1
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity and What's above us
« on: October 13, 2006, 01:52:11 AM »
Also, don't forget the atmosphere thing.
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.
Pages: [1]
2
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity and What's above us
« on: October 13, 2006, 01:51:33 AM »
hmmm im gonna have to check this stuff out. Ill be back tomorrow.
Good discussion.
Good discussion.
3
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity and What's above us
« on: October 13, 2006, 01:49:42 AM »
well the idea behind relativity is that things are relative to the speed of light, and to each other, since theres no way to establish whether an object is really not moving in space. the only object I know of that may have 0 velocity is a black hole singularity.
The quote Engineer offered seemed to be making the point that when someone is moving with an object, that object doesnt appear to be moving. To someone else, it and you are. However, that is irrelevant here because the acceleration on us can be measured, just like gravity. It affects us at all speeds, which is why gravity is an acceleration.
However, in the instance that acceleration decreases, or for example of gravity lessened, we would be able to detect differences in weight on the earth, regardless of how fast we and the earth are moving, relative to the speed of light.
The quote Engineer offered seemed to be making the point that when someone is moving with an object, that object doesnt appear to be moving. To someone else, it and you are. However, that is irrelevant here because the acceleration on us can be measured, just like gravity. It affects us at all speeds, which is why gravity is an acceleration.
However, in the instance that acceleration decreases, or for example of gravity lessened, we would be able to detect differences in weight on the earth, regardless of how fast we and the earth are moving, relative to the speed of light.
4
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity and What's above us
« on: October 13, 2006, 01:40:32 AM »
Who said anyone was traveling at different velocities? This is what I'm saying:
Right now we have a force called "gravity" that is pulling us toward the earth, and its acceleration is 9.81 m/s^2. In the FE theory this is explained by the earth accelerating upwards into us, pushing us upwards too. Now we've established that if this acceleration is not gravity and is simply the earth moving upwards, the acceleration will have to decrease drastically as the earth nears the speed of light.
To observers on the earth, we may not SEE a difference to our eyes because it appears the earth is standing still, but the acceleration must change. If the acceleration drops to, say... 6.0 m/s^2, the earth would not be pushing on us as hard, and therefore we would see drastic differences is the weight of objects on the earth. However, since the acceleration remains constant, this means the earth would have to consistently be accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, which as i calculated, would bring us beyond the speed of light in under a year.
Right now we have a force called "gravity" that is pulling us toward the earth, and its acceleration is 9.81 m/s^2. In the FE theory this is explained by the earth accelerating upwards into us, pushing us upwards too. Now we've established that if this acceleration is not gravity and is simply the earth moving upwards, the acceleration will have to decrease drastically as the earth nears the speed of light.
To observers on the earth, we may not SEE a difference to our eyes because it appears the earth is standing still, but the acceleration must change. If the acceleration drops to, say... 6.0 m/s^2, the earth would not be pushing on us as hard, and therefore we would see drastic differences is the weight of objects on the earth. However, since the acceleration remains constant, this means the earth would have to consistently be accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, which as i calculated, would bring us beyond the speed of light in under a year.
5
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity and What's above us
« on: October 13, 2006, 01:27:54 AM »
The key part i noticed is that acceleration lessens as it nears the speed of light so as not to surpass it. We would notice such a change, as gravity has not lessened (as far as i know), and certainly not to the degree that it would need to to keep from surpassing the speed of light, assuming its just acceleration.
6
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity and What's above us
« on: October 13, 2006, 01:19:41 AM »
I took the acceleration of gravity, which is listed as 9.81 m/s^2, and calculated how fast an object would be moving if that acceleration were exerted for a year, and that is how I ascertained the speed of the Earth. If there is a terminal velocity or if the earth slows down as it reaches the speed of light (which i believe is the case), then we would experience a change in acceleration, and therefore "weight." If not, then I would see no explanation as to why we would not exceed the speed of light and become energy, as mass cannot be accelerated to the speed of light.
7
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity and What's above us
« on: October 13, 2006, 01:16:54 AM »
So please clarify: We have exceeded the speed of light? Or not? If not, we must still be accelerating at the same rate gravity would, or we notice a difference in weight.
Are my calculations off, then? I would prefer more in depth answers, as I have provided my thoughts, whether they be credible or not.
Are my calculations off, then? I would prefer more in depth answers, as I have provided my thoughts, whether they be credible or not.
8
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity and What's above us
« on: October 13, 2006, 01:02:38 AM »
Well I had to to some research and calculations while you tried to think that one through. If the Earth were accelerating at what it would have to be to equal the theory of gravity, after one year if would have increased in speed by 192,720 miles per second, which is slightly faster than the speed of light, which is impossible to do.
And, given the slim possibility that it is, it would impossible for us to see anything, or our atoms to retains their composition, as they would break down and seperate into energy.
This of course doesn't happen with gravity as gravity has terminal velocity, when an object being accelerated by gravity reaches a peak in velocity and stays there while traveling downwards towards the center of gravity. This is a concept ONLY involved in gravity, and does not apply to any other types of acceleration. And, if by another slim chance that it did, once again there would be no further acceleration, and my first argument would prove true.
And, given the slim possibility that it is, it would impossible for us to see anything, or our atoms to retains their composition, as they would break down and seperate into energy.
This of course doesn't happen with gravity as gravity has terminal velocity, when an object being accelerated by gravity reaches a peak in velocity and stays there while traveling downwards towards the center of gravity. This is a concept ONLY involved in gravity, and does not apply to any other types of acceleration. And, if by another slim chance that it did, once again there would be no further acceleration, and my first argument would prove true.
9
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity and What's above us
« on: October 13, 2006, 12:54:51 AM »
I take it you read the beginning and skipped the whole atmosphere ice wall stuff?
10
Flat Earth Q&A / Plate Tectonics and Flat-Earth
« on: October 13, 2006, 12:50:18 AM »
i would say im curious as to where the pressure comes from if theres no gravity. Moving upwards doesnt cut it.
11
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity and What's above us
« on: October 13, 2006, 12:32:03 AM »
The FE FAQ states that in the FE theory the Earth does not have a gravitational pull. It states that either the Earth is moving upwards, or there is an external gravitational force.
So let's analyze the first one. As stated when asked about helicopters crashing, the Earth moves at the same speed as the stars, sun, and all other objects on the disc. If two objects are moving at the same speed in space, they will act, relatively to each other, exactly how they would act if niether one was moving. This is consistent with the theory of relativity. There is a difference between force and acceleration. Gravity is an acceleration, and therefore is not relative. A force which is pushing at a set speed will have no effect on objects moving at the same speed or faster. Once accelerated to the same speed as the earth, there is no acceleration acting on any bodies on the earths surface. A simple push off the ground would add acceleration to our speed, and with no opposing acceleration, we would ascend.
And what about the atmosphere? The atmosphere is made up of gas: given. Gas exerts pressure in all directions because it attempts to expand, all the time: given. In the RE model, gas is contained in an atmosphere by gravity, allowing it to expand outwards in all directions except up (from the center of a spherical earth), and since there is no edge, this is not a problem. However, assuming for a second that relativity does not exist and that simply moving upwards with no accelerating force back down would not allow the gas to simply expand upwards and disappear, gas will still expand to all sides. Unless the Ice wall were taller than the atmosphere, the gas would escape. I do not know how tall the ice wall is supposed to be, but if it were taller than the atmosphere, we would be able to see it on a flat earth, for it would be significantly taller than any mountain, as all mountains still have gas at the top, even Everest.
You can track rockets up yourself and see the air flowing to the sides as they rise, so you can get a good indication of how high the atmosphere goes without physically having to climb Everest.
And the next time you fly on a plane, take a level with you. You can tell if the plane is turning or not by holding the level perpendicular to the planes body. Planes have to dip one wing to turn. The tighter the turn, the more off level the plane will be. If you take the effort to learn some basic math, you will be able to determine which map fits the flight better. The FE map or the RE map. It is impossible to have both, for the times would be different unless the plane was at an angle on the FE map, since the equator is curved.
So let's analyze the first one. As stated when asked about helicopters crashing, the Earth moves at the same speed as the stars, sun, and all other objects on the disc. If two objects are moving at the same speed in space, they will act, relatively to each other, exactly how they would act if niether one was moving. This is consistent with the theory of relativity. There is a difference between force and acceleration. Gravity is an acceleration, and therefore is not relative. A force which is pushing at a set speed will have no effect on objects moving at the same speed or faster. Once accelerated to the same speed as the earth, there is no acceleration acting on any bodies on the earths surface. A simple push off the ground would add acceleration to our speed, and with no opposing acceleration, we would ascend.
And what about the atmosphere? The atmosphere is made up of gas: given. Gas exerts pressure in all directions because it attempts to expand, all the time: given. In the RE model, gas is contained in an atmosphere by gravity, allowing it to expand outwards in all directions except up (from the center of a spherical earth), and since there is no edge, this is not a problem. However, assuming for a second that relativity does not exist and that simply moving upwards with no accelerating force back down would not allow the gas to simply expand upwards and disappear, gas will still expand to all sides. Unless the Ice wall were taller than the atmosphere, the gas would escape. I do not know how tall the ice wall is supposed to be, but if it were taller than the atmosphere, we would be able to see it on a flat earth, for it would be significantly taller than any mountain, as all mountains still have gas at the top, even Everest.
You can track rockets up yourself and see the air flowing to the sides as they rise, so you can get a good indication of how high the atmosphere goes without physically having to climb Everest.
And the next time you fly on a plane, take a level with you. You can tell if the plane is turning or not by holding the level perpendicular to the planes body. Planes have to dip one wing to turn. The tighter the turn, the more off level the plane will be. If you take the effort to learn some basic math, you will be able to determine which map fits the flight better. The FE map or the RE map. It is impossible to have both, for the times would be different unless the plane was at an angle on the FE map, since the equator is curved.
12
Flat Earth Q&A / The earth is round
« on: October 12, 2006, 11:46:07 PM »
Bibicul, youre an f-ing genius. I loved reading your posts.
13
Flat Earth Q&A / Space
« on: October 12, 2006, 11:30:57 PM »Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "MaDeR"Quote from: "Unimportant"There are some situations where the "conspiracy" explanation is a legitimate response
You lost.
No, not really.
Suppose I said that my friend and I performed the same experiment Max Fagin did. We got on the NASA website, found a "satellite" that was supposed to be travelling over our town, and picked out a time to perform some basic measurements. Following the same methodology layed out in Max Fagin's post, we measured the angle above horizon of the "satellite", and we performed the same calculations.
But when we were done with our calculations, we discovered the height of the object was only 20 km.
How would you respond, MaDeR? Would it be a "1: Oh my, I have to accept satellites don't exist"; or would it be a "2: There has to be some other explanation..."; or would it be a "3: You're making it all up."
Which would it be? And why, when you chose 3, would it be any better than an FE doing the same?
If you understood that the point of whether anyone is telling the truth is irrelevant, then what difference does it make that you think Max is lying, or that MaDeR said that you lost? You don't have to explain why you think he's lying, or why it wouldn't be any different if MaDeR didn't believe your results either, because there's no way to prove he or you are telling the truth. But you agreed to do the experiment, and I see no reason why two people who disagree on the validity of results wouldnt attempt the same experiment if they both believe in the underlying concepts of geometry.
14
Flat Earth Q&A / Space
« on: October 12, 2006, 11:22:50 PM »
I thought you said you understood that this was basic trig. If you don't know how to perform the experiment, you can just ask. Max will probably be able to explain it to you. If you trust that geometry is not a hoax, you should be able to understand.
I'm not Max and I didn't do the experiment, so I guess you'll have to wait till he comes back in.
I'm not Max and I didn't do the experiment, so I guess you'll have to wait till he comes back in.
15
Flat Earth Q&A / Questioning the FAQ
« on: October 12, 2006, 11:19:57 PM »Quote from: "No"
Quote from: "cheesejoff"And they get this money from where?Quote from: "acerbus80"
You're joking, right?
Ok, so Joe Sailor sets out in his ship for a little cruise, and BAM! Finds a 150 foot wall of ice.
"Wow, this isn't on the charts, and I'm north of the equator, so it can't be Antarctica. And I know it's too warm to be the Arctic! Just wait until I tell the guys at home."
Alas, the Ice Wall is south of the Equator, where Antarctica would be if the Earth was round.Quote from: "acerbus80"You have no motive. You can't even think of one. You guys have proven how rich your imaginations can be, yet you can't even come up with a halfway plausible motive for the government covering up a flat earth. What exactly does the government have to gain by covering this up?
In a word; Money. Money makes the world go round.
The question isn't where do they get the money from. It's why would a coalition of governments that rule the world need money in the first place. Money has no value to an entity which A: Can make its own and B: has access to all the rescources on the disc that it might use money to purchase. Money cannot be the reason behind a conspiracy, unless the FE theory would like to revise who is involved?
16
Flat Earth Q&A / Space
« on: October 12, 2006, 10:54:05 PM »
Unimportant, you're missing the point. Max could be lying about the results of his test. He doesn't need to convince you he isn't. And at the same time, you could go out and perform the same test, and come back and say that you and your friend calculated measurements that supported the FE theory. There's no way for us to know whether you're telling the truth or not, but that's irrelevant.
The important thing is that you did the experiment. You could lie to us on here but know full well that the results of your experiment produced the same results as Max's. Or vice versa. Either way, both of you will know the truth.
So it's up to you. Do the experiment, don't do it, lie about it, whatever. That being said, the only reason left for you to try the experiment is for the sake of curiousity, to experiment for yourself. If you don't have the drive to find out for yourself, then don't bother.
It's not like any of us will know.
The important thing is that you did the experiment. You could lie to us on here but know full well that the results of your experiment produced the same results as Max's. Or vice versa. Either way, both of you will know the truth.
So it's up to you. Do the experiment, don't do it, lie about it, whatever. That being said, the only reason left for you to try the experiment is for the sake of curiousity, to experiment for yourself. If you don't have the drive to find out for yourself, then don't bother.
It's not like any of us will know.
Pages: [1]