### 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 - cdenley

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA and Space Travel
« on: July 08, 2009, 02:30:19 PM »
It was a massively powerful explosion, of the sort which would cause acceleration.
A constant acceleration for thousands of years? Explosions accelerate objects only for a moment. Is it still exploding directly below the earth?

2
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA and Space Travel
« on: July 08, 2009, 02:15:37 PM »
I'll also repeat the question: How does this background radiation relate to the constant acceleration of the UA?

It provides evidence for the Big Bang, which caused the inception of the acceleration.
How was the UA created by the Big Bang?

3
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some simple tests for FE, RE, and EA
« on: July 08, 2009, 01:52:59 PM »
Because Special Relativity requires that c is constant. An acceleration in any other direction would vary the speed of the light ray.
I get that the speed of light can't be altered, and it would if it were only accelerated upward. However, wouldn't this still increase the speed of the light? The acceleration would have to be angled against the direction of the light to cancel out the speed in the current direction as much as it increases its speed upwards. Wouldn't the direction of the acceleration and the tangent of the light beam have to form a 45 degree angle? Something like this:

red line = path of light
red arrow = direction of light at that point
black arrow = direction of acceleration at that point

4
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy Theorists
« on: July 08, 2009, 01:02:31 PM »
Like I said, it doesn't matter if we're sitting on a universal pressure geyser or if the earth is being pushed by the wake of a cosmic anti-matter reaction which is presently eating up the universe. The earth can accelerate through a real physical effect. Plenty of things can cause acceleration.
It does matter because there is no plausible explanation for the acceleration. If it is a pressure geyser, you have to explain how it releases the same constant amount of pressure for thousands of years. How is that pressure being produced in the UA as fast as it is being released?

Can you cite a source that supports your idea that an anti-matter reaction can accelerate mass?

The General Theory of Relativity doesn't explain how mass bends "space-time".
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/gravity.html
Quote
Thus, the General Theory of Relativity is a new theory of gravitation proposed in place of Newtonian gravitation.

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/greltop.html
Quote
It turns out that if the spacetime metric is arranged in the right manner, we can get something called spacetime curvature. And that is what the General Theory of Relativity is all about.

5
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy Theorists
« on: July 08, 2009, 12:27:54 PM »
It doesn't matter what the source is. All that matters is that acceleration of the earth is possible through universal effects.

In order for gravitons/bending space to be possible an entirely new branch of physics needs to be made up.
Explain this possibility. You have yet to give a plausible source for this extraordinary and magical energy.

The general theory of relativity is not that new.

6
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some simple tests for FE, RE, and EA
« on: July 08, 2009, 11:00:56 AM »
Is light accelerated at a constant rate relative to earth? What kind of curve do you expect light to take?

No. Light cannot accelerate at a constant rate because the acceleration must always be perpendicular to its direction of propagation to satisfy Special Relativity. I think the curve is most likely to be a parabola.
Why must it accelerate perpendicular to its direction to satisfy Special Relativity? I'm not questioning your accuracy, just curious. Wouldn't a constant acceleration also result in a parabola? Can you be more specific? What increases in height would you expect a laser parallel to the flat earth's surface to have? Having it accelerate perpendicular to its direction at that instant makes it much more difficult to calculate. No wonder why its taking so long to develop your hypothesis.

7
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA and Space Travel
« on: July 08, 2009, 10:40:15 AM »
How exactly does the big bang result in a constantly accelerating object under the earth? How is it any more "attested by incontravertible evidence" than gravitation?

The background radiation which allows us to learn about the Big Bang is easily observable. Gravitons, the explanatory Panacea of the theory of gravity, cannot be (or at least, have not been) observed, by the very admission of their inventors.

How does this background radiation relate to the constant acceleration of the UA? How did you come to the conclusion that "gravitons" are the "explanatory Panacea of the theory of gravity"? The effect of gravitation has been observed and proven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

8
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some simple tests for FE, RE, and EA
« on: July 08, 2009, 09:35:30 AM »
There should be a slight difference between the height of a laser over a long distance such as 7km if bendy light is assumed to accelerate at a constant rate. There should be at least 0.1-0.2 meter differences at some distances, possibly more depending on the rate of acceleration. You would need some very precise measurements to disprove a constant acceleration, and even then, they would come up with some excuse for bendy light not accelerating at a constant rate.

I re-calculated for 16km (about 10 miles), since that is what your experiment called for, and the differences went to about 0.3 meters.

9
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some simple tests for FE, RE, and EA
« on: July 08, 2009, 07:52:25 AM »
If The Earth is round and light travels in straight lines then ships truly disappear over the horizon (in truth) ...

But If The Earth is flat and light bends upwards then ships will appear to disappear over the horizon (as an optical illusion) ...

And we may not be able to tell the difference.

This would be generally true if the curvature of light were a perfect secant curve with appropriate curvature to perfectly emulate the RE model with straight light rays. However, a secant curve does not make a great deal of sense to me for a naturally curved path, and so the only limiting factor in making a distinction is experimental error.
Is light accelerated at a constant rate relative to earth? What kind of curve do you expect light to take?

10
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy Theorists
« on: July 08, 2009, 06:27:34 AM »
Acceleration is a known phenomenon. "Gravitons" is an unknown phenomenon.

Acceleration can occur through a physical process. "Gravitons" require an entirely new branch of science to be imagined up from scratch.

Acceleration is the better explanation.
Gravitation does not require gravitons. Why are you obsessed with gravitons? The "branch of science" gravitation requires is the general theory of relativity. Acceleration is not the better explanation since you cannot give a plausible explanation for this constant acceleration of the mass of the earth, sun, and stars for thousands of years. How long do you believe the earth has been accelerating, anyway? What is the combined mass of the earth, sun, and stars? How much energy has been used by this magical object to accelerate the earth for all this time?

11
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy Theorists
« on: July 08, 2009, 06:21:05 AM »
Quote
What physical process? For the UA, could you care to give some examples of things that could cause the acceleration?

Mass Ejection on the earth's underside, riding on a universal pressure wave, buoyancy through a greater medium.

Plenty of things could cause the acceleration of the earth.
mass ejection: Where is this mass coming from? It would need to eject a lot of mass to constantly accelerate the entire earth, not to mention the sun and all the stars.

pressure wave: Can you please cite sources about how a pressure wave can constantly accelerate the earth.

buoyancy: What is this medium, and how is it rising at an accelerating rate? Magic?

12
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy Theorists
« on: July 08, 2009, 06:15:52 AM »
It must be magic, since there is no scientific explanation.
If you want to know what's pushing the earth you'll have to go down and see for yourself.
That is impossible because the earth is round, and there is no such thing as magic.

And the acceleration of the earth has yet to be explained even hypothetically, yet you claim it to be more plausible than gravitation.

13
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA and Space Travel
« on: July 08, 2009, 06:08:44 AM »
Well Euclid, unlike you, my colleagues and I have carefully brought empirical evidence to bear on the question. I am not content to speculate as you are, inventing some wild hypothesis without grounds, which is why I hold that the UA's acceleration has been caused by the Big Bang itself, the inception of the universe which is attested by incontravertible evidence. Observable, palpable facts which are found in reality, in the real world. Background radiation in the sky above us suggests a massive explosion of universal magnitude. That, Euclid, is "bas[ing] my claim on logical deduction from observed facts of physics". There is a difference between making up a hypothesis, and basing a conclusion on observable evidence. You are quite happy doing the former, as you have many times admitted. I am only satisfied doing the latter.
How exactly does the big bang result in a constantly accelerating object under the earth? How is it any more "attested by incontravertible evidence" than gravitation?

14
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Zetecism
« on: July 08, 2009, 05:56:23 AM »
Gravitons are not "observable" by this or any criteria.
Have you observed the UA? You can say you observed the effect (accelerating earth), but we can say the same about gravitation.

15
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Zetecism
« on: July 08, 2009, 05:54:22 AM »
Not if all you have is one hypothesis built upon another, mumbled off in rapid succession.
Sounds like FET.

16
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« on: July 08, 2009, 05:50:07 AM »

So you say that other planets have gravity but earth does not?
How do you suppose this gravity exists? Where does it come from?
Of course, you cannot use RE models here because they have been made void numerous times on these forums.
If it's gravitation, then all masses produce a gravitational pull. If any mass does not (earth), then the effect is not gravitation. If FET has a gravitation alternative in addition to the UA, then they should name it something different to avoid confusion.

17
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: About space travel.
« on: July 08, 2009, 05:45:27 AM »
Is there more "known" about UA than there is about gravitons then? Because you just said "the mechanism that pushes the earth is unknown".
Whatever the mechanism is, it can occur by a known physical process. Plenty of things can cause acceleration.

"Gravitons" and "bending space" need entirely new branches of science to exist.
You have yet to cite a known physical process which can accelerate the earth.

18
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: About space travel.
« on: July 07, 2009, 07:58:09 PM »
The mechanism which pushes the earth is unknown.
Sounds like magic to me.

A spacecraft is neither a sun or a star.
What do you believe the sun and the stars are made of? What causes them to levitate "by electric or magnetic interaction"? Some say they are metal discs. We can make metal discs.

19
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy Theorists
« on: July 07, 2009, 07:57:04 PM »
It must be magic, since there is no scientific explanation.
If you want to know what's pushing the earth you'll have to go down and see for yourself.
That is impossible because the earth is round, and there is no such thing as magic.

20
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy Theorists
« on: July 07, 2009, 07:48:27 PM »
Quote
Through what know physical process is the earth accelerated?

I wouldn't know. I've never been to the underside of the earth to check it out.
It must be magic, since there is no scientific explanation.

21
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: About space travel.
« on: July 07, 2009, 07:43:18 PM »
As far as I'm aware the UA is pushing the earth upwards as a mechanical action, which makes sustained space travel impossible.

The sun and stars are riding atop the earth, levitated by electric or magnetic interaction.
Can you describe that "mechanical action"? What is the mechanism? How does it work? Why wouldn't it be possible for a spacecraft to be "levitated by electric or magnetic interaction"?

22
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy Theorists
« on: July 07, 2009, 07:28:09 PM »
Doesn't every known physical process (besides gravitation) for accelerating objects require some form of energy?

Sure, but why does the energy source need to be infinite rather than finite?

Someday the earth may stop accelerating and all life will come to an end.
Fair enough, but considering how long the earth has been accelerating according the FET, and how large the earth is, that still must be an extraordinary amount of energy. So, now that we can agree on that detail, can you actually answer the question? Through what know physical process is the earth accelerated?

23
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy Theorists
« on: July 07, 2009, 07:12:14 PM »
By what known physical process does the UA have infinite energy to constantly accelerate the entire earth?
Who said anything about infinite energy?
Doesn't every known physical process (besides gravitation) for accelerating objects require some form of energy? I'm sure you don't believe the acceleration happens with magic.

24
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: About space travel.
« on: July 07, 2009, 07:09:29 PM »
None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that the earth is accelerating upwards.
It certainly matters relevant to this thread. If the UA can act on a spaceship, space travel is possible. At what height would the spaceship have to reach for the UA to accelerate it along with the earth?

25
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Philosophy
« on: July 07, 2009, 07:07:29 PM »
Who said anything about the atmosphere? One cannot see an infinite distance away because of limits to the human eye.
If it were a limit of the human eye, the wake would come to a point before you can no longer see it.

26
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: About space travel.
« on: July 07, 2009, 06:16:52 PM »
I think that FE'ers need to get together and agree how the UA works.  That would be significant progress.

We know how it works. The earth accelerates upwards.

It's actually the RE'ers who need to figure out how "gravitons" work.
Did you read the thread? Is there an altitude at which the UA would act on objects that leave the surface of the earth? How does the UA accelerate the earth? Does the UA accelerate the sun? Can the dark energy be deflected? Does the deflected dark energy contain the atmosphere? What is your obsession with gravitons? I think the bending of spacetime is the more accepted theory.

27
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy Theorists
« on: July 07, 2009, 06:09:43 PM »
The UA makes more sense to me than a magical force that keeps beings on earth.
How is the UA any less magical than gravity/gravitation?

An acceleration can occur by a known physical process. Plenty of things can cause acceleration.

"Gravitons" and "Bending space-time" requires an entirely new unknown and undiscovered branch of science.
By what known physical process does the UA have infinite energy to constantly accelerate the entire earth?

28
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Philosophy
« on: July 07, 2009, 06:07:48 PM »
The author is assuming that he would be able to see an infinite distance away. He cannot.
He cannot see an infinite distance because there is a horizon obstructing his view. If the atmosphere was obstructing his view, then it would fade instead ending at a specific point.

29
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: About space travel.
« on: July 07, 2009, 02:27:01 PM »
Then according to your description, we are being accelerated by the UA, and are currently floating at the earth's surface. Obviously, that is not the case. Some have suggested that the earth prevents the UA from accelerating us by blocking or deflecting it, yet it accelerates the sun since it is further from the earth. Therefore, at the surface of the earth, the UA has no effect, but at some point between there and the sun, it does. Where is this point?

You clearly do not undertstand how the UA works. You cannot "block" its effects! How would such blocking take place? Perhaps with a large amount of lead lining?!
I never claimed it did. As I said, FET'ers have made that claim. Specifically, I have read that the earth deflects the dark energy and causes a barrier at the edges to hold the atmosphere over the earth. Since you think deflecting the UA is absurd, why do you suggest the UA doesn't accelerate us, since you claim it's effects are present from the bottom of the earth to billions of miles up into space.

30
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: About space travel.
« on: July 07, 2009, 02:10:02 PM »
But you don't need to escape the earth.  You just need to enter the influence of the UA like the sun, moon and other celestial objects.

And how would this not involve escaping the earth?

That would depend on where the influence of the UA begins.

The UA begins on the underside of the earth. It extends for billions of miles "up" into space. We may never know exactly where it ends unfortunately.
Then according to your description, we are being accelerated by the UA, and are currently floating at the earth's surface. Obviously, that is not the case. Some have suggested that the earth prevents the UA from accelerating us by blocking or deflecting it, yet it accelerates the sun since it is further from the earth. Therefore, at the surface of the earth, the UA has no effect, but at some point between there and the sun, it does. Where is this point?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10