The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: LucidObscurity on February 16, 2007, 04:07:39 PM

Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: LucidObscurity on February 16, 2007, 04:07:39 PM
I was in a discussion with Tom Bishop on a thread called "new" however I was on to something so the admin locked the thread.  Here's the rundown of the discussion:

LucidObscurity:

based on an accelleration of 32 feet per second per second, with the speed of light being approx. 186,282.397 miles per second (983,571,056.16 fps) the speed of light would be reached in approx. 356 days.

983,571,056.16 / 32 = 30,736,595.505

convert to minutes:

30,736,595.505 / 60 = 512,276.59175

convert to hours:

512,276.59175 / 60 = 8,537.9431958333333333333333333333

convert to days:

8,537.9431958333333333333333333333 / 24 = 355.74763315972222222222222222222

So if we are accellerating at 32 fps/s then we have long exceeded the universal speed limit.

LucidObscurity:

Oh, and BTW, once we reached the speed of light, we would be frozen in time since travelling through the first 3 dimensions at the speed of light means you are at a standstill in the 4th dimension.

Tom Bishop:

Uh, ever hear of Relativity? The earth would continue to approach the speed of light, without reaching it.

LucidObscurity:

So you're saying this flat Earth we live on has near infinite mass as well do all its inhabitants whom are moving at the same speed.

Tom Bishop:

Yes, and we're all gaining mass every moment of the day.

Don't you ever wonder why women always think they're getting fatter?

LucidObscurity: (this is what i would have posted if not for the thread being locked)

So being that it takes near infinite energy to modify the momentum of or otherwise move an object of near infinite mass then how is that I can stand up, walk or toss my buddy “YL Groper” another beer?
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: EnragedPenguin on February 16, 2007, 04:09:58 PM
Quote from: "The FAQ"
Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

A: No, here is a detailed explanation.  (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3152)
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: LucidObscurity on February 16, 2007, 04:15:36 PM
You are correct.  It is impossible for anything with mass to travel the speed of light because at the speed of light the mass of the object would be infinite and therefore would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it futher.  Likewise as you approach the speed of light your mass approaches infinity. So being that at the accelleration of gravity the Earth and everything on it would approach the speed of light in about 356 days, all mass on Earth would be near infinite and thus changing the momentum of anything on Earth would take near infinite energy, which I'm pretty sure my muscles are not capable of producing.

So simply waving your arm in the air negates the possiblilty that we are approaching the speed of light, unless that is you are willing to accept that humans are capable of producing near infinite energy.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: EnragedPenguin on February 16, 2007, 04:19:18 PM
Quote from: "LucidObscurity"
So being that at the accelleration of gravity the Earth and everything on it would approach the speed of light in about 356 days, all mass on Earth would be near infinite and thus changing the momentum of anything on Earth would take near infinite energy, which I'm pretty sure my muscles are not capable of producing.


Mass increase due to approaching c is relative. Earth's mass and the mass of everything on it remains constant from any frame of reference where Earth is not approaching c
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: Pyrochimp on February 16, 2007, 04:19:39 PM
relativity
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: LucidObscurity on February 16, 2007, 04:39:41 PM
OK, mass is relative, but there still needs to be an explaination for the near infinite amount of energy required to maintain the accelleration of the Earth at near light speed.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: GeoGuy on February 16, 2007, 04:41:24 PM
Earth is not traveling anywhere near lightspeed.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: EnragedPenguin on February 16, 2007, 04:43:09 PM
Quote from: "LucidObscurity"
OK, mass is relative, but there still needs to be an explaination for the near infinite amount of energy required to maintain the accelleration of the Earth at near light speed.


The acceleration is not maintained near lightspeed. From the frame of reference of anyone not accelerating along with Earth, Earth's rate of acceleration will be constantly decreasing.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: DrunkardRP on February 16, 2007, 04:46:10 PM
Quote from: "LucidObscurity"
OK, mass is relative, but there still needs to be an explaination for the near infinite amount of energy required to maintain the accelleration of the Earth at near light speed.


Quote from: "The FAQs"
Q: "What's underneath the Earth?" aka "What's on the bottom?" aka "What's on the other side?"

A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.


Turtle Power I guess.

Anyway... so the Earth is not accelerating, but is moving at a constant speed of 9.8 m/s?
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: GeoGuy on February 16, 2007, 04:46:49 PM
No, Earth is accelerating.
Title: Re: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: YL Groper on February 16, 2007, 04:51:06 PM
Quote from: "LucidObscurity"

So being that it takes near infinite energy to modify the momentum of or otherwise move an object of near infinite mass then how is that I can stand up, walk or toss my buddy “YL Groper” another beer?



Without beer I would be an angerly accelerated Groper
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: DrunkardRP on February 16, 2007, 04:52:03 PM
ok, so it is accelerating. at the speed of 9.8 m/s?
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: myeyesareround on February 16, 2007, 04:52:13 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
No, Earth is accelerating.

so how do we not fly off if we dont have gravity? OOOOOOOOP GOT YOU NOW
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: GeoGuy on February 16, 2007, 04:52:42 PM
No. It is accelerating at a rate of 9.8m/s^2
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: Pablo the Incredible on February 16, 2007, 04:58:47 PM
Quote
No. It is accelerating at a rate of 9.8m/s^2


If Earth is accelerating, and the key word here is ACCELERATING, we would eventually reach close to the speed of light. We cannot attain light speed because general relativity forbids it. The Earth's mass would become narly infinite. If what some people claim is true, and I am referring to the belief here that the earth is slowing down, we would be flung into space. If the deceleration was slow enough to NOT throw everthing into space, once it stopped, there would be no "gravity" without this, the next step you took would be your last because the force exerted on the ground would propel you up, and up, and up.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: myeyesareround on February 16, 2007, 05:00:03 PM
Quote from: "Pablo the Incredible"
Quote
No. It is accelerating at a rate of 9.8m/s^2


If Earth is accelerating, and the key word here is ACCELERATING, we would eventually reach close to the speed of light. We cannot attain light speed because general relativity forbids it. The Earth's mass would become narly infinite. If what some people claim is true, and I am referring to the belief here that the earth is slowing down, we would be flung into space. If the deceleration was slow enough to NOT throw everthing into space, once it stopped, there would be no "gravity" without this, the next step you took would be your last because the force exerted on the ground would propel you up, and up, and up.

these people are full of shit because they didnt realize that, but of course the govt has a nifty time machine that will transport us all back to the year -00000000000000000000000000000000000000000.01bc where all things were good when sophicles was molesting little kids and bunnies were free to roam the pastures of the sky. right... :roll:
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: Pyrochimp on February 16, 2007, 05:00:49 PM
Relativity also states that acceleration is only relevant if you're outside the reference frame of the accelerating object.  To us, the Earth isn't going the speed of light.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: GeoGuy on February 16, 2007, 05:03:21 PM
Quote from: "Pablo the Incredible"

If Earth is accelerating, and the key word here is ACCELERATING, we would eventually reach close to the speed of light.

Only to an outside observer in an inertial reference frame. Which is entirely meaningless to us here on Earth.

Quote
The Earth's mass would become narly infinite.

No, Earth's mass would become neither gnarly nor infinite to us here on its surface. Only an outside observer in an inertial reference frame would notice any difference at all.

Quote
If what some people claim is true, and I am referring to the belief here that the earth is slowing down, we would be flung into space.

Earth's rate of acceleration would only appear to slow to an outside observer in an inertial reference frame.

 If the deceleration was slow enough to NOT throw everthing into space, once it stopped, there would be no "gravity" without this, the next step you took would be your last because the force exerted on the ground would propel you up, and up, and up.[/quote]
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: DrunkardRP on February 16, 2007, 05:03:37 PM
Ok... so if the Earth is accelerating at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2, then why is it not possible for the Earth to approach the velocity of the speed of light?
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: GeoGuy on February 16, 2007, 05:04:52 PM
Because nothing with mass can reach the speed of light.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: myeyesareround on February 16, 2007, 05:06:18 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Because nothing with mass can reach the speed of light.

and you've tested this?
oh wait its just a THEORY
K T H X
fuckin a
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: GeoGuy on February 16, 2007, 05:07:22 PM
I admit I haven't tested it at all. I also must admit that I got the theory from some Swiss patent clerk, so it probably has no bearing in reality.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: LucidObscurity on February 16, 2007, 05:08:28 PM
It has been prevously supposed on this thread that the Earth is accellerating upwards at a rate of 32 fps/s.  At this rate we would approach the speed of light in approx. 356 days.  As we approached the speed of light, the energy required to maintain this accelleration would approach levels beyond the total of energy in the universe.  As you stated, from an outside frame of reference we are slowing as we approach the speed of light, but the amount of energy required to get us to this point cannot be dismissed as irrelevent and must have a source.

The energy required to accellerate an object must act on the mass of the object as measured from a stationary reference.  It's just like the fact that you cannot lift youself up by pulling on your own hair.

Also, as the Earth increases in speed and thus mass, the amount of energy required to maintain an accelleration of 32 fps/s is constantly increasing.

This energy must come from somewhere.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: LucidObscurity on February 16, 2007, 05:13:09 PM
And will someone please give YL Groper another beer before he sobers up and starts groping our sisters.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: DrunkardRP on February 16, 2007, 05:19:36 PM
I get what they're trying to say. I guess I'll use a metaphor for what they're trying to say.

Imagine a tall drinking glass.

The top of the glass would represent the speed of light.

Now they're saying that we are accelerating at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2.

For the sake of the metaphor, lets say the rate of the acceleration of the Earth is the rate of water being poured into the glass.  

Now, lets say that there's a hole, just below the top of the glass, and every time reaches this point, water pours out of the glass, and the glass is never reaching "the speed of light".

"Water" is still being "poured" at the rate of 9.8m/s^2, it's just that we never quite get to the top of the glass.

Correct me if I'm wrong on my metaphor.


That is basically their argument on the whole speed of light thing.

Now what LucidObscurity is asking is where the "water" is coming from. What is providing the Acceleration.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: EnragedPenguin on February 16, 2007, 05:22:09 PM
Quote from: "LucidObscurity"
As we approached the speed of light, the energy required to maintain this accelleration would approach levels beyond the total of energy in the universe. As you stated, from an outside frame of reference we are slowing as we approach the speed of light, but the amount of energy required to get us to this point cannot be dismissed as irrelevent and must have a source.

Also, as the Earth increases in speed and thus mass, the amount of energy required to maintain an accelleration of 32 fps/s is constantly increasing.

This energy must come from somewhere.


Earth's rate of acceleration decreases because the amount of energy required to accelerate its increased mass has also increased. Since more energy isn't applied, the rate of acceleration decreases.
None of this matters from our frame of reference howeve, because Earth's mass has never changed from our frame of reference, therefore the energy required to accelerate it has never increased.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: DrunkardRP on February 16, 2007, 05:27:33 PM
He's not asking if the energy required to accelerate is increasing, he's asking where is it coming from. What is making the earth move 9.8m/s^2.
Title: Just clarify it already...
Post by: ceadda on February 16, 2007, 05:27:48 PM
You know if one of you FE people just explained relativity in ENGLISH rather than just blurting the word out every time someone mentions it, this issue would have been dead long ago!

So here we go, my best effort...

FE theory says the earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2. This acceleration rate is being observed by a person who is standing upon the earth, and is experiencing the acceleration.

Here's the big scary word... Relativity. This is why you will not hit the speed of light. Why?

Time. Time is relative.
Huh? What's that mean? I'll tell you with an example.

Lets say your standing on the earth, and it's now reached exactly 90% of the speed of light.  You shine a laser straight up. Since were already moving at 90% of the speed of light and light does not move faster just because the object it's on is moving... the laser shoots up, at only 10% of the speed of light. Oops, I think we'd notice this severe problem with the speed of light getting really, really slow...

It doesnt get really, really slow, because time, is relative. Relative to velocity I mean.  This means the faster you go relative to a stationary object, the slower time passes. So at 90% of the speed of light, time slows down enough to the observers who are traveling that speed, that light moves at it's normal speed.

Since the faster you are traveling, the slower time is passing, the slower time is passing, means the slower you are accelerating.

Second example just to clarify.

Your standing on a train. It's moving at 99.999999% the speed of light. You start running toward the engine as fast as you can. Did you exceed the speed of light? No, of course not. Because time is passing so slowly to you, that your run just got you up to 99.9999991% the speed of light.

Since FE theory has the earth continuously accelerating. Time, under this theory, is continuously slowing. If time is slowing, then the observer continues to see a rate of 9.8m/s^s, even though someone who is off the earth would watch the earth slowing in it's acceleration so that no matter how long it accelerates it's only moving that .000000000000000000000001% closer to the speed of light, and never over.


This concludes my mad and rambling effort to explain what someone should have just explained ages ago.

Now shutup about the speed of light. And stop dropping the word, "relativity" whenever someone asks this question...
 :evil:
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: DrunkardRP on February 16, 2007, 05:30:22 PM
Quote from: "DrunkardRP"
He's not asking if the energy required to accelerate is increasing, he's asking where is it coming from. What is making the earth move 9.8m/s^2.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: TheEngineer on February 16, 2007, 05:37:12 PM
Ok,  first off, velocity does not add linearly in relativistic situations.  It asymptotically approaches the speed of light, without ever reaching it.  Second, to someone on the earth, the acceleration is constant, but to an outside observer, the acceleration will be decreasing, but the velocity still increasing.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: DrunkardRP on February 16, 2007, 05:42:06 PM
Yes, we get all that, we're not reaching the speed of light. What is making the Earth move 9.8m/s^2, thus causing things to fall down?

You can't say it's Gravity, and we're going in a circle around the universe and  is keeping us going at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, because that would mean we are in orbit around the universe, and that would have to use gravity, and isn't that the whole point of a flat earth? No gravity? So what is making the earth move at 9.8m/s^2?
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: TheEngineer on February 16, 2007, 05:44:40 PM
The mechanism is unknown, but has been given the place holder name of dark energy, or sometimes, UA.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: DrunkardRP on February 16, 2007, 05:59:47 PM
... this is starting to sound more like faith. Everything about your theory revolves, no pun intended, on the fact that the Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2.  

You are believing in a theory that cannot be proven. I mean, I guess you can if you were to go to the ice wall or were to explore the other side of the earth, but in the end, the math just doesn't add up.

And to have something at the very core of your theory, and then not know how it is done, it's more like a religion rather than science. You believe the Earth is flat. Although you can't prove the very core of it. Again, no pun intended.

So if you really want others to believe, go to the ice-wall and take pictures with the kids. Otherwise, you guys are just blindly following. How come there's not one picture of the ice-wall? We can get pictures of naked celebrities on the beach, we can go deep under water and take pictures of creatures that live in the dark, but you can't take a picture of a giant wall of ice?
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: LucidObscurity on February 16, 2007, 06:17:35 PM
OK, Dark force or UA does technically answer my question, but it does not seem to fit with the Zetetic priciples of analysis.

So what I can grasp so far is:

1) Gravity cannot coexist with Flat Earth Theory becuase with it comes obits, spheres and the classical understanding of the universe.

2) Accelleration is the only other thing that could explain our experiences here on Earth and as we know, no experiment can distinguish between gravity and acceleration.

On a side note, are there any threads on this forum that show photos of reproductions of some of the experiments conducted by Samuel Birley Rowbotham?  It seems they would be easy to reproduce and even easier to photograph.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: TheEngineer on February 16, 2007, 06:23:37 PM
Quote from: "DrunkardRP"

And to have something at the very core of your theory, and then not know how it is done, it's more like a religion rather than science.

What is the core of our theory?
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: DrunkardRP on February 16, 2007, 06:45:51 PM
The very core of your theory is that the Earth is flat. The reason why things don't wall off the Earth is because it is accelerating at the rate of 9.8m/s^2. Now you tell me that the mechanism of why the Earth is accelerating is unknown, and has been given a place holder name of dark energy.

Is that not accurate?
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: teken894 on February 16, 2007, 07:02:10 PM
This is why a an old concept (flat earth) and a relatively new Theory of Relativity (formed after the earth was scientifically proven to be round) don't really mix.

People use the curvature of the earth as an analogy to the curvature of space caused by a massive object--specified by relativity


Quote
Suppose you are in Ithaca, New York (home of Cornell University) and want to travel to Rome, Italy, which is approximately due east of Ithaca and a quarter of the way around the globe. You might think the best way to get there is to start off heading east and keep going straight until you reach Rome, as shown in the red path on this map:
Map of the Earth, with an east-west path between Ithaca and Rome marked in red, and a "curved" path from Ithaca to Africa marked in blue

In fact, though, if you start off heading east and continue to go straight, carefully putting one foot in front of the other, you will wind up taking the blue path; by the time you're as far east as Rome, you'll be somewhere in western Africa, near the equator!


To explain

Quote
According to Einstein, gravity is not a force which pulls on things; rather, it is a curvature of space and time caused by the presence of a nearby massive object (like the Earth). When something comes along and moves past the massive object, it will appear to be pulled towards it, but in reality, it isn't being pulled at all. It is actually moving along the same straight line that it was moving along in empty space, but this straight line will now look like it is curved, due to gravity's warping of the underlying "space-time" continuum.




So, stop using relativity to explain things, especially when trying to prove archaic concepts.

Source (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/relativity.php)
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: nurse diesel on February 16, 2007, 07:19:46 PM
why does the earth have to be accelerating for us to feel a gravitational force causing an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2 ???
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: DrunkardRP on February 16, 2007, 07:37:45 PM
You see, the flat earth people do not believe in gravity. They now encountered the puzzle of why things fall to the ground if you let go of them.

 So instead of gravity, they now say the earth is moving at the rate of 9.8m/s^2 straight up. This way, its not gravity pulling the object to the floor, its the earth coming up to hit it becuase  it is constantly moving up.  

(This is where the arguement came up with the whole if its always accelerating, we must be reaching the speed of light, which isn't possible according to einstin.)

Anyway, there are holes in this theory. The easiest ones to point out are the source of what is making the whole earth move constantly at the rate of 9.8m/s^2.

It can't be anything gravity related, cause they don't believe in that.

Another one is how is the atmosphere able to stay on the earth if there is no gravity? Wouldn't it just blow away since nothing is holding it to the earth?

They also believe the sun and moon are spotlights, the sun being a really hot one.
I don't really get that because their explination involves orbits, and we all know they don't believe in gravity, so it kinda contradicts itself somewhat.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: EvilToothpaste on February 16, 2007, 07:39:04 PM
Quote from: "teken894"
This is why a an old concept (flat earth) and a relatively new Theory of Relativity (formed after the earth was scientifically proven to be round) don't really mix.

People use the curvature of the earth as an analogy to the curvature of space caused by a massive object--specified by relativity
...
So, stop using relativity to explain things, especially when trying to prove archaic concepts.

You are saying that because the spherical Earth has been used as an analogy for Relativity that an argument against the spherical Earth cannot use Relativity.  Correct me if I'm mistaken.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: TheEngineer on February 16, 2007, 07:45:06 PM
Quote from: "DrunkardRP"

Anyway, there are holes in this theory. The easiest ones to point out are the source of what is making the whole earth move constantly at the rate of 9.8m/s^2.

There are holes in the RE.  The easiest one to point out is the mechanism for 'gravity'.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: DrunkardRP on February 16, 2007, 07:50:40 PM
What is the flaw with gravity?
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: TheEngineer on February 16, 2007, 07:51:53 PM
What causes it?  What's the mechanism for this 'force'?
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: teken894 on February 16, 2007, 07:52:19 PM
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "teken894"
This is why a an old concept (flat earth) and a relatively new Theory of Relativity (formed after the earth was scientifically proven to be round) don't really mix.

People use the curvature of the earth as an analogy to the curvature of space caused by a massive object--specified by relativity
...
So, stop using relativity to explain things, especially when trying to prove archaic concepts.

You are saying that because the spherical Earth has been used as an analogy for Relativity that an argument against the spherical Earth cannot use Relativity.  Correct me if I'm mistaken.



My statement, not argument:
No, that's not my argument. There is no point in argument.

I was stating that Relativity is a fairly modern concept. Flat Earth, on the other hand, is an old notion.

I should've tried--in my previous post--to reverse the analogy:
Using the analogy that explains relativity by using the curvature of the earth. One can use relativity, the curvature of space, as an analogy to explain the curvature of the earth as well.



Relativity explains gravity. Why use it to explain why the earth can't reach the speed of light, etc, using relativity...when FE theory assumes that there is no gravity. Relativity is then invalid according to FE, and proving FE using Relativity.......
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: nurse diesel on February 16, 2007, 07:57:26 PM
Quote from: "DrunkardRP"
The very core of your theory is that the Earth is flat. The reason why things don't wall off the Earth is because it is accelerating at the rate of 9.8m/s^2. Now you tell me that the mechanism of why the Earth is accelerating is unknown, and has been given a place holder name of dark energy.

Is that not accurate?


many modern scientists believe that the universe is expanding, and accelerating while doing so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe).

These scientists also have given the mechanism of their expansion as "dark energy".  Let your average human try to understand that one.
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: nurse diesel on February 16, 2007, 08:11:08 PM
I don't think you actually understand what produces gravity or dark energy, or how it is created.  You are just spent 3 minutes reading the articles on wikipedia about the accelerating universe and dark energy, and spat out 2 things that you "understood"

wikipedia says in the dark energy article, "the effect of such a negative pressure[from dark energy] is qualitatively similar to a force acting in opposition to gravity at large scales", took you a lot of research and learning to say that line, huh?


Lastly, I didn't say that the expansion of the universe and an movement of the earth were the same kind of acceleration, I was trying to make the point that both kinds of acceleration are governed by highly theoretical and not well-understood phenomena
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: TheEngineer on February 16, 2007, 08:12:05 PM
Quote from: "nurse diesel"
I don't think you actually understand what produces gravity

Do you?
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: nurse diesel on February 16, 2007, 08:13:58 PM
No I don't, but I would like to see someone tell me they totally understand why and in what way it is produced
Title: Relativity disproves accellerating Earth
Post by: TheEngineer on February 16, 2007, 08:15:47 PM
Quote from: "nurse diesel"
No I don't, but I would like to see someone tell me they totally understand why and in what way it is produced

That's my point.