1
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.
2
Flat Earth General / Re: 100 proofs that the earth is a globe
« on: January 22, 2010, 11:09:30 AM »7. If the earth were flat, dinosaurs would have tried to eat it like a cookie.But there are more round foods than flat ones.
3
Flat Earth General / Re: 100 proofs that the earth is a globe
« on: January 21, 2010, 02:19:36 PM »I thought it would probably be a good idea of we compile a list of completely invalid proofs that the earth is a globe so we can point at it when people put forward any good arguments for FET, after all if we can get to 100 even if they are rubbish one of them's got to be valid right? I mean there are 100 of them so one of the must be good.Well, we could compile a list of 100 idiotic and refuted proofs that the earth is a globe so that we can point to them whenever an REdiot comes up with the same flawed and worthless arguments. Oh wait, that's called the FAQ.
4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there a legitimate rebutal for this point?
« on: January 19, 2010, 06:03:55 PM »
Yes. This has been answered before many times; try looking through some other threads. The short version is you need to take relativity into account. In the FE model, the Earth is always accelerating upwards at a sufficient rate that its inhabitants always feel a gravity of 1g. In a fixed inertial reference frame, this acceleration is not constant, and the speed of the FE approaches but never reaches c. That's possible because the acceleration felt by inhabitants of the FE is not the same as the acceleration calculated by an observer who is not traveling at the same speed.
5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How are we still accelerating?
« on: January 19, 2010, 05:55:23 AM »Is there a point to which the outside observer finally sees us stop? As I understand it the closer we get to c the slower the observer sees us accelerate. At some point the acceleration would be so miniscule we would actually seem to stop, right?It depends: how sensitive are their instruments? How long do they observe us? Our acceleration would never be zero in any reference frame, but it might be too small to be detectable by whatever they use to measure acceleration.
6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« on: January 17, 2010, 04:06:09 AM »You missed the part were you would see light at a certain altitude (while it is dark below), but if you went higher, you would then lose the light. Do you want me to show you the graph that depicts this?Could you link the thread in question? I tried searching for it, but there are about a million threads titled night/day.
7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« on: January 17, 2010, 12:09:13 AM »Could it also be added that the Bendy Light Theory has been debunked? I recall it died in the Night/Day topic since a person at altitude would end up thinking its day while a person below them would think its night.What do you mean "a person at altitude would end up thinking its day"? The sun does set sooner for those lower down than those higher up. You can easily see this by watching a mountain at sunset - the summit will still be in sunlight when its after sunset at the base. I have personally witnessed this, most memorably watching El Capitan in Yosemite. Here's a picture:
If this phenomenon is predicted by the FE model, then that's a strength, not a weakness.
8
The Lounge / Re: The word "Burglarizing"
« on: January 16, 2010, 03:49:50 PM »Because they don't speak English? Or because they speak with a heavy accent or in an unfamiliar dialect?Welsh don't speak English. Neither do Scots. English do speak English. Hence the name.How many Scots do you know who don't speak English?
All my dad's relatives. I can't understand a word they say
9
The Lounge / Re: The word "Burglarizing"
« on: January 16, 2010, 04:10:10 AM »Welsh don't speak English. Neither do Scots. English do speak English. Hence the name.How many Scots do you know who don't speak English?
10
The Lounge / Re: The word "Burglarizing"
« on: January 15, 2010, 01:28:21 AM »You can't use the term "burglar" as the noun and "burglarize" as the verb. It is contrary to sensible usage.Pretentious twit. A parable about glass houses comes to mind...
11
The Lounge / Re: The word "Burglarizing"
« on: January 14, 2010, 04:31:42 PM »Burglarizing is not a proper word.According to whom?
12
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: The Plantimal
« on: January 14, 2010, 12:30:27 AM »
The scientist who's spent two decades studying the phenomenon says the mechanism is unknown, so I'm sure you correctly guessed the mechanism based on a news story. 
13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: speed of light
« on: January 13, 2010, 05:50:12 PM »I was under the impression that a non-inertial frame of reference meant that the laws of physics were dependent on that frame of reference. And the opposite for inertial frame of reference.I have no idea what you mean by that. An inertial frame is one in which Newton's first law holds.
14
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: An Interpolation problem
« on: January 13, 2010, 09:38:05 AM »
Are we assuming light travels in straight lines?
15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: speed of light
« on: January 13, 2010, 12:06:08 AM »Are you sure you don't mean Non-inertial frame of reference?Quite sure.
Quote
Also, I find it extremely disheartening that someone who knows advanced science as well as yourself would choose to be so willfully ignorant of the proven facts accepted by modern science...I'm not willfully ignorant of anything; I'm quite aware that the Earth is round. I simply enjoy refuting incorrect arguments, including incorrect arguments that purport to show that the FE model is impossible. That's why I tend to preface comments "In the FE model" since I'm explaining why certain parts of the FE model can give a consistent account of certain observations. The vast majority of those arguing for the FE point of view on these forums are playing devil's advocate, and I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that anyone actually believes the Earth to be flat.
16
The Lounge / Re: research project.
« on: January 12, 2010, 09:59:19 PM »I am pure in mind and soul.I'm not sure whether to snicker or vomit.
17
The Lounge / Re: research project.
« on: January 12, 2010, 07:47:41 PM »
Speaking of Bourbaki...
Q: Why did Bourbaki stop writing textbooks?
A: They realized Serge Lang was one single person.
On a more serious note, how about Gödel's incompleteness theorems?
Q: Why did Bourbaki stop writing textbooks?
A: They realized Serge Lang was one single person.
On a more serious note, how about Gödel's incompleteness theorems?
18
The Lounge / Re: this is what happens when you are stupid...
« on: January 12, 2010, 07:44:14 PM »and hit new topic instead of reply, and then just fill out the topic because you are confused.If all the images weren't broken, it wouldn't be so easy to click the wrong button...
lose.
19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars and Constellations - Explain?
« on: January 12, 2010, 01:43:11 AM »Except that acceleration affects light differently, since it always travels at the same rate, depending only on the medium through which it is traveling (c for vacuum). An acceleration normal to its direction of motion causes it to change direction without changing speed, while an acceleration parallel its direction of motion doesn't change its speed at all, but instead causes it to redshift or blueshift (depending on whether the acceleration is in the opposite direction or the same direction).And what exactly makes EA not effect downward traveling light? If light traveling to the left is accelerated upwards, and light traveling to the right is accelerating upward, that leads me to believe there's a constant, universal force accelerating it upward. If you accelerate something moving downward upward, you begin to slow it until it hits 0 velocity and begins traveling in the opposite direction.Wouldn't it just accelerate in the "upward" direction?No.
20
The Lounge / Re: What's up?
« on: January 12, 2010, 01:05:21 AM »reported for derailing.Parsec, do you really report people for all the things you say you report them for?
22
The Lounge / Re: What's up?
« on: January 11, 2010, 10:56:09 PM »
Coincidentally enough, also Chicago. In fact, I performed an experiment one time (to determine whether the Earth could be seen to visibly curve by looking out over a large body of water) by walking to Lake Michigan with a camera.
There seem to be a decent number of Chicagoans on these forums, actually.
There seem to be a decent number of Chicagoans on these forums, actually.
23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: speed of light
« on: January 11, 2010, 10:19:07 PM »Well, it's not really a constant acceleration. As I said, "the Earth is always accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2 as measured in an inertial reference frame in which the Earth is instantaneously stationary." However, that reference frame right now is difference from what that reference frame was two minutes ago, and is different from what that reference frame will be two minutes from now. So it's a constant acceleration as measured in different reference frames (whichever inertial frame happens to be comoving with the Earth at the given time), but in any fixed inertial reference frame, the acceleration is not constant, and the speed will asymptotically approach c.In the FE model, the Earth is always accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2 as measured in an inertial reference frame in which the Earth is instantaneously stationary (i.e. which is instantaneously comoving with the Earth). It can be shown that under these conditions, it is consistent with special relativity that an observer on the surface of the Earth always feels a force indistinguishable from how we perceive gravity, and the Earth will never exceed the speed of light, but will asymptotically approach it in any fixed inertial frame of reference.
You can't asymptotically approach something going at a constant acceleration. Thats doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain this.
Feel free to work out the math yourself (you can do it all from the relativistic addition of velocities formula and basic calculus). If you prefer, you can also search these forums where it has been explained and the equations worked out in detail, or you can Google it. The math is the same as the math for a rocket which uses a constant acceleration (again, as measured in the comoving inertial frame) to create artificial gravity.
24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars and Constellations - Explain?
« on: January 11, 2010, 07:26:17 PM »
Projective geometry. It's a simple perspective effect, the same one that causes the appearance of a "vanishing point" in all pictures of geometric objects with many parallel lines (for example, a long hallway, or railroad tracks).
25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do you explain Nautical miles and the entire Latitude/Longitude situatio
« on: January 11, 2010, 07:22:35 PM »
In the FE model, latitude may be defined as the apparent height of Polaris above the horizon, in degrees (with analogous definitions for south latitude). Nautical miles can then be defined with respect to latitude. In the FE model, the curvature of light is such that the distance between two points at the same longitude but at different latitudes depends only on the difference in latitudes between them, allowing Nautical miles to be consistently defined.
26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: speed of light
« on: January 11, 2010, 07:17:31 PM »So, just to clarify, does this mean that flat earthers deny that nothing can move faster the speed of light?No, it does not. In the FE model, the Earth is always accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s2 as measured in an inertial reference frame in which the Earth is instantaneously stationary (i.e. which is instantaneously comoving with the Earth). It can be shown that under these conditions, it is consistent with special relativity that an observer on the surface of the Earth always feels a force indistinguishable from how we perceive gravity, and the Earth will never exceed the speed of light, but will asymptotically approach it in any fixed inertial frame of reference.
27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« on: January 10, 2010, 09:30:38 PM »
28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Horizon - explain.
« on: January 10, 2010, 12:25:13 AM »
My own arguments? What are you talking about?
29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Horizon - explain.
« on: January 09, 2010, 07:18:36 PM »Why is the atmosphere bent if the force of gravity (which apparently exists because the earth is being pushed upwards) is equal over the entire flat surface? Surely the atmosphere would be one solid (read 'defined', I know gasses can't be solid) block of gasses would it not? And if this were to be true, there would be no reason for refraction to occur throughout the atmosphereActually, no. Gravity would cause a pressure gradient, since each bit of air would be pressed on by the weight of the air above it. Assuming an isothermal atmosphere in equilibrium, the result would be an exponential decrease of pressure with height, and a corresponding exponential decrease of air density with height. This would, in fact, cause atmospheric refraction; however light would curve down rather than up. Of course adding in the effects of temperature complicates matters greatly and can lead to more interesting phenomena. One example is a pressure inversion (lower pressure air below higher pressure air), which reverses the pressure gradient, and causes light to curve up instead of down - this is the cause of a highway mirage. Another example is a temperature inversion, which increases the pressure gradient, and causes light to curve downward more strongly than usual. This can cause stretched or double images of distant objects, as in a superior mirage.
30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Horizon - explain.
« on: January 09, 2010, 07:06:33 PM »We're arguing over definitions now, you believe that "bend" is analogous with "refract", where as I disagree. Using the word "bend" implies that light can be curved as opposed to travelling in straight lines, changing direction whenever the light is reflected or refracted. Stating that refraction is the bending of light is only a simple way of explaining refraction to somebody who doesn't understand its concept, however I believe this word does not describe refraction adequately.We were never not arguing over definitions. I made a perfectly correct statement, which you took issue with because of a minor semantic quibble which only exists in your head. To make matters worse, you decided to be patronizing and explain refraction to me, which was both insulting and useless since I already understand refraction. If you prefer the term "refract" to "bend", feel free to use it, but don't be a patronizing jerk to other people simply because you don't like their choice of phrasing.
Quote
In conclusion, the earth is round.I never said it wasn't. Oh, and bite me.