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 - penguins_demise

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So, this is my first time here....
« on: October 27, 2011, 11:24:08 PM »
I'll give it a stab.  Correct me if I make inaccuracies, FE'ers.

1.  The moon does not reflect sun light.  Bio-luminescent lunar shrimp live on the moon and they all turn on and off their lights at the proper time in order for us to get the moon phases.

2.  The stars are much closer on a flat earth than they are on a round one.  You can not see the southern cross from the northern hemidisk because the stars are simply too far away.  The same goes for Polaris when viewed from the south.

Do these stars move in a circle above the disc, like the sun, in order to explain their motion through the sky? If so, how do the FE's explain the fact that there are stars in the southern hemisphere that never set. If the stars moved in a circle, the would spend some of the time on the opposite side of the disk to me (in Australia) so that South America could see them. This means that I should see them set like I would the sun, but I don't.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET's gravity
« on: October 21, 2011, 03:34:59 AM »
Oh, if it's on Wikipedia it must be real. I apologize for doubting you.

Sorry:
Stanford University: http://www.stanford.edu/group/chugroup/amo/interferometry.html
Berkeley: http://physics.berkeley.edu/research/mueller/Atom%20Interferometry/AI.htm
A book written on the topic: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780120924608 (You may not be able to access this one, you need a subscription)
A paper on the subject: http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/32/15/201
MIT: http://www.rle.mit.edu/ifm/html/ifm_pubs.html

Would you like more?

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET's gravity
« on: October 21, 2011, 02:52:25 AM »
More to the point, experiments have been done to determine G
Such as what?

Atom interferometer measurements: Basically, they can determine very accurately how a collection of atoms has moved. By placing a mass near by and determinging any differences, they can determine G.

Sounds like a science fiction device to me.

The paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/74.abstract

A wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_interferometer

So no, they are not science fiction.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET's gravity
« on: October 20, 2011, 01:45:02 PM »
More to the point, experiments have been done to determine G
Such as what?

Atom interferometer measurements: Basically, they can determine very accurately how a collection of atoms has moved. By placing a mass near by and determinging any differences, they can determine G.

In answer to the OP: Cavendish was a very poorly performed experiment. Even many globularist scientists agree with this. It completely failed to take other factors into account.

So, because one experiment performed many years ago was flawed, all the experiments we have done since are flawed, even if they use different methods to account for the - obviously known - flaws in the Cavendish experiment?

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET's gravity
« on: October 20, 2011, 05:40:24 AM »
So... How does any of that relate to my question? Great theory, though, reminds me of Norse mythology; I like it.

Can someone acknowledge the Cavendish experiment's contradiction to FET, and how that can be reconciled?
Have you considered that there might be forces at work between those metal balls other than "gravity"?

Such as? More to the point, experiments have been done to determine G (i.e. the value the Cavendish experiment measures) that do not use the force between metal balls, so any 'other forces' are a moot point, as experiments have been done that would not have these forces.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gyroscopes make FE impossible
« on: October 10, 2011, 09:27:40 AM »
I simply gave an example. I don't know if they make record players with 4 seconds per revolution. A record player revolving at 4 seconds per revolution will move at varying speeds down the diameter of the record. Towards the center it will be moving faster and towards the edges it will be moving slower.

Except that you have it back the front - the record moves fastest at the edge and slowest at the centre (It takes the same amount of time to do one revolution, but the outer edge has to move further, so it is faster) This is the linear velocity of the record - how fast it is moving in a straight line. Its angular veocity - how long it takes to complete a revolution - would not change with distance from the centre.

Incorrect. The outer edge has to move further, so it's slower. See this image:



Both cars have to travel the same path in the same amount of time. The yellow car has a shorter path, therefore it will travel faster than the green car.

Speed equals distance over time - the time taken is the same, but the green car has to travel further - hence the distance is larger and so it has a larger speed.
Think of it this way - you walk ten metres in an hour, while I walk 1000 metres in that hour. Which of us has a greater speed?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gyroscopes make FE impossible
« on: October 10, 2011, 09:09:26 AM »
I simply gave an example. I don't know if they make record players with 4 seconds per revolution. A record player revolving at 4 seconds per revolution will move at varying speeds down the diameter of the record. Towards the center it will be moving faster and towards the edges it will be moving slower.

Except that you have it back the front - the record moves fastest at the edge and slowest at the centre (It takes the same amount of time to do one revolution, but the outer edge has to move further, so it is faster) This is the linear velocity of the record - how fast it is moving in a straight line. Its angular veocity - how long it takes to complete a revolution - would not change with distance from the centre.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The seasons and angular momentum
« on: October 08, 2011, 07:41:26 PM »
An FEer might make a similar argument about how the radius of the Earth's orbit increases and decreases without violating conservation laws. Bear in mind that angular momentum is the cross product of the radial vector (r) and the linear momentum (mv). From a RE perspective, the solution to such a problem is to have the velocity of the Earth increase as it gets closer to the sun and decrease as it gets further away. On a FE the the sun's velocity would change in a similar fashion.

Except that, in the FE model proposed, the sun's linear velocity must decrease as the radius decreases (Because it is taking the same amount of time, a day, to travel a shorter distance - the circumference shrinks), rather than increasing. This would lead to a change in the angular momentum.

You may very well say that the velocity of the Earth/sun is constant because the time is takes to move across the sky is constant. However, this is not true. If you were to record the length of time between sunrise and sunset, you would actually find that this value increases and decreases predictably throughout the year.

This is true, and explained by both the RE and FE models. However, the change in time between sunrise and sunset is due to a change in the distance travelled by the sun (due to a change in the position of the sun in FE, and the tilt of the earth in RE), and not a change in its velocity, isn't it?

I agree that this doesn't disprove a flat earth, but it does show that this model of the seasons is flawed.

9
Flat Earth Debate / The seasons and angular momentum
« on: October 08, 2011, 05:03:22 PM »
In the FAQ, the seasons on a flat earth are described as being caused by a variation in the radius of the sun's motion. This, however, would violate conservation of angular momentum. The angular momentum of the sun would be:

L = I w = mr^2 w, where m is the mass of the sun, r is the radius of rotation and w is the angular velocity.

The angular velocity remains the same, as the length of each day remains at 24 hours. Hence, as r decreases, the angular momentum would decrease.

So, my question is, how do you reconcile this model of the seasons with conservation of angular momentum?

Pages: [1]