Correct: bubbles DO go up. However, up is relative. the bubble is travelling away from the earth because it is lighter than air. You fail narcberry.
Correct: bubbles DO go up. However, up is relative. the bubble is travelling away from the earth because it is lighter than air. You fail narcberry.
Up means up to me. If up means down or sideways to you, you are mistaken.
It's called "gravity" (I know, I know, gravity doesn't exist on FE, but it does on RE). If you accept the RE model, you accept that at every point on the globe, "up" means "towards the sky".
So yes, it's perfectly logical for bubbles to go up in the US and in China at the same time, even if we live on a RE. Direction is relative to your position on the globe.
It's called "gravity" (I know, I know, gravity doesn't exist on FE, but it does on RE).It sure doesn't.
Explain this! http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=0696
No, I know which way is up, you round earth moron. It's you that don't know which way is up, if you are in China, because according to your belief, up would be down there! Doesn't anybody get it? :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Question for Narcberry:
If I somehow made a perfectly spherical room(spherical so there is no 'landmark' to give away direction) and if I somehow had a way for this room to avoid/break/ignore gravitation (notice I didn't say gravity because I know TheEngineer would be here in a heartbeat to say "that's not hard as gravity doesn't exist") and if I put you in the center of this sphere-room and spun you around a bunch of times...which way would be up?
The point:
Up is a relative term we have given to the opposite of the direction in which we fall. The key word in there is RELATIVE.
So, according to you all, as soon as a bubble is formed it flies straight upwards (that is to say, on a line that is normal (perpendicular) to the surface) and continues on this path until it bursts?
Strange, my bubbles travel in a pattern similar to that of Brownian Motion.
Question for Narcberry:
If I somehow made a perfectly spherical room(spherical so there is no 'landmark' to give away direction) and if I somehow had a way for this room to avoid/break/ignore gravitation (notice I didn't say gravity because I know TheEngineer would be here in a heartbeat to say "that's not hard as gravity doesn't exist") and if I put you in the center of this sphere-room and spun you around a bunch of times...which way would be up?
The point:
Up is a relative term we have given to the opposite of the direction in which we fall. The key word in there is RELATIVE.
Up is up is up. In China bubbles do go up. If the earth is round, this up would lead them to collide with earth. But since the earth is flat, bubbles all go up. This makes things simple since we dont need to create some kind of relative science only to explain bubbles. Up is up is up.
Question for Narcberry:
If I somehow made a perfectly spherical room(spherical so there is no 'landmark' to give away direction) and if I somehow had a way for this room to avoid/break/ignore gravitation (notice I didn't say gravity because I know TheEngineer would be here in a heartbeat to say "that's not hard as gravity doesn't exist") and if I put you in the center of this sphere-room and spun you around a bunch of times...which way would be up?
The point:
Up is a relative term we have given to the opposite of the direction in which we fall. The key word in there is RELATIVE.
Narcberry...still waiting on an answer.
And how do you determine "up" in that room?
If the spherical Earth travelled in the same way as a flat earth then yes the bubbles would go 'up' but then again, everything in China would fall off, water would run off and we'd all be pretty screwed, which, by the way IT DOESN'T!
#1 you didn't answer the question
#2 no I couldn't ask it that way because even flying like that...as long as you're not trying to fake 0g....you can drop something and see where it falls....I asked it very specifically for a reason.
In my scenario even with instrumentation you wouldn't be able to find an up or a down...so which way is up?Up, clearly.
My question is ilustrated with this sketch:(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s157/bushido_me/pic2.jpg)
Can someone please explain how the gyro works? Cause this may be a way to test if the Earth is flat or round!
Question dodger.....answer my question! In your own time of course, I'm not impatient, but don't think I'll forget if you leave it til later!
The question is, what is up with that glaring logical inconsistency in your argument I posted a couple of posts up? And by what is up with it I mean explain it or fix it...cos it's just not right!
My question is ilustrated with this sketch:(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s157/bushido_me/pic2.jpg)
Can someone please explain how the gyro works? Cause this may be a way to test if the Earth is flat or round!
That would be interesting.
Another, more practical, method is to use weights to force the axis of the compass to remain horizontal with respect to the Earth's surface, but otherwise allow it to rotate freely within that plane. In this case, gravity will apply a torque forcing the compass's axis toward true north. Because the weights will confine the compass's axis to be horizontal with respect to the Earth's surface, the axis can never align with the Earth's axis (except on the Equator) and must realign itself as the Earth rotates. But with respect to the Earth's surface, the compass will appear to be stationary and pointing along the Earth's surface toward the true North Pole.
No, you two just assume that I approach things from a round earth perspective like you do. For me, up is an absolute direction. But you think I'm being ignorant by not seeing things the way you do.
No, you two just assume that I approach things from a round earth perspective like you do. For me, up is an absolute direction. But you think I'm being ignorant by not seeing things the way you do.
That works the other way around too:
you just assume that we approach things from a flat earth perspective like you do. For us, up isn't an absolute direction. But you think we are being ignorant by not seeing things the way you do.
No, you two just assume that I approach things from a round earth perspective like you do. For me, up is an absolute direction. But you think I'm being ignorant by not seeing things the way you do.
That works the other way around too:
you just assume that we approach things from a flat earth perspective like you do. For us, up isn't an absolute direction. But you think we are being ignorant by not seeing things the way you do.
Incorrect, I wasn't dismissing people because of their beliefs.
Gravity does not exist. All that is required is gravitation.
It's all about gravity, which has to exist. (Without gravity, you wouldn't be standing/sitting right now.)
When bubbles go up, they're simply going away from the earth, making it have to do with gravity. I just explained why gravity must exist.Bubbles so up, therefore, gravity must exist. Wow, stellar argument.
In fact, it's impossible for the earth to be flat.Ok...why?
Nobody's ever fallen off the earth.. making no edge.How would you know someone has not fallen off the earth? Are they somehow going to come back and tell you about it?
I've never met anyone as big an idiot as you people.I agree. RE'ers just keep getting dumber.
[QuoteIn fact, it's impossible for the earth to be flat.Ok...why?
Hey, narcberry, remember this ingenious proof? :D
[QuoteIn fact, it's impossible for the earth to be flat.Ok...why?
In the Discussion & Debate section, I have made two new posts on phenomena which I believe is unexplained by a flat Earth. Please comment on them.
I see a lot of FE'ers giving a scenario which is possible but highly unlikely (ie. an ice wall kept secret, a government conspiracy, et cetera). This doesn't disprove the FE theory, it just makes it unlikely and a weak, though possible, theory. However, if I can provide phenomena which cannot be explained by FE theory, then it becomes practically impossible. Do you agree?
My up is different from you guys though.
My up is different from you guys though.
Narc's up is kinda weird. Like, if you're on RE, down in Australia, up is towards the North Pole, so you fall off of the Earth. I swear that's not the same up as mine.
1: A bubble will go up in China
2: A bubble will go up in the United States
3: If the earth is round, bubbles will rise outwards from the earth
4: Since bubbles always rise up, the earth cannot be round
1: A bubble will go up in China
2: A bubble will go up in the United States
3: If the earth is round, bubbles will rise outwards from the earth
4: Since bubbles always rise up, the earth cannot be round
1: A bubble will go up in China
2: A bubble will go up in the United States
3: If the earth is round, bubbles will rise outwards from the earth
4: Since bubbles always rise up, the earth cannot be round
Yes, that explains why the chinese have been falling down into space for the last few centuries, thank you for avoiding the laws of physics, and of course, logic, once again
What is so silly is that RE'ers hold that 'up' is both:up is just a word, as has been stated before if you are going to do it for real then you would use vectors and coordinates. "Up" usually denotes which way will give me a positive answer. I could make "up" point at my feet and then release a helium balloon and its displacement would be negative instead of positive
1) simple
2) works however you want it to
By those definitions, I've used it consistently with RE or FE.
up is just a word
Got it, 'up' is meaningless on RE.We dont know since you are the one who brought it up in the first place
So if it's so meaningless, why all the debate?
Well what do you know about RE?how So?
And I brought it up because it shows that FE is consistent and RE is not.
RE cannot predict what 'up' is.why would we need to?
Because RE uses it. If it uses something it cannot define... well.up is the direction that will be positive numbers. so tell me why we need to provide a single direction for that again?
up is the direction that will be positive numbers.
so tell me why we need to provide a single direction for that again?
So if you were victim to an avalanche, and could not orientate yourself; digging in *any* direction will get you 'up' and out?no digging toward the surface will get me out, if I made my "up" in the wrong direction, I would just dig a negative distance from my origin
So 'up' can be towards the surface of the earth?"UP" is the first quadrant in your coordinate system
..right, as you mentioned before, it can be whatever you want it to be.those are negative numbers, but I guess if you really want to make that "up" then I guess you can. It is just not how I was taught
Why not q3 and 4?
Up is an arbitrarily selected heading from your origin point. It has nothing to do with RE theory.
How is this different to FE?
Up is an arbitrarily selected heading from your origin point. It has nothing to do with RE theory.
How is this different to FE?
It demonstrates that the FES has a sense of humor.
In a gravitational field, "up" is almost always* defined to point exactly opposite to the direction of acceleration due to gravity.
Mathematically, if u have a gravitational potential given by a function G(x,y,z) then "up" points in the direction of Grad G (usually written ∇G).
*The only exception would be in an accelerating system e.g. a spacecraft.
EDIT: Or you could define "up" differently if it would make things easier, like cbarnett said, but peple usually don't.
The direction of earths acceleration.why is that up
See how simple it is to have a theory that can give accurate definitions?
So in an airplane, which is flying through the sky, which way is up?
RE'ers can't even figure out what they mean when they say 'up'.
By definition.So if I want to track that airplanes descent but I do not want to deal with negative numbers when looking at its displacement from its origin I am out of luck?
Now that I've managed to confront, and correctly answer your question, feel free to answer mine.So in an airplane, which is flying through the sky, which way is up?
RE'ers can't even figure out what they mean when they say 'up'.
3D polar coordinate system, origin'ed at the center of earth... ::)
So this brings us back to Mars having a universal 'up' direction away from earth. This means that the universal 'up' is universal across the universe... except on earth, where it is in all directions simultaneously depending on your current position on or around earth.
Sounds like Occam definitely favors FET!
So you're applying a "constant, non-rotational motion" coordinate system to a planet that is neither constant nor motionless.
Translation:
RE defines things to be one thing under certain circumstances, and another thing in other circumstances. RE can wave it's magical wand and still be science regardless of these inconsistencies.
If it's so easily explained, why have RE'ers been avoiding my ever so simple questions?
Translation:since when is up a scientific term anyways ???
RE defines things to be one thing under certain circumstances, and another thing in other circumstances. RE can wave it's magical wand and still be science regardless of these inconsistencies.
If it's so easily explained, why have RE'ers been avoiding my ever so simple questions?
I didn't avoid it, I answered it. "Up" is relative. Just like "Left" and "Right" are relative.
Translation:since when is up a scientific term anyways ???
RE defines things to be one thing under certain circumstances, and another thing in other circumstances. RE can wave it's magical wand and still be science regardless of these inconsistencies.
If it's so easily explained, why have RE'ers been avoiding my ever so simple questions?
I didn't avoid it, I answered it. "Up" is relative. Just like "Left" and "Right" are relative.
So 'up' is meaningless in RE, much like every other term.
Don't worry, FE still has meaning and consistency.
Thanks for confirming this.
Translation:
RE defines things to be one thing under certain circumstances, and another thing in other circumstances. RE can wave it's magical wand and still be science regardless of these inconsistencies.
If it's so easily explained, why have RE'ers been avoiding my ever so simple questions?
I didn't avoid it, I answered it. "Up" is relative. Just like "Left" and "Right" are relative.
So 'up' is meaningless in RE, much like every other term.
Don't worry, FE still has meaning and consistency.
Thanks for confirming this.
Regardless of whether we talk about FE or RE, left is still a relative position.
Regardless of whether we talk about FE or RE, left is still a relative position.
Actually, I was asking Narcberry (since he is the one confused about relative directions), but thanks for playing anyways.
1: A bubble will go up in China
2: A bubble will go up in the United States
3: If the earth is round, bubbles will rise outwards from the earth
4: Since bubbles always rise up, the earth cannot be round
I know, RET is pretty ridiculous. I'm very happy someone else can recognize it for what it is.
Actually he was saying that RET is retarded because it can't tell which way up is.what are you talking about? Every time I solve a problem I know exactly which direction is "up"
And I completely agree.
Actually he was saying that RET is retarded because it can't tell which way up is.
And I completely agree.
what are you talking about? Every time I solve a problem I know exactly which direction is "up"
give me a problem in FE or RE and I will Show you "up"what are you talking about? Every time I solve a problem I know exactly which direction is "up"
How can you?
In RE up changes (taken from you RE'ers in this thread):
1) with your mood, as it can mean anything you want it to be
2) with your location on earth, and is different for every geographical point
3) with your altitude
4) with your heads position
5) with your company
I'd like you to show how you keep all 5 of those constant during your problem solving.
(http://www.setv.org/jpgs/voyager.jpg)what am I computing?
Which direction is up based on RET? (That means explain why your answer is based on RET)
what am I computing?
Which direction is up based on RET? (That means explain why your answer is based on RET)
what am I computing?Which direction is up based on RET? (That means explain why your answer is based on RET)
let me be more specific, what problem relating to this spacecraft do you want me to solve and then I will tell you which way is up(http://www.setv.org/jpgs/voyager.jpg)what am I computing?
Which direction is up based on RET? (That means explain why your answer is based on RET)
He wants to know which way is up. >:(
^
|
In a gravitational field, "up" is almost always* defined to point exactly opposite to the direction of acceleration due to gravity.
Mathematically, if u have a gravitational potential given by a function G(x,y,z) then "up" points in the direction of Grad G (usually written ∇G).
*The only exception would be in an accelerating system e.g. a spacecraft.
EDIT: Or you could define "up" differently if it would make things easier, like cbarnett said, but peple usually don't.
So I throw a ball away from the ground. When my hand releases the ball, it travels away from the surface of earth. This is down?
So I throw a ball away from the ground. When my hand releases the ball, it travels away from the surface of earth. This is down?
"Down" is the direction objects accelerate when released. "Up" is the opposite of "down"
I'm still waiting for someone to answer my simple question. There are at least 4 of you ignoring it.
The last 9 pages have said:
FE has a consistent predictable answer.
RE has a different answer each time you ask the question.
I'm sorry guys, but FE simply won this one.
Not until you make a logical answer which you can all agree on, until then there's no point in arguing with 4 or 5 different people.
I'm still waiting for someone to answer my simple question. There are at least 4 of you ignoring it.
But the thing is... we all say it is relative... How is that inconsistent?
But the thing is... we all say it is relative... How is that inconsistent?
Because you define relative as:
Above your head, being relative to each person
Against your acceleration, being relative to each object
Towards the sky, being relative to your position
Away from earth, being relative to your definition of earth
Whatever you want it to be, being relative to your mood
Sure they are all relative, but you can't honestly be saying those are consistent.
Also, no answer from RE still. ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
1: A bubble will go up in China
2: A bubble will go up in the United States
3: If the earth is round, bubbles will rise outwards from the earth
4: Since bubbles always rise up, the earth cannot be round
Even on earth that doesn't make sense. Look at 3 scenarios:
1) In an elevator going away from the surface of earth. Your acceleration would be away from the center of earth.
2) Sitting in a chair, posting on FES. You are not accelerating away or towards the center of earth.
3) Jumping off something. Your acceleration would be towards the center of earth.
All 3 scenarios are quite likely. All 3 scenarios denote a different 'up' by RE'ers definitions.
1g is not an acceleration, it's a force.
You lose.
2) While you are sitting you are being accelerated by the ground below you away from earth at a rate of 1 g. Therefore up is away from the center of the earth.
2) While you are sitting you are being accelerated by the ground below you away from earth at a rate of 1 g. Therefore up is away from the center of the earth.
Explain this. If 1g is an acceleration, why am I not accelerating towards the earths center? I seem to stay in my chair.
Thanks for adding yet another possible RE definition of up.
How do you define "outwards"?
Thanks for adding yet another possible RE definition of up.
How do you define "outwards"?
In RE theory "outwards" and "up" are the same thing.
In FE theory I guess there is only "up" (as far as the acceleration goes, up is away from the force causing the acceleration upwards). This cannot be defined as "outwards" though, only "up" in FE theory.
You said, from RE theory:
"Since bubbles always rise up, the earth cannot be round"
In RE theory, up = outwards.
So then I guess you're right, in RE theory they have to use up to mean outwards and outwards to mean up, which makes less sense than than the FE theory. Occums Razor favours the FE theory in this case it seems, requiring more complications to explain this upwards = outwards claim in RE theory. Remember, the ONLY reason a RE'er would say up = outwards is because this is the only way they can make the RE theory stick - it doesn't really stick though when they are just claiming up = out because they are ALREADY claiming the earth is spherical. To claim that upwards = outwards (by the RE theorist) explains... nothing. All it explains is they thing up = outwards, a convenient but wrong explanation, wrong in FE theory, right in RE theory.
Alright narcberry you win this one. :-*
Another victory for FE!!!here is a good hypothetical "up" question for you: You are deep sea diving and there is no light whatsoever and due to the currents undderwater you get spun in every direction for 10 minutes, after you stop you must point "up", which way do you point?
Another victory for FE!!!here is a good hypothetical "up" question for you: You are deep sea diving and there is no light whatsoever and due to the currents undderwater you get spun in every direction for 10 minutes, after you stop you must point "up", which way do you point?
you are wearing a rebreatherAnother victory for FE!!!here is a good hypothetical "up" question for you: You are deep sea diving and there is no light whatsoever and due to the currents undderwater you get spun in every direction for 10 minutes, after you stop you must point "up", which way do you point?
Whichever way the bubbles go.
Can we all agree on this?
Can we all agree on this?
No. Inertial objects do not accelerate.
No. Inertial objects do not accelerate.
They do when gravity pulls on them.
They do when these "fictitious" forces aren't actually fictitious.
They do when gravity pulls on them.
Fictitious forces usually don't pull on things very strongly.
1: A bubble will go up in China
2: A bubble will go up in the United States
3: If the earth is round, bubbles will rise outwards from the earth
4: Since bubbles always rise up, the earth cannot be round
The only reason "up" and "outwards" are not the same in the English language is because locally the Earth appears flat (because it is so big), but "up" and "outwards" only mean the same thing on a large body.
Just look at my definition above: "up" and "outwards" are clearly the same.
here is a good hypothetical "up" question for you: You are deep sea diving and there is no light whatsoever and due to the currents undderwater you get spun in every direction for 10 minutes, after you stop you must point "up", which way do you point?
I fail to see your problem, Theorist. The only reason "up" and "outwards" are not the same in the English language is because locally the Earth appears flat (because it is so big), but "up" and "outwards" only mean the same thing on a large body.
Just look at my definition above: "up" and "outwards" are clearly the same.
so why is that uphere is a good hypothetical "up" question for you: You are deep sea diving and there is no light whatsoever and due to the currents undderwater you get spun in every direction for 10 minutes, after you stop you must point "up", which way do you point?
You are quite possibly the dumbest RE'er on these boards. Congratulations.
Just because 'up' is universal, doesn't mean a dazed diver of the dark deeps is going to know where it is. Whether he can identify up or not, the up direction would be towards the waters surface (as that happens to be the direction the earth is accelerating). Of course, we can't tell him this, I hope you weren't expecting us to.
By definition.what is the FE definition of left again?
Would be nice to see you RE'ers agree on a definition for up, seeing as you are all arguing in different ways.
By definition.
Would be nice to see you RE'ers agree on a definition for up, seeing as you are all arguing in different ways.
what is the FE definition of left again?
what is the FE definition of left again?
They do when gravity pulls on them.
Fictitious forces usually don't pull on things very strongly.
Have you ever been in a car when someone slams on the brakes? Tell me that the fictitious force "pushing" you forwards didn't feel real.
You people are difficult. OK: here's a definition of "up" that is consistent with GR:
"Up" is the direction of fastest increasing gravitational potential.
In a Newtonian system, this is equivalent to my previous definition ("up" is opposite to the direction objects fall), but also works with GR.
Can we all agree on this?
FE Theory:
1 - Up is up.
2 - Outward is outward.
They do when these "fictitious" forces aren't actually fictitious.Except the fact that they are and will always be fictitious.
Since when do you define a word with the word that you are defining? ???
Since when do you define a word with the word that you are defining? ???
Those aren't definitions, those are synonyms. In FE up is, has always been and will always be, up. In RE, who knows? Lor' knows they don't!
You are quite possibly the dumbest RE'er on these boards. Congratulations.
You are quite possibly the dumbest RE'er on these boards. Congratulations.
And you are probably the most hostile and bitter person on these boards. Congratulations for being so sad.
You are quite possibly the dumbest RE'er on these boards. Congratulations.
And you are probably the most hostile and bitter person on these boards. Congratulations for being so sad.
Oh thats just wrong, there's lots of people much more hostile and bitter than Narcypants on here
You are quite possibly the dumbest RE'er on these boards. Congratulations.
And you are probably the most hostile and bitter person on these boards. Congratulations for being so sad.
Oh thats just wrong, there's lots of people much more hostile and bitter than Narcypants on here
And all RE'ers.
Very mature..
Very mature..
I think you misunderstand. i am not saying all RE'ers are much more bitter etc than Narc, just that the people who are more bitter etc than Narc are all RE'ers, and I think there is more than ample evidence of that on this board.
Nah.. They are more angry and frustrated. :)And schizophrenic.
Very mature..
I think you misunderstand. i am not saying all RE'ers are much more bitter etc than Narc, just that the people who are more bitter etc than Narc are all RE'ers, and I think there is more than ample evidence of that on this board.
Nah.. They are more angry and frustrated. :)
I think you misunderstand. i am not saying all RE'ers are much more bitter etc than Narc, just that the people who are more bitter etc than Narc are all RE'ers, and I think there is more than ample evidence of that on this board.
Nah.. They are more angry and frustrated. :)
Do REers really think they're going to blind FEers with science and turn them around on the debate? Do they get angry and frustrated because FEers actually defend their position instead of meekly backing away and proclaiming that REer an intellectual god for finally making them see the light?
I mean, really, what do you REers expect when you come here? ???
For me, this forum is a way to open my mind, learn how other people think... And also to have an argument. Like the Monty Python sketch, but its free.
Very mature..
I think you misunderstand. i am not saying all RE'ers are much more bitter etc than Narc, just that the people who are more bitter etc than Narc are all RE'ers, and I think there is more than ample evidence of that on this board.
Nah.. They are more angry and frustrated. :)
1: A bubble will go up in China
2: A bubble will go up in the United States
3: If the earth is round, bubbles will rise outwards from the earth
4: Since bubbles always rise up, the earth cannot be round
Asking which way is "up" on a Round Earth is like asking which way is "out" from the centre of a ball. If you attempt to use this reasoning to prove that a Round Earth can't exist, then one could also attempt to use it to show that a ball can't exist.
I personally think that we should all refer to Robotsteve's argument. He seems the most levelheaded in the forum.
This forums was much better when narc was banned
This forums was much better when narc was banned
Nah, he is great comic relief. And he keeps the RE noobs/trolls occupied.
FES needs more quality posters.
Since when did bubbles go up? Bubbles are a small sphere of a liquid therefore heavier than air and fall down. You should of used helium balloons Narcbery.
So based on the fact you also believe that bubbles go up AND the earth is flat I will no longer be taking on board anything you say, unless of course you offer me free lollypops from the lollypop forest?
Another victory for FE!!!
Yeah, I think the RE'ers are using a poor definition of up. In their definition, if they were standing on the moon, whatever counter gravity is up. But when they consider their own satellites they believe to be leaving the solar system, away from the suns gravitational pull, they do not call that up, they call it out. Up from the sun is its "north pole". What it boils down to is that RE'ers define up based on their sense of balance. Up is extremely subjective. If I stand on my head, the organs of my inner ear invert and tell me that my head is the direction of gravitational pull, therefore up is towards my feet. However, it has been shown that interpretation of that sensation strongly depends on visual cues as well. This is why when someone is buried in an avalanche, for example, they cannot tell which way is "up". Up is a physiological sensation dependent on the inner ear and visual cues, not a direction. It is most commonly used to refer to a direction, but it is in fact simply the description of sensation taken from inner ear balance and visual cues as to what is the opposite of the most severe gravitational pull being experienced by the person at any given time. This is consistent with both a RE and a FE model. Using "up" or "down" to describe the direction of the bubble does not disprove or prove either model. It is only relating an observation to your own sensation.