The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Rushy on December 09, 2011, 04:49:04 PM
-
Redacted.
-
Unfortunately UA defies General Relativity, which is why most FE'ers try to avoid the subject altogether. General Relativity states no object may reach the speed of light. No, this does not mean an object can accelerate indefinitely at a constant rate. This means once an object becomes near the speed of light it reaches a sort of universal speed bump. The object can continue to go faster, but only at the expense of serious amounts of energy and at a rate of acceleration that would for experimental purposes be null.
I agree with your position, but disagree with your interpretation of GR...
Imagine that there are two people, one is in rocket and the other is on the ground next to it. They are both initially at rest.
Earth frame of reference:
The rocket launches upward and has a constant thrust (force). As the rocket gets faster and faster, the thrust remains constant but the acceleration of the rocket decreases. As time goes on, the velocity approaches the speed of light asymptotically and likewise the acceleration approaches zero.
Rocket frame of reference:
Because the rocket has a constant thrust, its acceleration is also constant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration#Acceleration_in_.281.2B1.29D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration#Acceleration_in_.281.2B1.29D)
-
My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.
Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.
-
My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.
Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.
I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.
An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.
I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.
-
My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.
Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.
I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.
An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.
I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.
This thread was made before that discussion. Think of the speed of light as 10 and I'm approaching it infinitely, I would reach 9.999999 and have 9's continually added, therefore I would never actually get to 10.
-
My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.
Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.
I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.
An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.
I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.
The external energy comes from the Aether.
-
My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.
Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.
I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.
An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.
I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.
The external energy comes from the Aether.
Care to explain how this works?
-
My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.
Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.
I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.
An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.
I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.
The external energy comes from the Aether.
Care to explain how this works?
The Aether is the thrust.
-
My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.
Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.
I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.
An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.
I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.
The external energy comes from the Aether.
So where does the Aether get more energy than a human can comprehend? More is needed to accelerate the FE in the next microsecond then has ever been recorded or inferred in the entire Universe throughout its entire life. Do you have any experiment that would falsify the Aether and the thrust it provides to the Universe?
-
More is needed to accelerate the FE in the next microsecond then has ever been recorded or inferred in the entire Universe throughout its entire life.
Given that the mass of the FE is unknown, this claim is unverifiable.
Given that we have not observed, recorded, measured or inferred the entire Universe, much less throughout its entire life, this claim is inconsequential.
Please make an argument instead of spouting baseless claims that wouldn't matter a damn even if they were true.
-
My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.
Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.
I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.
An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.
I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.
The external energy comes from the Aether.
So where does the Aether get more energy than a human can comprehend? More is needed to accelerate the FE in the next microsecond then has ever been recorded or inferred in the entire Universe throughout its entire life.
Aether is the Superstring Plasma. It has so much energy that the superstrings unravel. It moves past the Earth, filling up the infinite vacuum, and hits it like a wind, accelerating it.
-
My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.
Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.
I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.
An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.
I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.
The external energy comes from the Aether.
So where does the Aether get more energy than a human can comprehend? More is needed to accelerate the FE in the next microsecond then has ever been recorded or inferred in the entire Universe throughout its entire life.
Aether is the Superstring Plasma. It has so much energy that the superstrings unravel. It moves past the Earth, filling up the infinite vacuum, and hits it like a wind, accelerating it.
1) What evidence do you have that super-string plasma exists?
2) Shouldn't the density of the plasma be decreasing by the cube of the distance? If so, why aren't accelerating at a gradually slower rate?
3) If it interacts with matter so readily, why can't be observe it flying past the Earth?
Answer those and you'll have a legitimate theory.
-
My interpretation was wrong because I didn't show that you can approach any given value indefinitely and not necessarily reach it. In example an exponential graph in which you can not intercept x at 10. You will go to 9.99999999999999 infinitely.
Therefore, yes, this thread is wrong.
I thought we covered this. Yes, from the Earth's FoR, you can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 indefinitely, but only with the outrageous 'fiat' of incomprehensible amounts of external energy.
An observer not accelerating would see the FE (in the Cambridge model) with decreasing acceleration, decreasing time, and increasing relativistic mass.
I have no idea what you mean by the text now in red.
The external energy comes from the Aether.
So where does the Aether get more energy than a human can comprehend? More is needed to accelerate the FE in the next microsecond then has ever been recorded or inferred in the entire Universe throughout its entire life.
Aether is the Superstring Plasma. It has so much energy that the superstrings unravel. It moves past the Earth, filling up the infinite vacuum, and hits it like a wind, accelerating it.
1) What evidence do you have that super-string plasma exists?
2) Shouldn't the density of the plasma be decreasing by the cube of the distance? If so, why aren't accelerating at a gradually slower rate?
3) If it interacts with matter so readily, why can't be observe it flying past the Earth?
Answer those and you'll have a legitimate theory.
1) Evidence by requirement. It's good enough for the rest of hypothetical science (quantum and theoretical physics, etc).
2) The strings are majorly independent of each other (clumped into groups about the size of an atom) and do not interact with each other
3) First of all, it is matter. Just to clear thing up. And for the same reason you can't see the wind going by.
-
If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?
Things "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.
-
If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?
Thing "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.
I believe that gravity does exist, but not to the same extent that it does in RET. It's the most logical reason for the gravitational differences from place to place. As for your first point, it wouldn't make sense to say that they never collide. I was speaking in reference to inter-molecular forces such as Hydrogen bonds and London Dispersal Forces. The plasma has to be far more fluid than a gas, so by extension it is not bound by the same forces. But atomic collisions are elastic, so they don't matter regarding energy displacement.
-
If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?
Thing "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.
I believe that gravity does exist, but not to the same extent that it does in RET. It's the most logical reason for the gravitational differences from place to place. As for your first point, it wouldn't make sense to say that they never collide. I was speaking in reference to inter-molecular forces such as Hydrogen bonds and London Dispersal Forces. The plasma has to be far more fluid than a gas, so by extension it is not bound by the same forces. But atomic collisions are elastic, so they don't matter regarding energy displacement.
Let's start from scratch here... the force exerted by a stream of particle (in this case strings) on an object (the Earth) is proportional to the surface area of the object and the density of the flow. As the flow spreads out (either linearly or in 3D) the density of the flow will decrease and so to will the force exerted by it. If the strings are expanding into 3D space (no reason why it shouldn't), then the density will decrease with the cube of the distance. This would mean that the acceleration felt by the Earth is constantly decreasing. If the value of g were decreasing over time, we would be able to measure it.
-
If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?
Thing "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.
I believe that gravity does exist, but not to the same extent that it does in RET. It's the most logical reason for the gravitational differences from place to place. As for your first point, it wouldn't make sense to say that they never collide. I was speaking in reference to inter-molecular forces such as Hydrogen bonds and London Dispersal Forces. The plasma has to be far more fluid than a gas, so by extension it is not bound by the same forces. But atomic collisions are elastic, so they don't matter regarding energy displacement.
Let's start from scratch here... the force exerted by a stream of particle (in this case strings) on an object (the Earth) is proportional to the surface area of the object and the density of the flow. As the flow spreads out (either linearly or in 3D) the density of the flow will decrease and so to will the force exerted by it. If the strings are expanding into 3D space (no reason why it shouldn't), then the density will decrease with the cube of the distance. This would mean that the acceleration felt by the Earth is constantly decreasing. If the value of g were decreasing over time, we would be able to measure it.
If the strings are unwound, then they would be constantly multiplying. The rate of decrease and increase would eventually reach equilibrium.
-
If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?
Thing "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.
I believe that gravity does exist, but not to the same extent that it does in RET. It's the most logical reason for the gravitational differences from place to place. As for your first point, it wouldn't make sense to say that they never collide. I was speaking in reference to inter-molecular forces such as Hydrogen bonds and London Dispersal Forces. The plasma has to be far more fluid than a gas, so by extension it is not bound by the same forces. But atomic collisions are elastic, so they don't matter regarding energy displacement.
Let's start from scratch here... the force exerted by a stream of particle (in this case strings) on an object (the Earth) is proportional to the surface area of the object and the density of the flow. As the flow spreads out (either linearly or in 3D) the density of the flow will decrease and so to will the force exerted by it. If the strings are expanding into 3D space (no reason why it shouldn't), then the density will decrease with the cube of the distance. This would mean that the acceleration felt by the Earth is constantly decreasing. If the value of g were decreasing over time, we would be able to measure it.
If the strings are unwound, then they would be constantly multiplying. The rate of decrease and increase would eventually reach equilibrium.
What does it mean for a string to unwind and multiply?
-
If you so readily believe that hypothetical particles exist just because modern physics says so, why don't you accept the graviton's theoretical existence?
Thing "rush" into a vacuum because of a pressure difference. There are more things pushing on one side than the other and as a result it spreads out until the pressure is more or less equal on all sides.If the strings don't interact with each other, then they will not exert a force on one another (i.e. no pressure), and will therefore not feel a force going from high density to low density. This pretty much invalidates your vacuum idea.
I believe that gravity does exist, but not to the same extent that it does in RET. It's the most logical reason for the gravitational differences from place to place. As for your first point, it wouldn't make sense to say that they never collide. I was speaking in reference to inter-molecular forces such as Hydrogen bonds and London Dispersal Forces. The plasma has to be far more fluid than a gas, so by extension it is not bound by the same forces. But atomic collisions are elastic, so they don't matter regarding energy displacement.
Let's start from scratch here... the force exerted by a stream of particle (in this case strings) on an object (the Earth) is proportional to the surface area of the object and the density of the flow. As the flow spreads out (either linearly or in 3D) the density of the flow will decrease and so to will the force exerted by it. If the strings are expanding into 3D space (no reason why it shouldn't), then the density will decrease with the cube of the distance. This would mean that the acceleration felt by the Earth is constantly decreasing. If the value of g were decreasing over time, we would be able to measure it.
If the strings are unwound, then they would be constantly multiplying. The rate of decrease and increase would eventually reach equilibrium.
What does it mean for a string to unwind and multiply?
Research super-strings. I'm really not qualified to explain them.
-
...
If the strings are unwound, then they would be constantly multiplying. The rate of decrease and increase would eventually reach equilibrium.
and...
Research super-strings. I'm really not qualified to explain them.
So you make the claim that unwinding strings multiply, but can't explain how you know that?
Okay, let me try that....
- The Earth is a globe because the Jabberwocky has claws that clutch.
and...
- Research the Jabberwocky. I'm really not qualified to explain it.
I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.
-
...
If the strings are unwound, then they would be constantly multiplying. The rate of decrease and increase would eventually reach equilibrium.
and...
Research super-strings. I'm really not qualified to explain them.
So you make the claim that unwinding strings multiply, but can't explain how you know that?
Okay, let me try that....
- The Earth is a globe because the Jabberwocky has claws that clutch.
and...
- Research the Jabberwocky. I'm really not qualified to explain it.
I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.
I can know things about superstrings without being qualified to teach about them.
-
...
I can know things about superstrings without being qualified to teach about them.
And what is your point? Did I say that you didn't know 'things' about superstrings?
-
I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.
Check me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Tausami was using superstrings to explain FET gravity, not RET gravity.
-
I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.
Check me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Tausami was using superstrings to explain FET gravity, not RET gravity.
Yes, but I used his technique to prove the superstrings multiply when they unwind to prove RET, understand?
-
I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.
Check me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Tausami was using superstrings to explain FET gravity, not RET gravity.
Yes, but I used his technique to prove the superstrings multiply when they unwind to prove RET, understand?
When did he say that he proved anything? There is a difference between explaining something and proving something.
-
Yeah. My proof continues to be proof by necessity, the same thing that theoretical and quantum physicists use.
-
I guess you've provided the basis for the ultimate argument for RET. Thanks to you RET has won.
Check me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Tausami was using superstrings to explain FET gravity, not RET gravity.
Yes, but I used his technique to prove the superstrings multiply when they unwind to prove RET, understand?
When did he say that he proved anything? There is a difference between explaining something and proving something.
Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it". I say that "C causes D and I don't have to explain it". I'd say both his statement and mine are equally worthy (or unworthy) of being called a proof, or an explanation.
Here:
- A=strings unwinding
- B=string multiply
- C=the Jabberwocky has claws
- D=the Earth is round
So I'll rephrase for you: Yes, but I used his technique to explain how he knew that superstrings multiply when they unwind to explain how I know RE to be correct, understand?
-
Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it".
The way I read it was more like " I know that A causes B but I can't properly explain why. However, there are smarter people out there that are working on it and can explain it better than I can." Maybe it's just me. :-\
-
Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it".
The way I read it was more like " I know that A causes B but I can't properly explain why. However, there are smarter people out there that are working on it and can explain it better than I can." Maybe it's just me. :-\
I have no problem at all with your reading. I would just expect that you can't know something and not be able to explain why something is true. At least reference the smarter people who can explain, not just a "go research it" cop-out.
I don't know how the more advanced map projections work, but I did provide a link to Wolfram Research that did start to explain and provided references to anyone wishing to fully understand the science involved.
-
Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it".
The way I read it was more like " I know that A causes B but I can't properly explain why. However, there are smarter people out there that are working on it and can explain it better than I can." Maybe it's just me. :-\
I have no problem at all with your reading. I would just expect that you can't know something and not be able to explain why something is true. At least reference the smarter people who can explain, not just a "go research it" cop-out.
I don't know how the more advanced map projections work, but I did provide a link to Wolfram Research that did start to explain and provided references to anyone wishing to fully understand the science involved.
It's common knowledge that acid+base=water+salt, but before this year I couldn't have told you why.
-
Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it".
The way I read it was more like " I know that A causes B but I can't properly explain why. However, there are smarter people out there that are working on it and can explain it better than I can." Maybe it's just me. :-\
I have no problem at all with your reading. I would just expect that you can't know something and not be able to explain why something is true. At least reference the smarter people who can explain, not just a "go research it" cop-out.
I don't know how the more advanced map projections work, but I did provide a link to Wolfram Research that did start to explain and provided references to anyone wishing to fully understand the science involved.
It's common knowledge that acid+base=water+salt, but before this year I couldn't have told you why.
1) No. Acid-base reactions often result in water and a salt, but not always as you claim. An counter-example would be CH3COOH + NH3 → NH+4 + CH3COO−.
and 2) Irrelevant. You made a claim that the unwinding of strings causes strings to multiply. When challenged to support your claim, with an explanation or reference, you dodged, rather than withdrawing your claim, with the lame "go research it".
-
Sorry, I guess there's a difference that I don't understand. He says "I know that A causes B and I don't have to explain it".
The way I read it was more like " I know that A causes B but I can't properly explain why. However, there are smarter people out there that are working on it and can explain it better than I can." Maybe it's just me. :-\
I have no problem at all with your reading. I would just expect that you can't know something and not be able to explain why something is true. At least reference the smarter people who can explain, not just a "go research it" cop-out.
I don't know how the more advanced map projections work, but I did provide a link to Wolfram Research that did start to explain and provided references to anyone wishing to fully understand the science involved.
It's common knowledge that acid+base=water+salt, but before this year I couldn't have told you why.
1) No. Acid-base reactions often result in water and a salt, but not always as you claim. An counter-example would be CH3COOH + NH3 → NH+4 + CH3COO−.
Nice try, but acetic acid and ammonia make water and ammonium acetate. The equation would be:
CH3COO- + H30+ + NH4+ + OH- → NH4CH3COO + H20
-
...
Nice try, but acetic acid and ammonia make water and ammonium acetate. What you wrote was a dissociation equation, which assumes that water is formed.
I guess I should have provided you with a reference, given you flights of fantasy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction)
"The reaction of ammonia, a base, with acetic acid in absence of water can be described to give ammonium cation, an acid, and acetate anion, a base ..."
-
...
Nice try, but acetic acid and ammonia make water and ammonium acetate. What you wrote was a dissociation equation, which assumes that water is formed.
I guess I should have provided you with a reference, given you flights of fantasy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction)
"The reaction of ammonia, a base, with acetic acid in absence of water can be described to give ammonium cation, an acid, and acetate anion, a base ..."
So it would appear. The internet lied to me. I've really got to start thinking about things before Googling them. Ammonium is a Bronsted-Lowry base. I was discussing Arhenius bases, which should have been obvious because if we're including Bronsted-Lowry bases then we're also including Lewis bases, which are just about everything.
-
...
Nice try, but acetic acid and ammonia make water and ammonium acetate. What you wrote was a dissociation equation, which assumes that water is formed.
I guess I should have provided you with a reference, given you flights of fantasy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid%E2%80%93base_reaction)
"The reaction of ammonia, a base, with acetic acid in absence of water can be described to give ammonium cation, an acid, and acetate anion, a base ..."
So it would appear. The internet lied to me. I've really got to start thinking about things before Googling them. Ammonium is a Bronsted-Lowry base. I was discussing Arhenius bases, which should have been obvious because if we're including Bronsted-Lowry bases then we're also including Lewis bases, which are just about everything.
I hope that I'm not breaking any rules, but kudos on your honesty. You've shown that you've reached a goal I yet aspire to. Good job.
-
But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.
-
But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.
The multiplying of the superstrings would account for that too.
-
But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.
The multiplying of the superstrings would account for that too.
So the mass of the earth is perfect to balance their multiplying?
Anyways, superstrings can't just divide and double their mass. Conservation of momentum still holds.
-
But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.
The multiplying of the superstrings would account for that too.
Please tell how you reached yet another astounding conclusion unless of course you can't explain that too.
-
But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.
The multiplying of the superstrings would account for that too.
Please tell how you reached yet another astounding conclusion unless of course you can't explain that too.
Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.
-
Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.
1) Nope. Modern instruments detect variation in the acceleration due to gravity. Reference from Thork: http://geophysics.esci.keele.ac.uk/Research/microgravity/gravity/ (http://geophysics.esci.keele.ac.uk/Research/microgravity/gravity/)
2) cum hoc fallacy.
-
Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.
change over time or location?
also, conservation of momentum:
A brick flying through the air does not double its momentum if it splits in two. Nor does a superstring.
You can try to make words sound good together, but science nor zetecism works that. The words have to mean some thing. And what happens when anything splits is that momentum is conserved.
-
Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.
change over time or location?
also, conservation of momentum:
A brick flying through the air does not double its momentum if it splits in two. Nor does a superstring.
You can try to make words sound good together, but science nor zetecism works that. The words have to mean some thing. And what happens when anything splits is that momentum is conserved.
Time. As I said before, the changes over location are due to limited gravitational pull.
-
Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.
change over time or location?
also, conservation of momentum:
A brick flying through the air does not double its momentum if it splits in two. Nor does a superstring.
You can try to make words sound good together, but science nor zetecism works that. The words have to mean some thing. And what happens when anything splits is that momentum is conserved.
Time. As I said before, the changes over location are due to limited gravitational pull.
If your theory required two unknown forces, UA and gravity, then why not just go with the simpler theory with only gravity?
-
Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.
change over time or location?
also, conservation of momentum:
A brick flying through the air does not double its momentum if it splits in two. Nor does a superstring.
You can try to make words sound good together, but science nor zetecism works that. The words have to mean some thing. And what happens when anything splits is that momentum is conserved.
Time. As I said before, the changes over location are due to limited gravitational pull.
If your theory required two unknown forces, UA and gravity, then why not just go with the simpler theory with only gravity?
Because that would result in a round Earth, and the Earth is flat.
-
Because that would result in a round Earth, and the Earth is flat.
I see your problem there... That's a great case for the logical fallacy called "Argument from Final Conclusion". Reference: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx).
-
Because that would result in a round Earth, and the Earth is flat.
I see your problem there... That's a great case for the logical fallacy called "Argument from Final Conclusion". Reference: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx).
Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion. Also, I find it odd that I'm being accused of logical fallacies instead of making the accusations.
-
Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion.
Of course it is a final conclusion. After all, you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your conclusion. That sounds pretty final to me.
-
Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion.
Of course it is a final conclusion. After all, you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your conclusion. That sounds pretty final to me.
If we considered it an impeachable conclusion why would we spend 150 years debating RE'ers about it?
It's not like astrologists, priests, psychics, scientologists, etc., debate what they believe in.
-
Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion.
Of course it is a final conclusion. After all, you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your conclusion. That sounds pretty final to me.
If we considered it an impeachable conclusion why would we spend 150 years debating RE'ers about it?
It's not like astrologists, priests, psychics, scientologists, etc., debate what they believe in.
So you're giving up on the Zetetic Method?
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
Oh and you already said that you know that the Earth is flat.
pretty simple to rent a boat and sail around Antartica. If you travel in an inward circle - earth is flat. If you can travel in an outward circle - earth is round!
simple!
Why should we bother doing any of that when we already know that the earth is flat?
-
The earth is flat, but commoners such as myself are simply too dull to know it. I blindly accept what is told to me by my government overlords who have god-like control over all of society.
-
Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion.
Of course it is a final conclusion. After all, you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your conclusion. That sounds pretty final to me.
If we considered it an impeachable conclusion why would we spend 150 years debating RE'ers about it?
It's not like astrologists, priests, psychics, scientologists, etc., debate what they believe in.
So you're giving up on the Zetetic Method?
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
Oh and you already said that you know that the Earth is flat.
pretty simple to rent a boat and sail around Antartica. If you travel in an inward circle - earth is flat. If you can travel in an outward circle - earth is round!
simple!
Why should we bother doing any of that when we already know that the earth is flat?
We know that the earth is flat, but that knowledge isn't unimpeachable. Over the last 150 years we've constantly welcomed RE'ers to try and contradict that knowledge.
If RE'ers are not able to contradict it, then FET can be said to be "beyond the power of contradiction," and meet the burden Samuel Birley Rowbotham outlined.
There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. "Beyond the power of contradiction" and "absolute knowledge" are not one in the same. "Beyond the power of contradiction" simply means that our opponents are unable to contradict it and the subject matter must be considered truth until, perhaps, at some future date when FET can be contradicted.
-
We know that the earth is flat, but that knowledge isn't unimpeachable. Over the last 150 years we've constantly welcomed RE'ers to try andto contradict that knowledge.
If RE'ers are not able to contradict it, then FET can be said to be "beyond the power of contradiction," and meet the burden Samuel Birley Rowbotham outlined.
There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. "Beyond the power of contradiction" and "absolute knowledge" are not one in the same. "Beyond the power of contradition" simply means that our opponents are unable to contradict it.
Let's stop over at Webster's first:
to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
Well it seems that you've modified the definition, as you 'know' but are no longer certain of. So when an FEer says that he/she 'knows' something, I guess that means just that he/she are 'pretty sure' only.
Next, let's turn to Parallax:
Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.
Okay, then you indeed have left the Zetetic Method behind. I guess that it wasn't working out for you.
Finally, let's visit Parallax on whether he concluded the Earth flat:
If, to ascertain the true figure and condition of the earth, we adopt the "Zetetic" process, which truly is the only one sufficiently reliable, we shall find that instead of its being a globe--one of an infinite number of worlds moving on axes and in an orbit round the sun, it is the directly contrary--a Plane, without diurnal or progressive motion, and unaccompanied by anything in the firmament analogous to itself; or, in other words, that it is the only known material world.
Robotham concludes that the Earth is flat and published that conclusion in 1881. I have to wonder the reason you disagree with him now. Is the Zetetic Method faulty and was Robotham wrong?
-
You can draw a conclusion about something, or consider something true, without it being "absolute knowledge."
Rowbotham demonstrates and presents overwhelming evidence to the point of certainty, but the knowledge is not absolute.
If Rowbotham considered the knowledge absolute he wouldn't bother engaging in public debates. People who believe their knowledge is absolute don't debate with people (astrologists, priests, psychics, scientologists, etc).
Over the course of 30 years Rowbotham travels the isles of Britian, to debate with the greatest minds of the day at the biggest universities and institutions. RE'ers are given the chance to defend their model, but again and again, they are steamrolled in debate (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm).
-
You can draw a conclusion about something, or consider something true, without it being "absolute knowledge."
Rowbotham demonstrates and presents overwhelming evidence to the point of certainty, but the knowledge is not absolute.
If Rowbotham considered the knowledge absolute he wouldn't bother debating with people (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm).
Wow! 'Certainty' is not absolute. Please let Oxford know. They have been wrong for so long.
Certainty can be defined as either:
perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or
the mental state of being without doubt
Your last statement is a non sequitur. By your logic, an innocent defendant would not debate in court--ever.
-
You can draw a conclusion about something, or consider something true, without it being "absolute knowledge."
Rowbotham demonstrates and presents overwhelming evidence to the point of certainty, but the knowledge is not absolute.
If Rowbotham considered the knowledge absolute he wouldn't bother debating with people (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm).
Wow! 'Certainty' is not absolute. Please let Oxford know. They have been wrong for so long.
Certainty can be defined as either:
perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or
the mental state of being without doubt
Your last statement is a non sequitur. By your logic, an innocent defendant would not debate in court--ever.
No, "certainty" is never absolute.
"Certainty" is based on all available evidence. When someone is "certain" of something, it is based on past experience and an accumulation of all available evidence. Obviously there might be unavailable or unknown evidence which they did not have access to. Hence why "certain" is never truly absolute no matter the subject.
FET is true because --
- The evidence is cumulative
- The evidence is overwhelming
- The arguments supporting it are beyond the power of contradiction (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm)
Rowbotham steamrolls the best and the brightest of the biggest universities of Britian over a period of 30 years. RE'ers were unable to debate to any success or present a convincing case. Hence why Rowbotham calls the subject-matter beyond the power of contradiction.
-
You can draw a conclusion about something, or consider something true, without it being "absolute knowledge."
Rowbotham demonstrates and presents overwhelming evidence to the point of certainty, but the knowledge is not absolute.
If Rowbotham considered the knowledge absolute he wouldn't bother debating with people (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm).
Wow! 'Certainty' is not absolute. Please let Oxford know. They have been wrong for so long.
Certainty can be defined as either:
perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or
the mental state of being without doubt
Your last statement is a non sequitur. By your logic, an innocent defendant would not debate in court--ever.
No, "certainty" is never absolute.
"Certainty" is based on all available evidence. When someone is "certain" of something, it is based on past experience and an accumulation of all available evidence. Obviously there might be unavailable evidence which they did not have access to. Hence why "certain" is never truly absolute.
FET is true because --
- The evidence is cumulative
- The evidence is overwhelming
- The arguments supporting it are ]beyond the power of contradiction (http://[url=http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za67.htm)
Thus far RE'ers have not been able to present a convincing case for their beliefs. As illustrated in the above link they have trouble defending the things they know to be true.
Link broken...
Please provide references for your claims. Where in Robotham's works is it ever stated that the conclusion that the Earth is flat should or could be modified?
-
Not at all. The Earth being flat is a proven basis, not a final conclusion.
Of course it is a final conclusion. After all, you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your conclusion. That sounds pretty final to me.
If we considered it an impeachable conclusion why would we spend 150 years debating RE'ers about it?
It's not like astrologists, priests, psychics, scientologists, etc., debate what they believe in.
So you're giving up on the Zetetic Method?
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
Oh and you already said that you know that the Earth is flat.
pretty simple to rent a boat and sail around Antartica. If you travel in an inward circle - earth is flat. If you can travel in an outward circle - earth is round!
simple!
Why should we bother doing any of that when we already know that the earth is flat?
We know that the earth is flat, but that knowledge isn't unimpeachable. Over the last 150 years we've constantly welcomed RE'ers to try and contradict that knowledge.
If RE'ers are not able to contradict it, then FET can be said to be "beyond the power of contradiction," and meet the burden Samuel Birley Rowbotham outlined.
There is no such thing as absolute knowledge. "Beyond the power of contradiction" and "absolute knowledge" are not one in the same. "Beyond the power of contradiction" simply means that our opponents are unable to contradict it and the subject matter must be considered truth until, perhaps, at some future date when FET can be contradicted.
We've found lots of evidence that contradicts the notion that the Earth is flat, however every time you see something that doesn't support your world view you pull a conspiracy out of thin air.
-
Please provide references for your claims. Where in Robotham's works is it ever stated that the conclusion that the Earth is flat should or could be modified?
Where did he state that it couldn't?
Obviously if he is debating the subject in the open and giving people the chance to challenge it in public debates he is open to the idea that he might be wrong. Otherwise he would just give sermons like scientologists and priests.
We've found lots of evidence that contradicts the notion that the Earth is flat, however every time the you see something that doesn't support your world view you pull a conspiracy out of thin air.
It's not out of thin air. There is plenty of evidence that the space agencies are faking things.
-
Please provide references for your claims. Where in Robotham's works is it ever stated that the conclusion that the Earth is flat should or could be modified?
Where did he state that it couldn't?
Obviously if he is debating the subject in the open and giving people the chance to challenge it in public debates he is open to the idea that he might be wrong. Otherwise he would just give sermons like scientologists and priests.
We've found lots of evidence that contradicts the notion that the Earth is flat, however every time the you see something that doesn't support your world view you pull a conspiracy out of thin air.
It's not out of thin air. There is plenty of evidence that the space agencies are faking things.
And likewise, there is plenty of evidence that space agencies are doing exactly what they say they're doing.
When you have to imagine a conspiracy that spans centuries, secretly controls the entire word, and whose primary goal is to mess with people for the lolz, I think your reasoning has gotten lost along the way.
-
And likewise, there is plenty of evidence that space agencies are doing exactly what they say they're doing.
When you have to imagine a conspiracy that spans centuries, secretly controls the entire word, and whose primary goal is to mess with people for the lolz, I think your reasoning has gotten lost along the way.
Who said anything about the conspiracy lasting centuries or being for the purpose of faking the shape of the earth? I've said numerous times that the conspiracy was a space travel conspiracy and had nothing to do with hiding the earth's shape (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52049.msg1277806#msg1277806).
People don't even bother defending the evidence against the Chinese Space Agency anymore, as it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52049.msg1277813#msg1277813) that it is a hoax.
I personally consider the evidence against NASA to be particularly damning (http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html).
-
It's not out of thin air. There is plenty of evidence that the space agencies are faking things.
There is also a lot of evidence that they are not faking things. In addition all of the "evidence" that you have posted is usually easily refutable, and does not suggest that the entire space program is a sham. At best certain missions could have been faked, and this is at best, i doubt any NASA mission was faked. All of the Apollo mission "evidence" has been widely refuted. There is nothing to suggest that the ISS is a sham except your belief that prior missions were shams and therefore the ISS could be a sham as well.
Face it Tom, you believe the earth is flat (or pretend to, i'm not convinced either way, because a troll with 13000 posts is a sad concept to ponder) and therefore needed a way to discredit the space program, and therefore you searched out conspiracy theories related to Space agencies. If you really look at the evidence its far from convincing, unless there is something more substantial than lunar rovers without tracks, the lunar lander not looking like what you think it should look like, or the flag waving in the vacuum of space, your going to have a hard time convincing me and others that the entire NASA program is a sham.
In reality the most convincing evidence of a NASA sham would be the earth being flat, but then every astronomer and geologist that i know seems to feel that the earth is round, and not because NASA tells them its round, but because all of the evidence suggests this.
-
If you really look at the evidence its far from convincing
Go through each and every image in this link:
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html
There are an overwhelming number of items against Apollo which suggests that it is a hoax. Maybe if there were only a few unexplained things it would be fine, not hundreds.
After a while the number of extraordinary explanations needed to explain the events becomes absurd to the point of disillusionment.
-
And likewise, there is plenty of evidence that space agencies are doing exactly what they say they're doing.
When you have to imagine a conspiracy that spans centuries, secretly controls the entire word, and whose primary goal is to mess with people for the lolz, I think your reasoning has gotten lost along the way.
Who said anything about the conspiracy lasting centuries or being for the purpose of faking the shape of the earth? I've said numerous times that the conspiracy was a space travel conspiracy and had nothing to do with hiding the earth's shape (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52049.msg1277806#msg1277806).
People don't even bother defending the evidence against the Chinese Space Agency anymore, as it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52049.msg1277813#msg1277813) that it is a hoax.
I personally consider the evidence against NASA to be particularly damning (http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html).
I do agree that most, if not all, of the recent Chinese space missions were faked. However, I think the evidence for NASA's landing on the moon and space travel in general outweighs any conspiracy, no matter how evil or super-powered.
http://www.clavius.org/ (http://www.clavius.org/)
-
If you really look at the evidence its far from convincing
Go through each and every image in this link:
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html
There are an overwhelming number of items against Apollo which suggests that it is a hoax. Maybe if there were only a few unexplained things it would be fine, not hundreds.
I've seen most of these photos, in my theory of knowledge class we learned how to watch out for bad journalism, and many of these photos were prime examples. There are explanations for many of these situations, they only seem damning if you do not understand the reasons behind why they seem counter intuitive.
-
And likewise, there is plenty of evidence that space agencies are doing exactly what they say they're doing.
When you have to imagine a conspiracy that spans centuries, secretly controls the entire word, and whose primary goal is to mess with people for the lolz, I think your reasoning has gotten lost along the way.
Who said anything about the conspiracy lasting centuries or being for the purpose of faking the shape of the earth? I've said numerous times that the conspiracy was a space travel conspiracy and had nothing to do with hiding the earth's shape (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52049.msg1277806#msg1277806).
People don't even bother defending the evidence against the Chinese Space Agency anymore, as it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52049.msg1277813#msg1277813) that it is a hoax.
I personally consider the evidence against NASA to be particularly damning (http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html).
I do agree that most, if not all, of the recent Chinese space missions were faked. However, I think the evidence for NASA's landing on the moon and space travel in general outweighs any conspiracy, no matter how evil or super-powered.
http://www.clavius.org/ (http://www.clavius.org/)
Clavius is a NASA-funded site. The authors even admit that it was written by "space industry professionals".
I don't know why RE'ers link to that site. The whole site is just an attempt to explain everything away with an endless series of illusions.
When we take pictures here on earth of an event there aren't hundreds of illusions and inconsistencies across 90% of photos.
I've seen most of these photos, in my theory of knowledge class we learned how to watch out for bad journalism, and many of these photos were prime examples. There are explanations for many of these situations, they only seem damning if you do not understand the reasons behind why they seem counter intuitive.
According to Clavius there are dozens of illusions everywhere you look. Inconsistencies, questionable scenes, and things that look like stage lights shouldn't be questioned. It can all be chalked up to "an illusion did it."
-
It can all be chalked up to "an illusion did it."
Seems reasonable to me.
Illusions have been observed to exist, a super conspiracy however has not. Until you prove a conspiracy exists, or that illusions don't exist, then you don't really have much of a case. ::)
-
And likewise, there is plenty of evidence that space agencies are doing exactly what they say they're doing.
When you have to imagine a conspiracy that spans centuries, secretly controls the entire word, and whose primary goal is to mess with people for the lolz, I think your reasoning has gotten lost along the way.
Who said anything about the conspiracy lasting centuries or being for the purpose of faking the shape of the earth? I've said numerous times that the conspiracy was a space travel conspiracy and had nothing to do with hiding the earth's shape (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52049.msg1277806#msg1277806).
People don't even bother defending the evidence against the Chinese Space Agency anymore, as it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52049.msg1277813#msg1277813) that it is a hoax.
I personally consider the evidence against NASA to be particularly damning (http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html).
I do agree that most, if not all, of the recent Chinese space missions were faked. However, I think the evidence for NASA's landing on the moon and space travel in general outweighs any conspiracy, no matter how evil or super-powered.
http://www.clavius.org/ (http://www.clavius.org/)
Clavius is a NASA-funded site. The authors even admit that it was written by "space industry professionals".
I don't know why RE'ers link to that site. The whole site is just an attempt to explain everything away with an endless supply of extraordinary illusions.
When we take pictures here on earth of an event there aren't hundreds of illusions and inconsistencies across 90% of photos.
I've seen most of these photos, in my theory of knowledge class we learned how to watch out for bad journalism, and many of these photos were prime examples. There are explanations for many of these situations, they only seem damning if you do not understand the reasons behind why they seem counter intuitive.
According to Clavius there are dozens of illusions everywhere you look. Inconsistencies, questionable scenes, and things that look like stage lights shouldn't be questioned. It can all be chalked up to "an illusion did it."
No they have legitimate explanations. Not to mention it seems to me that the biggest illusion on this site has nothing to do with the apollo missions but everything to do with the sun not shrinking as it moves away from your position on the earth. So before we get into illusions lets all just remember that FE is full of them.
I don't agree with that line of reasoning. First, why should I believe that the conspiracist's expectation is reasonable or correct? Almost all of them are just asserted as if they were self-evident fact, with no argument or computation to support them. And a lot of them are based on an incomplete understanding of illumination, perspective, geometry, and photography. If the expectation is wrong, then violating the expectation isn't a big deal.
Like i said earlier, these expectations seem intuitive, because they are founded in an inaccurate understanding of what should be represented. Once things are explained they make sense.
I trust my highly educated astronomy professors more than random conspirators, why don't you? Because you trust a 19th century Zetetecist more than 20th century scientists.
-
Please provide references for your claims. Where in Robotham's works is it ever stated that the conclusion that the Earth is flat should or could be modified?
Where did he state that it couldn't?
1) Asked and answered. See http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52095.msg1279661#msg1279661 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52095.msg1279661#msg1279661).
2) That's an Ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Obviously if he is debating the subject in the open and giving people the chance to challenge it in public debates he is open to the idea that he might be wrong. Otherwise he would just give sermons like scientologists and priests.
False. Debate can be used to persuade.
The purpose is to persuade the audience that your insight on the topic is the correct way to analyze the topic.
Read more: Debate Rules & Techniques | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8736679_debate-rules-techniques.html#ixzz1ggwKWOoR
-
According to Clavius there are dozens of illusions everywhere you look. Inconsistencies, questionable scenes, and things that look like stage lights shouldn't be questioned. It can all be chalked up to "an illusion did it."
Tom, on the moon there's, no sense of scale, dark sky but a bright ground, no stars because of camera exposure settings, analogue film artefacts which have been touched up post-process, equipment people have seen before that resemble everyday objects.
To the "imaginative" person, that sounds like a good recipe for illusion.
-
there is no conspiracy. disc earth thoery exists just fine without it.
-
there is no conspiracy. disc earth thoery exists just fine without it.
Disc earth is not a theory, it's a guess. There is zero physical evidence suggesting flat earth, therefore it isn't a THEORY.
-
there is no conspiracy. disc earth thoery exists just fine without it.
Can you provide a detailed, coherent description of this "disc earth theory" to which you refer?
-
there is no conspiracy. disc earth thoery exists just fine without it.
How many times do we have to say this: if there's no conspiracy, then space flight is possible, then the Earth has been countlessly proven round.
So FE => Conspiracy.
-
there is no conspiracy. disc earth thoery exists just fine without it.
Can you provide a detailed, coherent description of this "disc earth theory" to which you refer?
He cannot, he made that up just like the Wiki and the Faq are made up out of thin air and added to when convenient to support the scam.
-
there is no conspiracy. disc earth thoery exists just fine without it.
Disc earth is not a theory, it's a guess. There is zero physical evidence suggesting flat earth, therefore it isn't a THEORY.
There is zero compass evidence that shows all your RET takes aren't standing perfectly still somewhere, with imobily compass needle showing it to be somewhere here on earth, in a hangar.
If there were no constructions of any kind, similar to hangars, I would believe that could only have been "the real deal". If there was a compass on it, proving the camera was actually moving with the whole thing, because the compass needle should go berserk during those so called flights.
As they do not, they may even be in circular trajectory pods in closed laboratories, that increase G pressure (or Magnetism from above, in my theory) by decreasing the anti-magnetism resistance of the object moving faster and faster.
Since you have no real compass there to show it's not doing a 360 every 10 seconds or so, or even faster, as the G speed increases inside the pod, congratulations.
Because a simple Amusement Park's distraction has just proven you to be a fraud.
You and all your RET fakes are so feeble, you fear the common compass. And placing it inside all your so called "evidence", for all to measure your exact trajectory with the magnetic field of iron.
Or do RET people not know how to use a compass .... ?
-
there is no conspiracy. disc earth thoery exists just fine without it.
Disc earth is not a theory, it's a guess. There is zero physical evidence suggesting flat earth, therefore it isn't a THEORY.
There is zero compass evidence that shows all your RET takes aren't standing perfectly still somewhere, with imobily compass needle showing it to be somewhere here on earth, in a hangar.
If there were no constructions of any kind, similar to hangars, I would believe that could only have been "the real deal". If there was a compass on it, proving the camera was actually moving with the whole thing, because the compass needle should go berserk during those so called flights.
As they do not, they may even be in circular trajectory pods in closed laboratories, that increase G pressure (or Magnetism from above, in my theory) by decreasing the anti-magnetism resistance of the object moving faster and faster.
Since you have no real compass there to show it's not doing a 360 every 10 seconds or so, or even faster, as the G speed increases inside the pod, congratulations.
Because a simple Amusement Park's distraction has just proven you to be a fraud.
You and all your RET fakes are so feeble, you fear the common compass. And placing it inside all your so called "evidence", for all to measure your exact trajectory with the magnetic field of iron.
Or do RET people not know how to use a compass .... ?
Go back to the hospital you escaped from looney, unless of course you just haven't been checked in yet. Last time I looked your dumb "theory" had been shot down 1000000000000 times.
-
Illusions have been observed to exist, a super conspiracy however has not. Until you prove a conspiracy exists, or that illusions don't exist, then you don't really have much of a case. ::)
Can you prove tunnels exist?
Go ahead, and contribute to digging the World Tunnel, right now. All of your RET cultists are working for it, as we speak !!
Once you dig in a straight direction no matter the angle, in the earth's crust, you will end up digging up through the earth's surface, on another side of the earth's crust.
And once you will have dug yourselves up, through the other side of your Liniar Tunnel, you will have proven RET for ever.
Then you can humiliate me by posting pictures and videos of the Liniar Tunnel, straight through the earth, and out the opposite side.
So get digging !!
-
Illusions have been observed to exist, a super conspiracy however has not. Until you prove a conspiracy exists, or that illusions don't exist, then you don't really have much of a case. ::)
Can you prove tunnels exist?
So get digging !!
You've been exposed as a sock puppet, come up with a better scam dude. You're utterly boring.
-
You've been exposed as a sock puppet, come up with a better scam dude. You're utterly boring.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52392.0 (ftp://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52392.0)
Pointing you to that thread, am I?
Risking my life, by putting my life on the line to prove FET is real, and that I believe in FET, is enough.
Again, contact your embassy, contact the news, I don't care.
Go international, all you wish. If you can prove publically the Earth isn't flat, those papers you can come up with, and I will sign, will ensure I am detained and publically executed in any RET beliving country.
And no one can stop my execution, even if they wanted to. Since I signed those myself, again publically. With the whole world as witnesses.
So that would ensure, if you idiots can prove RET is true, or FET is false, I get to die for believing in FET.
Which means I can be nothing else but a real FET believer. I can't even be a proper martyr as dying is impossible, since the Earth is Flat.
And you know this. You're just avoiding legal procedure, because you know my sacrifice will easily prove to everyone the Earth is Flat.
-
You've been exposed as a sock puppet, come up with a better scam dude. You're utterly boring.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52392.0 (ftp://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52392.0)
Pointing you to that thread, am I?
Risking my life, by putting my life on the line to prove FET is real, and that I believe in FET, is enough.
Again, contact your embassy, contact the news, I don't care.
Go international, all you wish. If you can prove publically the Earth isn't flat, those papers you can come up with, and I will sign, will ensure I am detained and publically executed in any RET beliving country.
And no one can stop my execution, even if they wanted to. Since I signed those myself, again publically. With the whole world as witnesses.
So that would ensure, if you idiots can prove RET is true, or FET is false, I get to die for believing in FET.
Which means I can be nothing else but a real FET believer. I can't even be a proper martyr as dying is impossible, since the Earth is Flat.
And you know this. You're just avoiding legal procedure, because you know my sacrifice will easily prove to everyone the Earth is Flat.
How you expect us to sue you without your providing your personal details, like country of residence, of citizenship, name, address, etc.?
-
You've been exposed as a sock puppet, come up with a better scam dude. You're utterly boring.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52392.0 (ftp://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52392.0)
Pointing you to that thread, am I?
Risking my life, by putting my life on the line to prove FET is real, and that I believe in FET, is enough.
Again, contact your embassy, contact the news, I don't care.
Go international, all you wish. If you can prove publically the Earth isn't flat, those papers you can come up with, and I will sign, will ensure I am detained and publically executed in any RET beliving country.
And no one can stop my execution, even if they wanted to. Since I signed those myself, again publically. With the whole world as witnesses.
So that would ensure, if you idiots can prove RET is true, or FET is false, I get to die for believing in FET.
Which means I can be nothing else but a real FET believer. I can't even be a proper martyr as dying is impossible, since the Earth is Flat.
And you know this. You're just avoiding legal procedure, because you know my sacrifice will easily prove to everyone the Earth is Flat.
Many people have died for silly reasons, why would your death be so important?
-
Pardon me if I'm inserting myself into the conversation here, but about the two frames of references...
From an observer that is accelerating upwards, being pushed by a flat Earth, time will always appear to move forward at normal speed. It's only from the outside that general relativity would make them never hit the speed of light. What you FEers don't seem to realize is this model would limit the existence of the Earth to about a year.
So, if the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s then after 30,591,067.1 seconds, or 0.969393125 years, (a year, basically) you will have hit the speed of light. Besides asking where the infinite energy required to reach that speed comes from, you must know that if the Earth acceleration theory for gravity were true, after a little less than a year an infinite amount of time would pass on the outside, which breaks the universe.
So, if no one was here on Earth to observe it accelerating on the inside, the theory would be valid, since no one would ever survive an infinite amount of time to see it reach the speed of light. But since we are here watching this theoretical disk accelerate, the fact that the planet has been around for millions of years, and humans have observed it for thousands, and that we ourselves have existed for more than a year, disproves the acceleration theory altogether. Does this make sense?
You flat Earthers need to come up with another explanation if I am right.
-
Pardon me if I'm inserting myself into the conversation here, but about the two frames of references...
From an observer that is accelerating upwards, being pushed by a flat Earth, time will always appear to move forward at normal speed. It's only from the outside that general relativity would make them never hit the speed of light. What you FEers don't seem to realize is this model would limit the existence of the Earth to about a year.
So, if the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s then after 30,591,067.1 seconds, or 0.969393125 years, (a year, basically) you will have hit the speed of light. Besides asking where the infinite energy required to reach that speed comes from, you must know that if the Earth acceleration theory for gravity were true, after a little less than a year an infinite amount of time would pass on the outside, which breaks the universe.
So, if no one was here on Earth to observe it accelerating on the inside, the theory would be valid, since no one would ever survive an infinite amount of time to see it reach the speed of light. But since we are here watching this theoretical disk accelerate, the fact that the planet has been around for millions of years, and humans have observed it for thousands, and that we ourselves have existed for more than a year, disproves the acceleration theory altogether. Does this make sense?
You flat Earthers need to come up with another explanation if I am right.
Sorry, but no. From the FoR of the outside (not-accelerated) view, the FE would never reach c, no matter what (relativistic) acceleration is applied. Perhaps you forgot the Lorenz Factor when adding velocities.
Reference: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula).