts on an object right now. UA is a constant, the same as gravity for RE. It is the instantaneous force that we must focus on as RE scientists do with gravity.
As for mass of earth, why may I not use the RET calculation? If the earth has a finite size and I am one who does not subscribe to infinite plain theory, then it must have a finite mass.
You complain that the energy required is enormous and E=mc^2. So mass must be a factor? If you are saying mass is irrelevant
But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous.
How would you suggest we go about calculating this? What numbers would you be happy with? What mass should I use? If mass is irrelevant then F=ma becomes F=0*a so no force is required at all ??? I must use a mass to calculate the Energy E=mc^2 ???
-
Your formula is to calculate time. I too linked the exact same version of the calc myself earlier, where I had done it. But you only go on to say the energy is immeasurable. I have calculated instantaneous force required to be 5.7493370862 * 10^26N. Do you disagree with my calculation and if not, please point out my mistake so we can get closer to a UA theory. If we can nail down everything in one thread, it is a single thread we can all refer to.
It doesn't matter what time you use, after 4.6 billion years. The energy required is unfathomable.
I see that you've already been pointed to one of your errors, you plugged in the mass of the RE to the energy equation. Choosing the RE mass is silly. But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous. (They've gone to plaid.)
You are looking at the energy over time for billions of years. No one looks at how much force the sun has due to gravity over millions of years - That number too would be incalcuable. What is important is the force it exerts on an object right now. UA is a constant, the same as gravity for RE. It is the instantaneous force that we must focus on as RE scientists do with gravity.
As for mass of earth, why may I not use the RET calculation? If the earth has a finite size and I am one who does not subscribe to infinite plain theory, then it must have a finite mass.
You complain that the energy required is enormous and E=mc^2. So mass must be a factor? If you are saying mass is irrelevant
You don't understand physics. Do go learn some.
Energy is dependent on force. Force required is dependent on relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is dependent of velocity. Velocity is dependent on acceleration history. Once you understand this, please post your next question.
-
But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous.
How would you suggest we go about calculating this? What numbers would you be happy with? What mass should I use? If mass is irrelevant then F=ma becomes F=0*a so no force is required at all ??? I must use a mass to calculate the Energy E=mc^2 ???
I suggest that you wait until you know the mass of the FE before plugging in a number. Go research and study your model.
Then I suggest that you just go with your mass as a known lower bound; call it the 'troll mass lower bound'. You'll still need to use the correct formula though. Here it's not E=mc2.
-
You don't understand physics. Do go learn some.
Rude
Energy is dependent on force. Force required is dependent on relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is dependent of velocity. Velocity is dependent on acceleration history.
Useless.
I know its acceleration history, because that is unchanged. It is and has always been 9.81m/s^2.
Let me use an RE example. A ball with mass 1 kg is travelling at 500m/s from the sun directly at it and the sun's gravity is 274m/s^2. Can you work out how much force is on the ball to make it accelerate at that speed? Yes.
Earth with mass 'x' kg is travelling just under light speed and its force of UA is 9.81m/s^2. Can I work out how much force is on the earth? Yes
So if the mass is the problem that's not UA. UA is the theory. If the theory is robust, researching masses can be done later for accurate numbers. If the calc is the problem, be more specific.
-
The truth is sometimes unpleasant. Or perhaps you are just feigning ignorance on the subject?
-
You don't understand physics. Do go learn some.
Rude You might check your insults against me before complaining when I demonstrate your ignorance.
Energy is dependent on force. Force required is dependent on relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is dependent of velocity. Velocity is dependent on acceleration history.
Useless. You keep missing this point.
I know its acceleration history, because that is unchanged. It is and has always been 9.81m/s^2.
Let me use an RE example. A ball with mass 1 kg is travelling at 500m/s from the sun directly at it and the sun's gravity is 274m/s^2. Can you work out how much force is on the ball to make it accelerate at that speed? Yes.
Earth with rest mass 'x' kg is travelling just under light speed and its force of UA is 9.81m/s^2. Can I work out how much force is on the earth? Yes No
So if the mass is the problem that's not UA. UA is the theory. If the theory is robust, researching masses can be done later for accurate numbers. If the calc is the problem, be more specific.
I guess that you don't understand that relativistic mass is dependent on velocity. Please Google that and stop back when you understand the "No" above.
-
On inspection Trig only says the energy needed is enormous. I concur and have quantified it earlier. But on a cosmological scale as I demonstrated the energy required isn't that much. Its actually quite feeble.
I guess the search function sucks. Trig has mentioned it that he calculated but I didn't find it either. But the problem was the formula you used. E=mc2. You can't get the correct result using that. Maybe you get with it the energy amount needed for the one time unit, second maybe. Because after the first second of acceleration you already have gained the mass and you need more energy to accelerate further and you must use the formula with the new m and so one after every second. So, your number is no way a total energy required to accelerate the Earth. It just one very-very-very small part of the total energy needed.
There is analogous dicsusison, but about rocket in http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-45691.html and the formula for the speed of rocket at http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RocketEquation.html . And http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae235.cfm .
-
On inspection Trig only says the energy needed is enormous. I concur and have quantified it earlier. But on a cosmological scale as I demonstrated the energy required isn't that much. Its actually quite feeble.
I guess the search function sucks. Trig has mentioned it that he calculated but I didn't find it either. But the problem was the formula you used. E=mc2. You can't get the correct result using that. Maybe you get with it the energy amount needed for the one time unit, second maybe. Because after the first second of acceleration you already have gained the mass and you need more energy to accelerate further and you must use the formula with the new m and so one after every second. So, your number is no way a total energy required to accelerate the Earth. It just one very-very-very small part of the total energy needed.
There is analogous dicsusison, but about rocket in http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-45691.html and the formula for the speed of rocket at http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RocketEquation.html . And http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae235.cfm .
Here's the post you were looking for: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42967.msg1065054#msg1065054 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42967.msg1065054#msg1065054)
-
ClockTower, as I have already said you are calculating force over time-immemorial. That is akin to calculating the force gravity has exerted on a rock for 4.5 Billion years. That is of no use to anyone. We are looking for time dependant force, the same way that one calculates gravity for RE. EG. Force required per second.
-
ClockTower, as I have already said you are calculating force over time-immemorial. That is akin to calculating the force gravity has exerted on a rock for 4.5 Billion years. That is of no use to anyone. We are looking for time dependant force, the same way that one calculates gravity for RE. EG. Force required per second.
I am not calculating force over time-immemorial[sic]. I am calculating energy which requires that I calculate force which requires that I calculate relativistic mass that requires that I calculate velocity that requires that I integrate over time up to now of the constant acceleration. Now do you understand?
-
Force required per second.
And as the speed grows with every second the mass grows with every second and force required per second grows and energy required to produce the force grows every second.
-
Still wondering.
Another legitimate question:
What tenets of RE are shaky? I truly have never heard any.
Then you obviously haven't been here very long, or read up on FET any further than the FAQ. Or both.
I read both, and I haven't found any weak spots in RET. Would you kindly point a few out? (here's a hint: they RET isn't wrong because it's incompatible with FET, so don't mention inconsistencies between the two. Rather, find observable phenomena that shouldn't actually work on a round Earth)
-
You complain that the energy required is enormous and E=mc^2. So mass must be a factor? If you are saying mass is irrelevant
But assuming that the acceleration energy at any time of the FE is solely dependent of the energy of its rest mass is just ludicrous.
How would you suggest we go about calculating this? What numbers would you be happy with? What mass should I use? If mass is irrelevant then F=ma becomes F=0*a so no force is required at all ??? I must use a mass to calculate the Energy E=mc^2 ???
Ehh, I just now read it. Mass isn't irrelevant, "rest mass" is. You using the Earth "rest mass" for your formula is really ludicrous. As I said, if you accelerate the Earth it gains mass and near the speed of light the Earths mass is quite unfathomable, not 5.9736 Ũ 1024 kg which is just the "rest mass".
-
Everything is accelerated it is universal, but not all things were created at the same time. Most matter has come from the supernova of a huge star. Earth being one such example. Now if the star from which our planet is born exploded 10 billion years ago, and a meteorite comes from a star that exploded only 2 billion years ago, it will clearly not have accelerated to the same speed. It will also be on a different trajectory as whatever sent the meteor in motion. So if it is 8 billion years younger than the primordial soup our earth came from but in front of us, we will catch it if we have been accelerating longer. It will then appear to be over head and indeed come crashing down as we accelerate into it having been set in motion longer.
Sorry it took me a couple of days to properly respond to this, I've got a lot on my plate. While this is true, something does not come from nothing. The meteor may not be as old as the earth, but what created the meteor is. Because what created the meteor is the same age as what created the earth (ultimately, and I'm not thinking about a God here), it has been accelerating for the same amount of time.
-
This thread is more FE BS that isn't proven. EG comes in and proves like always that he doesn't know anything, Thork comes in and pretty much says, "Congrats! You have realized that TFES hasn't backed anything they've ever posted. We might possibly one day have kind of an answer for you, but in reality the Earth is round and we'll never prove it otherwise. Thanks for your concern and craziness!" A mod came in and also helped back the idea without proving anything. The OP's answers were never really answered because TFES has lacked a LEGIT explanation as to why there's a conspiracy hiding the shape of the Earth, and until they do the entire idea is kind of mook.
-
Thork, until UA is proven, it's not proven and you cannot use it in a debate like other things that have been proven over and over again. I know TFES likes to say this is their grounds and the belief system here revolves around the Earth being flat, but if they ever want to be taken seriously they might want to provide a fact or two proving it for once. Until then nothing TFES provide is legit because on a REAL scientific basis it's wrong.
-
Thork, until UA is proven, it's not proven
Hmm. And FE does have proof, its theories are nothing but an attempt to show RE phenomena on a flat Earth (sometimes more successful than others).
-
Thork, until UA is proven, it's not proven
Hmm. And FE does have proof, its theories are nothing but an attempt to show RE phenomena on a flat Earth (sometimes more successful than others).
It's not proven, it's merely the hypothesis of a bunch of crazy people on the internet. A theory in real life does not mean a theory in TFES. You need evidence for it to be a theory.
-
Thork, until UA is proven, it's not proven
Hmm. And FE does have proof, its theories are nothing but an attempt to show RE phenomena on a flat Earth (sometimes more successful than others).
It's not proven, it's merely the hypothesis of a bunch of crazy people on the internet. A theory in real life does not mean a theory in TFES. You need evidence for it to be a theory.
Actually, a theory is still a theory even if there is no support for it. There isn't a need for evidence for someone to make a theory, although backing up its claims would definitely help its legitimacy, something FE'ers aren't actually good at.
But you're right, FE is just baseless speculation.
-
145065600000000000 seconds = 4.6 billion
so multiply that by 9.81 m/s
1423093536000000000 m/s
isnt that over the speed of light?
-
You are not taking into consideration Special Relativity. The fact that it is possible for the Universe to accelerate forever and not reach the speed of light is not really contested by any of the intelligent RE'ers here.
The FAQ tells us (And proves mathematically) that earth cannot go faster than the speed of light. I am pleased about that because relativity tells us that even though you continue to feel 1 g acceleration, you just keep getting closer and closer to the speed of light without ever getting there.
The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). Since tanh(at/c) is always less than 1, you can never reach the speed of light.
According to the theory of special relativity, earth accelerating at one standard gravity (9.80665 m/sē) will have the speeds shown in the table below.
T (days), v/c
10, 0.028255
20, 0.056465
30, 0.084586
40, 0.112572
50, 0.140380
60, 0.167969
70, 0.195298
80, 0.222326
90, 0.249017
100, 0.275335
110, 0.301246
120, 0.326721
130, 0.351729
140, 0.376245
150, 0.400245
160, 0.423708
170, 0.446617
180, 0.468954
190, 0.490707
200, 0.511865
210, 0.532420
220, 0.552366
230, 0.571698
240, 0.590416
250, 0.608520
260, 0.626012
270, 0.642895
280, 0.659176
290, 0.674862
300, 0.689961
310, 0.704482
320, 0.718437
330, 0.731836
340, 0.744692
350, 0.757019
360, 0.768829
1 year, 0.774818
400, 0.811193
500, 0.888158
600, 0.934877
700, 0.962469
2 years, 0.968315
800, 0.978500
900, 0.987726
1000, 0.993007
3 years, 0.995924
4 years, 0.999482
5 years, 0.999934
We will get closer and closer, but never get there. So its nice to say for a change, that one is water tight. The FAQ hasn't made a mess of things. Flat Earth stands.
I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.
Those numbers are correct. Indeed I believe that I pointed to the article that provided them first in these forums.
-
You are not taking into consideration Special Relativity. The fact that it is possible for the Universe to accelerate forever and not reach the speed of light is not really contested by any of the intelligent RE'ers here.
The FAQ tells us (And proves mathematically) that earth cannot go faster than the speed of light. I am pleased about that because relativity tells us that even though you continue to feel 1 g acceleration, you just keep getting closer and closer to the speed of light without ever getting there.
The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). Since tanh(at/c) is always less than 1, you can never reach the speed of light.
According to the theory of special relativity, earth accelerating at one standard gravity (9.80665 m/sē) will have the speeds shown in the table below.
T (days), v/c
10, 0.028255
20, 0.056465
30, 0.084586
40, 0.112572
50, 0.140380
60, 0.167969
70, 0.195298
80, 0.222326
90, 0.249017
100, 0.275335
110, 0.301246
120, 0.326721
130, 0.351729
140, 0.376245
150, 0.400245
160, 0.423708
170, 0.446617
180, 0.468954
190, 0.490707
200, 0.511865
210, 0.532420
220, 0.552366
230, 0.571698
240, 0.590416
250, 0.608520
260, 0.626012
270, 0.642895
280, 0.659176
290, 0.674862
300, 0.689961
310, 0.704482
320, 0.718437
330, 0.731836
340, 0.744692
350, 0.757019
360, 0.768829
1 year, 0.774818
400, 0.811193
500, 0.888158
600, 0.934877
700, 0.962469
2 years, 0.968315
800, 0.978500
900, 0.987726
1000, 0.993007
3 years, 0.995924
4 years, 0.999482
5 years, 0.999934
We will get closer and closer, but never get there. So its nice to say for a change, that one is water tight. The FAQ hasn't made a mess of things. Flat Earth stands.
I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.
Those numbers are correct. Indeed I believe that I pointed to the article that provided them first in these forums.
KK
but whay arent we affected by UA theory's force?
-
The Earth acts as a sort of shield against it. The Earth takes the full force of the UA while we do not. However, it should be noted that we are still indirectly affected by it's force since it moving the Earth is moving us.
-
The Earth acts as a sort of shield against it. The Earth takes the full force of the UA while we do not. However, it should be noted that we are still indirectly affected by it's force since it moving the Earth is moving us.
then what pushes the earth up, that can be blocked? i thought it was dark energy
-
The Earth acts as a sort of shield against it. The Earth takes the full force of the UA while we do not. However, it should be noted that we are still indirectly affected by it's force since it moving the Earth is moving us.
then what pushes the earth up, that can be blocked?
The answer is nothing. Why FEers would seriously believe a mysterious, undocumented force acts solely upon the bottom of the flat Earth and nothing else (not even anything else on Earth) is beyond me.
-
What's really amazing is that UA makes perfect sense to them, but gravity is perposterous.
-
The Earth acts as a sort of shield against it. The Earth takes the full force of the UA while we do not. However, it should be noted that we are still indirectly affected by it's force since it moving the Earth is moving us.
then what pushes the earth up, that can be blocked? i thought it was dark energy
I hold UA to be something else.
UA gets weaker when it passes through objects.
-
You are not taking into consideration Special Relativity. The fact that it is possible for the Universe to accelerate forever and not reach the speed of light is not really contested by any of the intelligent RE'ers here.
The FAQ tells us (And proves mathematically) that earth cannot go faster than the speed of light. I am pleased about that because relativity tells us that even though you continue to feel 1 g acceleration, you just keep getting closer and closer to the speed of light without ever getting there.
The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). Since tanh(at/c) is always less than 1, you can never reach the speed of light.
According to the theory of special relativity, earth accelerating at one standard gravity (9.80665 m/sē) will have the speeds shown in the table below.
T (days), v/c
10, 0.028255
20, 0.056465
30, 0.084586
40, 0.112572
50, 0.140380
60, 0.167969
70, 0.195298
80, 0.222326
90, 0.249017
100, 0.275335
110, 0.301246
120, 0.326721
130, 0.351729
140, 0.376245
150, 0.400245
160, 0.423708
170, 0.446617
180, 0.468954
190, 0.490707
200, 0.511865
210, 0.532420
220, 0.552366
230, 0.571698
240, 0.590416
250, 0.608520
260, 0.626012
270, 0.642895
280, 0.659176
290, 0.674862
300, 0.689961
310, 0.704482
320, 0.718437
330, 0.731836
340, 0.744692
350, 0.757019
360, 0.768829
1 year, 0.774818
400, 0.811193
500, 0.888158
600, 0.934877
700, 0.962469
2 years, 0.968315
800, 0.978500
900, 0.987726
1000, 0.993007
3 years, 0.995924
4 years, 0.999482
5 years, 0.999934
We will get closer and closer, but never get there. So its nice to say for a change, that one is water tight. The FAQ hasn't made a mess of things. Flat Earth stands.
I never bung numbers in if they aint right. That much ClockTower will tell you.
Those numbers are correct. Indeed I believe that I pointed to the article that provided them first in these forums.
KK
but whay arent we affected by UA theory's force?
In the FET the earth's mass doesn't have gravity there for special relativity cant apply to it. FET mass is different from RET mass. You cant just decided to mix the two to support an answer. Or does FET mass behave like RET mass, in which case it has gravity?
-
Both FET and RET share their views on mass. So special relativity applies.
However it is their view on weight that differs. Whilst both agree on the figure, the phenomenon that causes weight is disagreed upon. Gravity/UA.
-
Both FET and RET share their views on mass. So special relativity applies.
However it is their view on weight that differs. Whilst both agree on the figure, the phenomenon that causes weight is disagreed upon. Gravity/UA.
RET says mass causes gravity, FET says gravity doesn't exist.
-
Both FET and RET share their views on mass. So special relativity applies.
However it is their view on weight that differs. Whilst both agree on the figure, the phenomenon that causes weight is disagreed upon. Gravity/UA.
RET says mass causes gravity, FET says gravity doesn't exist.
Actually in some factions of FET, gravity very much exists, but I do not want to fragment the thread.
For the sake of UA theory it does not exist.
Whilst mass does not cause gravity with UA theory, mass is still there. Mass after all is Density x Volume. Things still have both a density and a volume in FE. It is just that this mass does not create a magical force, attracting all else to it.
One is not reliant on the other. Both theories enjoy the property of mass. How a mass is given weight is the dividing point. UA/Gravity.
-
What's really amazing is that UA makes perfect sense to them, but gravity is perposterous.
-
Both FET and RET share their views on mass. So special relativity applies.
However it is their view on weight that differs. Whilst both agree on the figure, the phenomenon that causes weight is disagreed upon. Gravity/UA.
RET says mass causes gravity, FET says gravity doesn't exist.
Do link to where it says mass is the cause of gravity.
The cause of gravity is currently unknown in RET.
-
Do link to where it says mass is the cause of gravity.
A body's mass also determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by a gravitational field.
Berny
Data miner
-
Both FET and RET share their views on mass. So special relativity applies.
However it is their view on weight that differs. Whilst both agree on the figure, the phenomenon that causes weight is disagreed upon. Gravity/UA.
RET says mass causes gravity, FET says gravity doesn't exist.
Actually in some factions of FET, gravity very much exists, but I do not want to fragment the thread.
For the sake of UA theory it does not exist.
Whilst mass does not cause gravity with UA theory, mass is still there. Mass after all is Density x Volume. Things still have both a density and a volume in FE. It is just that this mass does not create a magical force, attracting all else to it.
One is not reliant on the other. Both theories enjoy the property of mass. How a mass is given weight is the dividing point. UA/Gravity.
i dont think that is the definition of matter, i thought matter is anything with mass and volume.
-
Do link to where it says mass is the cause of gravity.
A body's mass also determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by a gravitational field.
Berny
Data miner
Where does that quote say that mass causes gravity?
-
Do link to where it says mass is the cause of gravity.
A body's mass also determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by a gravitational field.
Berny
Data miner
That just tells there is a correlation between the two, not that one causes the other.
-
Do link to where it says mass is the cause of gravity.
A body's mass also determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by a gravitational field.
Berny
Data miner
That just tells there is a correlation between the two, not that one causes the other.
And where in Science do you ever see anything more than that?
-
And where is Science do you ever see anything more than that?
This does not make sense.
-
And where isin Science do you ever see anything more than that?
This does not make sense.
Sorry. Fixed.
-
And where isin Science do you ever see anything more than that?
This does not make sense.
Sorry. Fixed.
Thanks.
Causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)
-
And where isin Science do you ever see anything more than that?
This does not make sense.
Sorry. Fixed.
Thanks.
Causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality)
<yawn> So name one causal link in Science that is not based on correlation alone. What you it take for you to believe that mass causes objects to move toward each other?
-
If mass causes gravity, why do photons have gravity?
-
If mass causes gravity, why do photons have gravity?
Because they have mass.
-
If mass causes gravity, why do photons have gravity?
Please show me how you determined 1) photons have gravity and 2) photons don't have intrinsic mass and 3) photons don't have momentum. Thanks.
-
<yawn> So name one causal link in Science that is not based on correlation alone.
I would say much of computer science is based on input/output, cause/effect relations. Not a whole lot of correlation involved with programming and building a computer.
What you it take for you to believe that mass causes objects to move toward each other?
???
-
<yawn> So name one causal link in Science that is not based on correlation alone.
I would say much of computer science is based on input/output, cause/effect relations. Not a whole lot of correlation involved with programming and building a computer.
Non-responsive. Please answer the question. Don't confuse engineering with Science.What youwould it take for you to believe that mass causes objects to move toward each other?
Fixed. Sorry.
???
-
I know I am a little late in responding with work and that but...
Do link to where it says mass is the cause of gravity.
A body's mass also determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by a gravitational field.
Berny
Data miner
Where does that quote say that mass causes gravity?
That just tells there is a correlation between the two, not that one causes the other.
Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon in which objects with mass attract one another.
From the Wiki I can infer that things with mass have a gravitational force, or gravity.
Which satisfies TB's question
As for EG - I think the Wiki just answered that as well.
Berny
Data Mined again
-
<yawn> So name one causal link in Science that is not based on correlation alone.
I would say much of computer science is based on input/output, cause/effect relations. Not a whole lot of correlation involved with programming and building a computer.
Non-responsive. Please answer the question. Don't confuse engineering with Science
What youwould it take for you to believe that mass causes objects to move toward each other?
???
Fixed. Sorry.
How is engineering not a science? ???
To convince me mass causes gravitational attraction, you would first have to prove the mechanism behind gravity.
Good luck with that. ;)
-
<yawn> So name one causal link in Science that is not based on correlation alone.
I would say much of computer science is based on input/output, cause/effect relations. Not a whole lot of correlation involved with programming and building a computer.
Non-responsive. Please answer the question. Don't confuse engineering with Science
What youwould it take for you to believe that mass causes objects to move toward each other?
???
Fixed. Sorry.
How is engineering not a science? ???
To convince me mass causes gravitational attraction, you would first have to prove the mechanism behind gravity.
Good luck with that. ;)
Engineering is the application of Science.
Great, since no one can ever prove the mechanism behind gravity, you've demonstrated that you're quite closed-minded. QED
-
Asking for proof = someone is being closed-minded? ???
-
Asking for proof = someone is being closed-minded? ???
Demanding proof before accepting anything = closed-minded
-
Asking for proof = someone is being closed-minded? ???
Demanding proof before accepting anything = closed-minded
Which means you must be closed minded to UA existing since you always demand proof.
-
Asking for proof = someone is being closed-minded? ???
Demanding proof before accepting anything = closed-minded
Which means you must be closed minded to UA existing since you always demand proof.
If so, I misspoke. I should have asked for verifiable objective evidence.
-
Asking for proof = someone is being closed-minded? ???
Demanding proof before accepting anything = closed-minded
Which means you must be closed minded to UA existing since you always demand proof.
If so, I misspoke. I should have asked for verifiable objective evidence.
I've verified that when I walk off the edge of a chair, that the earth rises up to meet me.
-
Asking for proof = someone is being closed-minded? ???
Demanding proof before accepting anything = closed-minded
Which means you must be closed minded to UA existing since you always demand proof.
If so, I misspoke. I should have asked for verifiable objective evidence.
I've verified that when I walk off the edge of a chair, that the earth rises up to meet me.
What a coincidence! I have verified experimentally that when I step off a chair, I fall down to meet the earth!
-
when i dropped an apple, which has mass, it fell onto earth, and when my friend in china dropped his glasses, which also has mass, it also hit earth.
and i do think engineering is counted as science, becuase it is sciece to enegineer chemicals and such
-
Asking for proof = someone is being closed-minded? ???
Demanding proof before accepting anything = closed-minded
Which means you must be closed minded to UA existing since you always demand proof.
If so, I misspoke. I should have asked for verifiable objective evidence.
I shall remember to remind you of this whenever you ask for proof from now on.
-
Asking for proof = someone is being closed-minded? ???
Demanding proof before accepting anything = closed-minded
Which means you must be closed minded to UA existing since you always demand proof.
If so, I misspoke. I should have asked for verifiable objective evidence.
I've verified that when I walk off the edge of a chair, that the earth rises up to meet me.
Sorry Tom, but the Equivalence Principle says that your test is inconclusive.
-
To convince me mass causes gravitational attraction, you would first have to prove the mechanism behind gravity.
Why? What use you have for the mechanism behind the gravity? I understand then that to convince you that your girlfriend(if you have one) is mad at you you must at first understand the mechanism behind the emotions? Not just the reason why she did get mad at you. Good luck with you relationship then.
-
To convince me mass causes gravitational attraction, you would first have to prove the mechanism behind gravity.
Why? What use you have for the mechanism behind the gravity? I understand then that to convince you that your girlfriend(if you have one) is mad at you you must at first understand the mechanism behind the emotions? Not just the reason why she did get mad at you. Good luck with you relationship then.
There is a large difference. I can understand what I did or what other factors caused my girlfriend to get angry at me. Currently it is impossible to understand why gravity makes stuff move.
-
To convince me mass causes gravitational attraction, you would first have to prove the mechanism behind gravity.
Why? What use you have for the mechanism behind the gravity? I understand then that to convince you that your girlfriend(if you have one) is mad at you you must at first understand the mechanism behind the emotions? Not just the reason why she did get mad at you. Good luck with you relationship then.
There is a large difference. I can understand what I did or what other factors caused my girlfriend to get angry at me. Currently it is impossible to understand why gravity makes stuff move.
No, it isn't. As the general "mechanism" behind the gravity is just mass so is the general "mechanism" behind the mood of your girlfriend your actions(sometimes). But the real mechanism behind the mood is somewhere deep, in the nerve/brain cells, emotions and who knows what else what we really don't know. So, if you insist that you must understand this another "mechanism" behind the gravity then by your logic you must also start to understand the "mechanism" for moods, how exactly they come from the nerves/braincells or who knows from where. Not just the correlation with your actions. It isn't sufficient as you said.
-
Asking for proof = someone is being closed-minded? ???
Demanding proof before accepting anything = closed-minded
Which means you must be closed minded to UA existing since you always demand proof.
If so, I misspoke. I should have asked for verifiable objective evidence.
I've verified that when I walk off the edge of a chair, that the earth rises up to meet me.
No, in your perspective that has happened, you haven't verified anything.
-
Asking for proof = someone is being closed-minded? ???
Demanding proof before accepting anything = closed-minded
Which means you must be closed minded to UA existing since you always demand proof.
If so, I misspoke. I should have asked for verifiable objective evidence.
I've verified that when I walk off the edge of a chair, that the earth rises up to meet me.
No, in your perspective that has happened, you haven't verified anything.
This is just another case where an FEer made a conclusion without performing an experiment to eliminate the other possibilities. In this case Foucault's Pendulum or reading Ragulsky, "Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation"?, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125. and http://www.a-dogs-breakfast.8m.com/blank_1.html (http://www.a-dogs-breakfast.8m.com/blank_1.html) would do.