The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Rossk #5!! on October 19, 2006, 03:34:57 PM
-
As the title asks, what proof do you FE'ers need to believe the earth is a sphere? I can provide a lot of proof, as can many other people, so tell me something you need to know so that you belive in a RE. :D
-
As the title asks, what proof do you FE'ers need to believe the earth is a sphere? I can provide a lot of proof, as can many other people, so tell me something you need to know so that you belive in a RE. :D
Man, you are just asking for some near immposible very expensive action to be performed by yourself. And That's IF something actually counts as evidence in this bizarro world.
-
Well, let's first consider what proof we WON'T accept and why we don't accept them:
-Photographs/Visuals. Look, if you want, I can gladly show you over a hundred pictures of fictional planets if you really wanted me to, and I highly doubt you believe that Kashyyyk is a real place.
-"Scientific" studies. If I ever want some nameless lab coat telling me that due to some microbiological reason, the Earth has to be flat, I'll be sure to call you back here.
-Claims of space travel. I can claim that I went to the Ice Wall just as easily as you can claim that men have been sent hurtling through space. It still doesn't make it true.
Don't forget that numerous times, Flat Earthers have used all three of these, sarcastically and seriously, and Round Earthers have rejected all of them in all of their hypocritical glory.
What we DO want is:
-Real mathematical and LOGICAL reasons why the Earth NEEDS to be round. This means theories that use postulatory and necessary conclusions, not detailed, scientific research.
-Easy, simple experiments that don't require equipment, and, preferably, requires only optical observation.
Also don't forget that we have been beaten before, and we have admitted it, but Round Earthers don't bother to look too far into things or threads, so we manage to still come out on top. ;)
~D-Draw
-
Ok, I don't know if this has been said ever, but look at the Earth's shadow cast on the moon. It cover's the whole moon. It would be a line on the moon if the earth was flat. But, you could argue this by saying that the earth is just so big compared to the moon/ its the flat side of the earth, so I'm working on another reason; I'll get back to you when I have it how I want to say it.
EDIT: Anyways, ok, i have a question. If you don't believe in intelligent disign, how do you believe that the ice walls would convieniently be there? It could make since that someone made it that way, but without intelligent design. So, basicly, my question is, why do you non-religeous FE'ers believe the earth was formed this way? Thanks.
-
It's more a case of we know how the world is, we just don't know why. Like how we know that two girls kissing is awesome but we can't explain why it's so awesome (especially to another girl).
(http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/the%20kiss.jpg)
See - awesome. Now go explain why it is awesome to your Mum if you can. Not being able to explain something doesn't mean it's not how it is.
-
I have a sort of question/proof to suggest.
Gravity is accounted for by everything accelerating at 9.8 m/s in the same direction (up). The question is, can something or someone fall off the planet? This is somewhat rhetorical, as the answer is in the FAQ as yes, and the planet accelerates away from them.
Also, the question of moving faster than the speed of light has been brought up. There is a rather flawed explenation for this using the idea of perspective. I'm not going to try to debate that, but consider this:
Someone falls off the planet, and the planet continues to accelerate. After some 700 days, the planet is moving twice the speed of light away from the person, or the person is moving twice the speed of light away from the planet, either way you want to look at it. There is no point of perspective that can account for this, as even at the "halfway point" between the two (a point that would therefore move half the distance the planet does) both are moving away faster than the speed of light. Any perspective remaining closer to one body causes the other to move away even faster,
Whats wrong? Einstein's theories, or the explenation of gravity and falling off the planet?
-
Whats wrong? Einstein's theories, or the explenation of gravity and falling off the planet?
Einstein's theories are based off of the Round Earth model; you have to remember that. His theories are theoretically correct on a round Earth model, but on a flat Earth model, they're incorrect.
For an analogy, I could construct a theory that proves that if the Earth had no gravity and no force pushing down that everything would start floating. Now, obviously, on a "no gravity Earth model" it would work, and it'd be fully correct. However, if you go back to the reality, which is the "gravity-prone Earth model," things still fall, because there is gravity, whereas I was proving something based on the fact that there isn't gravity.
To address the example that you used, you say that the person would be moving twice the speed of light away from the Earth. Well, think about this. What is that relative to? The Earth? You can't base something on the nothingness that surrounds the Earth, therefore it is safe to assume that--while technically the Earth is accelerating up by the force come to be known as "schmavity"--really, the base that must be referred to is the Earth itself. To place the relative point anywhere else wouldn't make sense, since everywhere else in the universe is, in actuality "nothing."
So, basicly, my question is, why do you non-religeous FE'ers believe the earth was formed this way? Thanks.
Well, a while ago I came up with the idea of a Flat Earth Genesis. Basically, this proves how the ice-wall was formed and why it's there.
So, at "the beginning," the Earth is simply a large chunk of ice with some (a crapload) of dirt underneath it. Now, the sun is just a large ball of heat, basically. When the sun comes into orbit with the Earth, guess what it's going to do? Melt the ice. Now, since the sun orbits around in a circle, you can see that it is never directly above the sides (where the ice wall is) and it is also never directly above the center (north pole). So, those places are still largely frozen, and the ice wall, which was never melted, keeps all of the water that was melted from the sun's rays, inside, creating oceans. Also, this is obviously how the Earth's landforms were formed.
For example, note how sand is a very soft, loose form of rock. Then look at granite and other hard stones. They pack together very well. Well, when you have a bunch of sand and dirt (loose rocks), around a bunch of granite and other hard rocks (packed rocks), the sand and dirt is going to be washed away easily, while the harder, more packed rocks will stay. The loose stuff is washed away, while the harder stuff stays strong. This can make high mountains, low deserts, and many other landforms.
~D-Draw
-
Someone falls off the planet, and the planet continues to accelerate. After some 700 days, the planet is moving twice the speed of light away from the person, or the person is moving twice the speed of light away from the planet, either way you want to look at it. There is no point of perspective that can account for this, as even at the "halfway point" between the two (a point that would therefore move half the distance the planet does) both are moving away faster than the speed of light. Any perspective remaining closer to one body causes the other to move away even faster,
The acclerating earth would approach the speed of light asymptotically and NEVER reach it. Velocities do not add linerally in relativistic situations.
-
When the sun comes into orbit with the Earth
That just raises more questions.
1. Where the heck was the sun before? If everything is moving "upwards" at the same speed, how could it ever get above flat earth?
2. Flat earth has no gravitational field, so the sun could not "come into orbit" with it. (you can't orbit an object that has no gravitational field since there would be no gravitational pull for you to be subjected to). It would have been neither attracted nor compelled to remain above it.
-
Someone falls off the planet, and the planet continues to accelerate. After some 700 days, the planet is moving twice the speed of light away from the person, or the person is moving twice the speed of light away from the planet, either way you want to look at it. There is no point of perspective that can account for this, as even at the "halfway point" between the two (a point that would therefore move half the distance the planet does) both are moving away faster than the speed of light. Any perspective remaining closer to one body causes the other to move away even faster,
The acclerating earth would approach the speed of light asymptotically and NEVER reach it. Velocities do not add linerally in relativistic situations.
If it approached it asymptotically would that still fulfill special reletivity? Asymptotically under my under my understanding could be that given some arbitrarily amount of time (as I would say the earth is reaching at this point) the speed of the earth would get so close to C that the two would be almost indistinguisable.
Now, I don't claim to even have a vague understanding of special reletivity, but at that point, wouldnt the mass be so large as to use incredible amounts of energy, like getting up to an almost infinite amount?
-
Someone falls off the planet, and the planet continues to accelerate. After some 700 days, the planet is moving twice the speed of light away from the person, or the person is moving twice the speed of light away from the planet, either way you want to look at it. There is no point of perspective that can account for this, as even at the "halfway point" between the two (a point that would therefore move half the distance the planet does) both are moving away faster than the speed of light. Any perspective remaining closer to one body causes the other to move away even faster,
The acclerating earth would approach the speed of light asymptotically and NEVER reach it. Velocities do not add linerally in relativistic situations.
If it approached it asymptotically would that still fulfill special reletivity? Asymptotically under my under my understanding could be that given some arbitrarily amount of time (as I would say the earth is reaching at this point) the speed of the earth would get so close to C that the two would be almost indistinguisable.
Now, I don't claim to even have a vague understanding of special reletivity, but at that point, wouldnt the mass be so large as to use incredible amounts of energy, like getting up to an almost infinite amount?
It would require infinite energy. (that may or may not be part of FE theory.
-
No it wouldnt, only C would require infinite energy, the required amount of energy would be enormous but not infinite
-
It would require infinite energy. (that may or may not be part of FE theory.
Yes, it would require a near infinite amount of energy if Earth was moving close to the speed of light. But it's not. So it doesn't.
-
that would be the problem I pointed out with asymptotally.
-
1. Where the heck was the sun before? If everything is moving "upwards" at the same speed, how could it ever get above flat earth?
2. Flat earth has no gravitational field, so the sun could not "come into orbit" with it. (you can't orbit an object that has no gravitational field since there would be no gravitational pull for you to be subjected to). It would have been neither attracted nor compelled to remain above it.
Accepted, or refuted?
-
1. Where the heck was the sun before? If everything is moving "upwards" at the same speed, how could it ever get above flat earth?
2. Flat earth has no gravitational field, so the sun could not "come into orbit" with it. (you can't orbit an object that has no gravitational field since there would be no gravitational pull for you to be subjected to). It would have been neither attracted nor compelled to remain above it.
Accepted, or refuted?
See my answer in the Tides discussion.
-
-Easy, simple experiments that don't require equipment, and, preferably, requires only optical observation.
I'll give you two, watch a ship or boat sail off into the ocean starting from the sea. If you use a telescope so you can watch it, you still will only see as much as you can see with the eye, but it may be sharper. It will still disappear from view, not because you can't see it anymore, you did, indeed, use a telescope. The earth must be curved for this to happen.
The second, look at the friggin' planets and stars. If the other planets, moons, etc were flat also, they would have to be tilted at a PERFECT angle towards earth to appear circular. Stars might not work, as they are too far away to tell, but look at the moon if you want, or the sun even. In fact, stare at the sun for about 10 minutes while it's not covered by clouds.
Two easy experiments, the only equipment involved in either being a telescope.
-
If it approached it asymptotically would that still fulfill special reletivity? Asymptotically under my under my understanding could be that given some arbitrarily amount of time (as I would say the earth is reaching at this point) the speed of the earth would get so close to C that the two would be almost indistinguisable.
Now, I don't claim to even have a vague understanding of special reletivity, but at that point, wouldnt the mass be so large as to use incredible amounts of energy, like getting up to an almost infinite amount?
That's the thing about infinity. The earth can accelerate indefinately and never reach c. The mass of the earth would get very large and hence the earth from a nonacceleated frame of reference would seem to be slowing in its acceleration. Luckily for us on the earth, we would see the acceleration stay constant.
-
stare at the sun for about 10 minutes while it's not covered by clouds.
That's just...stupid.
-
stare at the sun for about 10 minutes while it's not covered by clouds.
That's just...stupid.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
-
So Rossk - have you done this experiement staring at the Sun for ten minutes? What happened?
-
If it approached it asymptotically would that still fulfill special reletivity? Asymptotically under my under my understanding could be that given some arbitrarily amount of time (as I would say the earth is reaching at this point) the speed of the earth would get so close to C that the two would be almost indistinguisable.
Now, I don't claim to even have a vague understanding of special reletivity, but at that point, wouldnt the mass be so large as to use incredible amounts of energy, like getting up to an almost infinite amount?
That's the thing about infinity. The earth can accelerate indefinately and never reach c. The mass of the earth would get very large and hence the earth from a nonacceleated frame of reference would seem to be slowing in its acceleration. Luckily for us on the earth, we would see the acceleration stay constant.
That makes no sence.
-
Just not to you.
-
Are you just gonna be a b.itch or are you going to explain it in laymans terms why the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to your theory?
-
Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics. But, whatever, which part are you refering to?
-
Whats wrong? Einstein's theories, or the explenation of gravity and falling off the planet?
Einstein's theories are based off of the Round Earth model; you have to remember that.
While he might have believe he lived on a round earth, his theory of relativity has nothing to do with the shape of the planet[/quote]
-
Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics. But, whatever, which part are you refering to?
You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.
-
Oh lol.
It's Special Relativity that says you can't go faster than the speed of light. But it doesn't say you can't accelerate forever, just that as you approach the speed of light weird stuff starts happening from the point of view of people watching.
-
Oh lol.
It's Special Relativity that says you can't go faster than the speed of light. But it doesn't say you can't accelerate forever, just that as you approach the speed of light weird stuff starts happening from the point of view of people watching.
i wouldn't have thought it possible to view anything at/close to the speed of light.
-
ninja's can...duhhhhhh
-
Oh lol.
It's Special Relativity that says you can't go faster than the speed of light. But it doesn't say you can't accelerate forever, just that as you approach the speed of light weird stuff starts happening from the point of view of people watching.
i wouldn't have thought it possible to view anything at/close to the speed of light.
I can see light fairly well...
;)
-
Oh lol.
It's Special Relativity that says you can't go faster than the speed of light. But it doesn't say you can't accelerate forever, just that as you approach the speed of light weird stuff starts happening from the point of view of people watching.
i wouldn't have thought it possible to view anything at/close to the speed of light.
I can see light fairly well...
;)
har har
-
Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics. But, whatever, which part are you refering to?
You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.
Yes, you can. Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.
-
Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics. But, whatever, which part are you refering to?
You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.
Yes, you can.
No, you cant. Indefinatly means forever, that means that you are getting faster and faster and faster untill you hit lightspeed.
So there.
-
Have you ever taken an algebra class? Ever heard of an asymptote? A function can approach an asymptote and never reach it. Even if you go on for infinity.
-
Have you ever taken an algebra class? Ever heard of an asymptote?
Isnt that the cartoon show with the fat guy that eats the donuts?
-
Algebra =
cartoon show with the fat guy that eats the donuts
That explains a lot about you Yardstick.
-
Some points:
1. TheEngineer is correct. You can keep accelerating and never go faster than the speed of light. Hell, you can keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started.
2. It does not take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the Earth for a finite period of time, just like it doesn't take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a rocket ship for a finite period of time.
3. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3152.
-
While he might have believe he lived on a round earth, his theory of relativity has nothing to do with the shape of the planet
True, but it did pertain to the speed of light, where he would've had to have taken into account on what perception of relativity he was experimenting on. In a FE model, everything is relative to the Earth, you see, not some invisible, indistinguishable dot somewhere off in "space."
~D-Draw
-
Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics. But, whatever, which part are you refering to?
You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.
Yes, you can.
No, you cant. Indefinatly means forever, that means that you are getting faster and faster and faster untill you hit lightspeed.
So there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Einstein disagrees.
-
Some points:
1. TheEngineer is correct. You can keep accelerating and never go faster than the speed of light. Hell, you can keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started.
2. It does not take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the Earth for a finite period of time, just like it doesn't take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a rocket ship for a finite period of time.
For fucks sake! You cant accelarate forever and not reach lightspeed dumbass that is impossible.
-
Erasmus wrote:
Some points:
1. TheEngineer is correct. You can keep accelerating and never go faster than the speed of light. Hell, you can keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started.
2. It does not take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the Earth for a finite period of time, just like it doesn't take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a rocket ship for a finite period of time.
Physics for beginners states the following:
Knowing the definition of acceleration, if an object is experiencing a constant (nonzero) acceleration, does that mean the object's velocity is also constant? Well, since acceleration is defined as the change in velocity over time, the only way an object's velocity can be constant is if the object is not experiencing any acceleration. In other words, the only way an object's velocity can be constant is if its acceleration is zero.
You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".
-
well...yes and no...
E=mc^2 afterall, and as such it would supposedly take a shitload of energy to make u go faster than light...
neways, point is, engineer is right, bibicul is incorrect but on the right track
-
You're missing the point.
I'm not talking about reaching the speed of light, I am saying that you can't keep accelerating and not increase your velocity (which is what Erasmus was arguing for incorectly), since acceleration is by definition the change in velocity over time.
This statement (available on the physics for beginners website) is pretty stright-forward: "the only way an object's velocity can be constant is if its acceleration is zero".
-
You're missing the point.
I'm not talking about reaching the speed of light, I am saying that you can't keep accelerating and not increase your velocity (which is what Erasmus was arguing for incorectly), since acceleration is by definition the change in velocity over time.
This statement (available on the physics for beginners website) is pretty stright-forward: "the only way an object's velocity can be constant is if its acceleration is zero".
How about this: Simple Physics for Bibicul. Acceleration is a vector. Velocity is a vector. If you change your direction, you have changed your velocity and acceleration. Circular motion is a constant change in acceleration, without a change in speed. Therefore, you can accelerate for ever and never change your speed.
-
For fucks sake! You cant accelarate forever and not reach lightspeed dumbass that is impossible.
Well, Einstien says you're an idiot.
-
You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".
If you are accelerating in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which you are moving, then the speed at which you are moving is not changing.
-
I said velocity, not speed.
Circular motion is accelerated even though the speed is constant, because the velocity of the moving object is constantly changing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion)
Velocity is a vector measurement of the rate of change of displacement from a fixed point. The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is speed.
What I said in my post is:
You're missing the point.
I'm not talking about reaching the speed of light, I am saying that you can't keep accelerating and not increase your velocity (which is what Erasmus was arguing for incorectly), since acceleration is by definition the change in velocity over time.
This statement (available on the physics for beginners website) is pretty stright-forward: "the only way an object's velocity can be constant is if its acceleration is zero".
Where in there do you see speed? Speed does not take into account direction. TheEngineer was talking about velocity; now you're all talking about speed... nothing more to say I guess.
-
Hell, you can keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started.
That's what Erasmus said. This was your reply:
You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".
You said nothing about a velocity. However you showed your ignorance by this post:
I am saying that you can't keep accelerating and not increase your velocity (which is what Erasmus was arguing for incorectly)
Erasmus was absolutely correct in his statement. You are the one who got it wrong.
TheEngineer was talking about velocity
I was talking about the speed of light, not the velocity of light.
now you're all talking about speed
That's what Erasmus and I were talking about all along.
-
Yardstick2006 wrote:
TheEngineer wrote:
Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics. But, whatever, which part are you refering to?
You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.
Yes, you can. Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.
You were referring to velocity here, and how it adds in relativity. Clearly you did talk about velocity.
You said nothing about a velocity
I only talked about velocity; no mention of speed whatsoever. Since the initial post in this thread was referring to the earth's movement "upwards" in the universe (see "upwards" written by phaseshifter and "up" written by some other guy before him - that's a direction), that's what I was referring to. I, for one, was talking in context. You were not.
Now, if you and your friend Erasmus want to make pointless statements about the speed of light and speed in general, which I did not even mention, that's your problem. Funny that you call me ignorant when you don't even remember what the conversation was about.
-
Yardstick2006 wrote:
TheEngineer wrote:
Uh, we were talking about Relativity, not thermodynamics. But, whatever, which part are you refering to?
You cant accelerate indefinatly and not exeed the speed of light.
Yes, you can. Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.
You were referring to velocity here, and how it adds in relativity. Clearly you did talk about velocity.
Clearly I was talking about the magnitude of the velocity, or speed, as it is not very useful to compare a vector and a scalar.
You said nothing about a velocity
I only talked about velocity; no mention of speed whatsoever.
You made this statement:
You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".
This is obviously wrong. You absolutely can constantly accelerate and never go any faster. You sure do a lot of backpeddling.
I'm not talking about reaching the speed of light, I am saying that you can't keep accelerating and not increase your velocity (which is what Erasmus was arguing for incorectly)
Erasmus said nothing about velocity.
Now, if you and your friend Erasmus want to make pointless statements about the speed of light and speed in general, which I did not even mention, that's your problem. Funny that you call me ignorant when you don't even remember what the conversation was about.
The conversation was about acceleration and surpassing the speed of light. That is clearly what Erasus and I were talking about. How is that not on topic?
-
You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".
That statment is correct. If an object is constantly accelerating, then any point at which you measure it's speed will give you a different value. And any value obtained will be greater than the one that preceded it.
Acceleration is exponential, which means that you cannot get measurements of the same value at different times. Even after 1/1000th of a second, the object will have a higher velocity then when the first measurement was taken.
That's the whole concept of acceleration
In physics or physical science, acceleration (symbol: a) is defined as the rate of change (or derivative with respect to time) of velocity
Thus, if your speed remains the same, there is no acceleration involved.
-
Have you not been paying attention?
If an object is constantly accelerating, then any point at which you measure it's speed will give you a different value. And any value obtained will be greater than the one that preceded it.
No it won't. Circular motion is a change in dirention, which is a change in velocity, which is a change in acceleration. However, the speed has not changed, just the direction of motion.
Acceleration is a rate of change of velocity not speed.
-
TheEngieneer said:
Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.
You were referring to velocity here, and how it adds in relativity. Clearly you did talk about velocity.
Clearly I was talking about the magnitude of the velocity, or speed, as it is not very useful to compare a vector and a scalar.
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity.
velocity in relativity.
velocity
You said "velocity" yourself. What the heck are you arguing here? Where in your post did you say "magnitude of velocity"? There's a big difference between the "magnitude of velocity" (i.e. speed) and velocity. You said velocity and I pasted your statement. You're not making any sense.
TheEngineer said:
Circular motion is a change in dirention, which is a change in velocity, which is a change in acceleration. However, the speed has not changed, just the direction of motion.
Why are you talking about circular motion when that has nothing to do with what everyone was referring to in this thread? Everyone was talking about the earth moving "upwards" - upwards being a direction - go back and read the posts mate. If you take direction into account, then you are not talking about speed, but velocity. You are clearly taking things out of context to defend a statement that you and Erasmus made and which had nothing to do with the topic discussed. Circular motion is not relevant to the discussion since nobody here said that the earth was moving around in circles.
-
biblicul, how about reading the whole thing:
Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.
You see that right there? That's called a scalar. That's the magnitude of the velocity.
Circular motion is not relevant to the discussion since nobody here said that the earth was moving around in circles.
Consider this statement made by yourself:
You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".
This is obviously wrong, as you can in circular motion. That is why this was brought up. Try and keep up with the adults, ok?
-
Fact.
There is no circular motion involved with flat earth.
-
What is your point?
-
"Scientific" studies. If I ever want some nameless lab coat telling me that due to some microbiological reason, the Earth has to be flat, I'll be sure to call you back here.
What about the guy who proved the earth is flat. He did "experiments" to prove it was flat. Isn't that the same thing as mentioned above?
-
biblicul, how about reading the whole thing:
Quote:
Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.
You see that right there? That's called a scalar. That's the magnitude of the velocity.
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity.
velocity in relativity.
velocity
Yeah... too bad you didn't specify "magnitude of velocity". Open up your physics books mate. You can get failed in a physics class in which you say "velocity" when you're actually referring to "speed".
Here's your complete statement again (of course, with no mention of "magnitude of velocity"):
Velocity does not add linearly in relativity. Take this equation:
v = (v1+v2) / (1+v2*v2/c^2)
This is the formula for adding velocity in relativity. Keep adding 9.8 to it and let me know when we pass the speed of light.
Consider this statement made by yourself:
Quote:
You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".
This is obviously wrong, as you can in circular motion. That is why this was brought up. Try and keep up with the adults, ok?
Oh that's so witty and biting - especially that last sentence! Thanks for giving me an example related to circular motion when everyone in this thread was talking about the movement of the earth "upwards" as you and your friends suggested in "FE theory". You're definitely talking in context, just like every other time. :D
-
Bibicul, no one ever said you could accelerate without changing your velocity. Erasmus said
Hell, you can keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".
Faster obviously referring to "speed."
If you had replied to this with something like "You can't keep accelerating without your velocity changing" it would have been correct, although irrelevant to what Erasmus said. Instead, you replied with:
You can't "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started".
Which is incorrect..
So I would suggest you follow your own advice to TheEngineer and "Open up your physics books mate. You can get failed in a physics class in which you say "speed" when you're actually referring to "velocity."
-
biblica they are goin to keep throwing feces at you. Better just give up.
-
Some points:
1. TheEngineer is correct. You can keep accelerating and never go faster than the speed of light. Hell, you can keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started.
2. It does not take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the Earth for a finite period of time, just like it doesn't take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a rocket ship for a finite period of time.
3. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3152.
My question is: Where is the energy coming from?
If the energy source is part of the universal movement the the FEarth and "stars" and everything that is supposed to be moving along, then what is being converted into this large amount of energy to provide the "Thrust"? Since E= MC^2, you are accelerating all of the future needed energy along with you, and you have a limit on how long the acceleration can take place before all of you mass must be converted to energy.
I think I can see how in this model the speed of light is not a factor. Since time is a factor of acceleration and the rate of time is decreasing (relative to a non accelerating frame) than the "internal acceleration" is different than the external. Exteranlly the energy "output" in increasing over time, but "internally" to the accelerating frame it is constant. The duration of the non accelerating "Universe" that you are accelerating through could be a problem, as if it was the RE universe, the billions of years that are left to this cycle would pass quickly.
If the energy is external then your statements above are misleading. First, since your energy source is not accelerating then the energy needs to increase not just for the simple acceleration, but to keep up with the relativistic differences. Now thermal dynamics would become a major issue, as the difference in speed between the accelerating earth and the energy decreases the amount needed to gain acceleration increases, with this much energy, the "lost energy" that entropy insists on becomes an issue. Even ignoring the relativistic problems, the effect of applying that much energy to the earth would eventually burn it up.
-
biblica they are goin to keep throwing feces at you. Better just give up.
Never Give Up! Never Surrender!
-
Of course they’re going to keep on throwing feces at me and a lot of other people who believe that the earth is round. In no way does that mean that I will give up. Furthermore, I am sure that everyone (except the FE’ers) who read this thread understood my point, which is that TheEngineer and Erasmus were talking out of context, referring to circular motion when there was no mention of circular motion whatsoever, but rather of the earth moving “upwards”. It’s a very simple argument, really.
-
Of course they’re going to keep on throwing feces at me and a lot of other people who believe that the earth is round. In no way does that mean that I will give up. Furthermore, I am sure that everyone (except the FE’ers) who read this thread understood my point, which is that TheEngineer and Erasmus were talking out of context, referring to circular motion when there was no mention of circular motion whatsoever, but rather of the earth moving “upwards”. It’s a very simple argument, really.
The point of bringing up circular motion was to show that it is possible to "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started", as you said.
It is obvious that the FE is accelerating with no gain in speed by the fact that, when you drop something, Earth obviously accelerates to it, with no gain in speed whatsoever.
-
Are you saying that the FE is following circular motion - that's the only case in which acceleration is possible without a change in speed. I've been under the impression that the earth is moving upwards - based on your "theory" - not going in circles.
-
No, but it's obvious that we are accelerating without any change in speed.
-
That's only possible in circular motion.
Otherwise, we cannot be accelerating without a change in speed, as speed is simply the magnitude component of velocity (measured in the same physical units of measurement as velocity).
If "it's obvious that we are accelerating without any change in speed" then you are implying that the earth follows a circular motion, which is in contradiction with the FE idea that the earth is moving "upwards".
-
Ok, you can measure Earth's acceleration by dropping something, then wait a few minutes, and measure its speed- 0m/s. Wait a few minutes, measure it again, 0m/s.
No change in velocity (relative to us.)
-
Also, no chage in acceleration (relative to us) - 0 m/s^2.
-
Of course. Earth isn't accelerating relative to us though, it's accelerating relative only to inertial reference frames, like that object we just dropped.
-
Indeed, and thus it is changing its velocity and speed, since it is not following circular motion, but rather going upwards (based on "FE theory").
Therefore, "it's obvious that we are accelerating without any change in speed" is false.
-
Not relative to us.
-
Exactly. Relative to us, acceleration is 0 m/s^2.
Therefore, "it's obvious that we are accelerating without any change in speed" is false.
-
Of course they’re going to keep on throwing feces at me and a lot of other people who believe that the earth is round. In no way does that mean that I will give up. Furthermore, I am sure that everyone (except the FE’ers) who read this thread understood my point, which is that TheEngineer and Erasmus were talking out of context, referring to circular motion when there was no mention of circular motion whatsoever, but rather of the earth moving “upwards”. It’s a very simple argument, really.
The point of bringing up circular motion was to show that it is possible to "keep accelerating and never go faster than you were going when you started", as you said.
It is obvious that the FE is accelerating with no gain in speed by the fact that, when you drop something, Earth obviously accelerates to it, with no gain in speed whatsoever.
What? If the earth is accelerating towards an oject than there is obviously a change in speed between the object and the earth.
Since speed involves motion, and motion is relative than any discussion of speed needs to describe the framework that you are using to describe the speed.
But for circular motion you need a complicated set of vectors, and there are few other forms of motion that would give you a steady "gravity affect".
-
If there is some object floating out in space unassociated with the accelerating FE system, then our speed with respect to that object is changing. It's meaningless to say, "Our speed is changing," and anybody who responds, "I measured the floor of my apartment a few minutes ago -- not moving. I measured it again just now -- still not moving. Thus, no change in speed."
However we know that we're accelerating because we know F = ma, and we can feel a force on our feet that isn't balanced out by any other force. Alternatively we can hang a mass on a spring and see how much the spring is stretched; this only happens in an accelerating system.
There is no controversy that we are accelerating; however it is subjective whether or not we are moving.
-
If there is some object floating out in space unassociated with the accelerating FE system, then our speed with respect to that object is changing. It's meaningless to say, "Our speed is changing," and anybody who responds, "I measured the floor of my apartment a few minutes ago -- not moving. I measured it again just now -- still not moving. Thus, no change in speed."
However we know that we're accelerating because we know F = ma, and we can feel a force on our feet that isn't balanced out by any other force. Alternatively we can hang a mass on a spring and see how much the spring is stretched; this only happens in an accelerating system.
There is no controversy that we are accelerating; however it is subjective whether or not we are moving.
What does that have anything to do with the previous statements:
For example:
It is obvious that the FE is accelerating with no gain in speed by the fact that, when you drop something, Earth obviously accelerates to it, with no gain in speed whatsoever.
What? If the earth is accelerating towards an oject than there is obviously a change in speed between the object and the earth
We are not talking about objects "unassociated" the the FE, the statement "Earth obviously accelerates to it, with no gain in speed whatsoever" is self contradictory. Since motion is relative, it is equally valid to say that the earth "sped up" towards the object, or the object "sped up" towards the earth.
I do disagree with some of your statements:
However we know that we're accelerating because we know F = ma, and we can feel a force on our feet that isn't balanced out by any other force. Alternatively we can hang a mass on a spring and see how much the spring is stretched; this only happens in an accelerating system
First, while a minor point, there is a balancing force. The molecular cohesion of whatever we are standing on balances the force of acceleration, or we would fall.
Second and more significant, all your spring scale proves is that a force is acting on the scale. In an non-accelrated system I can attach a string onto the mass and pull it. I can pull the mass with a magnet (or is magnetism considered a specalized form of acceleration?). I can act on the mass in many ways with force to stretch the spring. So, your spring proves that a force is in action, but does not identify the force as a form of acceleration.
-
What does that have anything to do with the previous statements:
Well,
If there is some object floating out in space unassociated with the accelerating FE system, then our speed with respect to that object is changing.
has to do with
What? If the earth is accelerating towards an oject than there is obviously a change in speed between the object and the earth
Isn't that obvious?
First, while a minor point, there is a balancing force. The molecular cohesion of whatever we are standing on balances the force of acceleration, or we would fall.
That's the force I was talking about. It's the one that you feel pushing up on your feet; it's the one that pulls a spring upwards when it's attached to a mass.
There's nothing balancing that force. Hence, we are accelerating upwards.
In an non-accelrated system I can attach a string onto the mass and pull it.
Once you pull it (with a magnet or with your hand), you've made it go from not moving to moving. That sounds like acceleration to me.
So, your spring proves that a force is in action, but does not identify the force as a form of acceleration.
You forget F = ma. Any time there is a net force on a body, there is a proportional acceleration of that body.
-
What does that have anything to do with the previous statements:
Well,
If there is some object floating out in space unassociated with the accelerating FE system, then our speed with respect to that object is changing.
has to do with
What? If the earth is accelerating towards an oject than there is obviously a change in speed between the object and the earth
Isn't that obvious?
But how is it relevant in the context of the posts?
You followed by saying that the speed change was meaningless, and in you context I agree, but that isn't what we were talking about, since we were describing an object being dropped and the change in speed due to acceleration.
-
That's the force I was talking about. It's the one that you feel pushing up on your feet; it's the one that pulls a spring upwards when it's attached to a mass.
There's nothing balancing that force. Hence, we are accelerating upwards.
In that case the balancing force is intertia. Our resistance to the acceleration, that causes us to be held down to the ground
Once you pull it (with a magnet or with your hand), you've made it go from not moving to moving. That sounds like acceleration to me.
But when I stop moving it, I still apply force and streach the string.
So, your spring proves that a force is in action, but does not identify the force as a form of acceleration.
You forget F = ma. Any time there is a net force on a body, there is a proportional acceleration of that body.[/quote]
But acceleration is defined as a change in velocity or direction.
In physics or physical science, acceleration (symbol: a) is defined as the rate of change (or derivative with respect to time) of velocity. It is thus a vector quantity with dimension length/time². In SI units, acceleration is measured in meters/second² using an accelerometer.
There is no change, therefore there is no acceleration.
-
That's the force I was talking about. It's the one that you feel pushing up on your feet; it's the one that pulls a spring upwards when it's attached to a mass.
There's nothing balancing that force. Hence, we are accelerating upwards.
Yes there is. Just as the earth exerts a force of, say, 700N on me, I am exerting a force of 700N on the earth. Going back to F = ma, this means that the mass of the earth times the acceleration of the earth is equal to my mass times my acceleration. So, MA = ma, where the capitals denote the earth.
Which also means:
M/m = a/A
Thus if the earth has a mass 10^23 times greater than me, my acceleration would be 10^23 times greater than the earth's, making only my acceleration noticable.
In physics or physical science, acceleration (symbol: a) is defined as the rate of change (or derivative with respect to time) of velocity. It is thus a vector quantity with dimension length/time². In SI units, acceleration is measured in meters/second² using an accelerometer.
There is no change, therefore there is no acceleration.
Lot of detail here. General Relativity states that in a small region it is impossible to distinguish between acceleration and a graviational force. I'll try to explain a little bit about Gallilean relativity and reference frames as they tie in with this discussion if anyone would care to hear.
-
Lot of detail here. General Relativity states that in a small region it is impossible to distinguish between acceleration and a gravitational force. I'll try to explain a little bit about Galilean relativity and reference frames as they tie in with this discussion if anyone would care to hear.
We have been all over the equivalence theory, the problem with it is the definition of "small region"
As our equipment becomes more accurate, small gets smaller.
For example, with an exceedingly precise weight measurement, the gravitational pull of the earth decreases with altitude, but acceleration does not. Therefore within Einstein's "elevator" things are lighter on the ceiling than floor if under gravity, but the same if accelerating.
-
We have been all over the equivalence theory, the problem with it is the definition of "small region"
Understandable.
As our equipment becomes more accurate, small gets smaller.
Well put.
For example, with an exceedingly precise weight measurement, the gravitational pull of the earth decreases with altitude, but acceleration does not. Therefore within Einstein's "elevator" things are lighter on the ceiling than floor if under gravity, but the same if accelerating.
That's pretty much it. It's just that a lot of supporters for the FE theory argue that experiments are fake or unreliable, and they don't believe anything has been high enough off of the surface to show that there is any change in force.
-
OK, Try this one if you can afford the equipment. Detonate a one hundred megaton nuclear device on the opposite side of the Earth after advising the Flat Heads of the time of detonation. They should be able to see the flash and nuclear column from any place on their flat earth. If they said they didn't see this device detonate then take them to the 100 mile diameter crater and leave them there to ponder why. They'll soon after expire from radiation sickness and that's that.
-
Yes there is. Just as the earth exerts a force of, say, 700N on me, I am exerting a force of 700N on the earth. Going back to F = ma, this means that the mass of the earth times the acceleration of the earth is equal to my mass times my acceleration. So, MA = ma, where the capitals denote the earth.
The force of you pushing on Earth does not balance the force of Earth pushing on you. Only an equal force pushing down on your head would do that.
Since we feel a force pushing on our feet and feel no equal, balancing force, pushing on our heads, we know we are accelerating. Whether we are accelerating towards Earth, or Earth is accelerating us upwards is irrelevant.
-
The force of you pushing on Earth does not balance the force of Earth pushing on you. Only an equal force pushing down on your head would do that.
Since we feel a force pushing on our feet and feel no equal, balancing force, pushing on our heads, we know we are accelerating. Whether we are accelerating towards Earth, or Earth is accelerating us upwards is irrelevant.
.......
Let's pick some arbitrary particle anywhere on the earth. Now as miniscule as it may be, that single particle creates an attractive force on some particle in my eyeball. It also creates an attractive force with some particle on my knee. In fact, that single particle creates and experiences a minute force of attraction with every single particle in my body. Now consider every particle in the earth. Every particle in my body creates and experiences an attractive force with every particle in the earth, and the net force is the vector sum of all of the individual forces. It's ridiculous to say my head doesn't experience the force and only my feet do. I don't have to be in contact with the earth to feel the gravitational force it creates.
Whether we are in a gravitational field or accelerating, our entire body would feel the force. If we were accelerating and our head felt no force (key word is felt) it would simply mean our head is in freefall and our feet are quickly moving upward, which would mean I should expect to soon hear the sharp cracking of my head striking the ground, upon which point my head indeed would feel the force (and initially quite a large one at that).
-
proof of what you're saying is true and not just made up on the spot?
-
Whether we are in a gravitational field or accelerating, our entire body would feel the force.
Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear. What I meant was that we feel a force pushing us "up" (pushing on our feet, which push on our legs and so on,) but no force pushing us "down" ( pushing on our head, which pushes on our shoulders and so on,) therefore we know we are accelerating.
The idea here is not which particular parts of the anatomy feel the force, but in what direction the force is pushing.
-
Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear. What I meant was that we feel a force pushing us "up" (pushing on our feet, which push on our legs and so on,) but no force pushing us "down" ( pushing on our head, which pushes on our shoulders and so on,) therefore we know we are accelerating.
The idea here is not which particular parts of the anatomy feel the force, but in what direction the force is pushing.
Ok then, I agree with you, there is no force pushing the head down. In fact, the force on the head is pulling it down (there is the force of the body pushing the head up, but that is the force that neutralizes the earth pulling it down, and hence is the reason my brain is not splattered on the pavement right now). Pushing down (and of course down has to be defined relative to the earth) would imply that there is something above our head creating the force. Regardless of whether we're in a gravitational field or accelerating, the force we "feel" would be exactly the same. This is Einstein's theory of general relativity.
-
proof of what you're saying is true and not just made up on the spot?
Beast, you're asking me to write books that have already been written that you wouldn't read anyway if I even bothered to rewrite them.
-
In fact, the force on the head is pulling it down.
Well I guess it depends on if we're accelerating up, or in a gravitational field that's pulling us down. If we're accelerating up, there's no force pulling on our heads, just our heads inertia resisting the acceleration.
Regardless of whether we're in a gravitational field or accelerating, the force we "feel" would be exactly the same.
That's the idea.
-
Regardless of whether we're in a gravitational field or accelerating, the force we "feel" would be exactly the same.
That's the idea.
So if you agree that it doesn't matter, saying we don't "feel" some certain force wouldn't provide us with any indication of whether we're accelerating or in a gravitational field.
-
So if you agree that it doesn't matter, saying we don't "feel" some certain force wouldn't provide us with any indication of whether we're accelerating or in a gravitational field.
Um, if we're in a gravitational field, we're accelerating. Like I said, whether we are accelerating towards Earth, or Earth is accelerating us upwards is irrelevant. We know we're accelerating.
-
Being in a gravitational field does not mean we are accelerating. Relative to the earth, we are quite stationary, and if the earth and I were the only things in this entire universe, I would still feel the gravitational force of the earth, despite the fact that there is no relative movement.
-
I am exerting a force of 700N on the earth.
Sorry, what do you call this force? I've never heard of a force pressing down into the ground...
In fact, the force on the head is pulling it down (there is the force of the body pushing the head up, but that is the force that neutralizes the earth pulling it down, and hence is the reason my brain is not splattered on the pavement right now).
The Earth is pulling my head down? How does that work? I don't see any ropes. My head is not magnetically charged. What force pulls down on my head?
-
Being in a gravitational field does not mean we are accelerating.
Yeah yeah yeah, the point is that Earth is pushing on my feet, so I know I'm in an accelerated reference frame. Whether it's a gravitational field or not makes no difference.
-
Sorry, what do you call this force? I've never heard of a force pressing down into the ground...
Everyone I know calls it "gravity."
The Earth is pulling my head down? How does that work? I don't see any ropes. My head is not magnetically charged. What force pulls down on my head?
Particles experience forces through the exchange of bosons, and in the case of gravity, gravitons. Although gravitons have not yet been detected (and based on the theory there's good reason), we have observed that gluons govern the strong force, W and Z particles, or weak gauge bosons, govern the weak force, and the electromagnetic force occurs through the exchange of photons. It's the interaction between particles that occurs by this method that causes masses to be attracted to one another. There is no need for a rope to literally be pulling on us.
In short, masses attract each other in the same manner as opposite poles of a magnet or oppositely charged particles.
-
Particles experience forces through the exchange of bosons, and in the case of gravity, gravitons. Although gravitons have not yet been detected (and based on the theory there's good reason), we have observed that gluons govern the strong force, W and Z particles, or weak gauge bosons, govern the weak force, and the electromagnetic force occurs through the exchange of photons. It's the interaction between particles that occurs by this method that causes masses to be attracted to one another...
In short, masses attract each other in the same manner as opposite poles of a magnet or oppositely charged particles.
Can you demonstrate how anything you just said here is true?
-
In that case the balancing force is intertia.
Ah, this is an important point of confusion. Inertia is not a force. Force defined as the change in an object's momentum. The accelerating Earth applies a force to us, and in response our momentum changes. That's it.
If inertia could somehow "cancel out" a force, then nothing would ever accelerate!
But acceleration is defined as a change in velocity or direction.
Right. That's happening... in four-dimensional spacetime.
-
Can you demonstrate how anything you just said here is true?
...
You're asking me to write books that have already been written that you wouldn't read anyway if I even bothered to rewrite them.
-
You're asking me to write books that have already been written that you wouldn't read anyway if I even bothered to rewrite them.
I never asked to write a book about anything. I asked if you could, if necessary, prove a single one of statements you just made.
Otherwise, it was pure speculation.
-
In that case the balancing force is intertia.
Ah, this is an important point of confusion. Inertia is not a force. Force defined as the change in an object's momentum. The accelerating Earth applies a force to us, and in response our momentum changes. That's it.
If inertia could somehow "cancel out" a force, then nothing would ever accelerate!
But acceleration is defined as a change in velocity or direction.
Right. That's happening... in four-dimensional spacetime.
How does F = MA relate to the fourth dimention?
Since the object is not moving it has 0 momentum, to solve for A, you would divide by M...F/m = a. Since M = 0; a is undefined.
You suggest that the momentum is in the fourth dimention? As you FE'rs liek to say...Prove it. Not just what some Dr. has written, but prove that there is a change. If we can not experience it, then you are just taking it on faith, and if that is what you are doing, then this whole RE/FE thing is going back to faith.
-
You're asking me to write books that have already been written that you wouldn't read anyway if I even bothered to rewrite them.
I never asked to write a book about anything. I asked if you could, if necessary, prove a single one of statements you just made.
Otherwise, it was pure speculation
That was an example of sardonicism. What I'm saying is that I cannot offer any "proof" that anyone would accept unless I wrote volumes on the subject, and at that point, who would bother to read everything? All of the things you have asked for have already been done. The things I am saying come about as the result of multiple experiments, articles, and books that are accessible to anyone with a library card, and if you'd like, I can give you a list of books relevant to the subject you can use to educate yourself.
-
That was an example of sardonicism. What I'm saying is that I cannot offer any "proof" that anyone would accept unless I wrote volumes on the subject, and at that point, who would bother to read everything? All of the things you have asked for have already been done.
Of course they've already been done, just not by you. So bringing them up in an argument is meaningless. You can't just say: Particles experience forces through the exchange of bosons, and in the case of gravity, gravitons. Although gravitons have not yet been detected (and based on the theory there's good reason), we have observed that gluons govern the strong force, W and Z particles, or weak gauge bosons, govern the weak force, and the electromagnetic force occurs through the exchange of photons. It's the interaction between particles that occurs by this method that causes masses to be attracted to one another
without backing it up and expect anyone to believe you, can you? I could just as easily say that everything you listed there is completely false. Since neither of us offered any evidence whatsoever both statements are equally valid, and the debate goes nowhere.
I never said I didn't believe those things were correct, just meaningless unless you can back them up with something.
-
Of course they've already been done, just not by you. So bringing them up in an argument is meaningless.
Are you saying that referencing an experiment is not valid unless I have personally performed the experiment? I hope I'm getting that wrong...
You can't just say:
Particles experience forces through the exchange of bosons, and in the case of gravity, gravitons. Although gravitons have not yet been detected (and based on the theory there's good reason), we have observed that gluons govern the strong force, W and Z particles, or weak gauge bosons, govern the weak force, and the electromagnetic force occurs through the exchange of photons. It's the interaction between particles that occurs by this method that causes masses to be attracted to one another
without backing it up and expect anyone to believe you, can you?
Oh, please forgive me kind sir. I had no intention of incurring your wrath. H-here... I'll g-g-give you some links... I-I'm sorry that none of t-these experiments were d-done by me, but I pray you'll accept them anyway...
http://www-wisconsin.cern.ch/~wu/research.htm - The Discovery of the Gluon
http://library.cern.ch/archives/isad/isaua1.html - W and Z bosons
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html - not directly related, but it explains how the exchange of virtual particles can create an attractive force and not just a repulsive one.
http://www.particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/exp_start.html - has a bit of info about how experiments are performed, how results are obtained and analyzed, conclusions are made
-
How does F = MA relate to the fourth dimention?
The trajectory of the Earth through spacetime is curved. Thus, the Earth is accelerating.
Since the object is not moving it has 0 momentum, to solve for A, you would divide by M...F/m = a. Since M = 0; a is undefined.
What's M? m is the mass of the Earth. That's a finite, nonzero number, so a is well-defined.
-
F = MA
Yes, descriptive quote. Anyhow, I think he meant M=momentum, although that would be wrong.
-
F = MA
Yes, descriptive quote. Anyhow, I think he meant M=momentum, although that would be wrong.
Indeed it would.
-
Are you saying that referencing an experiment is not valid unless I have personally performed the experiment? I hope I'm getting that wrong...
No, I just meant that what you presented as a counter argument to Erasmus' statements wasn't effective, as it was no more or less valid than the FE statements in the way it was presented.
Oh, please forgive me kind sir. I had no intention of incurring your wrath.
Just make sure it doesn't happen again. :P
-
Provoking your ferocity, on the other hand...
You have big feet.
-
You're all a bunch of idiots.
-
F = MA
Yes, descriptive quote. Anyhow, I think he meant M=momentum, although that would be wrong.
Indeed it would.
Actually, what I mean is that your "earth" has zero mass as demonstrated by that fact that it does not exert gravity.
Although inertial mass, passive gravitational mass and active gravitational mass are conceptually distinct, no experiment has ever unambiguously demonstrated any difference between them. This empirical observation leads to the equivalence principle of general relativity. The weak form of the equivalence principle states that this correspondence between inertial and gravitational masses is not accidental, and that no experiment will ever detect a difference between them.
In this case since gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent and by your theories the gravitational mass is 0, it's inertial mass is 0.
Though in fact Newton's second law refers to Momentum, not mass. F=MA is a synthesis of the Second and the Third, and not from Newton's Principia
-
Actually, what I mean is that your "earth" has zero mass as demonstrated by that fact that it does not exert gravity.
Ah, I see. Well, that would be totally wrong. It has positive inertial mass (as seen by the fact that its acceleration through space is not infinite) but zero active gravitational mass, your next quote notwithstanding.
In this case since gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent and by your theories the gravitational mass is 0, it's inertial mass is 0.
Yes, that's the wrong part.
Though in fact Newton's second law refers to Momentum, not mass. F=MA is a synthesis of the Second and the Third, and not from Newton's Principia
What? Please identify the terms in the equation "F = ma".
-
What?
Momentum is P!!
MOMENTUM (P)=MASS TIMES VELOCITY.
MASS TIMES ACCELERATION= FORCE.
Stop saying that lol.
-
Actually, what I mean is that your "earth" has zero mass as demonstrated by that fact that it does not exert gravity.
Ah, I see. Well, that would be totally wrong. It has positive inertial mass (as seen by the fact that its acceleration through space is not infinite) but zero active gravitational mass, your next quote notwithstanding.
In this case since gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent and by your theories the gravitational mass is 0, it's inertial mass is 0.
Yes, that's the wrong part.
Though in fact Newton's second law refers to Momentum, not mass. F=MA is a synthesis of the Second and the Third, and not from Newton's Principia
What? Please identify the terms in the equation "F = ma".
Sorry if I confused you with someone else but someone identified F=MA as a Newton's second law, which is is not. I never said M stood for Momentum, I am just pointing out that you are picking and choosing where to apply physics and where to ignore it.
Matter has mass, mass exerts gravity. The "stuff" that makes up the earth has both, and there are lots of experiments that demonstrate the gravitational effects of matter taken from the earth. But you, without any proof other than it being necessary to support the FE, are nullifying the effects of gravity. If it does not have gravity, it has no mass. You can not invalidate Newton without having to re-evaluate just about everyone from there on.
-
How is force=ma not Newton's second law? The law explains the relationship between force, acceleration, and mass. Acceleration is inversely proportional to mass and is directly proportional to force...?
-
The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma.
Unless Curious is saying that Newton's second law of motion is literally not "f=ma" then I would say you're wrong. If you are talking about the literal wording of the law then I'd say that's even worse.
-
Also don't forget that we have been beaten before, and we have admitted it, but Round Earthers don't bother to look too far into things or threads, so we manage to still come out on top. ;)
~D-Draw
No, you come out on top because the Earth is a sphere-- you're ALWAYS on top! :wink:
(http://static.flickr.com/100/284432698_6c3aef743d_o.gif)
24 hour daylight at the South Pole cam.
Picture archive all the way from 1995-Present:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html
Notice the sphere-like shadows in this satellite movie:
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/1351/1384326/video/galileo_earth3.mpeg
Great CGI work, eh?!
Ya'll are hilarious! Don't keep it up!
EDIT:
Also posted in the "Angry Ranting" forum, with bonus (slightly) alternate comments! :)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=66626#66626
-
Also don't forget that we have been beaten before, and we have admitted it, but Round Earthers don't bother to look too far into things or threads, so we manage to still come out on top. ;)
~D-Draw
No, you come out on top because the Earth is a sphere-- you're ALWAYS on top! :wink:
(http://static.flickr.com/100/284432698_6c3aef743d_o.gif)
24 hour daylight at the South Pole cam.
Picture archive all the way from 1995-Present:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html
Notice the sphere-like shadows in this satellite movie:
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/1351/1384326/video/galileo_earth3.mpeg
Great CGI work, eh?!
Ya'll are hilarious! Don't keep it up!
EDIT:
Also posted in the "Angry Ranting" forum, with bonus (slightly) alternate comments! :)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=66626#66626
are you deranged?
if the Earth was a sphere you would not always come out on top...that is a statement a FE'er should say!!!
Also the 24 of sun does not in any way illustrate that the eatrh is round, if anything it favours the FE response!!!
-
How is force=ma not Newton's second law? The law explains the relationship between force, acceleration, and mass. Acceleration is inversely proportional to mass and is directly proportional to force...?
There's a print of the page from Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica on :
http://www.answers.com/topic/newton-s-laws-of-motion
Lex II: Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.
Do you see "pondus" (mass) anywhere?
The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.
The law explains the realtionship between momentum and force.
A more extensive writing from a 1792 translation (from Latin) Newton's Second Law of Motion reads:
LAW II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed. — If a force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. And this motion (being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body moved before, is added to or subtracted from the former motion, according as they directly conspire with or are directly contrary to each other; or obliquely joined, when they are oblique, so as to produce a new motion compounded from the determination of both.
No equation of F=MA, no mention of mass.
-
wow :shock:
i am thoroughly confused.
so okay.
I mean I just learned for the millionth time in my college astronomy class yesterday that the 2nd law was f=ma. What it seems like is that it does in fact explain f=ma, it's just not what newton originally stated correct? We derived from his original law.
that is pretty damn awesome.
So Newton's second law is basically saying the relationship between momentum and Force, and that's it. meaning F=P, but is it in basis of time as well, which would make it f=p/t? or no.
-
So Newton's second law is basically saying the relationship between momentum and Force, and that's it. meaning F=P, but is it in basis of time as well, which would make it f=p/t? or no.
Don't be confused, Curious has apparently never taken a calculus class or a calculus based physics one for that matter.
Newton's second law states:
The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.
This states that F=dp/dt, where p is momentum.
What is momentum? mass*velocity. To Newton, all mass was constant.
dp/dt can then be written as mass*dv/dt.
dv/dt = acceleration
Therefore, F = mass*acceleration. (Where mass is a constant)
*Edit* As Erasmus pointed out, the constant of proportionality k is 1, therefore, I left it out.
-
Lex II: Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.
Do you see "pondus" (mass) anywhere?
The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.
...
No equation of F=MA, no mention of mass.
"rate of change of momentum is proportional to the resultant force": dP/dt = kF. P = mv, so dP/dt = m'v + mv'. If the mass of an object doesn't change, you have mv' = ma = kF. For a suitable choice of units, we can set k = 1, and get F = ma.
-
Don't be confused, Curious has apparently never taken a calculus class or a calculus based physics one for that matter.
...
dp/dt can then be written as mass*dv/dt.
Oooh, you were first but I applied the product rule correctly :)
-
You're right, I just stated that the mass was constant and went from there.
-
So Newton's second law is basically saying the relationship between momentum and Force, and that's it. meaning F=P, but is it in basis of time as well, which would make it f=p/t? or no.
Don't be confused, Curious has apparently never taken a calculus class or a calculus based physics one for that matter.
Newton's second law states:
The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.
This states that F=dp/dt, where p is momentum.
What is momentum? mass*velocity. To Newton, all mass was constant.
dp/dt can then be written as mass*dv/dt.
dv/dt = acceleration
Therefore, F = mass*acceleration. (Where mass is a constant)
*Edit* As Erasmus pointed out, the constant of proportionality k is 1, therefore, I left it out.
Yea I worked that out, we just derived it from what he said. He just didn't specifically state it was f=ma.
-
As was common at the time, scientific writings did not contain explicit formulas. So, no, Newton did not write F=ma in Principia Mathematica.
-
Yeah, I understand thanks.
-
LAW II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed. — If a force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. And this motion (being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body moved before, is added to or subtracted from the former motion, according as they directly conspire with or are directly contrary to each other; or obliquely joined, when they are oblique, so as to produce a new motion compounded from the determination of both.
-
That's called plagiarism.
-
That's called plagiarism.
Not when the author has been dead for almost 280 years and I didn't claim to invent it.
-
All you did was copy it directly from Wiki, without crediting them.
LAW II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed. — If a force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. And this motion (being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body moved before, is added to or subtracted from the former motion, according as they directly conspire with or are directly contrary to each other; or obliquely joined, when they are oblique, so as to produce a new motion compounded from the determination of both.
How was this supposed to add to the conversation, anyway?
-
All you did was copy it directly from Wiki, without crediting them.
LAW II: The ..of both.
How was this supposed to add to the conversation, anyway?
Besides it was part if my Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:36 pm posting.
-
Hey all, very new, just stumbled onto this site and I have to say its very fun and interesting to read. I have a feeling you guys love to argue, or debate stuff and really get a kick outa it (im there with ya ;D). um first thing I read in this thread was
Also don't forget that we have been beaten before, and we have admitted it, but Round Earthers don't bother to look too far into things or threads, so we manage to still come out on top. Wink
~D-Draw
I've been searching for a while, but come up with nothing (so many threads any basic word searches such as "beaten, lost, won, proven true" etc dont work at all, can some one link me to this "beaten" thread so I can read it, and further my understanding of both side would rock thanks!
Andrew
-
As the title asks, what proof do you FE'ers need to believe the earth is a sphere? I can provide a lot of proof, as can many other people, so tell me something you need to know so that you belive in a RE. :D
There is no such thing as proof - only a widely-believed opinion.
-
Don't be confused, Curious has apparently never taken a calculus class or a calculus based physics one for that matter.
...
dp/dt can then be written as mass*dv/dt.
Oooh, you were first but I applied the product rule correctly :)
Mass is independent of time, is not a vector quantity, and is therefore not included in the Product Rule. This:
"dp/dt can then be written as mass*dv/dt."
is correct.
-
That's called plagiarism.
Not when the author has been dead for almost 280 years and I didn't claim to invent it.
Newton will haunt you from the grave, then. Oh, and Leibniz too.
-
Mass is independent of time,
Usually not, as a matter of fact. If you know what force a rocket engine provides, for example, and you want to determine the acceleration resulting from that force, the fact that fuel is being spent means you need to take the change of mass w.r.t. time into account.
In general you ought to always assume all variables are functions of the variable of differentiation; later you may assume or show that the derivative is zero and thus terms involving that derivative can be discarded.
is not a vector quantity,
That isn't at all relevant. Differentiation applies to scalars and vectors in exactly the same way.
-
Mass is independent of time,
Usually not, as a matter of fact. If you know what force a rocket engine provides, for example, and you want to determine the acceleration resulting from that force, the fact that fuel is being spent means you need to take the change of mass w.r.t. time into account.
In general you ought to always assume all variables are functions of the variable of differentiation; later you may assume or show that the derivative is zero and thus terms involving that derivative can be discarded.
is not a vector quantity,
That isn't at all relevant. Differentiation applies to scalars and vectors in exactly the same way.
All right. But the form of "p = m(dv/dt)" is acceptably the general case of momentum, but only for when "dm/dt = 0". Yes, you applied the Product Rule, but it wasn't needed in this case.