Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - alexhall

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity and Friction
« on: April 14, 2013, 05:22:32 PM »
Even if he hadn't read it anywhere, it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. Certainly much more reasonable than the UA or bendy light. The earth is thought to have formed gradually, in a sense. Most of the water came from icy meteorites, I watched a documentary on that. Some of the atmosphere would have been around from the beginning, already rotating with the earth since it was rotating within the dust cloud, as Puttah said. Volcanoes obviously produce gases from below the crust. Really nothing weird is being stated here. Even without evidence, there's no reason to be seriously skeptical of such an idea. Compare to the idea of the atmosphere just appearing. That would be bloody weird.

In any case, one can easily just look this kind of thing up online. This whole thread is a failure of FEers to do that. The OP's question is answered by google. Regarding the formation of the atmosphere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth#Oceans_and_atmosphere

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity and Friction
« on: April 14, 2013, 05:14:33 AM »
Somebody said the rotational speed(1700kmh!) is low, so the centrifugal force is low. So lets add another 100.000kmh(revolving speed, following the Sun). Is it still low?

Some others agreed that Air does not have to move as soldiers in line,but randomly as we see with winds. But who says that this crazy friction with the Earth will make the Air rotate in one direction? The most possible fact is to instantly shoot the Air away, since theres no roof.

The other problem with their scary ghost winds, is that I can feel breezes going opposite direction than the supposed eastward Air rotation. How could these Air molecules managed to resist a 101.700 kmh eastward Earth rotation, moving westward?

Saying the rotational speed is low means that the earth rotates slowly, i.e. 24 hours for a revolution is a long time. The 1700 km/h is not the rotational speed, it's the linear speed at the equator. Adding the speed at which we orbit the sun really doesn't add anything to this problem, gravity keeps it all together. Similarly, gravity keeps the air from shooting away. It's the same as how the earth stays in orbit around the sun. There is a balance between the 'centrifugal force' of orbit and the centripetal force of orbit, so that earth doesn't fly away from the sun. If these were imbalanced, then the orbit would inevitably increase or decrease until balance was achieved. You can think of air as being in orbit around the sun.

Feeling a 50km/h wind in the opposite direction to the rotation of the earth just means the the air is moving at 1650 km/h instead of 1700. No big deal. Yes, it would have trouble resisting a 1700 km/h wind and actually going in the opposite direction, that is the whole point of all our replies. Friction. You've finally accepted it yourself. The air all moves together (roughly) because it would have to resist a lot not to. Even if all the air was still, it would have to resist the ground and mountains pushing it, and that would not be easy. And if you're still convinced that the friction is not strong enough, consider the fact that the earth had millions of years to speed the atmosphere up before life.

Really, nothing you are saying poses any difficulty or makes RET seem surprising. It's you that is having trouble grasping physics.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much RET explains
« on: April 13, 2013, 04:25:11 AM »
This thread is gold. It pretty much just curb stomps all the flat earthers into coming up with more bullshit.
Well, gravitation is widely known to not have been correctly explained yet1, even among mainstream scientists. This thread is great because its very first assumption is "let's invoke magic!".

In formal logic, the statement "if p then q" is always true when p is false. This is exactly what the OP has done.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

1) Not having a full explanation of every detail of the universe is very different from what you're implying. "There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways." All that means is that we lack perfection. These problems don't necessarily point to problems with gravity but could just be due to the fact that we can't observe everything. And where there is a problem with gravity, it's a minor detail, a refinement in the formulae or the explanation. There is no doubt that general relativity works extremely well as an explanation of gravity, and even less doubt that gravity exists and that we can base many calculations off it. If general relativity gets replaced, it will be as when it replaced Newton's law: it will be an improvement, not an upheaval.

2) "Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater acceleration than expected during gravity assist maneuvers." Did scientists just make up this problem? FET doesn't believe in spacecraft.

3) These are details at the very deepest of our understanding of the universe. FET has to invoke magic such as bendy light just to explain why the sun sets. And this is without evidence, calculations, observations, or ANYTHING. It's just a weird hypothesis, nothing more.

4) Gravity's contender is the UA, a mysterious, unobserved phenomenon with an ever increasing (at just the right rate for a constant impression of gravity) energy source that is moving us at near light speed, has no real model or agreement behind it, and leaves non-uniform gravity unexplained. THAT is what invoking magic looks like. Asking for gravity as an assumption is nothing compared to asking for this. Actual gravity, meanwhile, explains a host of other things in addition that the UA does not, since it only explains why we feel attracted to the earth. We understand the creation of the earth and solar system, the trajectories of the celestial bodies, the tides, etc. All based on this 'magic'.

5) As well as not invoking physical magic, I have not invoked conspiracies.

I'd like to see FET TRY to come up with a similar thread to this one. Let's see how many assumptions you use, how much 'magic' you invoke at the beginning. How much evidence you have to support your theories. Give me a model of how and why the world works and looks as it does, how it started, etc.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity and Friction
« on: April 12, 2013, 04:55:42 PM »
But anyway, I cant imagine how an open Air would be dragged along by the Earth. How could every Air molecule would be restricted and set in order(as in rigid solids), moving at 1030mph. The only way this could happen is if the Air was trapped inside the Earth, inside a sealed solid material. I think people can make the Air rotate only inside tubes.

And I'm not sure what you mean by air being "restricted and set in order" - it's not. Air molecules fly in all different directions. They only follow the Earth's rotation on average.

It bothers me that I already responded to this point BEFORE you said this, ages ago, and that Shmeggley had to deal with it again. Air flies all over the place! We still have winds, storms, hurricanes! To say "every Air molecule would be restricted and set in order(as in rigid solids)" is RIDICULOUS. WE KNOW THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN. AND IT DOESN'T.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity and Friction
« on: April 11, 2013, 05:03:11 AM »
Yes, we are saying that the atmosphere would gradually increase its speed to match that of the earth. Friction would push the air to speed it up, so that from our perspective the air would not be moving quickly.

Gases are not the same as solids but that does not mean that friction doesn't exist. If gases did behave as solids, then the air would constantly be perfectly still. It is not. It's in constant flux and we have winds all over the place. However, there is some friction which partially stabilizes the atmosphere so that the winds aren't crazy strong. If the friction was weaker the winds would be stronger, if the friction was stronger the winds would be slower (from our perspective). Your claim is quantitative. How do you know that the friction isn't strong enough? Can you pull out some experimental figures and numbers to show that the expected winds should be greater?

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much RET explains
« on: April 10, 2013, 05:19:51 PM »
First of all, to be clear, we all understood that in a FE we don't expect to see the edge. That was your misinterpretation.

In RE, the shape of the earth does affect the horizon on a clear day. In fact, by measuring distances on Earth, and assuming a RE, one can easily calculate the furthest the horizon can be. Observations then match up to this.

In FET, some complex, unexplained, unevidenced phenomenon such as bendy light causes our perception to match up perfectly with the RET calculation. How conveniently coincidental.

Also, in photos where the curvature is observed, the distance spanned by the horizon is so large that we really cannot expect a gradual change in atmospheric conditions.

And the photo is for?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much RET explains
« on: April 10, 2013, 04:57:38 PM »
Why would I see a set distance all around me? Again, are atmospheric conditions so perfectly uniform in all directions?

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much RET explains
« on: April 10, 2013, 04:34:23 PM »
Thork, that's the whole point of what we're all saying. Your dinner plate doesn't work because the curvature of the horizon cannot be attributed to the disc shape of the earth BECAUSE

A horizon is not the edge of the earth.

Don't tell US to engage our brain. Your dinner plate theory implies being able to see the edge of the circular earth. Unless, that is, you believe atmospheric conditions are perfectly uniform in all directions such that we see curvature.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« on: April 10, 2013, 04:24:53 PM »
It's a matter of Occam's razor. We can assume a constant force, observed in the lab (and which explains orbits and non-uniform gravity as well), or we can assume a force of ever increasing magnitude which manifests itself as the appearance of a constant force when it could follow any other curve.

Also, fine tuning arguments are really only used when an aspect of the universe appears fine tuned for our survival, e.g. the values of fundamental constants which prevent the universe from blowing up. They can all be refuted by the anthropic principle. Unless perfectly constant gravity, without any temporary fluctuations at all, is essential for survival, this cannot be refuted as such.

Finally, there's a big difference between fine tuning a number and fine tuning a function.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« on: April 10, 2013, 10:00:42 AM »
Puttah, Ski, this is REALLY pointless. One of you be the bigger person and just let it go.

The energy requirement may be finite at any time, but it's potentially infinite, it's unbounded. As you said, it approaches infinity as the velocity approaches c, which we've agreed it's doing. So the energy is constantly increasing. This is not impossible, but we can agree that the UA is pretty weird to do this. It's quite considerate, making sure that we don't get a wobbly impression of gravity by always increasing its energy by the right amount.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Canopy
« on: April 10, 2013, 09:50:35 AM »
Why would the UA be an obstacle any more than gravity in RET? Any rocket would already have momentum from the earth before launch. It would just need to accelerate upwards faster than g, in the same way that in RET it would need to exert a force greater than mg.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity and Friction
« on: April 10, 2013, 09:41:53 AM »
True Myth: intuitively, your question makes sense, I don't think it needed rephrasing or was ridiculous. But unless you have a degree in physics and have studied fluid dynamics and can show that this is really counter to the science we know, your objection doesn't really work. Science is not always intuitive at a first glance. Relativity and quantum mechanics, for example. Similarly, if an expert was to post here an explanation or mathematical model in terms of vector fields and whatnot, it might not accomplish much in convincing you. I think Puttah's explanation makes sense, but it's not exactly rigorous so it's hard for us to debate it.

If you want an answer to a question, or to prove a point like RET is full of holes, your first stop shouldn't be this forum, it should be something like this: http://bit.ly/12KlMI5. You may find that you owe a certain Mark Eichenlaub 1.000.000.000 $. There are also numerous websites to ask experts physics questions. Here is not a great place. It also just saves the forum from being filled with unnecessary questions. We would be expected to search this forum before asking a question about FET.

Also, what if I ask you why the air doesn't flow off the top over the sides of the earth if the earth is accelerating upwards? You can come up with all sorts of ad-hoc rationalizations like the canopy holds it in, the UA accelerates it too, the earth is infinite, bla bla bla. These would all be hypotheses without evidence. Well, I can do that too. I can posit a terrestrial accelerator that keeps the air in check. It's weird, but you can't prove me wrong, and your stuff is no better. A better answer to my question would be 'I don't know'. Because that's OK sometimes. Well, guess what. I don't know why the air moves around either. Deal with it. You're just using an argument from ignorance, and it gets you nowhere. The point is not all the things that you may think are unexplained, but rather that RET explains a HUGE amount while assuming very little basic known physics. No bendy light, UA, conspiracies, and other bullshit.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« on: April 08, 2013, 08:14:48 AM »
Surely it's clear that shooting stars are falling rocks since many make it to the ground? Surely you can't deny the existence of meteorites. The whole of Russia would have to be part of the conspiracy.

14
Red Bull Stratos?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lorentz transformation of mass
« on: April 08, 2013, 07:38:31 AM »
Please explain. I thought that inertial and gravitational mass were always identical. In any case, if the Lorentz factor is only for inertia, the point is that our muscles must be exerting an incredible force in order to walk around or lift things. Not really a disproof since I see now that our inertia won't change really within our lifetimes, but it does add to the ludicrousness of it all.

Also, the value of G has been measured experimentally. Repeatedly. Using different methods. The only conflict is at high accuracy, the basic magnitude of the value is clear. And there's no reason to think that these scientists would be hiding something: this isn't directly related to space travel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much RET explains
« on: April 07, 2013, 10:00:50 AM »
I'm choosing the moon because the philosophy here seems to evidence that you can see with your own eyes. I also think the conspiracy is ridiculous, but I don't feel like arguing that.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much RET explains
« on: April 07, 2013, 03:03:16 AM »
OK, I've cut out the ability to see the curvature of the earth to end some needless discussion. Having said that, I don't see how your dinner plate explanation could work. If we were seeing curvature on the horizon because we were looking at the edge of a disc, you're implying that we can see the edge of the earth. Surely you don't believe we can see that far?

I would say the strongest points in the list would be regarding the moon. The phases, the lunar eclipses, and the tides. Let's focus on the phases. It's quite easy to see for yourself that the phases of the moon follow exactly what one would expect if the moon was lit up by reflection. If you can see both the moon and the sun in the sky at the same time, the angular distance between them fits perfectly with the shape of the lit up part of the moon. For example, the moon will be full if and only if it rises at approximately the same time as the sun sets. Do you deny this, or do you accept that the moon is lit by reflection?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much RET explains
« on: April 06, 2013, 08:06:37 AM »
There is no evidence the ocean is convex as it must be on a sphere.

First of all, there's numbers 17 and 18. Secondly, so what? There's plenty of evidence for the theory as a whole. I don't have to confirm every single prediction you can think of, as long as I've provided good evidence for some predictions and none of them have been falsified.

And I wonder why pictures of the spherical earth look like 3d models. They all look... off. There should be plenty of real images of the globe, with 15,000 satellites up there. Not just artist impressions and 3d models, all of which differ in colors, atmospheres, curvature, and even size of the continents.

Many pictures might indeed be glossed up for presentation, or be 3d models entirely, to look good. Not many photos would be taken with the intention of proving RET right when the whole world accepts it. With the variety of perspectives, lighting conditions, equipment used, and desire to edit/enhance the photos, one expects them to look slightly different, except for the size of the continents. Can you give examples of that? I see your signature, but since both photos are stitched (the GE one especially), I expect some distortion.

Heliocentrism: non-religious, scientific fact with no hidden agenda.

Care to explain your heliocentric flat earth model?

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How much RET explains
« on: April 05, 2013, 07:25:07 PM »
There is no evidence the ocean is convex as it must be on a sphere. And I wonder why pictures of the spherical earth look like 3d models. They all look... off. There should be plenty of real images of the globe, with 15,000 satellites up there. Not just artist impressions and 3d models, all of which differ in colors, atmospheres, curvature, and even size of the continents.

I mentioned this:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=iss+orbiting+the+earth&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=

Looks pretty real to me.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lorentz transformation of mass
« on: April 05, 2013, 06:54:16 PM »
My understanding (e.g. from the FAQ) was that gravity exists, but we don't actually experience it in practice because nothing we know is massive enough. Does FET accept all relativity except the gravity part? That'd be quite something, especially since gravity has been measured in the lab.

Anyway...

They believe in mass! Mass is not gravity. But we wouldn't feel an increasing of mass. How should we? We are under constant acceleration. But we would get huge problems if we collide with something - even a particle! - that is not accelerated by the same rate as us.

Thanks, you just made me realise I don't have to resort to gravity anyway. Mass results in inertia. We would feel an increasing in mass because we'd find it harder to run around.

Wait a second, how does that theory work again?  Does the change in mass permit continued constant acceleration, or is the point of the changing mass to discourage any further acceleration, so as to not exceed the speed of light?  I'm not a physicist, so I wouldn't know.  It seems that the implication here is that the energy required for FE's "universal accelerator" or whatever to continue to accelerate the earth upward at 9.8 ms^-2 would necessarily diverge to infinity to counteract the huge increase in mass by the Lorentz transformation.

Yes, the UA has to get more and more powerful at an alarming rate. I think the increase in mass is simply because E=mc^2 and so the faster something goes, the more energy and hence the more mass it has. The result is that things get so massive as they approach the speed of light that they can't exceed it.

21
Flat Earth Debate / How much RET explains
« on: April 05, 2013, 06:24:23 PM »
I'd like to paint a picture of the simplicity, elegance and explanatory power of the heliocentric, round earth model.

We need very few, simple starting ingredients for this model. Everything we see in the world is derived as a consequence, quite easily explained with simple reasoning, geometry, and known physics. There are no conspiracies, there's basically 100% consensus among scientists, and the world. To assume any of the hundred or so incomplete flat earth models is to assume so much more, leave so much unanswered, and come up with such weird, complex hypotheses without evidence that it's simply not likely.

Here are our ingredients:

1) Gravity. Approximately, it's just a force that acts between everything. All matter attracts all other matter in a very predictable, calculatable way. We can measure it in the laboratory (see the Cavendish experiment) and use it to make all sorts of mathematical predictions about the solar system, which are then confirmed, so to put it in doubt is really quite something. We also have a solid explanation for what causes it: general relativity, which is also heavily confirmed and seems to be generally accepted by flat earthers anyway.

2) Laws of angular momentum, uncontested.

3) A cloud of gas and dust. Basically, a clump of stuff. Really not much to ask for. Moreover, we have thousands of photos of such objects (nebulae) in the universe and plenty of good explanations for where they come from. You can even see them for yourself with an ordinary telescope, such as the Orion Nebula. We also have photos of nebula undergoing the processes I'm about to describe. I'm also going to assume that the cloud is rotating a little. Still not much to ask for. Why should it be perfectly still?

So, with those ingredients, here's a very rough and quick explanation of how the solar system forms:

Under gravity, the cloud starts to collapse inwards, simply because all the particles attracted to each other. The forces average out so that they generally move towards a central point, so the vast majority of stuff collects there. Such a large amount of matter makes for powerful gravity, heat and pressure, and a star forms: the sun. It is powered by nuclear fusion, a well known principle: it's how hydrogen bombs work, and how we might power the world someday. Meanwhile, some of the remaining stuff doesn't quite go into the centre, but it does collapse into a disk, spinning faster than the original cloud. The reason for this is related to angular momentum. Essentially, it's like spinning dough to flatten it into a pizza. It's really not surprising. Again, gravity causes tighter and tighter clumps, and these form planets and other stuff like asteroids, all orbiting around the sun. Some clumps also form moons orbiting around the planets. In these early stages, everything is still very crowded. One large body collides with the earth, tilting its axis, and the debris form our moon. Eventually, things calm down, although we still get hit by asteroids now and then. Gravity pulls large bodies into a spherical shape, although we can observe that for example the Earth isn't quite spherical because the spinning makes it bulge. The planets, moons and even the sun spin because they preserve the angular momentum of the original protoplanetary disk.

See how simple, coherent, and reasonable that was? See how little I had to invoke? The way the world is is easily explained, compared to wondering what the UA is or why the Earth is flat and so on. Now, just from this, we can explain all of the following observations. And by explain I often mean we can make detailed mathematical calculations and predictions that fit perfectly with the observations.

1. We know why the Sun is by far the largest object in our vicinity. We can tell how big it is based on its apparent size and the fact that we can quite easily measure its distance by several methods. Aristarchus of Samos first estimated the distance and size of the sun in 250 BC, and his result was vastly lower than the actual distance known today.
2. We know why the Sun is hot and bright.
3. We know why all the planets move in the same direction in the sky from night to night (that is, all the planets orbit the sun in the same direction).
4. We know why this is sometimes violated, i.e. apparent retrograde motion. It's simply because we aren't at the center: the planets orbit the sun. We can build a precise mathematical model of how they do so, and how we orbit as well. Newton did so based on his law of gravitation and showed that the orbits are ellipses with the sun at one of the foci. Einstein refined this with general relativity to explain why Mercury doesn't fit exactly. So we can calculate exactly how the planets and the earth orbit, predict how the path of the planets in the sky should look, and get it spot on every time. That's why we can have software that will tell you where the celestial bodies will be in the sky without having to check by observation. And we know exactly why this calculation works. Moreover, the same principles can be applied to the orbits of moons around other planets.
5. We know why we can see the planets and the sun spin, and again we know why they pretty much all spin in the same direction.
6. We know why the orbits all lie roughly within the same plane. This is actually quite something, if you think about it. Assume FET is correct. Why is it that, despite heliocentrism having no relation to reality, if you were to assume that it's true you suddenly get all the orbits lying in the same plane? Seems like a massive coincidence.
7. We were able to predict where Neptune would be in the night sky based on gravitational perturbations of the orbit of Uranus.
8. We know why the moon is bright (reflection) and why it and the planets have phases.
9. We know what causes lunar eclipses, and we can predict exactly when they will happen because we know when Earth will be in between the sun and the moon. Think about that. It's one thing to say you don't know what causes lunar eclipses. It's another thing to say that this unknown phenomena, whatever it is, happens to occur exactly when we would expect it to under RET. And here's another amazing coincidence if you assume FET: when you observe the height of a lunar eclipse, you can call a friend in a certain place on the earth and he can tell you that the sun is directly overhead. That place happens to be the exact location diametrically opposite you if you assume RET. Finally, look at photos of lunar eclipses where the moon at several times has been superimposed. That is quite clearly the shadow of something round.



10. We know what causes the sky to turn red as the sun sets. This also tells us why the lunar eclipse appears red: the atmosphere of the earth scatters sunlight so that red light remains, falling on the edges of the shadow on the moon.
11. We know why the sun sets in the first place. Or rather, we know why everything sets and rises, why the whole sky rotates around a celestial pole. If you were in a car and everything looked like it was moving past you, would you assume that everything really was moving past you, all in essentially perfect unison, or that you were moving? Please note that there are two things to explain as to why the sun (and everything) sets: why the sky seems to move, as I said, and also why there is a horizon to set below. Both are explained at the same time. Interesting extra piece of evidence for this: if you watch the sunset lying down, you can then stand up quickly and see it again.
12. We know what causes the tides: we can predict them based on the moon, and we can predict how they get stronger when the sun and moon align.
13. We know what causes the seasons: the difference in temperature, the lengths of days, the height of the sun, and the different seasons at different hemispheres, all follow very easily. We don't need to wonder why the radius of the sun's orbit changes over the year.
14. We know why hurricanes rotate, and why they rotate in different directions in different hemispheres: the Coriolis effect.
15. We know why the Bedford Level experiment generally confirms these days that the earth is curved. Oh, and if you trust the experiment from centuries ago as it was originally performed, it's pretty weird to then not trust later reproductions and all the other experimental evidence for a round earth that I'm mentioning. That is, you believe some ancient scientist got it right and was honest, but NASA has it wrong or are involved in a giant conspiracy theory? Or, you don't trust claims about traveling around the world because you haven't done that yourself, but you haven't done the Bedford experiment yourself yet you trust half of the results for that?
16. We know why the earth looks flat. It's big.
17. We know why it doesn't really, i.e. you can hold a ruler up to the horizon and see the curvature.
18. We know why ships and skyscrapers sink over the horizon as they do, and not shrink.
19. We understand Foucault's pendulum.
20. We know how we went to the moon.
21. We know why we can use satellites for all sorts of things, e.g: how Hubble produced photos of space that weren't possible at the time with land based telescopes, although today's land based telescopes see the same pictures. GPS. Google Earth.
22. This is why we have photos of a round earth. Thousands of photos. And films. Look at films taken from the ISS. There's really a huge quantity of stuff to fake.
23. We know why gravity isn't perfectly uniform.
24. We know how time zones work.
25. We know how it is possible to circumnavigate the globe in either direction, and why doing so will cause your calendar to be off by one day.
26. We know why we observe different sets of stars in different hemispheres, and why the stars in the skies change continuously as you travel, exactly as you would expect them to on a round earth, forming a celestial sphere. That is, we see similar stars in Australia and South Africa, because they're both close to the South Pole and so the skies in both places are close on the celestial sphere. On a Flat Earth, North Pole centered map they're much further apart and a similarity in night skies is really weird and unexpected.
27. We know why you can have triangles with angles that sum to more than 180 degrees.
28. We know why the Earth has a magnetic field, we know where its south pole is, and we know why the magnetic poles line up with the coldest areas. And we know why we have aurorae.
29. We know why there's an asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
30. We know why no one has ever been beyond Antarctica.
31. We know why we observe parallax of nearby stars, and we know why the timing of this matches up with the timing of the seasons.

No bendy light, dark energy, aetheric wind, anti-moons, massive conspiracies, nothing. All these observations follow simply and directly from the ingredients I gave, with just a little bit of well understood physics here and there. If the earth isn't round, then that is an INCREDIBLE coincidence. Meanwhile, flat earth theory requires numerous weird, ad hoc, complex, unsubstantiated, unexplained hypotheses to explain these observations. Like assuming that a mysterious force exists beneath the earth, forever pushing harder and harder to maintain an impression of constant acceleration for us as we approach the speed of light. And these are constantly thoroughly refuted on this forum by round earthers, or even rejected by fellow flat earthers, like bendy light. Why? Why do you insist on this inchorent theory which none of you can properly formulate or agree on, compared to a theory that we've known to be true for centuries which has mountains of evidence and is constantly used by science and industry every day? FET doesn't hold a candle to RET.

http://xkcd.com/258/

RE believers, please help me extend the list!

22
Flat Earth Debate / Lorentz transformation of mass
« on: April 05, 2013, 06:20:05 PM »
According to the equation v/c = tanh(at/c), the earth should be moving at a speed REALLY close to the speed of light:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=tanh%28g*%286000+years%29%2Fc%29&a=UnitClash_*c.*SpeedOfLight.dflt--&a=UnitClash_*g.*StandardAccelerationOfGravity--

so the Lorentz factor is HUGE. Since mass is equal to the Lorentz factor times rest mass, this would imply that the mass of, well, anything on earth, is so big by now that we should all collapse into a black hole. Or did I go wrong somewhere?

(I'm not a YEC, I'm just using a lower bound that most people can agree with)

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Google Earth
« on: April 05, 2013, 05:02:11 PM »
If satellites aren't real, and photographs of the Earth from space are fake, explain Google Earth.

Edit: sorry, that was hasty. Should have searched first. You can delete this.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« on: April 05, 2013, 11:57:02 AM »
On supernovae, The most likely answer would be something like "we don't really know what the stars are, but they do that sometimes".
They are similar to "shooting stars" in this respect. Also, comets.

Do you mean that you don't know what shooting stars and comets are, or that supernovae are caused by a similar phenomenon?

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« on: April 05, 2013, 11:53:17 AM »
The impression of constant acceleration would remain due to time dilation and length contraction. These effects would only be observable outside our Frame of Reference. Within it, we would appear to continue our acceleration at the same rate.

I'm not great with relativity. Can someone verify this please? Maybe with some actual equations?

Isn't it strange that the stars which appear to move about on this non-uniform canopy do so in perfect unison with our seasons?  :P

How is this canopy shaped? If it was a sphere centred around the north pole you'd get that the top is 12430 miles above it (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=north+pole+to+the+south+pole+in+miles), right? There seems to be a division by 4 somewhere. What have I missed?

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« on: April 05, 2013, 10:28:26 AM »
No, according to relativity it would asymptotically approach the speed of light without reaching it.

Which wouldn't produce a constant impression of gravity.

If the stars are attached to the canopy, why do we observe some stars moving slightly over the course of the year? In RET this is an effect of parallax. Also, it sounds like stars in this theory are not giant balls of gas. So why do some new stars briefly appear at times (supernovae)?

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« on: April 05, 2013, 09:58:55 AM »
"Atheric Wind" is non-sense. I think it was Pongo who started it, but it's certainly not a recognized theory. The UA is a force that acts on the bottom of the Earth, generates heat, and propels the Earth forward. Because of relativity, we will obviously never exceed the speed of light in our reference frame.

And the canopy is somehow physically connected to the disc of the Earth so that it too accelerates?
To or beyond the Great Ice Wall.

To say that the Earth is accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8ms^-2 is to say that it is accelerating in some reference frame, even if from our perspective we feel still. To some outside observer, the speed of the earth is constantly increasing. The speed cannot constantly increase forever, it would reach the speed of light.

What do you mean by the canopy?

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Please elaborate on the UA
« on: April 05, 2013, 07:08:16 AM »
the Earth blocks the Aetheric Wind (which pushes the Earth from underneath) so that things on the surface are not pushed up. Also this wind spills past the edge of the Earth

I suppose the spilling could explain why the atmosphere doesn't fall away, so I can accept that.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Please elaborate on the UA
« on: April 05, 2013, 06:38:04 AM »
From the FAQ:

"The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared)...It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind. This acceleration does not violate physics and according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, we can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light."

Well, quite blatantly, no. Yes, we can accelerate forever, but asymptotically. We would approach the speed of light more and more slowly. We cannot accelerate forever at 9.8 meters per second squared. By a simple calculation:

365*24*60*60*9.8 = 309,052,800 > 3*10^8

it's clear that after a year of accelerating at a constant rate of g=9.8 ms^-2, we would exceed the speed of light. So we have a contradiction. I assume this is not hard to see and that the FAQ meant something else. Please explain, and perhaps remedy the FAQ?

Anyway, how do you envision this UA? Is it a force pushing the plane of the earth from beneath? If so, why is the air not pushed aside by the earth moving upwards? If the answer is that the earth and the atmosphere extend infinitely (i.e. the atmosphere stretches out forever in all directions and is uniformly thick everywhere, otherwise it would flatten out till it was), doesn't that mean that the earth together with the atmosphere has infinite mass? How does the UA accelerate this?

Or, if the UA is a force permeating the entire universe that pushes everything, why aren't we pushed with it, thereby not experiencing any gravity?

30
Put simply, what are we seeing when the sun sets? In RET this is easy. In FET it seems that it should always be possible to draw a straight line from where you are to the sun, since the sun orbits above the plane of the earth. Light from the sun may not always be shining on you, so the sun may go dark from your perspective, but it should do so while in the sky. I don't see why it would go below the horizon, and then rise up from the horizon on the other side.

The same applies to the moon and, well, every star in the sky. If you watch the night sky, every star moves in a circular path around a single central point. The whole sky rotates in unison around the celestial north or south pole. Which makes sense if the earth is rotating, because then everything just appears to move. But in FET, it seems that we have to conclude that the entire universe rotates around us, which is quite a thing to imagine (what causes this rotation?) but moreover the rotation isn't parallel to the plane of the earth, it goes around it, i.e. above and below it. That is what we see.

Pages: [1] 2