# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 03:28:28 PM

Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 03:28:28 PM
It seems my first attempt at replying to a gentleman's inquiries resulted instead in a topic. I have no excuse for this, and hope that the follies of new members be forgiven.

"The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity. "

This was written as an explanation for gravity. While it seems logical at first, it would make it seem that either:

A) The whole universe is moving
B) The whole universe is expanding vertically at a rate of 9.8 meters per second, and a large portion of the universe is empty, due to all of the planets and stars moving upwards.

Now, if you pick A, then I would assume that you were a madman who believed in ridiculous things, since even if the universe moved a hundred miles per minute, then we would not feel a thing. This is comparable to a man riding in a moving train, and tossing a crumpled piece of paper upwards; it would still land on his feet (or, indeed, on his hand, if he had good reflexes).

On the other hand, if you pick B, then at a rate of 9.8 meters per second, and at the universe's age estimated at 11.2 billion (at least. Some experts say 20 billion), the universe would have expanded by 9.8 m/s x 31, 557,600 s/year x 11 billion years,  or 3,401,909,280,000,000 kilometers, which is approximately 11 trillion light years. Do all Flat Earthers then believe that the Universe has even more empty space than it had before, and that man's realization that we are but points in a vast space should be revised into "we are but poits upon vast space which is a point upon a vast space..." and so on?

I hope you could provide clarification with regards to this matter.

I thank you all in advance.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 18, 2007, 03:32:01 PM
Not to sound nit-picky, but acceleration is the time derivative of velocity, meaning that it's units are "meters/secondē" or "m/sē", not "meters/second" ("m/s").

Due to Lorentz transformations, we would not go faster than the speed of light; someone outside of our reference frame would see our acceleration diminsh as we approched the speed of light, but we wouldn't notice any difference.

A good, if not over-asked, question.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: Pyrochimp on February 18, 2007, 03:34:11 PM
I think he was asking if FEers believe that the universe is at least 11 trillion light years "tall", due to the distance we've covered throughout the Earth's life.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 03:37:37 PM
Ah, yes, I seem to have overlooked that fact.

And yes, Pyrochimp has interpretted my question quite well.

I mean to say, if you believe everything in the universe is moving, and if a moving universe would not have any effects on anyone, then you must believe that the universe is expanding.

I am asking then, if FE'ers believe then that we have become even more infinitesimal.

Also, my good friend, who sits here now beside me, is asking if FE'ers believe that earth is the only flat planet.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 18, 2007, 03:38:28 PM
Quote from: "Pyrochimp"
I think he was asking if FEers believe that the universe is at least 11 trillion light years "tall", due to the distance we've covered throughout the Earth's life.

I apologize; I am too used to answering to "we're going to go faster than the speed of light!"

Have you heard of the "infinite yet finite" argument?  It was presented by Stephen Hawking, and basically states that the universe is similar to the surface of a sphere: it seems to be infinitely large, but it is actually finite.

In essence, Hawking says we're basically going in a very large circle.

Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on February 18, 2007, 03:42:19 PM
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

In essence, Hawking says we're basically going in a very large circle.

Much like every discussion on this message board then.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 03:43:33 PM
I am confused.
Hawking, as a modern man (this is not to say that all FE'ers are not modern men. This is just to say that MOST modern men of science believe the earth is flat) of science, believes the earth is round.

If he perchance, stated that the Earth was round, would you then believe him? I ask merely for information, seeing that you easily turn to his "infinite but finite" theory (by the way, I thank you for that little bit of fyi) for backup.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 18, 2007, 03:43:49 PM
Quote from: "kasroa"
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

In essence, Hawking says we're basically going in a very large circle.

Much like every discussion on this message board then.

:lol:   Not the first time we've been accused of circular logic.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 18, 2007, 03:45:42 PM
Quote from: "unclegravy"
I am confused.
Hawking, as a modern man (this is not to say that all FE'ers are not modern men. This is just to say that MOST modern men of science believe the earth is flat) of science, believes the earth is round.

If he perchance, stated that the Earth was round, would you then believe him? I ask merely for information, seeing that you easily turn to his "infinite but finite" theory (by the way, I thank you for that little bit of fyi) for backup.

Not unless he backed it up, but I wouldn't dismiss it as a possibility.  But, as I can see that the Earth is flat via my own two eyes, it's going to take some extraordinary evidence to convince me of that extraordinary claim.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: MooBs on February 18, 2007, 03:47:25 PM
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Not unless he backed it up, but I wouldn't dismiss it as a possibility.  But, as I can see that the Earth is flat via my own two eyes, it's going to take some extraordinary evidence to convince me of that extraordinary claim.

Just like the flat Earth theory has shown to you and the rest of the world?
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 18, 2007, 03:48:52 PM
Quote from: "MooBs"
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Not unless he backed it up, but I wouldn't dismiss it as a possibility.  But, as I can see that the Earth is flat via my own two eyes, it's going to take some extraordinary evidence to convince me of that extraordinary claim.

Just like the flat Earth theory has shown to you and the rest of the world?

Flat Earth Theory has plenty of observational and experimental evidence behind it.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 18, 2007, 03:49:41 PM
Quote from: "MooBs"
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Not unless he backed it up, but I wouldn't dismiss it as a possibility.  But, as I can see that the Earth is flat via my own two eyes, it's going to take some extraordinary evidence to convince me of that extraordinary claim.

Just like the flat Earth theory has shown to you and the rest of the world?

Quote from: "I"
But, as I can see that the Earth is flat via my own two eyes

Why should I trust you over my eyes?
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: MooBs on February 18, 2007, 03:49:45 PM
to tom - Like the shadow object!
to above - light can deceive the eyes, the Earth looks round but it is actually flat!
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 03:49:57 PM
Ah, but good sir.

I myself have watched my friends automobile as it leaves my house, and I noticed that as it moved farther away, its wheels disappeared, but its top parts stayed visible.

But I digress.

The senses can be easily deceived. Why, just yesterday, my nephew showed me a fantastic trick with a glass of water, and a pencil, where the pencil appeared to be broken in the water, but was straight as could be when he removed it out of water's hold. My eyes saw it, yet, I would not make such a claim that water breaks pencils, and air mends them.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: jackspack on February 18, 2007, 03:50:46 PM
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 03:52:25 PM
My, my.

I beg you good youths to please take your exclamation marks and sarcasms elsewhere. It annoys even the most patient one.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: NarmaK on February 18, 2007, 03:53:50 PM
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Quote from: "MooBs"
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
Not unless he backed it up, but I wouldn't dismiss it as a possibility.  But, as I can see that the Earth is flat via my own two eyes, it's going to take some extraordinary evidence to convince me of that extraordinary claim.

Just like the flat Earth theory has shown to you and the rest of the world?

Flat Earth Theory has plenty of observational and experimental evidence behind it.

No it doesn't.
Crazy person!
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: jackspack on February 18, 2007, 03:53:50 PM
My my, I beg you to launch yourself out of the 17th century and stop speaking old oxford english, it annoys even the most english one.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: MooBs on February 18, 2007, 03:54:02 PM
DO ALL FEers BELIEVE IN THE SHADOW OBJECT??
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 18, 2007, 03:56:42 PM
Quote from: "unclegravy"
Ah, but good sir.

I myself have watched my friends automobile as it leaves my house, and I noticed that as it moved farther away, its wheels disappeared, but its top parts stayed visible.

But I digress.

The senses can be easily deceived. Why, just yesterday, my nephew showed me a fantastic trick with a glass of water, and a pencil, where the pencil appeared to be broken in the water, but was straight as could be when he removed it out of water's hold. My eyes saw it, yet, I would not make such a claim that water breaks pencils, and air mends them.

Right.  We believe a similar distortion occurs in the atmosphere at large distances.

So, try again, but from a different approach.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 04:02:24 PM
No, no, my dear, it seems you misunderstand.

My question is: FE'ers seem to prefer believing some visual observation more than others.

For example, if I said I had seen a Lunar Eclipse with my own eyes, and the shadow was round, I would be ready to stake all my monetary belongings that you would come up with some fancy explanation for it.

But if I said the earth looked flat to me, why, every Fe'er would agree.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 18, 2007, 04:04:02 PM
Quote from: "unclegravy"
No, no, my dear, it seems you misunderstand.

My question is: FE'ers seem to prefer believing some visual observation more than others.

For example, if I said I had seen a Lunar Eclipse with my own eyes, and the shadow was round, I would be ready to stake all my monetary belongings that you would come up with some fancy explanation for it.

But if I said the earth looked flat to me, why, every Fe'er would agree.

That's because we can look and see that it's flat - the eclipse could be caused by something else.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 04:08:37 PM
Could you not as easily conclude that the earth appearing flat is caused by something else, and the shadow is in actuality, earth's?
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: BOGWarrior89 on February 18, 2007, 04:10:30 PM
Quote from: "unclegravy"
Could you not as easily conclude that the earth appearing flat is cause by something else, and the shadow is in actuality, earth's?

1)  A disc can still cast a round shadow.
2)  There is an FE explanation for the shadow, so your proof of RE doesn't really convince us.

Try something else. coughFoucault'sPendulumcough
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 04:13:36 PM
Whether the shadow is caused by a RE or not is not the issue. The question is, where do you people draw the line when it comes to believing visual observation?

Because, if you ask me, I would rather you did away with visual information altogether, if any a little boy could say "It is a hoax by the government" or "Your eyes are decieving you."

I say, we do without sight when it comes to the discussion of FE/RE, and use science instead.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 04:50:22 PM
For, as Socrates and Descartes have said, the senses can deceive, and are the most evil.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 18, 2007, 04:53:43 PM
Quote
For, as Socrates and Descartes have said, the senses can deceive, and are the most evil.

Then logically, RE is evil since it asks us to neglect our most basic of senses.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on February 18, 2007, 04:56:32 PM
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Quote
For, as Socrates and Descartes have said, the senses can deceive, and are the most evil.

Then logically, RE is evil since it asks us to neglect our most basic of senses.

FE asks us to neglect all senses.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 05:46:11 PM
You are turning the discussion around; it does not matter at all if it is evil or not, we are discussing which is fact and not. Or was that the sound of you conceding?
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: Temaki on February 18, 2007, 06:32:42 PM
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Quote
For, as Socrates and Descartes have said, the senses can deceive, and are the most evil.

Then logically, RE is evil since it asks us to neglect our most basic of senses.

So, Tom, you totally have that argument all screwed up:

1) Socrates and Descartes say that the senses deceive.
2) Our sense of sight tells us that the horizon is flat, and therefore Earth is flat.
3) Considering the size of our planet, the appearance of a flat Earth could be/is a deception of our senses.
4) To believe the Earth is flat is to deceive yourself.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: DonutGuard on February 18, 2007, 06:35:02 PM
Quote from: "unclegravy"
You are turning the discussion around; it does not matter at all if it is evil or not, we are discussing which is fact and not. Or was that the sound of you conceding?

Makes you wonder if this happens every time word of this forum gets out.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 07:17:09 PM
I say!
Where is that fellow, Tom Bishop, when you so need him?
Here, we have members wanting an explanation regarding this "Shadow Object". The least you could do is honor their questions.

I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, however; you might not have seen this topic yet, so here, I give it a gratituous bump.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: DonutGuard on February 18, 2007, 07:19:06 PM
Quote from: "unclegravy"
I say!
Where is that fellow, Tom Bishop, when you so need him?
Here, we have members wanting an explanation regarding this "Shadow Object". The least you could do is honor their questions.

I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, however; you might not have seen this topic yet, so here, I give it a gratituous bump.

BRILLIANT!
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 18, 2007, 07:34:35 PM
Quote
Where is that fellow, Tom Bishop, when you so need him?
Here, we have members wanting an explanation regarding this "Shadow Object". The least you could do is honor their questions.

The Shadow Object is a bit controversial. Since the Flat Earth Society does not have a budget as big as NASA's, we cannot go up and give you a material analysis.

The first train of thought is that the Shadow Object is located below the moon, moving in tandem, sometimes criss-crossing. A cursory analysis of disappearing stars in the sky near the Shadow Object has reinforced this assumption.

Another train of thought is that the Shadow Object is located near the sun, and its shadow is what appears on the crescent moon. One cannot see the shadow object near the sun during the day because it is blighted out by the light of the sun.
Title: A question, good sirs
Post by: unclegravy on February 18, 2007, 07:51:18 PM
You know, usually the scientific method derives its conclusions after gathering the causes, not making a conlusion and then making up causes/explanations for things.

At any rate, I shall summon William Clifford's words: "A man's belief is valid if there is any evidence that supports it before him"

I can see what's happening to the FE'ers on this board; you are believing based on tenacity. You get a belief, cling to it, and are blind to any evidence that says otherwise, and your minds produce evidence that support it, whether it be a gigantic shadow which no one has seen and/or detected, or a universe that expands in a mind-boggling rate, and has already expanded tenfold.

It is a sad thing, but I am sure you will keep on clinging to this belief.

What, then, is stopping you from clinging on to your belief of Bigfoot, or on the belief that the sun is revolving around the earth.