The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: IdiotsTheseDays on September 16, 2008, 07:01:07 AM
-
...and when we jump, the earth catches up with us, how in gods fucking name, does a plane work? I take it its constantly having to fly upwards? cos lets face it, the earth is gonna catch up with that and flying would be impossible then. Also birds, helicopters.etc
Clear that one up for us all...
-
...and when we jump, the earth catches up with us, how in gods fucking name, does a plane work? I take it its constantly having to fly upwards? cos lets face it, the earth is gonna catch up with that and flying would be impossible then. Also birds, helicopters.etc
Clear that one up for us all...
Learn some physics.
-
I take it its constantly having to fly upwards?
It is constantly accelerating upwards.
cos lets face it, the earth is gonna catch up with that and flying would be impossible then. Also birds, helicopters.etc
There is this little thing called "lift".
-
Well assuming you know physics, just tell me?
-
I take it its constantly having to fly upwards?
:D
Yes it does. Thats why planes have wings and move trough air.
-
Well assuming you know physics, just tell me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle)
-
..As proof of this, take a row boat..
Made me lol..
-
The usual corpse trundled out by FE'ers is that the planes are travelling up at the same speed. Hence, relatively speaking, there is no "falling". As proof of this, take a row boat, get your friend to row as fast as he can and then you throw a ball up into the air. It will come back to you even though the boat has moved on.
Obviously, because the Earth accelerates you towards the ball. ::)
Why? Perhaps the ball is given dark energy
No.
-
I think you miscombobulate me. The ball doesn't plop into the water behind the boat. It falls back into the boat. Why is this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_first_law:_law_of_inertia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_first_law:_law_of_inertia)
-
The usual corpse trundled out by FE'ers is that the planes are travelling up at the same speed. Hence, relatively speaking, there is no "falling". As proof of this, take a row boat, get your friend to row as fast as he can and then you throw a ball up into the air. It will come back to you even though the boat has moved on.
Obviously, because the Earth accelerates you towards the ball.
I think you miscombobulate me. The ball doesn't plop into the water behind the boat. It falls back into the boat. Why is this?
erm, you realise it doesnt fall back into the boat, it falls behind in the water.....yeah? lmao
-
The usual corpse trundled out by FE'ers is that the planes are travelling up at the same speed. Hence, relatively speaking, there is no "falling". As proof of this, take a row boat, get your friend to row as fast as he can and then you throw a ball up into the air. It will come back to you even though the boat has moved on.
Obviously, because the Earth accelerates you towards the ball. ::)
Why? Perhaps the ball is given dark energy
No.
hey, i dont come up with this shit, you's do ;)
-
Are you in love?
I wish. It's like I've been desensitised to interests such as relationships by repeated failure to even get one going... but that's neither here nor there.
-
It falls back into the boat. Why is this?
because the Earth accelerates
-
Obviously.
-
The earth doesn't accelerate sideways though does it?
That depends on how you define your coordinate system.
-
Why?
-
It sounds like it could be a fundamental part of FE Theory.
What if two people set off in row boats in opposite directions on the same lake.
In each boat a person throws a ball into the air. Each ball lands inside its respective boat.
Now imagine a whole lake filled with joyous edwardian types all rowing in random directions and throwing balls up in the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_first_law:_law_of_inertia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_first_law:_law_of_inertia)
-
Are you agreeing with me Osama, that the earth doesn't accelerate sideways?
In a coordinate system where "up" is defined as the direction of acceleration of a body that is stationary relative to the surface of the Earth, and "sideways" is defined as any direction which is perpendicular to "up", then yes, I do agree. Newton's first law of motion is all that is necessary to explain why the ball will return to the boat.
-
The usual corpse trundled out by FE'ers is that the planes are travelling up at the same speed. Hence, relatively speaking, there is no "falling". As proof of this, take a row boat, get your friend to row as fast as he can and then you throw a ball up into the air. It will come back to you even though the boat has moved on.
Obviously, because the Earth accelerates you towards the ball.
I think you miscombobulate me. The ball doesn't plop into the water behind the boat. It falls back into the boat. Why is this?
erm, you realise it doesnt fall back into the boat, it falls behind in the water.....yeah? lmao
Really? Try it.
Technically it also depends on the angle at which you throw the ball. If you were, in theory, to throw the ball straight up into the air, a full 90 degrees to the flat earth, the ball will meet friction with the air and move "backward" compared to the speed of the rowboat, after which, the earth would accelerate back and meet the ball. If you were to throw it at just the right forward angle, it would indeed plop back into the boat.
-
Good, glad we've got that out of the way.
To surmise: It might be interesting to equate the forces behind this acceleration, it does not equate the means of production behind these forces.
Ah, you'll want Newton's second law of motion this time.
Would you also agree that where celestial bodies are observably accelerating in different directions, then the uniform accelerator idea doesn't hold much water?
No, I don't agree there.
-
Are you in love?
I wish. It's like I've been desensitised to interests such as relationships by repeated failure to even get one going... but that's neither here nor there.
...waiting till after the second date to tell her that you believe the earth is flat may help
-
...waiting till after the second date to tell her that you believe the earth is flat may help
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Now, on topic.
-
Newtons II describes the relation between the acceleration of a mass and the force exerted on it. It says nothing about how the mass came to have that force in the first place.
I don't remember my train of thought when I posted that. It was probably for a good reason, however, as I am an intelligent person.
Well then your reasoning doesn't stack up.
You've agreed that although you could restack your coordinate system so that the earth is accelerating sideways, giving the appearance of a gravitational effect, it's not actually what's happening, as proven when a few more people row out and join in the fun.
But you cannot extend this simple premise to larger masses accelerating in much the same way. Hmm.
Why does Dark Energy have to be the only force causing them to accelerate?
-
So they are accelerating?
What's causing this acceleration?
If it isn't Dark Energy, it must be one of the other four fundamental interactions.
-
The usual corpse trundled out by FE'ers is that the planes are travelling up at the same speed.
Looks like somebody doesn't understand the difference between speed/velocity and acceleration. Hence, relatively speaking, there is no "falling".
The plane is accelerating up at the same speed as the earth.
As proof of this, take a row boat, get your friend to row as fast as he can and then you throw a ball up into the air. It will come back to you even though the boat has moved on. Why? Perhaps the ball is given dark energy.
Which just emphasizes your confusion over speed/velocity and acceleration.
-
Wasn't there some contention as to whether gravitation did actually exist for celestial bodies?
-
But yes, upward acceleration is part of said nonsense, not speed.
Which is why your little exercise with the boat is completely irrelevant.
If you are in a boat and it is moving at a constant speed then the ball will come back down in the boat (ignoring wind).
If the boat is accelerating it won't, it will land behind the boat.
-
But yes, upward acceleration is part of said nonsense, not speed.
Which is why your little exercise with the boat is completely irrelevant.
If you are in a boat and it is moving at a constant speed then the ball will come back down in the boat (ignoring wind).
If the boat is accelerating it won't, it will land behind the boat.
Congratulations, you are smarter than Dr. Rowbotham (it was his experiment).
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0
-
But yes, upward acceleration is part of said nonsense, not speed.
Which is why your little exercise with the boat is completely irrelevant.
If you are in a boat and it is moving at a constant speed then the ball will come back down in the boat (ignoring wind).
If the boat is accelerating it won't, it will land behind the boat.
Congratulations, you are smarter than Dr. Rowbotham (it was his experiment).
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0
That's not hard, Rowbotham was an idiot. Still doesn't change the fact that the earth is flat.
-
That's not hard, Rowbotham was an idiot. Still doesn't change the fact that the earth is flat.
No argument from me on the former. More so on the latter.
-
Are you recognising the validity of all four fundamental forces?
No, I am recognising the validity of all four fundamental interactions, of which three are forces.
-
Goody.
So you accept that all objects with mass exert a gravitational force on all other objects with mass?
No, because gravitation is not a force.
-
No it's a brilliant exercise because it highlights the logical fallacy of drawing equivelences.
How do you think it does that?
-
Ah the old FE chestnut.
So you accept that all objects with mass exert a gravitational "interaction" on all other objects with mass?
Yes.
-
Or the Moon and the Sun?
Or the Moon and planets
Or the Moon, Sun and stars?
Or the Earth and everything above it?
-
Or the Moon and the Sun?
Or the Moon and planets
Or the Moon, Sun and stars?
Or the Earth and everything above it?
Don't forget the shadow object and the anti-heavens.
-
What is it that counters the interaction between the earth and the moon then?
Dark Energy.
Or the Moon and the Sun?
Orbital motion.
Or the Moon and planets
Orbital motion.
Or the Moon, Sun and stars?
Orbital motion.
Or the Earth and everything above it?
Dark Energy.
Don't forget the shadow object
Orbital motion.
and the anti-heavens.
Dark Energy.
-
hello fellow flat earth socitians i have recently read the documents from Professor Van Steak'in Burger of Munich, Germany on how the government hides the gravatational fields around the planes, and how they make the windows curve in to make the earth look round!!! there tricksters arent they trying to makes us out like foolz, all my life ive been bullied for believing in "such conspiracies" but know i know that their are others like me who share the gift of intelligence. I hope to keep in touch with my fellow societians and please comment back on your philosophies and recent revellations!
yours in science
Dr Earl :D cheesy face
-
hello fellow flat earth socitians i have recently read the documents from Professor Van Steak'in Burger of Munich, Germany on how the government hides the gravatational fields around the planes, and how they make the windows curve in to make the earth look round!!! there tricksters arent they trying to makes us out like foolz, all my life ive been bullied for believing in "such conspiracies" but know i know that their are others like me who share the gift of intelligence. I hope to keep in touch with my fellow societians and please comment back on your philosophies and recent revellations!
yours in science
Dr Earl :D cheesy face
This board is for serious debate. You are allowed to post this sort of thing, but please post it in one of the other boards, such as Angry Ranting. Thanks.
-
I'm not even sure if orbital motion is an answer. I mean I can understand how in basic phsyics on mass orbiting another can counter the gravitational (ahem) interaction. (But not forever...)
True, not forever. However, the Universe is not infinitely old.
But that's normal physics not the wonko world of the flat earth, where the sun and the moon essentially float about on a circular path over the earth. Both "orbits" are quite close to each other.
So what stops the gravitational pull towards each other?
They appear close from the ground because they have the same radius. The Sun actually orbits a bit higher than the moon, and is also less dense than the moon, so it is accelerated more by Dark Energy, keeping it where it is despite the moon's tendency to pull it down. Similarly, the denser moon is accelerated less by Dark Energy and therefore the Sun's upward gravitation is countered by the lower upward force from Dark Energy.
You do realise that essentially you are arguing for somekind of selective "God-like" force which assesses each heavenly body and makes some arbitary ruling on the forces which should apply.
Are you religious? If not now would be a good time to start.
No, I am not.
-
Hmm. I'm not sure what your point is.
Orbital motion is a valid explanation in a Universe with a finite age.
First off, the sun and the moon have the same radius, yet the sun orbits higher than the moon. How then can we have solar eclipses where the sun is wholely obscured?
Why would that not be possible?
Second, the sun accelerates?! Whaaa?!
Everything in FET is accelerating up at around 9.8 m s-2 due to Dark Energy.
Third, it sounds like you're proposing that the relation between a given mass and the "Dark Energy" it receives is inverse (so kind of like an anti-gravity). that the lower the mass, the higher the impact of dark energy. Is my reading correct?
No. See Newton's second law of motion.
-
Umm I guess. In general terms orbital motion would be a valid explanation, for somethings I guess, in a universe with an infinite age. That statement by itself gets us nowhere.
In a round earth the orbital force acts against the force of gravity, creating momentary equilibrium (in the grand scheme of the billions of years over which planets orbit, collide and so forth)
In the flat earth the orbital force is perpendicular to the earth so offers no counter to the earths gravity "interaction". If the concept is hard to grasp, try stopping another car from going forward by hitting it side on.
The equations don't balance, not even for a second.
If you'll go back and reread my post, I didn't claim that orbital motion countered the Sun's gravitational interaction with the Earth.
First off, the sun and the moon have the same radius, yet the sun orbits higher than the moon. How then can we have solar eclipses where the sun is wholely obscured?
Why would that not be possible?
I posted a link, but somehow it didn't appear. Try again...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Solar_eclipse.svg/150px-Solar_eclipse.svg.png)
During a solar eclipse the moon covers the sun so perfectly, it causes a total eclipse to be visible from a (relatively) small area of the earths surface.
Again, why would that not be possible?
Third, it sounds like you're proposing that the relation between a given mass and the "Dark Energy" it receives is inverse (so kind of like an anti-gravity). that the lower the mass, the higher the impact of dark energy. Is my reading correct?
No. See Newton's second law of motion.
But you said this earlier:
"The Sun actually orbits a bit higher than the moon, and is also less dense than the moon, so it is accelerated more by Dark Energy"
...and...
"the denser moon is accelerated less by Dark Energy "
You're either contradicting yourself or Newton. Pick one.
a = ΣF / m
m = ρV
ΣF = pA
a = (pA) / (ρV)
But A = πr2 and V = (4/3)πr3, so:
a = (3pπr2) / (4ρπr3)
a = (3/4) * (p / ρr)
The Sun and the Moon have roughly equal radius (the Sun is very slightly larger), so assuming constant pressure from Dark Energy, what happens to the acceleration in that equation when density is significantly increased?
-
I'm not even sure if orbital motion is an answer. I mean I can understand how in basic phsyics on mass orbiting another can counter the gravitational (ahem) interaction. (But not forever...)
But that's normal physics not the wonko world of the flat earth, where the sun and the moon essentially float about on a circular path over the earth. Both "orbits" are quite close to each other.
So what stops the gravitational pull towards each other?
Same apparent size does not mean same mass.
You do realise that essentially you are arguing for somekind of selective "God-like" force which assesses each heavenly body and makes some arbitary ruling on the forces which should apply.
God-like source? I have to say it. LIKE GRAVITY?
Are you religious? If not now would be a good time to start.
What does that even mean? ???
-
In a fluffy, non maths kind of way it would be possible. It would cause a shadow of the radius of your sun/moon, which is 32 miles (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0). But solar eclipses are observed covering much wider radii. Typically a hundred odd miles.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Solar_eclipse_animate_%282008-Aug-01%29.gif/200px-Solar_eclipse_animate_%282008-Aug-01%29.gif)
Time to get out wonko light methinks.
You aren't making any sense. The part of the Earth that experiences a total eclipse is very small, as fits current FET. The part of the Earth that experiences a partial eclipse is very large, as fits current FET.
You're being cryptic again, which usually means you're trying to hide something. I think you might be beginning to define the physical characteristics of Dark Energy, so I'd like to just get you a chair and a cup of tea.
We could be on the brink of something here.
But before you take a sip I'll point out that you've confused density with pressure, and one of your equations declares acceleration (m.s-2) to be equal to Area (m2) divided by volume (m3).
And in answer you your question, the density/pressure is cancelled anyway. Acceleration appears to be merely a function of radius. Which is nice.
To plug some figures into your final equation, if we're travelling at 9.8ms-2 then the radius of the earth is about 13m(etres).
"p" is the lowercase Roman letter P. "ρ" is the lowercase Greek letter rho. They are not the same thing.
-
Your sun and moon are the same size. How can they ever produce the effects witnessed first hand?
So you're saying a piece of rock the size of the RE sun could never cast a shadow over an area a few kilometres across in RET?
-
So you're saying a piece of rock the size of the RE sun could never cast a shadow over an area a few kilometres across in RET?
Well, if the rock was the same size as the RE Sun, and as close proportionately at the FE Moon is to the FE Sun, it would be making a much larger shadow than is produced by the RE Moon on RE.
-
So Goldstein is saying the shadow in FET wouldn't be big enough, and Rig Navigator is saying it would be too big. How exactly am I supposed to argue here?
-
So Goldstein is saying the shadow in FET wouldn't be big enough, and Rig Navigator is saying it would be too big. How exactly am I supposed to argue here?
Well, it probably depends which FET you are trying to argue. If you use the spotlight sun/bendy light model, the observed shadow is too small. If you are trying to have a small, spherical Sun that emits light normally, then the shadow couldn't be large enough given the size of the bodies involved.
Pick one.
-
I'll explain with a diagram when I'm less tired and prone to making mistakes.
-
I'll explain with a diagram when I'm less tired and prone to making mistakes.
We wait eagerly.
-
I cant really comprehend how people can believe in this crap.
Ever been on a plane? you can clearly see the earth is a curvature.
As far as the earth being flat it wouldn't appear as a sphere with continents clearly not visible on just one side.
As far as that crap about light bending backwards, if light bent backwards you would be able to see your back.
Also let me ask you this, if all other planets are round why are we some "special planet" in a never ending universe.
Also in the FAQ the diameter of the sun given in the text isn't big enough to create the type of nuclear fusion possible
I don't know physics that well so I really cant play ball when it comes to talking about physics.
But I'm sure you would be schooled by any college physics professor if you tried to say "the world is flat".
-
I cant really comprehend how people can believe in this crap.
Ever been on a plane? you can clearly see the earth is a curvature.
Yes I have.
I doubt that you have been on a plane that flies at a high enough altitude to see the curvature. The number works out to about 60,000 feet; significantly higher than the altitude commercial airliners fly.
As far as the earth being flat it wouldn't appear as a sphere with continents clearly not visible on just one side.
??!?
I don't understand where you were going with that one.
As far as that crap about light bending backwards, if light bent backwards you would be able to see your back.
They don't say that it bends backwards. They say that light is bent perpendicular to the surface of the Earth giving the illusion of a horizon.
Of course, accepting that theory requires you to accept that light is bent.
-
(http://i34.tinypic.com/m9t6hk.png)
It's difficult to draw scale diagrams in OpenOffice.org Draw, but you get the general idea. The moon is supposed to be directly below the Sun, and the solid lines should be curved, but both of those things are tricky to do with such a badly written piece of software.
-
EDIT: original post fail
Just draw it by hand :) The only thing you have to be sure of is that the ratio of sizes to distances is the same as in the RE model (which is that the ratio of sizes is about equal to the ratio of distances...). So if in your FE model the Sun is 10% bigger than the Moon then it must also be 10% further away... I believe this will then produce the same effects as the RE model for eclipses.
I have no idea what bendy light does to this however... FE'er input for that one, methinks.
-
EDIT: original post fail
Just draw it by hand :) The only thing you have to be sure of is that the ratio of sizes to distances is the same as in the RE model (which is that the ratio of sizes is about equal to the ratio of distances...). So if in your FE model the Sun is 10% bigger than the Moon then it must also be 10% further away... I believe this will then produce the same effects as the RE model for eclipses.
I have no idea what bendy light does to this however... FE'er input for that one, methinks.
The easiest way to explain it, methinks, is just to say that the Sun and Moon obviously appear to be the same size from the surface of the Earth, regardless of what causes them to do so. Therefore, moving a fairly short distance while the Moon is eclipsing the Sun will cause part of the Sun to appear due to parallax.
-
A few kilometres across? Yes. (We're back to fluffy again)
32 miles, as FE predicts? Yes.
150 miles, as seen in real life? No.
Take a lighbulb.
Take an orange or something the same size, or smaller, as your lighbulb.
Take a flat surface.
Turn on light, and place the orange anywhere you like between the bulb and flat surface. Can you make a (full) eclipse shadow whos diameter is greater than the bulb or the orange?
Nope.
Oh, I catch your drift. I didn't realise the area of total eclipse could be so large. Gimme some time to turn it over in my mind.
-
ETA: Can't see that picture you promised us... ???
I posted one in another thread, but it doesn't explain the largest areas that can be eclipsed.
-
I posted one in another thread, but it doesn't explain the largest areas that can be eclipsed.
Link?
-
Take an orange or something the same size, or smaller, as your lighbulb.
Take a flat surface.
Turn on light, and place the orange anywhere you like between the bulb and flat surface. Can you make a (full) eclipse shadow whos diameter is greater than the bulb or the orange?
This is a good example - nice work! Can bendy light break it? I suppose it depends on what the supposed mechanics of it is...