1

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: July 10, 2010, 11:28:05 AM »

I may have made a fool of myself last night, i apologise to everyone, as it was very late (2:30 am where i am) and i was completely knackered

One more thing, if it is the UA that causes gravity, then what is it that holds the earth in one massive disk??

It's all good. 

I'm not quite sure I understand your question though... could you reitterate?

Well in RET the earth is held together by gravity, and we are held to the earth by gravity, as i am now sure your UA would work perfectly reproducing the effects of gravity in RET. but how is the FE held together in one solid disk, surely if there is no force acting between two objects with mass, then the earth would not stay together?

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Astronauts, Cosmonauts and Taikonauts

« on: July 10, 2010, 01:24:32 AM »

I believe he is along the lines of:
there is evidence of the conspiracy but not enough to prove to the unaware public that it exists without a doubt.

My point exactly, how did you become 'aware'

Looking at evidence.

Care to share this evidence, because if you did- and it were substantial -you could show the whole world this conspiracy

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory

« on: July 10, 2010, 01:21:35 AM »

Listen for scientific research to be accepted it has to withstand vigorous testing, and the experiment has to be repeated many times, by independent scientific bodies... has this happened? or is it just the FEr that has tested this?

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: July 10, 2010, 01:16:38 AM »

I may have made a fool of myself last night, i apologise to everyone, as it was very late (2:30 am where i am) and i was completely knackered

One more thing, if it is the UA that causes gravity, then what is it that holds the earth in one massive disk??

5

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: July 09, 2010, 05:15:29 PM »

ok so the formula should be written w=(u+v)/(1+(u*v/c^2)) so people can actually undertsnd how exactly it should work, because you can infact interpret it in a million different ways :/ My bad

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

ohh ok, i finally get it, the value for 1 is actually just over 1, so the speed is always increasing by slightly less than the acceleration.... ok then help me out, how does this prove it cant accelerate over the speed of light?

Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Hmmm then surely the way this equation works, whatever value of c you put in (just be open minded and imagine that the speed of light is different) you could prove that it is impossible to achieve any speed, ie if c was say 60???

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Astronauts, Cosmonauts and Taikonauts

« on: July 09, 2010, 04:50:04 PM »

I believe he is along the lines of:
there is evidence of the conspiracy but not enough to prove to the unaware public that it exists without a doubt.

My point exactly, how did you become 'aware'

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.

« on: July 09, 2010, 04:48:46 PM »

And thank you for respecting my lack of knowledge rather than ripping me for it as Pizzaplanet seems to have done :/
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40620.0

Aww, RM is just shits and giggles, bro. Don't get offended . Feel free to make a topic in RM about me being a pretzel, and you'll see me confirming this fact. Promise.

That's ok, im just not used to this kind of stuff really it's all cool know

8

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: July 09, 2010, 04:46:03 PM »

  Third, it violates the speed limit of the universe, the speed of light.

Hmmm, as does the UA...

How do you figure?

Ok, grab a calculator...

Now work out how many seconds it would take for the earth accelerating at 9.81m/s/s to reach the speed of light (3x10^8 m/s)

assuming were starting from zero velocity this would be 300000000/9.81 = 30581040 seconds

divide by 60 = 509,683.996 minutes

divide by 60 = 8.494.73327 hours

divide by 24 = 353.94 days

Less than a year, to reach the speed of light... which is impossoble due to the theory of relativity.

But if you were actually taking relativity into account with your calculations you'd never reach the speed of light.

To quote our old resident expert on the subject:

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Im sorry, this equation doesnt even work unless it's supposed to be w=(u+v)/((1+u)*v/c^2)

It works fine.

Lets plug in the numbes for w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

w=(0+9./(1+0*9.8/c^2)
w=(9./(1)
w=9.8

Again.

w=(9.8+9./(1+9.8*9.8/c^2)
w=(9.8+9./(1)
w=19.6

Note that I am only using aproximatioms since doing otherwise would result in lots of scientific notation which at this point wouldn't change the end product much.

ok so the formula should be written w=(u+v)/(1+(u*v/c^2)) so people can actually undertsnd how exactly it should work, because you can infact interpret it in a million different ways :/ My bad

ohh ok, i finally get it, the value for 1 is actually just over 1, so the speed is always increasing by slightly less than the acceleration.... ok then help me out, how does this prove it cant accelerate over the speed of light?

9

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: July 09, 2010, 03:37:11 PM »

  Third, it violates the speed limit of the universe, the speed of light.

Hmmm, as does the UA...

How do you figure?

Ok, grab a calculator...

Now work out how many seconds it would take for the earth accelerating at 9.81m/s/s to reach the speed of light (3x10^8 m/s)

assuming were starting from zero velocity this would be 300000000/9.81 = 30581040 seconds

divide by 60 = 509,683.996 minutes

divide by 60 = 8.494.73327 hours

divide by 24 = 353.94 days

Less than a year, to reach the speed of light... which is impossoble due to the theory of relativity.

But if you were actually taking relativity into account with your calculations you'd never reach the speed of light.

To quote our old resident expert on the subject:

From the equations of Relativity:

w=(u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

where u is the current velocity, v is 9.8m/s, due to the earth accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for one second, c is the speed of light, and w is the new velocity, to be used as u in the next iteration.  Start at u=0 and let me know how long it takes us to reach the speed of light.

Im sorry, this equation doesnt even work unless it's supposed to be w=(u+v)/((1+u)*v/c^2)

If not then the next speed will be 9.81/(1/c^2) which is about 882900000000000000 metres per second... Quite a jump in speed over a second for an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2. Im pretty sure when you jump out of an aeroplane you dont reach terminal velocity (let alone that kind of speed) within a second.

Even if it is supposed to be my corrected one it would jump from 0m/s to 90000000000000000 m/s... also an incredible feat

Infact i reach the speed of light after the first iteration

10

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: July 09, 2010, 02:59:27 PM »

  Third, it violates the speed limit of the universe, the speed of light.

Hmmm, as does the UA...

How do you figure?

Ok, grab a calculator...

Now work out how many seconds it would take for the earth accelerating at 9.81m/s/s to reach the speed of light (3x10^8 m/s)

assuming were starting from zero velocity this would be 300000000/9.81 = 30581040 seconds

divide by 60 = 509,683.996 minutes

divide by 60 = 8.494.73327 hours

divide by 24 = 353.94 days

Less than a year, to reach the speed of light... which is impossoble due to the theory of relativity.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.

« on: July 09, 2010, 02:51:54 PM »

Its not really subtle zoom in and you can see it with a ruler. I suspect what you may have there is barrel distortion.

Kk, well i guess i stand corrected, however could it not also just as easily be the curvature?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.

« on: July 09, 2010, 02:38:27 PM »

Im sorry, im new to posting on forums, so i could (and have) put a straight line on it, however i am clueless as how to re-upload the edited picture.

You have to host it with tinypic or a similar site.

Ok ta, well i will look into that, as i plan to become a more frequent poster on this site

And thank you for respecting my lack of knowledge rather than ripping me for it as Pizzaplanet seems to have done :/
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=40620.0

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.

« on: July 09, 2010, 02:34:34 PM »

Right here goes...

I will draw a sraight line on this photo so you can see the curvature for yourself


EDIT I decided it was too obvious to need a straight line, this must have been a very clear day, on top of a very high cliff, it's not normally this noticable

Ruler maybe?? if you place it so it is level with the horizon on both ends, the dark blue rises over the ruler edge in the middle
No, I see no curvature at all.  You'd better draw that straight line.

I tried that.  The horizon seemed to stay level with the ruler to me.  Are you incapable of using graphics software to draw a straight line? 

Im sorry, im new to posting on forums, so i could (and have) put a straight line on it, however i am clueless as how to re-upload the edited picture.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.

« on: July 09, 2010, 02:19:38 PM »

Right here goes...

I will draw a sraight line on this photo so you can see the curvature for yourself


EDIT I decided it was too obvious to need a straight line, this must have been a very clear day, on top of a very high cliff, it's not normally this noticable

Ruler maybe?? if you place it so it is level with the horizon on both ends, the dark blue rises over the ruler edge in the middle
No, I see no curvature at all.  You'd better draw that straight line.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory

« on: July 09, 2010, 01:19:39 PM »

Ok then, how come even with a really powerful telescope you could never ever show me france from the coast near my house (a good 75 miles)

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.

« on: July 09, 2010, 01:06:25 PM »

Right here goes...

I will draw a sraight line on this photo so you can see the curvature for yourself


EDIT I decided it was too obvious to need a straight line, this must have been a very clear day, on top of a very high cliff, it's not normally this noticable

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory

« on: July 09, 2010, 12:46:42 PM »

Ok then, as perspective obviously does exist, this would explain the 'small amount of restoration'. But still not the restoration of the boat, assuming there is a horizon and perspective, then the boat would start to disappear due to perspective before it disappears due to the curvature of the earth... so yes a small amount of restoration could take place, but not the whole image.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity??? WHat about that??

« on: July 09, 2010, 12:43:05 PM »

It's just a question... nice fail i was never accusing you of denying it, just posing an interesting fact

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.

« on: July 09, 2010, 12:18:51 PM »

Here is something that everyone has seen many times.  A round-earth believer, or shape denier as I will call them from here on out, posts a pic from high altitude or makes the statement that in a plane you can see the curvature of the earth.  And indeed, the pictures of the shape deniers do look compelling.  However, it's all an optical illusion.

At ground level, if you look out the window of a plane every round-earth believer and every shape denier can agree that the earth looks flat.  However, at extreme altitudes, it appears that there is a curvature.  This is well documented and understood.  Now, a shape denier will point to this and ignorantly proclaim, "Ah hah!  We've got you!  Another win for RET!!!"  Seems like a solid claim on the surface, lets look deeper.

The traditional response to this is that they are seeing the outline of the sun's spotlight, and at very very high altitudes or close to dawn/dusk this is true.  However, some pictures are taken at noon, or at the center of the spotlight at altitudes that shouldn't show curvature.  So what's going on?

The real reason that the earth looks curved is due to air pressure.  In order to keep passengers and personnel comfortable, and alive, a plain must maintain a certain atmospheric pressure.  Once a plain gets so high, the pressure outside the fuselage is lower than it is on the inside.  This causes the windows to bow outwards and give objects in the distance a curved look.  As the horizon is the only thing viewable that spans the length of a window, and at a sufficiently far distance, it appears to be curved. 

This optical illusion has fooled many people the world over, but it will no longer deceive you!  The next time you are on an airliner and a kid points out the window claiming to see the curvature of the earth, you can educate him or her on what is really going on and hopefully open their eyes to truth of the shape of this flat earth.

Ok then, maybe explain how when i go down to my beach hut i can sea the curvature of the earth? or have you never been to the beach? because i'm pretty sure there's no glass to be bent by the seaside...

Ooooh unless the government has some theory where they have surrounded every coastline in flexi glass :O

You can't see the curvature of the Earth from ground level.

Im sorry... but come to my beachut and say that to me again.

20

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: July 09, 2010, 11:57:24 AM »

  Third, it violates the speed limit of the universe, the speed of light.

Hmmm, as does the UA...

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory

« on: July 09, 2010, 11:55:00 AM »

Another thing, if boats dissapear over the horizon due to perspective (or just the fact that they have become too small to see) go to the beach, wait for a boat to be too far away to see, then see if you can see it through a telescope... ohh wait, you cant because it's gone over the horizon.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why The Earth Appears Curved at a High Altitude.

« on: July 09, 2010, 11:41:21 AM »

Here is something that everyone has seen many times.  A round-earth believer, or shape denier as I will call them from here on out, posts a pic from high altitude or makes the statement that in a plane you can see the curvature of the earth.  And indeed, the pictures of the shape deniers do look compelling.  However, it's all an optical illusion.

At ground level, if you look out the window of a plane every round-earth believer and every shape denier can agree that the earth looks flat.  However, at extreme altitudes, it appears that there is a curvature.  This is well documented and understood.  Now, a shape denier will point to this and ignorantly proclaim, "Ah hah!  We've got you!  Another win for RET!!!"  Seems like a solid claim on the surface, lets look deeper.

The traditional response to this is that they are seeing the outline of the sun's spotlight, and at very very high altitudes or close to dawn/dusk this is true.  However, some pictures are taken at noon, or at the center of the spotlight at altitudes that shouldn't show curvature.  So what's going on?

The real reason that the earth looks curved is due to air pressure.  In order to keep passengers and personnel comfortable, and alive, a plain must maintain a certain atmospheric pressure.  Once a plain gets so high, the pressure outside the fuselage is lower than it is on the inside.  This causes the windows to bow outwards and give objects in the distance a curved look.  As the horizon is the only thing viewable that spans the length of a window, and at a sufficiently far distance, it appears to be curved. 

This optical illusion has fooled many people the world over, but it will no longer deceive you!  The next time you are on an airliner and a kid points out the window claiming to see the curvature of the earth, you can educate him or her on what is really going on and hopefully open their eyes to truth of the shape of this flat earth.

Ok then, maybe explain how when i go down to my beach hut i can sea the curvature of the earth? or have you never been to the beach? because i'm pretty sure there's no glass to be bent by the seaside...

Ooooh unless the government has some theory where they have surrounded every coastline in flexi glass :O

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity??? WHat about that??

« on: July 09, 2010, 11:28:06 AM »

Well, one thing that disputed does not mean is disproven.

Irrelevant. No one claimed it did.

Great, then discussing that something has been disputed is equally irrelevant. So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

lolwat. Disputed does also not mean that it is inherently true, nor inherently false.

As far as I know, who ever said it didn't. But still: So Cavendish stands as an experiment that disproves FET. Thanks.

False. Cavendish has been disputed.

Disputing Cavendish does not make it, or its implications, false.

I never claimed such a thing.

But you keep implying it.

You inferring incorrect statements is no the fault of I, or FET.

Then stop saying that Cavendish has been disputed as if it means something.

It does mean something. It means Cavendish has been disputed.

And what exactly does Cavendish having been disputed mean in the context of this discussion?

It means that Cavendish is not universally accepted by all, namely, those who dispute it.

It is disputed by some neo nazis, that the holocaust never happened. Does that mean we can't use it as evidence for the evils of Hitler?

Do you have any evidence of the Holocaust happening?

Do you know it's illegal to deny the holocaust?

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Astronauts, Cosmonauts and Taikonauts

« on: July 09, 2010, 11:15:29 AM »

If we could prove the existence of The Conspiracy, it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy. The whole scam would be blown. I hope that some day we can prove its existence, but it's a fairly obvious and somewhat unfair criticism.

How do you know of this "conspiracy" then? Surely to have even realised that there was a conspiracy, someone must have been in to space and seen that the earth is flat, otherwise how  would you know it is flat... or are you just saying that the earth is flat based on no solid physical evidence?

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory

« on: July 08, 2010, 01:50:10 AM »

Ok, if they are metal disc's held up by the photoelectric effect or whatever, then how come they shine? what process makes them light up the sky? also, for it to be due to photoelectric effect and electromagnetic repulsion with the earth, then surely the earth would need to be made of metal aswell, or else the photoelectric affect wouldnt effect it?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory

« on: July 07, 2010, 03:53:31 AM »

Just wondering, within the thoery of the flat Earth how do you explain the fact that different parts of the Earth are light at different times of day. Under your idea that the Earth is flat, surely with the sun rising it would cast light on the entire planet?

eg:



And how do you explain satellites that orbit the Earth? And different temperatures and climates.