The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Geordi la Forge on March 12, 2007, 05:33:01 PM

Title: The tides
Post by: Geordi la Forge on March 12, 2007, 05:33:01 PM
What is the cause of the tides according to the FE theory?  And, please, explain in detail.

EDIT: Currently reading Rowbotham's views for the tidal cause.

EDIT: Finished reading it, to which Rowbotham is inconclusive in determining the cause.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 12, 2007, 05:37:03 PM
As far as I know, the Earth wobbles which makes the oceans move about.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 12, 2007, 06:14:02 PM
What is the cause of the tides according to the FE theory?  And, please, explain in detail.

EDIT: Currently reading Rowbotham's views for the tidal cause.

EDIT: Finished reading it, to which Rowbotham is inconclusive in determining the cause.

The gravitation from the moon causes the tides in FE.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 12, 2007, 06:14:34 PM
What is the cause of the tides according to the FE theory?  And, please, explain in detail.

EDIT: Currently reading Rowbotham's views for the tidal cause.

EDIT: Finished reading it, to which Rowbotham is inconclusive in determining the cause.

For any true FEer, not a conspiracy theorist who denies the obvious truth of gravity, the tides are caused by the gravity of the Moon.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 12, 2007, 06:16:07 PM
What is the cause of the tides according to the FE theory?  And, please, explain in detail.

EDIT: Currently reading Rowbotham's views for the tidal cause.

EDIT: Finished reading it, to which Rowbotham is inconclusive in determining the cause.

The gravitation from the moon causes the tides in FE.

Uh oh spaghettios!!!
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Geordi la Forge on March 12, 2007, 07:57:35 PM
What is the cause of the tides according to the FE theory?  And, please, explain in detail.

EDIT: Currently reading Rowbotham's views for the tidal cause.

EDIT: Finished reading it, to which Rowbotham is inconclusive in determining the cause.

The gravitation from the moon causes the tides in FE.

I did not know that gravity is existant within FE Theory.  I hope The Engineer does not discover this thread.  :-X
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Geordi la Forge on March 12, 2007, 08:01:41 PM
So if gravity exists (at least lunar gravitation), then would the moon be spherical or some other uniform shape?
How would FE possess its own graviitational field?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: The Communist on March 12, 2007, 08:03:56 PM
The only uniformity for Earth to possess a gravitational field is a sphere albeit imperfect one.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 08:08:29 PM

The gravitation from the moon causes the tides in FE.

I did not know that gravity is existant within FE Theory.  I hope The Engineer does not discover this thread.  :-X
Gravity does not exist.  Which agrees with what Tom said.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Geordi la Forge on March 12, 2007, 08:41:21 PM

The gravitation from the moon causes the tides in FE.

I did not know that gravity is existant within FE Theory.  I hope The Engineer does not discover this thread.  :-X
Gravity does not exist.  Which agrees with what Tom said.

Gravitation does not refer to gravity? Please explain further.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Geordi la Forge on March 12, 2007, 08:49:27 PM
Quote from:  Rowbotham, Earth: Not A Globe
It has been demonstrated by more than sufficient matter-of-fact evidence that the moon is self-luminous, semi-transparent, admitted to be globular...

So general FE ideology does acknowledge a spherical moon.  So , according to Tom, this could explain why gravity exists on the moon and not significantly on Flat Earth since a FE mass would be insignificant to the force applied to Universal Acceleration.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 08:50:15 PM
Gravitation does not refer to gravity? Please explain further.
Gravity refers to a fictitious force.  Gravitation is what keeps you on the ground.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: sokarul on March 12, 2007, 08:52:16 PM
Gravitation does not refer to gravity? Please explain further.
Gravity refers to a fictitious force.  Gravitation is what keeps you on the ground.

A fictitous forces that can be observed. 
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 08:57:03 PM
You've observed gravity?  When? 
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: sokarul on March 12, 2007, 09:05:10 PM
You've observed gravity?  When? 

See other thread. 
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: WasteofHumans on March 13, 2007, 02:33:09 AM
You've observed gravity?  When? 

when an apple hit me in the head .. oh that wasn't me, that was newton .. but you kno, i can throw a ball ?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 13, 2007, 02:41:25 AM
What you are witnessing is gravitation, not gravity.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Miss M. on March 13, 2007, 04:32:59 AM
so what's the defination of gravitation? Just the force of the earth accelerating? or what?


edit nevermind. Looked it up - although it says that gravity and gravitation are often confused for each other...
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: YL Groper on March 14, 2007, 10:43:36 AM
Please explain the force behind gravitation and objects heavier then air being pulling down towards the air
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: The Communist on March 15, 2007, 01:55:00 PM
What you are witnessing is gravitation, not gravity.

Gravity - the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth. gravitation in general
Gravitation - the force of attraction between any two masses.
*Source: Dictionary.com

I guess my source is wrong, then. :(
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 15, 2007, 01:57:33 PM
It is, as it says nothing about things without mass.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: The Communist on March 15, 2007, 02:27:21 PM
It is, as it says nothing about things without mass.

Quote from:  Troll
Gravity - the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth. gravitation in general
Gravitation - the force of attraction between any two masses.

As you see in the definition, gravity is defined as "gravitation in general."  Gravitation refers to the attraction between two masses. Thus, gravity refers to the attraction between two masses.

Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 15, 2007, 02:35:06 PM
Gravity is the pseudo force felt.
Gravitation is the influence that all objects have on each other.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: The Communist on March 15, 2007, 02:36:57 PM
Gravity is the pseudo force felt.
Gravitation is the influence that all objects have on each other.

Are there any sources that state gravity as a "pseudo force" felt?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 15, 2007, 02:39:49 PM
General Relativity.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Geordi la Forge on March 15, 2007, 03:00:47 PM
I see, so gravity is just how we perceive the effects of gravitation not as a force but by space-time curvature.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 15, 2007, 03:09:23 PM
Somewhat, yes.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 01:00:07 PM
What is the cause of the tides according to the FE theory?  And, please, explain in detail.

EDIT: Currently reading Rowbotham's views for the tidal cause.

EDIT: Finished reading it, to which Rowbotham is inconclusive in determining the cause.

The gravitation from the moon causes the tides in FE.

Uh oh spaghettios!!!
Uh oh spaghettios, indeed!
Maybe it would be of interest of FE enthusiasts to know that a flat earth would crumple together under its own weight. The theoretical maximum height for mountains on Earth is 90 000 Feet = 27.432 Metres. I say theoretical on account of that no mountain will likely get so tall. The reason for this threshold is that if the mountain gets taller, the rock at the base will heat up so much on account of the pressure that it will melt and then, naturally, the mountain gets shorter. A flat earth as supported in this forum is not compatible with this.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 17, 2007, 03:41:01 PM
Hmm, it would be nice to see some math to back that up.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 03:44:17 PM
If these so-called calculations are correct, then why hasn't the supposed "Round Earth" imploded by now? Ridiculous. Is this the best Round Earthers can do?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Matrixfart on March 17, 2007, 03:45:47 PM
If these so-called calculations are correct, then why hasn't the supposed "Round Earth" imploded by now? Ridiculous. Is this the best Round Earthers can do?
Perhaps because the earth is not hollow?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: sokarul on March 17, 2007, 04:05:00 PM
Hmm, it would be nice to see some math to back that up.

I would like to see the math they use to calculate the tides. 
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 04:24:23 PM
Hmm, it would be nice to see some math to back that up.
In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler make a rough calculation for the height a solid quartz mountain could reach under Earth's gravity before its base deformed plasticly: ~30km.

If these so-called calculations are correct, then why hasn't the supposed "Round Earth" imploded by now? Ridiculous. Is this the best Round Earthers can do?
So because you don't know the calculations behind it, it is rediculous... Alrighty then. And like Matrixfart says, the Earth isn't hollow, so before throwing in cool-sounding words like "implosion" maybe you should get familiar with what they actually mean. I wouldn't have responded this bluntly, but your lack of humility about your own ignorance merrits a blunt rebuttal.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 05:25:34 PM
The Earth isn't hollow either way, so your argument is silly. There's no reason for mountains to collapse on the Infinite Plane, since the Plane has a pretty damn deep and solid foundation.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 05:31:47 PM
There is no up or down in the universe, Franc. It doesn't matter which direction mass expands from the center, the middle of the earth is the center of gravity. All the mass will be pulled towards the center (since the weight of it is too much to support it). The earth would crumple up to a ball. Or a sphere. A round earth. You see what I mean?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 05:33:43 PM
There is no up or down in the universe, Franc. It doesn't matter which direction mass expands from the center, the middle of the earth is the center of gravity. All the mass will be pulled towards the center (since the weight of it is too much to support it). The earth would crumple up to a ball. Or a sphere. A round earth. You see what I mean?

Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 05:59:31 PM
Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...
An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:04:56 PM
Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...
An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

The Earth does not exist? Don't be silly.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: sokarul on March 17, 2007, 06:07:34 PM
Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...
An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

The Earth does not exist? Don't be silly.
Infinite is not a liked term.  For the Earth to be infinite then there would be infinite of every element and there would be infinite energy.  Both are not infinite.  Even the universe isn't infinite to most astronomers.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:12:20 PM
Well, of course most astronomers don't believe it, they have been indoctrinated to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 06:19:31 PM
Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...
An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

The Earth does not exist? Don't be silly.
Only two things are infinite. The Earth isn't one of them.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:21:59 PM
Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...
An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

The Earth does not exist? Don't be silly.
Only two things are infinite. The Earth isn't one of them.

Human stupidity is infinite, and Round Earthers provide constant examples of this on our board.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: FEIPS on March 17, 2007, 06:23:52 PM
Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...
An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

The Earth does not exist? Don't be silly.
Only two things are infinite. The Earth isn't one of them.

Human stupidity is infinite, and Round Earthers provide constant examples of this on our board.

Human stupidity affects all, not just REers.  :)
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:26:40 PM
Very true. Some FEers also manifest stupid stubbornness in believing in the silly "Accelerating Coin" model. Anyone can see the Earth cannot be finite.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 06:30:51 PM
Anyone can see the Earth cannot be finite.
...When trippin' on acid.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:34:37 PM
Anyone can see the Earth cannot be finite.
...When trippin' on acid.

Stop projecting. Many REers who post here are obviously hopped-up on pot and cocaine. I, for one, am against the taking of all drugs (but am also against the War on Drugs, because of its enormous costs in freedom, resources and lives).
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 06:39:22 PM
I, for one, am against the taking of all drugs (but am also against the War on Drugs, because of its enormous costs in freedom, resources and lives).
There we go. Making sense at last. Though we digress.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:40:31 PM
I, for one, am against the taking of all drugs (but am also against the War on Drugs, because of its enormous costs in freedom, resources and lives).
There we go. Making sense at last. Though we digress.

Everything I say makes sense. When it doesn't seem like it, it's mostly because of your indoctrinated beliefs. I am sometimes wrong about things and correct myself, but because I find new information.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: FEIPS on March 17, 2007, 06:43:11 PM
I, for one, am against the taking of all drugs (but am also against the War on Drugs, because of its enormous costs in freedom, resources and lives).
There we go. Making sense at last. Though we digress.

Everything I say makes sense. When it doesn't seem like it, it's mostly because of your indoctrinated beliefs. I am sometimes wrong about things and correct myself, but because I find new information.

I was just begining to think you had some sense to you, but after that, um no.  Sounds like something my dad would say.  Except hes a bit better at hiding his arrogance. Just a bit.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:45:19 PM
I am not arrogant. I am quite aware that there are plenty of things I am ignorant about, and that's why I hang out with other smart people, many of which are smarter than I am (not on this board, on Skype and on my own board). My wife is smarter than I am. She keeps me humble.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: FEIPS on March 17, 2007, 06:47:37 PM
I am not arrogant. I am quite aware that there are plenty of things I am ignorant about, and that's why I hang out with other smart people, many of which are smarter than I am (not on this board, on Skype and on my own board). My wife is smarter than I am. She keeps me humble.

And you count your attitude towards REers as what and lets not even go to religous people.  ::)
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:48:43 PM
Well, Round Earthism and other religions are immoral, epistemically bankrupt, and wrong. I am anti-religious because I don't want to live in a society where religious oppression flourishes. I'd rather have secular oppression.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 06:51:47 PM
Ah FEIPS, don't take it seriously.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: FEIPS on March 17, 2007, 06:54:31 PM
And I'd rather have acceptance and equality amoung people of all backgrounds. Besides who are you to say its immoral? Its all in the eye of the beholder.

Sorry, Stray, but I have a tendency of feeding the trolls to try and get some insight on how people think. :(
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:56:42 PM
And I'd rather have acceptance and equality amoung people of all backgrounds.

Do you accept mass murderers as a part of society?

Do you accept people who support and nurture aggression against people's bodies and minds?


Quote
Besides who are you to say its immoral? Its all in the eye of the beholder.

Morality is not "in the eye of the beholder." Morality is the study of the causal relation between action and result. What we call good is what fulfills our universal values, and evil, that which goes against them.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Stray on March 17, 2007, 06:59:48 PM
And I'd rather have acceptance and equality amoung people of all backgrounds. Besides who are you to say its immoral? Its all in the eye of the beholder.

Sorry, Stray, but I have a tendency of feeding the trolls to try and get some insight on how people think. :(
The arguments put forth by Franc shouldn't be taken seriously exactly because they are words of a person who does not think. So trying to figure people's thought processes out won't come to fruition with studying Franc (when he's like this). This isn't what Franc really thinks.

Sorry, Franc. I'll stop spoiling your fun now.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: FEIPS on March 17, 2007, 07:09:20 PM
And to believe I took him seriously, well okay. Just another troll, then?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 07:10:02 PM
No... I am on a Flat Earth board and I am a Flat Earther. You are the troll, sorry to say.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: FEIPS on March 17, 2007, 07:12:41 PM
Well, I'm a Round Earther on a Flat Earth Board which is open to Round Earthers for debate, so therefore, I am not a troll.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 25, 2007, 09:18:06 AM
Can we get back to the subject at hand?  :-\

Gravity is the pseudo force felt.
Gravitation is the influence that all objects have on each other.

By "influence", I presume you mean attraction? If this is the case, what makes gravity fictitious? How is Gravity not part of Gravitation?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 25, 2007, 09:20:38 AM
The gravitation from the moon causes the tides in FE.

Could you define gravitation? Is it an illusion, force, or simply a way of getting rid of gravity where you need to and keeping it where it helps?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 25, 2007, 09:40:32 AM
Gravity is a pseudo force invented to deal with a non inertial frame of reference.  Gravitation is what keeps you on the ground.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 25, 2007, 09:56:27 AM
Yes, that is what you have said previously. Am I to understand that gravitation is in fact the sensation of gravity but instead of being caused by gravity it is caused by the uniform acceleration of the planet?

If so, what is this?
"Gravitation is the influence that all objects have on each other"
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 25, 2007, 10:17:45 AM
Gravity is not a force - attractive or otherwise.  Gravitation is the acceleration of objects.  In FE, the acceleration of the earth causes objects to experience gravitation, and in the RE, the acceleration of the objects causes the gravitation, meaning, they are one in the same.


Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 25, 2007, 10:19:54 AM
Except in FE theory it is uniform, in real life it is not.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 25, 2007, 11:33:09 AM
Gravity is not a force - attractive or otherwise.  Gravitation is the acceleration of objects.  In FE, the acceleration of the earth causes objects to experience gravitation, and in the RE, the acceleration of the objects causes the gravitation, meaning, they are one in the same.

Did you not previously say gravity was a fictitious force?
If gravitation is the acceleration of objects, how is the moon affecting Earth with it?
How does the RE model use gravitation? (what objects?) RE model uses gravity because it is not believed to be fictitious.

Perhaps I am miscommunicating. Sorry, but please be patient with me. :P
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: piggystart on March 25, 2007, 12:29:52 PM
how can gravity be a 'fictitious' force????  It's obviously not, as the earth (whether round or flat) has a gravitational field.  This has been proved since the 17th century.  Hmm...it's kinda ironic, but I would think that disproving the flat earth hypothesis (not a theory) is much easier/feasible/logical than trying to prove that gravity in fact does not exist.  But, then again, i'm a RE believer, so what do i know...
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 25, 2007, 12:31:10 PM
Uh oh.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: piggystart on March 25, 2007, 12:32:13 PM
also, to TheEngineer, who invented gravity?  surely you won't bring the government into that......will you?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on March 25, 2007, 12:56:47 PM
I am not arrogant. I am quite aware that there are plenty of things I am ignorant about, and that's why I hang out with other smart people, many of which are smarter than I am (not on this board, on Skype and on my own board). My wife is smarter than I am. She keeps me humble.

Whats your board? Can I join it? ;D


(sorry for taking off topic folks, ignore me)
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 25, 2007, 05:36:12 PM
I am not arrogant. I am quite aware that there are plenty of things I am ignorant about, and that's why I hang out with other smart people, many of which are smarter than I am (not on this board, on Skype and on my own board). My wife is smarter than I am. She keeps me humble.

Whats your board? Can I join it? ;D

http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/

And yes. Everyone can JOIN. Whether you'll want to stay or not, however, depends on the kind of board experience you're looking for.

We have NO censorship. None whatsoever. Very few rules. Pretty much anything is allowed. And we don't try to be polite to people.

But if you are an atheist or anarchist, then you'll be welcome- as long as you can stand criticism.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on March 25, 2007, 05:39:46 PM
Woohoo! I love no censorship!!! I'm joining ;D
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 25, 2007, 05:47:22 PM
Also, when PhpBB finally upgrades to a two-tier system, our board will become the first board run like a Market Anarchy. All sub-forums will be user-ran and administrated.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on March 25, 2007, 05:48:46 PM
Cool. Well I've joined....
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 25, 2007, 06:02:41 PM
I will have fun with the nutters
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 25, 2007, 06:04:52 PM
What nutters?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on March 25, 2007, 06:11:41 PM
Well.......
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 25, 2007, 06:16:12 PM
What nutters?

Well you for starters Frenchy me old mucker!
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 25, 2007, 06:20:34 PM
I am not a nutter.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on March 25, 2007, 06:22:19 PM
I am not a nutter.

Oh dear..he's in denial
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 25, 2007, 06:28:41 PM
It's not just a river in Egypt you know Frenchy.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 25, 2007, 07:58:21 PM
The thing about the tides is, because the moon orbits the earth, the tides follow the moon in one direction. For example, tidal levels would move from East to West, like a gigantic rolling wave. This is because that's the path the moon traces overhead, and both sides of the camp agree to that. So, in a round earth, the tides follow the path of the moon.

Rowbotham's sloshing analogy is a fallacy because that would mean that the tides would go from East to West, then West to East, reversing direction each day, which they do not. Therefore, the evidence of the tides does not add up to the predictions of the Flat Earth model.

I've seen other Flat Earther's admit that the moon does in fact cause the tides due to gravitation. However, Francerty and the Engineer like to point out that there is no force of gravity, and the acceleration of the earth through space is what causes the sense of gravitation, as inertia and gravity are indistinguishable in some cases.

This is impossible for several reasons. First, that would mean that the other stellar objects cannot exhibit gravitational forces either, meaning that the moon is not responsible for tidal action. The earth and the moon are both matter (moon rocks have been carried back to earth, and for the more die-hard conspiracy theorists, we have found them falling Earth as well) so one can safely conjecture that they both have the same physical properties. A blueberry pie and a strawberry pie are different, but they are both pies with crust and sweet, sweet filling.

Next, the constant acceleration theory is directly at odds with several well-established mathematical principles, such as General Relativity and the laws of thermodynamics. In relativity terms, a constant acceleration means that velocity will eventually surpass that of C (300 000 km/s), which is impossible and would make all sorts of weird things happen like infinite linear compression and mass. This has been proven in particle accelerators where subatomic particles which weigh trillionths of a pound have been pushed to 97% the speed of light, where they then have a mass of several kilograms!

Also, in order to have a constant acceleration, you need to have a proportionally increasing energy source to cause the acceleration. All the energy in the universe cannot push something past the speed of light, so the earth cannot be experiencing constant acceleration.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 25, 2007, 08:47:45 PM
In relativity terms, a constant acceleration means that velocity will eventually surpass that of C (300 000 km/s), which is impossible and would make all sorts of weird things happen like infinite linear compression and mass.
Nice to see you have no idea what relativity states.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 25, 2007, 08:51:12 PM
Did you not previously say gravity was a fictitious force?
Yes, I did.  Gravity is not a force, it is a made up 'force' to deal with being in a non inertial frame of reference.

Quote
If gravitation is the acceleration of objects, how is the moon affecting Earth with it?
How does the RE model use gravitation? (what objects?) RE model uses gravity because it is not believed to be fictitious.
The RE model currently used EXPLICITLY states that gravity is not a force.  Gravitation is due to the deformation of space.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on March 26, 2007, 01:53:51 AM
Why dont you retort to what RAmenbrother said Engineer or has he got you there?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 26, 2007, 02:06:43 AM
I've responded to his post in another thread, as he chose to post the same thing in multiple threads.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on March 26, 2007, 02:08:13 AM
Oh right, what thread is that?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 26, 2007, 02:10:10 AM
FE gravity and how it relates to the speed of light.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on March 26, 2007, 02:18:45 AM
You do you like trying to patronise people when you answer them...reading through that thread and the way you were replying to him doesn't paint you in a good light
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: RAmenBrother on March 26, 2007, 05:30:46 AM
Patronising people is his defence tactic; makes him feel like he's more in the right.

Also, in a universe of Einsteinian gravity, where any given shape will try and compress into a sphere over time (guess what: like a planet!). Give anything billions of years, and it'll take the most uniform shape: a sphere. That's why the planets are round, why the sun is round (and constantly undergoing fusion: something that no 32-mile diameter object can naturally do), and why every other stellar body that is larger than an asteroid is mostly round. An easy way to prove this is suspending a water droplet in zero gravity. It'll automatically assume a spherical shape. Granted, that's more due to water's "sticky" nature, but stellar bodies will exhibit those properties given enough time.

I mean, patronising is all these people have. They need to convince themselves that they are the saints of this underdog theory in a world of deceit and corruption. However, there's a reason the round earth theory is very, very much the majority: because there's an overwhelming amount of evidence of it. Oh, wait: it's all been made up by the countries that are currently at war, fighting over nuclear rights, or just bugged by different systems of government. Some pretty good international cooperation there.

Speaking of different systems of government, did you know that ancient Chinese cartographers (and other Asian countries as well) used the South Pole as the top of their maps? Well that wouldn't work at all, now would it? Given that the earth is flat and there IS no south pole. Yeah, the Chinese must have been total idiots, even though they were the first to invent the compass and other quite important devices.

Seriously, come on FE'ers. Just admit that, even by your definition of proof, you have far less to build your point on, and all your hypotheses are simply extensions of known physics that you choose to feed into a flat world model. Never mind that a magnetic field would not occur the way it actually does in your FE model. The vatican took the exact same stance against the scientific method during the struggle against the Heliocentric universe: they came up with very elaborate models to explain away the very-much-in-Copernicus-and-Galileo's-favour motion of the stars and sun, but ultimately failed because... well, the earth is round, man.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on March 26, 2007, 05:37:13 AM
You're probably the most intelligent person here RAmenBrother. Keep up the good work in showing their faults.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 05:39:34 AM
Although can I just say that TheEngineer isn't actually a FEer..
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on March 26, 2007, 05:41:20 AM
Although can I just say that TheEngineer isn't actually a FEer..

Yeah he just likes to pretend he is. Enjoys debating it I guess
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 05:43:39 AM
Like you pretend to be a girl!! hehehe *runs aweh*
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on March 26, 2007, 05:49:16 AM
Don't take this thread off topic.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 26, 2007, 05:51:22 AM
It's already dead.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 28, 2007, 09:51:41 AM
Did you not previously say gravity was a fictitious force?
Yes, I did.  Gravity is not a force, it is a made up 'force' to deal with being in a non inertial frame of reference.

Quote
If gravitation is the acceleration of objects, how is the moon affecting Earth with it?
How does the RE model use gravitation? (what objects?) RE model uses gravity because it is not believed to be fictitious.
The RE model currently used EXPLICITLY states that gravity is not a force.  Gravitation is due to the deformation of space.


Thinking about it, I do agree gravity is not a force in the RE model but I have yet to understand what objects are accelerating to create gravity in a RE. Did I misunderstand something important?  ???
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 30, 2007, 12:26:49 PM
I no longer require a response as my question was answered in another post.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: WHAT???? on March 30, 2007, 03:45:16 PM
JAJAJAJA this is so funny.... dont you realize????? this guys are just pissing people off, i bet they are laughing their ass off when they see a guy defending the spherical world... but anyway... just for sport, here is a list of why the earth is round:

1.Lunar elcipses: the shadow cast on the moon by the Earth when it gets in the way of the sun is round
2.Where does the sun goes at night? to a hole in a flat earth?
3.If the earth was flat you could see every mountain from the tallest peak
4.The first thing you see whan your entering Monterrey are the mountains, you can actually see them rising. I live there by the way.
5.The only argument FW has is a conspiracy or that eveyone is lying, who gains anything with a conspiracy like that?
6.Satelites
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: pongoz11 on March 31, 2007, 09:19:39 AM
What about the Moon
why is it that the moon can always be seen by someone on earth but you cannot always see it.
If the earth was flat as long as someone could see the moon you should be able to see it therefore the earth is round.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: sokarul on March 31, 2007, 09:39:24 AM
No one ever answered my question, what formula do they use to predict tides in the fe model?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 31, 2007, 09:51:27 AM
No one ever answered my question, what formula do they use to predict tides in the fe model?

We use the following formula for predicting tides in the FE model:

h = Ho + Sum{H cos[at + (Vo+u) - K]}

It provides for the summation of 10 of the principal constituents, and the resulting predicted heights can be registered by a curve with some manual tracing.

h = height of tide at any time t.
Ho = mean height of water level above datum used for prediction.
H = mean amplitude of any constituent A.
= factor for reducing mean amplitude H to year of prediction.
a = speed of constituent A.
t = time reckoned from some initial epoch such as beginning of year of predictions.
(Vo+u) = value of equilibrium argument of constituent A when t = 0.
K = epoch of constituent A.

Each of the principle constituents are defined in the Tide and Current Glossary (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/glossary2.pdf) put out by the NOAA.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 31, 2007, 11:20:27 AM
No one ever answered my question, what formula do they use to predict tides in the fe model?

We use the following formula for predicting tides in the FE model:

h = Ho + Sum{H cos[at + (Vo+u) - K]}

It provides for the summation of 10 of the principal constituents, and the resulting predicted heights can be registered by a curve with some manual tracing.

h = height of tide at any time t.
Ho = mean height of water level above datum used for prediction.
H = mean amplitude of any constituent A.
= factor for reducing mean amplitude H to year of prediction.
a = speed of constituent A.
t = time reckoned from some initial epoch such as beginning of year of predictions.
(Vo+u) = value of equilibrium argument of constituent A when t = 0.
K = epoch of constituent A.

Each of the principle constituents are defined in the Tide and Current Glossary (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/glossary2.pdf) put out by the NOAA.

The link to the NOAA site defines "h" as the height of wave, the height being measured from the undisturbed water level. Not the height of a wave at any given time. This formula also fails to account for gravity as a constant. Can you explain?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 31, 2007, 11:22:30 AM
By the way, why would you take a formula from a RE source?  ???
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: sokarul on March 31, 2007, 01:26:15 PM
I didnt see anything talking about the wobble of the Earth in that link.  I did see the moon though. 
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: wgzero on March 31, 2007, 09:01:24 PM
first of all, gravitation is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other. gravity specifically refers to a force which objects are theorized to exert on one other to cause gravitation.

second of all, if the earth was flat, then tides would appear merely as a bulge centralized over one location, rather than two separate bulges on opposite sides of the earth. also, how do FE'rs explain neap tides and spring tides?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on March 31, 2007, 11:24:38 PM
Gravity specifically refers to a force that does not exist.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: wgzero on April 01, 2007, 08:46:31 AM
so in FE theory gravitation occurs without the force of gravity?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on April 01, 2007, 08:47:03 AM
Yep, like I said before, gravity does not exist.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: sokarul on April 01, 2007, 09:02:54 AM
Gravity specifically refers to a force that does not exist.
We call spacetime curvature gravity.  They don't teach it until college. 

But good job Engineer to ignore the acutal questions. 
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: William Flatner on April 01, 2007, 06:03:42 PM
I recall reading a post on this forum where a flat and round moon came up.  I'm pretty sure it said somewhere that observing the round shadow of the moon on Earth disproves the FE theory.  I can't find that thread at the moment, but I'll keep looking.

According to this:
(http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/flying_leaf/model.jpg)

Tom is contradicting himself by saying the moon is a sphere.  In previous posts.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Midnight on April 01, 2007, 06:09:00 PM
(http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/flying_leaf/model.jpg)



That...made me lol.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: William Flatner on April 01, 2007, 09:01:57 PM
I only got the picture posted by another member of the forum. :)

Now I get to wait for Tom's reply.  Or just end up being completely ignored.  Which is it Tom? Flat or Round moon?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Gamma on April 01, 2007, 09:05:19 PM
Yep, like I said before, gravity does not exist.
Then how do things fall?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: theearthisroundmorons on April 01, 2007, 09:40:09 PM
Gravity is caused by an objects density, all things are attracting to each other, all object create gravity. It is just a matter of how much...............
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on April 01, 2007, 11:18:00 PM
Yep, like I said before, gravity does not exist.
Then how do things fall?
They accelerate.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: TheEngineer on April 01, 2007, 11:18:19 PM
Gravity is caused by an objects density, all things are attracting to each other, all object create gravity. It is just a matter of how much...............
What is the density of light?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: sokarul on April 02, 2007, 06:46:48 AM
Gravity is caused by an objects density, all things are attracting to each other, all object create gravity. It is just a matter of how much...............
What is the density of light?
Zero, next question.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 02, 2007, 07:26:19 AM
Perhaps mass was the true aspect we are looking to compare with gravity.  :P

Objects with mass experience gravity. Light is an odd exception..
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: sokarul on April 02, 2007, 08:51:36 AM
Perhaps mass was the true aspect we are looking to compare with gravity.  :P

Objects with mass experience gravity. Light is an odd exception..
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
Light is not an exception.  E=mc^2 so energy is mass. 
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2007, 09:23:36 AM
Quote
This formula also fails to account for gravity as a constant. Can you explain?

It doesn't need to. Gravity does not exist in FE. Only gravitation.

Quote
Tom is contradicting himself by saying the moon is a sphere.  In previous posts.

Where does it suggest in the FAQ or book Earth Not a Globe that the Moon is anything but a sphere?
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 03, 2007, 04:40:03 AM
I suppose the multiple rendering with the flat moon and flat sun on this flat Earth could be considered to be changing your theory. Adapting it as soon a flaws are found. Unless the person rendering these pictures was ignorant to certain aspects of your theory.  :)
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 03, 2007, 05:05:49 PM
If you don't know the answer, what makes you think there is one? In order to believe in a theory, you must be guided by evidence. How did you personally come to believe the Earth is flat? Please don't give me a bunch of garbage like links to flawed experiments or your common phrase of "look out your window".  ::)

In other words, how did you manage to not get brainwashed and learn the 'truth'?

P.S. This isn't an invitation to ignore my previous post.
Title: Re: The tides
Post by: Geordi la Forge on June 12, 2007, 05:53:33 AM
Where does it suggest in the FAQ or book Earth Not a Globe that the Moon is anything but a sphere?

Didn't you suggest Earth as an infinite plane many times before?