1

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: .9999... equals 1?

« on: March 11, 2007, 02:10:42 PM »

no, i didnt mean a number smaller than zero, I meant after as in next on the number line, greater than, etc.

Right.There is no smallest number after zero. You don't even need to resort to irrationals to see that, since between any two numbers there are not only infinitely many irrationals, there are infinitely many rationals as well. This is pretty obvious in the case of rationals; because if you have any number bigger than zero, you can divide that number by two and get a smaller number bigger than zero.

By this, of course, Skeptical meant no smallest number after zero on the number line.

2

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: .9999... equals 1?

« on: March 11, 2007, 10:32:00 AM »

Then what comes after 0 on a thoereticalnumber line where 0.9r is displayable?

First off, any number line that displays 1 is also displaying .999... Second, I don't think there is a number that "comes after" 1 in the sense that you mean. It's my understanding that in between any two rational numbers are an infinite amount of irrational numbers, therefore for any number you can give me I can give you a smaller one.
Of course, I haven't got the slightest idea what I'm talking about, so we'd better wait for Skeptical to get back on.

3

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: .9999... equals 1?

« on: March 10, 2007, 02:06:45 PM »

What is represented by 0.999r is an infinitely small difference from 1.

This is where you're becoming confused. .999... is not the closest you can get to 1 without being 1. There is no such number. The symbols 1 and .999... represent the exact same quantity. There is no difference at all, no matter how closely you look at them, between the quantity represented by the symbol 1, and by the quantity represented by the infinite string of symbols .999...

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: .9999... equals 1?

« on: March 10, 2007, 12:54:49 PM »

Are you all denying that infinitely small quantities/numbers exist? Do you think that 0.0?1 = 0?

That number is not possible. You can't have an infinite number of zeros if you put an end to them. By sticking the 1 on the end, you've now got a very, very long string of zeros that ends with a 1, but you do not have infinite zeros.
Like Skeptical already said, there is no such thing as an infinitely small real number.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Freefall

« on: March 10, 2007, 10:55:13 AM »

This is from one of the articles you quoted

the elevator's fall has made the stomach lose weight, and the elastic tissues that support it have pulled it upward. When the elevator stops descending, gravity resumes control. The stomach regains its weight and settles back into place.

By the way, when I said astronauts wouldn't feel the effect, I was mistaken. I owe you five dollars.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Freefall

« on: March 10, 2007, 10:54:06 AM »

I'm really interested in hearing how it's a psychological effect... Why our stomachs? Why rising?  What's causing these sensations?

When you're not weightless (i.e., standing on the ground) your stomach will be held in place in your body cavity by stretched muscles. In free fall, your stomach finds itself in a position in your body cavity that it does not normally occupy. This abnormal situation is registered by the brain, triggering the physiological responses that makes your stomach feel different in free-fall. Your body is reflexively tensing the abdominal muscles in an attempt to hold the stomach in its normal place.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Freefall

« on: March 10, 2007, 10:43:18 AM »

I'm referring to freefall that causes movement towards the center, not centripetal movement.  They're also in a state of weightlessness.  You're not going to prove my point invalid since you can experience it easily in an elevator, car (going over a big bump and dropping again), etc. so you FE'ers might as well start formulating one of your crazy answers.

My point was that the feeling is psychological. It has nothing to do with inertia or acceleration.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Freefall

« on: March 10, 2007, 10:32:50 AM »

An astronaut aboard the space station (assuming there is such a thing) is in a constant state of free-fall. If you ever get a chance, ask one if they constantly feel their stomach rising in their chest. I've got five bucks that says the answer is "no".

9

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: .9999... equals 1?

« on: March 10, 2007, 10:13:08 AM »

It represents a definite finite quantity minus an infinitely small quantity. It includes the infinitely small quantity.

Maybe it would be easier to picture this using a number line. We can both agree that .999..., no matter what amount it represents, is a real number, and therefore has a definite position on the real number line, correct? To find this place on the number line, you would simply count .999... spaces to the right of zero. To subtract this amount from any place on the number line, you would simply start at whatever place represents the number you wish to subtract it from, and count .999... spaces to the left. If you start at the place that represents .999... and count .999... spaces to the left, you will be on zero. If you start at 9.999... and count .999... spaces to the left, you would be on 9.
The place on the number line that represents .999... is the exact same place that represents 1. It's not almost the same place, it's not just before 1, it is the exact same place.

10

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: .9999... equals 1?

« on: March 09, 2007, 07:07:31 PM »

It is an infinite number in the same way that an infinitely small number is an infinite number, and it is the same as if it was an infinite quantity in regards to applying finite mathematics.

But .999... represents neither an infinitely small quantity nor an infinitely large quantity. It represents a definite, finite quantity, and can therefore be treated as such.
Just as 2+2, 8-4, 16÷4, (?4)^2 all represent 4, .999... is just another way of representing 1.

11

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: .9999... equals 1?

« on: March 09, 2007, 06:51:55 PM »

You're applying laws of finite math to infinite. There is no concept of "equals" in infinity, that is a finite concept used by finite creatures in a finite science. It doesn't matter if .999? equals anything, such a concept doesn't apply to a number with an infinite aspect; the infinite aspect makes it untouchable by finite mathematics.

Do you think that infinity = infinity?

.999... does not equal infinity. It may be an infinite string of symobols, but it still represents a finite amount. Any special rules that may apply to adding, subtracting, multiplying, or dividing infinity do not apply to a finite amount.

12

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: .9999... equals 1?

« on: March 09, 2007, 06:38:54 PM »

This one goes wrong with the:
10c - c = 9.999? - 0.999?
9c = 9

You simply cant subtract 0.999? from 9.999?. Just as ? - ? ? 0, 9.999? - 0.999? ? 9.

And why not? Surely you must agree that .999... is equal to some number, correct? And that if you subtract that number from .999... you will have 0, correct? And therefore if you subtract that particular number from 9.999... you will have 9. It's the same as subtracting, say, .5 from 2.5. Surely you agree that subtraction would leave 2?

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravitational confusion.

« on: February 27, 2007, 06:27:26 AM »

I think there's someone who has already thought of this, and there's a link to the discussion in the FAQ's(although it wouldn't work for me)

Sorry about that. When we made the switch to SimpleMachines apparently all the links were broken.
Anyway, here's a working link: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3152.msg28574#msg28574

14

The Lounge / Re: New forums apparently D;

« on: February 20, 2007, 05:25:25 AM »

I hate being called a n00b.....

What do you guys want the ranks to be called? So far all there is is "Newbie" for 0-499 posts, and then "Regular" for 500+.

15

The Lounge / Re: New forums apparently D;

« on: February 19, 2007, 07:52:52 PM »

When Daniel comes back onto IRC tomorrow I plan to help him change around the layout of threads so that things are less spaced out and there is no blue bar over every post.

It's set to allow users to select which layout they want. I switched mine to "Babylon Theme", which got rid of the blue bars, but I don't think I like the way it looks now.

16

The Lounge / Re: New forums apparently D;

« on: February 19, 2007, 07:38:14 PM »

Hey Penguin, the smilies can be added and changed in the Admin menu. Feel free to change them since you're an Admin.

I just found that out. PHPB only let Daniel change stuff like that, so I hadn't realized I could until just a minute ago.

I'm still trying to figure out how everything works, so if anyone finds out that their account has been deleted, or all their posts are missing or something, it's... uhhh... Erasmus' fault!

17

The Lounge / Re: New forums apparently D;

« on: February 19, 2007, 07:19:17 PM »

The smilies are a little ugly, but I think all the new features make up for it.
This software has much more advanced moderating options, so hopefully it will help us control the spam.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / The Earth is NOT accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 or 32 ft/s^2

« on: February 16, 2007, 06:11:05 PM »

I am not using this fact to prove/disprove any Round Earth/ Flat Earth theory, merely to point out a fallacy that some people are quoting as fact, that the Earth is accelerating at any given speed.

It's not a fallacy. According to the flat Earth theory, the effects of gravity are produced by Earth accelerating "upwards" at 1g.
""There is no difference locally between being in a gravitational field and being on an accelerating platform" meaning that someone on Earth cannot tell if they are accelerating towards the ground when they jump, or if the ground is accelerating towards them.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / The Earth is NOT accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 or 32 ft/s^2

« on: February 16, 2007, 06:01:41 PM »

According to the equivalence principal, there is no difference locally between being in a gravitational field and being on an accelerating platform.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Relativity disproves accellerating Earth

« on: February 16, 2007, 05:22:09 PM »

As we approached the speed of light, the energy required to maintain this accelleration would approach levels beyond the total of energy in the universe. As you stated, from an outside frame of reference we are slowing as we approach the speed of light, but the amount of energy required to get us to this point cannot be dismissed as irrelevent and must have a source.

Also, as the Earth increases in speed and thus mass, the amount of energy required to maintain an accelleration of 32 fps/s is constantly increasing.

This energy must come from somewhere.

Earth's rate of acceleration decreases because the amount of energy required to accelerate its increased mass has also increased. Since more energy isn't applied, the rate of acceleration decreases.
None of this matters from our frame of reference howeve, because Earth's mass has never changed from our frame of reference, therefore the energy required to accelerate it has never increased.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Relativity disproves accellerating Earth

« on: February 16, 2007, 04:43:09 PM »

OK, mass is relative, but there still needs to be an explaination for the near infinite amount of energy required to maintain the accelleration of the Earth at near light speed.

The acceleration is not maintained near lightspeed. From the frame of reference of anyone not accelerating along with Earth, Earth's rate of acceleration will be constantly decreasing.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Relativity disproves accellerating Earth

« on: February 16, 2007, 04:19:18 PM »

So being that at the accelleration of gravity the Earth and everything on it would approach the speed of light in about 356 days, all mass on Earth would be near infinite and thus changing the momentum of anything on Earth would take near infinite energy, which I'm pretty sure my muscles are not capable of producing.

Mass increase due to approaching c is relative. Earth's mass and the mass of everything on it remains constant from any frame of reference where Earth is not approaching c

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Relativity disproves accellerating Earth

« on: February 16, 2007, 04:09:58 PM »

Q: "Doesn't this mean we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light, which is impossible?"

A: No, here is a detailed explanation.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Relativity on FE.

« on: February 13, 2007, 02:03:03 PM »

That isn't true at all.  If Bill is standing on a fixed-to-the-Earth point near the Ice wall and Jim is fixed at the centre, and the Earth is spinning, then Bill is accelerating towards Jim (regardless of any upward acceleration of the Earth).  Objects in rotating reference frames experience gravitational time dilation as a function of their distance from the axis of rotation.

Darn you Erasmus! I had my perfectly dandy little theory cooked up, and you had to come in and make everything all confusing.

I warned you Wolfwood, never listen to me, I haven't got the slightest idea what I'm talking about.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Did all the mods just dissapear?

« on: February 13, 2007, 01:53:37 PM »

I apologize for that everyone. The problem should be taken care of now.

Nice job keeping him at bay Dysfunction.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Relativity on FE.

« on: February 12, 2007, 05:57:58 PM »

Suppose the Earth was round. Bill journeyed to the center of the Earth and Joe stayed on the surface. Would Bill experience any form of Time Dilation? Or would they still be experiencing the same time?

Well, gravity causes time dilation (the stronger the gravitational field, the slower time passes), so if Bill is at the center of Earth where there is no gravity (assuming he's at the exact center) then from his FoR, time will be passing more slowly for Joe.

But don't take my word for it- I haven't got the slightest idea what I'm talking about. Ask someone who's smart.

Wouldn't Joe be spinning as well? I didn't realise the North pole remained stationary while the rest of the earth rotated around it.

Yes, but I think Wolfwood was thinking about tangential velocity, not rotational velocity.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Relativity on FE.

« on: February 12, 2007, 08:03:22 AM »

But he is not.

He is at the edge of the FE, Joe is at the center.

Joe remains motionless (except for the upward acceleration)

Bill spins in a circular motion as well as moves upwards.

Bill isn't spinning in any motion relative to Joe. Bill may be moving faster relative to someone outside of Earth's FoR, but from Joes's FoR he's not moving (except for when he made the trip down to Antarctica in the first place).

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Relativity on FE.

« on: February 12, 2007, 06:41:56 AM »

Essentially, Bill and Joe are twins. Bill ships out to become an Ice Wall Guard while Joe moves to the North Pole to study snow. Both bring with them Atomic Clocks that are completely synched together. After 3 years of service on the Ice Wall, Bill returns to visit Joe.

According to Time Dilation and Relativity, Bill's clock would appear to have somehow sped up during his 3 year service and then seemingly slowed down after returning to Joe correct?

Bill only experiences time dilation relative to Joe if he's moving relative to Joe.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Stuff

« on: February 10, 2007, 06:52:18 AM »

The FoR where FE's speed is approaching c would have to be outside the universe? I mean the universe seems to be accelerating with FE, right?

Well obviously the whole universe isn't accelerating along with Earth, otherwise things wouldn't 'fall' when you drop them.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Stuff

« on: February 09, 2007, 04:56:45 PM »

Because if its decreasing its speed so that it doesn't surpass the speed of light, that means its decreasing its speed with the same ammount it accelerates in. Which means its not changing its speed at all.

How can it constantly be accelerating, while still constantly be decelerating? It either doesn't accelerate at all, or it constantly accelerates (and thus reaching the speed of late), or constantly decelerate (thus eventually standing still, and then moving backwards).

First off, we never said Earth decelerates, we said it's rate of acceleration decreases. It still gains speed each second, it just gains less speed than it did the previous second.
Next, as Engineer keeps having to repeat over and over, acceleration is relative. Earth's acceleration is not decreasing in any FoR in which it is not approaching c.