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.
Rama, just nitpicking on your explanation (it was pretty good) and expanding a bit:Thanks for the in-depth explanation.
Dark Energy being the vacuum energy is what currently explains best the observations, but there are still some conflicts. These could be not due to GR, but to quantum field theory applied to curved spaces however. Also, it's more commonly thought that vacuum has negative pressure, not energy, as this is easier to understand.
Dark Energy was always there, only that in the begining the radiation and matter energy were larger, so the expansion was slowing down; but since the density of matter and radiation decrease with the size of the universe, at some point the vacuum energy became dominant and the expansion started to accelerate.
Also, the expansion wasn't driven by inflation, since inflation started after the Big Bang. Expansion was driven by the initial conditions in the Big Bang (whatever these may be). Don't want to derail, but inflation is just a very short period of accelerated expansion (the same as we have today) during the earlier phase of the universe.
Good. Smoking is disgusting and expensive. Glad to hear you're quitting!I have now gone one week without smoking a cigarette. It's not much, but I am determined to quit those nasty things for good this time. My body feels better, but I can't stop fantasizing about smoking. UHGSKJhgI will do this!
Don't give up. I can't even tell you how rewarding it is to be finished with those things.
I shall not give up. I bet it is beyond wonderful. I look forward to being able to say the same thing.
Dark energy is not mysterious or just pop in to the picture. Dark Energy is literally the energy of empty space from virtual particles being created and destroyed in less time than is possible to measure. It has a negative energy value and so it's property is to cause space to expand. In the earlier stages of the universe, the positive energy density was greater, and expansion was driven by inflation only. The energy density went down enough that the energy density became negative and dark energy began to drive the expansion of the universe.Thanks for the explanation.
Read Lawrence Krauss' book "A universe from nothing". It is relatively easy to understand and explains all this.
Or nothing is acting on the board, and it's own weight causes it tip back and forth.Honestly that is a weak argument against UA.
The UA is what is accelerating the Earth, which blocks the UA from objects on its surface. This means that everything on the surface has no force being applied to it upward, allowing the Earth to run into them.
That is what it would if the object was freely floating in the air. Let me illustrate it, explaining it more into detail. I am standing on a flat roof top with a wooden board. I place the wooden board on top of the roof, with nothing of it sticking out. Then I will slowly start to push the board outwards. As I start the board remains stable. It will go upwards with the same speed as the rest of the earth. Nothing changes to that as I will continue to push the wooden board outwards. At some point it will be on the verge of falling. It balances back and forth, but there is no way this is possible if there is no force acting down on the wooden board. Yet it does, so there must be a force acting down on the board.
This is true in a court system. But I still believe Flat Earth and will continue to help the theory and give us more evidence and details to work with.Based on what they know, the earth is round. However, later knowledge proves FE right, and the judgement is overturned.
Perhaps, but the fundamental errors need to be explained, otherwise the FET has no chance of succeeding.
Based on what they know, the earth is round. However, later knowledge proves FE right, and the judgement is overturned.In what way did you derive that from my answer? The round earth doesn't have a ton of answers. Gravity- theory. etc.
Well, I don't know if we have any. That doesn't really mean anything though, it just means we don't have any answers yet. We have ideas and such, and we are working on them.
So the spherical earth is actually the only true answer? Not the permanent answer, but the most plausible, given all the real life observations and the fact that it provides answers for all the questions so far. Can we agree on that?
You do have more than us, but that doesn't make it more plausible.
Seems like it is all sorted out in the RET, with no contradictions thus far.
What way I derive that from your answer?
In court:
Prosecutor (RET): You are guilty (The earth is round)
Defense (FET): No I am innocent (No, the earth is flat)
Prosecutor (RET): I have all the evidence here, explain yourself (Here are all sorts of problems with the FET, explain it please)
Defense (FET): I can't (I can't)
Prosecutor (RET): Judge, based on all of the evidence the suspect is guilty (Look, based on all the evidence the earth is round).
Judge: Suspect is found to be guilty (Earth is found to be round).
In what way did you derive that from my answer? The round earth doesn't have a ton of answers. Gravity- theory. etc.
Well, I don't know if we have any. That doesn't really mean anything though, it just means we don't have any answers yet. We have ideas and such, and we are working on them.
So the spherical earth is actually the only true answer? Not the permanent answer, but the most plausible, given all the real life observations and the fact that it provides answers for all the questions so far. Can we agree on that?
Well, I don't know if we have any. That doesn't really mean anything though, it just means we don't have any answers yet. We have ideas and such, and we are working on them.I gave you answers. How many answers do you want?I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status. I don't demand answers from Globularists. Why do you make demands on us?
May I remind you Jroa that you promised to come with answers to the fundamental errors I showed you? So far I have not seen any answers. Sometimes...yes, there were some sort of answers, but went unexplained... Tausumi (!). Then answers which should support the FET, but then are under development and the tenor is "We don't yet know exactly how it is suppose to work, but...it has to be like that!" Is that the sort of "open-minded" debate there should be?
Answers which actually have been proven to be true. Not some answers you don't yet know of how it works, or answers which contradict real life observations. Answers which have been proven.
I'm curious Thork, what do you think is going on in the video? Did they use actors? Are they in a pool? Is it CGI?1. Yes, maybe, probably
How do they do the lighting? The sunrise and sunsets.
It is currently over 3 hours of constant zero-gravity, earth-orbiting, live feed.
3 Astronauts are going to land in Khazakstan tomorrow.
A lot of our ideas and theories are only a few years old - gravity, for example, is a 400 year old theory. Bendy Light is 5 years old. Of course our ideas and theories are underdeveloped and of course we don't know exactly how they work yet.I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.
We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status. I don't demand answers from Globularists. Why do you make demands on us?
May I remind you Jroa that you promised to come with answers to the fundamental errors I showed you? So far I have not seen any answers. Sometimes...yes, there were some sort of answers, but went unexplained... Tausumi (!). Then answers which should support the FET, but then are under development and the tenor is "We don't yet know exactly how it is suppose to work, but...it has to be like that!" Is that the sort of "open-minded" debate there should be?
Looks like a detail to me. May not be correct, may be correct, but it is still a detail.http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator
What was that you were saying? That we have no details or something?
Parsifal created this equation and he admits that the Bishop's constant has an unknown value. He also admitted to not really recalling how he derived it. It also has no basis in observation. So yeah, you have no details.
So? Honestly, nothing?So it seems.
I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain. If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.This is a 9 year old website. I am pretty sure after 9 years someone has explained Bendy Light. Just look around a little and you will find stuff.
I never said that a hypothesis was comparable to a theory. I simply asked what does what he said prove.Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.I never claimed it was all worked out.Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
What "little details" about gravity are you missing?
As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.
A hypothesis being worked on cannot make the same claims that a testable and full theory can, yet it is common at the FES to compare gravity to Bendy Light or UA in regards to how fleshed out it is. They are not comparable in that regard.
1. CorrectOk... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.I never claimed it was all worked out.Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
What "little details" about gravity are you missing?
As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.
My point is not to prove one theory over another. My point is there is no bendy light theory, and jroa's claim that gravity is just as incomplete is false.
Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.I never claimed it was all worked out.Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.
If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.
Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing. When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories. Until then, keep an open mind, please.
What "little details" about gravity are you missing?
As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.
"They predicted the position of Neptune within one degree. The chances of doing that by accident are at best 1 in 360."There's no way you can possibly put an untested hypothesis like bendy light and the completely descriptive and predictive theory of gravity on an equal footing. That makes absolutely no sense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Einstein's theory (of gravity!) proven right - AGAIN
Gravity is a theory. It has not been proven, and no one knows how it works, if it does. We can see the effects of something that people call gravity. There are many theories about the why it works, and not all of them can be right. Please don't pretend that Gravity has been proven.
The strength of a theory lies in how well it both explains phenomena and makes successful, specific predictions. The article shows how General Relativity predicted the orbital decay of a binary star system down to the microsecond. I'd say we definitely know it "works".
Not sure what you mean by "many theories about why it works" - General Relativity has the best result so far. Newton's theory is still a good enough approximation that it's equations are still used today when extreme precision is not required. As to the ultimate "why" of it, you can apply that to anything. Why does magnetism work - well, in magnets the spins of electrons are lined up, creating a magnetic field. Why is that? Well, electrons behave like tiny magnets themselves, and the fields add up? Why is that? Errr... it has to do with quantum mechanics. That's about as far as I can go. A little research may take you farther down. A brilliant physicist might have yet a deeper understanding. But at the bottom of it, things just behave the way we observe them to. You can't ask why any further because there's no explanation in terms of something else you already understand.
So, just because you don't fully understand it, and just because a full understanding (whatever that might mean) may not be possible, doesn't mean the theory doesn't work. And it definitely doesn't give someone else's pet theory (which in the case of bendy light is just an untested hypothesis) an equal footing with the accepted theory.
Or because you're asking a question that has been asked a million times.The same question has been answered dozens of times. This site has a FAQ section.hmmm...how about everything goes down? any explanation on flat earth how that happens? what causes an object to go down instead of any other direction with its weight?
I guess FE'ers don't disagree with the existence of 9.8 m/s force that keeps you "glued" to earth. They just don't believe that it is caused by gravitation. They said that the earth is constantly accelerating upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s. But if that was true, then that force would have been constant throughout the surface of FE which can easily be demonstrated as incorrect.
well lets see if one these jokers say that accelerating at 9.8m/s^2...hmmmm...wonder how fast we're moving...lol. what the hell is UA? United Airlines? lol use your words, muggsy
another chicken out. I seem to be able to do this on this site frequently. when the going gets tough they either start non sequitur, divert from the question, start picking on grammer and spelling or now this. its just a trolling site. you dont see me sending you off to gravity.com. this is the Debate section not the "im a chicken shit and here is where you find the answer" section.
God supposedly intervenes in everyone's daily life. Their is no way to discover him. Thus he cannot be explained.The Bible is inconsistent. God cannot be nor has been discovered. Their are still well over 2 billion people that are Christians.Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory. The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor. He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.
You may very well be right. I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.
Lol, "lest we forget".
Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".
I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?
Maybe the fact that it is so inconsistent in the way it affects electromagnetic waves and the fact that the constant that is needed to make it work has not and cannot be discovered?
Religion is a terrible analogy to use in relation to science. God cannot be proven or disproven because there is inherently no direct evidence. Bendy light, however, has a direct effect on the world if it is to be believed, therefore it should be able to be discovered and explained.
The Bible is inconsistent. God cannot be nor has been discovered. Their are still well over 2 billion people that are Christians.Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory. The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor. He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.
You may very well be right. I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.
Lol, "lest we forget".
Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".
I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?
Maybe the fact that it is so inconsistent in the way it affects electromagnetic waves and the fact that the constant that is needed to make it work has not and cannot be discovered?
Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.
Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.
It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.
Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?
I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.
It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space. This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space. The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums. However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.
I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory. The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor. He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.
You may very well be right. I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.
Lol, "lest we forget".
Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".
I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?
It's a Thursday night, of course I have nothing to do. Plus he apparently never responds to aetheric questions.Tausami, y u no respond
Probably because he has a life and does not just sit on the computer waiting for noobs to ask questions. Just my guess.