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 - Katdoral

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falling objects?
« on: May 31, 2016, 09:36:41 AM »
This is relativity we are talking about, you can have things both ways if you look at it from different reference frames.
 
In special relativity you can't just add velocities normally, because imagine you have an object A and two ships, both moving away from A at 70% of the speed of light, but in opposite directions, what speed are the two ships moving away from each other, it's not 140% of the speed of light. The correct formula to add velocitys is (u+v)/(1+(uv/c*c)).
Now this formula means that you can't add two velocities below c and get something above c, now since the UA model says the earth is accelerating at 9.81ms-2, this means that each second the speed is being increased by a value below c, and as you can see from the formula that if you increase the speed of an object by an amount less than c, it will never end up larger than c.
To sum up, something can be constantly accelerating and never get faster than c because adding velocities is weird.

Now if you want a real flaw, considered the fact that gravity varies across the planet, so acceleration upwards has to vary, meaning the planet would of teared apart.

In the real world, I absolutely agree with you.  But this is the UA we're refering to here, where only select parts of special relativity are considered valid, and not only that, but the underpinning effects of spacetime itself are gutted.  In their model, where the force everyone else considers gravity is caused by acceleration and not mass, would allow for speeds to reach c...that's the biggest flaw, at least in my opinion. 

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falling objects?
« on: May 30, 2016, 10:27:34 PM »
Ahh, well, just off the top of my head, i can already see one problem with the UA.  It stipulates that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.  But that's not what special relativity tells us.  It tells us that the energy requirements to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light would be infinite.

Yes and that's the only reason why

Quote
nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.

Theoretically you can accelerate a plane the size of the earth with g ( 9,81 m/s2 ) billions of
years, yet it would never be faster than light.

With all due respect, you can't have it both ways.  Either it is in a constant state of acceleration, which would, in universal time, quickly lead to an infinate amount of energy being expended, or it's not in a constant state of acceleration.  The very concept of the UA proves itself false, since there is obviously and observably, still energy.

I'd like to remind folks that the FE does not accept gravity as a force, which is why I am intentionally ignoring the effects of temporal distortion, since that is a product, in general terms, of space-time...Which requires gravity as a force to function. 

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falling objects?
« on: May 29, 2016, 04:15:10 PM »
Ahh, well, just off the top of my head, i can already see one problem with the UA.  It stipulates that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light.  But that's not what special relativity tells us.  It tells us that the energy requirements to accelerate something with mass to the speed of light would be infinite.  That's why photons can move at the speed of light, because they have a resting mass of 0, which means the energy requirements are also 0.

Hold on...I may need some time to decipher the davis hypothesis.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falling objects?
« on: May 29, 2016, 03:33:55 PM »

Incorrect.

Fair enough.  How?

Relativity.  It's best not to focus on this point too much, because it's the only one flat earthers have that makes sense.
[/quote]

Acceleration is still acceleration.  Relativity would only apply if gravity was an accepted force, since they don't accept gravity as a force, I don't see where relativity has any bearing on acceleration at all.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falling objects?
« on: May 29, 2016, 03:02:09 PM »
Fair enough.  How? 

Actually, I'll just make it easier.

So, there are a few constants we have to agree on. 

1)  60 seconds in 1 minute
2)  60 minutes in 1 hour
3)  24 hours in 1 day
4)  365 days in 1 year
5)  Speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s

If you don't agree with these constants then I know you have no idea what you are talking about, and can thus ignore you completely.  Do you dispute any of these constants?

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS Live Stream can't be faked, can it?
« on: May 29, 2016, 02:56:41 PM »
Cool story bro...

You should write a book about it.

I should, actually.  I'm thinking "The De-evolution of Humanity" as a title, or maybe "Here comes Papa Legba", though honestly that's more likely to be a tv show.
But how would you decide whether to make it a comedy, horror show or a "non-scientific non-factual" documentary.

Thus far, it's really got all three going...So maybe I'll make it into it's own new genre...the Legba genre!

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falling objects?
« on: May 29, 2016, 12:36:50 PM »
The trueth is, if that level of acceleration was sustained, we'd have reached the speed of light a long, long time ago.  If the earth is 4.543 billion years old, then our current speed would be 2,808,053,740,800,000,000 m/s.  If the earth is even just 6000 years old, our current speed would be 3,708,633,600,000 m/s.  The speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s.  For us to not have reached the speed of light, at that proposed rate of acceleration some FE people suggest, the world would have to be no more then 485 years old.

8
Alright, well, there are a lot of points in this post to address.  But before I do, and please, be brutally honest here, if I can explain how these things can be explained in a context that includes millions of years of time, are you capable of accepting it?  Don't get me wrong, if you are not that's perfectly fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with holding onto your beliefs.  But if you are not willing to augment those beliefs then please let me know that, I stress no judgement here, so that I don't waste time trying to push a boulder up a hill.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS Live Stream can't be faked, can it?
« on: May 29, 2016, 10:25:19 AM »
Cool story bro...

You should write a book about it.

I should, actually.  I'm thinking "The De-evolution of Humanity" as a title, or maybe "Here comes Papa Legba", though honestly that's more likely to be a tv show.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS Live Stream can't be faked, can it?
« on: May 29, 2016, 09:18:49 AM »
You wrote this:

Sure sign of someone who KNOWS they has completely LOST an argument - when they start insulting their opponents!

Then you wrote this:

Are you completely ignorant.

By your own standards you now know you have completely lost your argument with ex-globe.

And so does everyone else.

So I expect you'll be making no more contributions to this thread, will you Geoff?

(lol of course he will the drunken old madman - it's his job!)

Honestly, there's some missing logic in all of this.  Like why would anyone bother to pay someone to derail these posts?  You've got, what, a couple thousand at most members of this site?  The body of people that actually subscribe to the flat earth hypothesis is so small that it would work against anyone's interest to lend it veracity by confronting it.  So the most likely probability becomes that the people on here are doing so of their own accord. 

11
Do you have a reason to believe that teh Munn was created by human beings & placed in orbit with rockets?

Cos if you don't then take your stupid time-wasting strawman & GTFO.

Or report me, or whatever your shilling 101 handbook commands you do next...

Nobody cares.

Oh.  So, that answer seems contradictory.  Do you believe the moon is artificial and placed into orbit with rockets?  Me, no, I don't believe that.  But if I don't then I'm wasting my time, according to you, so that leads me to reason that you do...Which is really odd since you've been supporting that satellites aren't possible.  Also, it appears you don't seem to know what a strawman rebuttal is, like I haven't covertly replaced one arguement with something else, I've been consistant in that whatever forces are in operation should remain in operation uniformly.  But, admittedly, that's just semantics. 
Also, I would love to see the 'shilling handbook'.  I have no idea what shilling is, so if I am to be a .... shiller?  would that be the right usage?  Anyways, I should probably be certain I am performing that duty adaquately.

12
Wtf are you babbling on about now, Walter?

Are you really threatening to report me because I laughed at you for comparing teh Munn to a 'GPS satylite'?

Good luck with that!

Do you have a reason as to why forces that work on celestial objects would not also work on fabricated objects?

13
Simply put, you are wrong.

Simply put, I am not.

As for your 'teh munn exists therefore GPS satylytes iz reel' argument: LMFAO!!!

Grow up, Walter Mitty.

Ahh, so you have nothing then.  Fair enough, there's no shame in not knowing an answer.  I'm a little confused as to why you couldn't just say as much, but that's people I suppose.  Though, I was under the impression that these boards were strictly moderated, and your response doesn't really seem to further the conversation.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hmmm, makes too much sense to me!!
« on: May 29, 2016, 05:52:41 AM »
Can someone sum up the points of this video?

Basically,
1.  The earth is too large to be a spinning spheroid without destroying itself.

2. Lack of observable curvature from an unassisted human viewing range is proof that there is no curvature.

Those seemed to be their primary points, though they jumped around through several minor points.  Like there apparently was some issue with the method they wanted to use for determining observable curvature and the more widely used geodesic method. 

The issues are that they seem to only consider the elements that support their view point, and ignore all the others.  Like I explained up above.

15
All GPS satellites broadcast at the same two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal)

No 'GPS satellites' broadcast anything, Geoff.

Because they don't exist.

Because the laws of physics & principles of aerodynamics won't let them.

Let me tell you something, Geoff; I have an acquaintance who worked on designing the guidance systems for drones.

Similar job to what you & your sock-puppet 'Rayzor' claim to have in fact.

He made a shed-load of money out of it, has the Official Secrets Act up the wazoo, & will not talk in any detail about anything connected to it under any circumstances.

The very last thing he would do is spend 16 hours of every day, 7 days a week, trolling & shilling & thought-policing all over the web...

Like you do.

He does not do this because he is a decent man, with a very comfortable existence, doing things that matter, in the real world.

You are not who you claim to be, Geoff, for the simple reason that people like you do not behave in that manner.

You are just a massively obvious disinfo-drone, & I cannot imagine what you did to be reduced to such a miserable existence.

I would say I pity you; but you are too far gone for pity...

That would imply humanity; & I see none in you.

Toodle-pip, Geoff!

Simply put, you are wrong.  Regardless of whether the earth is flat or round, or even the specific forces that are in play, the moon and sun clearly maintain a relationship in regards to Earth's position.  If forces can act on those two objects and keep them in place, then it also has to be possible for a man made object to be kept in place.  Scattered throughout this site is the assertion of observable phenomena.  Can you refute that the sun is not maintaining it's position relative to earth?  Can you refute the moon is maintaining it's position relative to earth?  Or any one of the other observable planets, comets, and asteroids. 

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS Live Stream can't be faked, can it?
« on: May 29, 2016, 04:51:36 AM »
The only reason to lie is if satellites are impossible.

Satellite TV brings in an incredible amount of money so maintaining a bunch of airships is no big deal.
They are at twice the height of airplanes according to Google so are invisible.

I don't understand.  The moon is a satellite.  Regardless of whether the planet is round or flat, or even the specific forces that keep it in check, the moon is clearly able to maintain it's distance from us.  Why then would a man-made satellite not be also able to do that?

I will try again, since this was apparently ignored.  Why is it the moon can maintain it's distance from us, but a man-made object cannot? 

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS Live Stream can't be faked, can it?
« on: May 28, 2016, 07:16:50 PM »
The only reason to lie is if satellites are impossible.

Satellite TV brings in an incredible amount of money so maintaining a bunch of airships is no big deal.
They are at twice the height of airplanes according to Google so are invisible.

I don't understand.  The moon is a satellite.  Regardless of whether the planet is round or flat, or even the specific forces that keep it in check, the moon is clearly able to maintain it's distance from us.  Why then would a man-made satellite not be also able to do that?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ISS Live Stream can't be faked, can it?
« on: May 28, 2016, 06:15:07 PM »
I am very new to the flat earth theory debate and discussion and am intrigued by some of the points being brought up. Although I recognize the bias against photographic evidence, the international space station's live stream ( http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream ) has to be better than a photo, right? I am genuinely curious as to how this altering could be done. I am currently on the globe earth side of the argument, but i understand the merits of the flat earth theory. If the station is not currently broadcasting the footage of earth, there are vods of previous streams. again i realize how these seem less valid.

Well, I suppose the question is whether or not you are willing to believe that the feed you are watching is, in fact, live.  Some have pointed out the logistical hell that would be inherent in editing a live feed with seemless CGI integration, it's somewhat beyond our capabilities at this point.  But that only really matters if you are certain the feed is live, there remains the possibility that the feed is pre-recorded which drastically changes what is or is not possible.

19
https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean

This article is quite interesting.  I was just reading through trying to figure out exactly how many miles of cable were laid and I came across this quote. 
"We don't use satellites because they can't carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line."
Satellites are fake ISS is a lie k thx bai

I find myself unsure as to how to respond to this.  I can agree that, at least as far as the main trunks are concerned, cable is superior to satalite for bulk data transmission.  I fail to see where the causal relationship between cables being more prominent in bulk transmission and satellites are fake.  Certainly, there's an arguement there for a corrolative relationship, I just don't see anything in this article that could really be used as proof of causation.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hmmm, makes too much sense to me!!
« on: May 28, 2016, 05:30:35 PM »
Top Flat Earth Proofs May 2016 by GLOBEBUSTERS



Interesting.  Though, I noted that they are making a fairly common mistake concerning edge velocity.  They are assuming that the forces working on a round object and a spherical object are the same.  Assuming that the base materials strength is equal, a spherical object can withstand several orders of magnitude worth of stress more then an object that is simply in a circular configuration. Materials strength seems to be completely ignored for their first example proof.  As for feeling the speed at which the planet is moving...That is entirely dependent on the opposed forces in operation.  So if you are moving at 40 mph, and then change to a stop, if this change happens over the course of 1 second you'd certainly feel it.  However, if it happened over the course of 5 minutes, you wouldn't notice a thing.  He keeps stressing that there is only 1 factor involved in all of this, and that is more then a little nieve.   

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: seasons
« on: May 28, 2016, 01:58:44 PM »
The sun's path through the sky changes throughout the year, causing the different time zones. From there on, it's the same as round earth. Biology and all that.

I'm curious, what forces dictate the path of the sun for it's transits?

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falling in a Flat Earth
« on: May 28, 2016, 01:17:06 PM »
I may be comming to this discussion late, but I do have a question.  If gravity doesn't exist, and it's air pressure that creates the effect of weight...What is moving the sun and the moon away from the earth's plane?  I mean, if the plane is in motion, then there has to be a force keeping the sun and moon from colliding with us, or if the ?Aether?  creates a downward force, what's countering that for other visible celestial bodies?

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Map
« on: May 28, 2016, 12:27:44 PM »
So, regarding this map...What happens when someone reaches it's boundry?

24
In short, your question seems to rely on the earth's spin remaining a constant.  It is not.  Due to a transfer of Earth's rotational momentum to the Moon's orbital momentum as tidal friction the Earth's rotation does, and is, slowing.  Roughly by 4 cm per year, which is why every 18 months the GPS grid has whats referred to as a leap second added to their atomic clocks, to keep them in sync.  Otherwise, the GPS system would crash.

Pages: [1]