1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I've never seen a satisfactory explanation to this...

« on: April 22, 2011, 11:48:16 PM »

Being a round earther, I'm well aware of the problems involving the sinking ship phenomenon and a flat earth.

Damn, I thought you weren't for some reason.

I hadn't thought of it that way.  It's a good point.  But then, how big a telescope aperture would you need to filter out all the daylight between US and Nepal?

Good question... But maybe not that much. Since we take the Earth being flat for granted, a lot of objects would be hidden by bigger ones, thus you wouldn't need to accumulate all the light reflecting on everything.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: April 22, 2011, 11:01:17 PM »

But they knew there were two types of charges, they knew the basics of it all. You don't need to understand how the quarks work in order to grasp or use equations regarding electromagnetism. In fact, everything (or almost) we do with electromagnetism doesn't take quarks into consideration. Fact is, the first theories didn't take quarks into consideration when they DO have their place somewhere. Why should we trust such theory if not everything is explained? What I mean, is that you don't need to know the electromagnetic theories to understand the basics of it, or make things work. These theories principally explains why these observations happen, and enables us to do more fancy things. But the observations were there as the knowledge taken from them. If the observations are repeated and work 100% of the time, there is little doubt about their validity, unless proven otherwise. And then, we don't know about everything, our electromagnetic theories could (and probably) need some more work. It was the same thing as these observations, they needed more refinements which were brought, and refinements will be brought to our theories. I hope I won't come across someone in 30 years who will tell me no one knew of electromagnetism before the introduction the the new theory that will be found.

Stating one can know Electromagnetic Theory before it was written is like saying that you can know how the Harry Potter books went before they were even written. You cannot know something before it existed.

I never claimed such. All I said, is the electromagnetic phenomenons were observed before the theory was up. And the analogy is ridiculous. We're talking about natural phenomenons, something which can be observed by everyone.

It is not a strawman. Firstly, even if I ignore the rest, you using the link is still flawed reasoning because of what I said. You just can't use a document as proof, and then pick up what you want ignoring the rest. Secondly, part of what I said still applies to the rest, since we talk about stars and galaxies. If we have to believe there are gravitation discrepancies (which I believe in, there are things we don't know, there is always things to learn and discover), we have to believe gravity works to some degrees in the first place. A discrepancy is that, showing that something doesn't work in ALL the cases, thus it must work in some cases, but you don't even believe it works in certain cases. So my post dealt with the whole page since my argument was true for the whole of it, only I had an additional argument for the spacecraft thing is more obvious.

Nice try at trying to discredit me by half reading my post. Eh, you guys are strong on the nitpicky, only dealing with the surface of the argument, trying to pick words here and there and find some flaws without reading much deeper.

You state that gravity exists. Then at the same time you concede that observations of reality are in contradiction with gravity. You then conclude that this makes total sense, and that gravity still exists? 

Yes, because it can explain 99.99999999999999999% of all observable cases. If the theory isn't true, it's not entirely wrong, so yes it still makes sense. If the theory doesn't work in rare and extreme circumstances, but works in countless other situations, it means that something is probably missing. And thing is, a theory is that, a theory. A theory can be built upon, a theory isn't a strictly defined thing with no room for improvements or change, that goes against science. Considering the very rare cases in which gravity doesn't work, the work should be directed at finding what is missing (because the gravity theory wasn't built in a single day, eh, as the electromagnetic one) to make it also work in those cases, and not find something entirely new to explain everything.

That's not how it works. Gravity doesn't need energy, it is one of the forces that gives the need of energy. You need more effort when taking the stairs because you work against gravity, while you don't when you walk in a straight line. If you take Newton's F=ma formula, you can clearly see that if the acceleration is constant, the greater the mass, the greater the force is needed to go against gravity. So if you take a few pounds, you'll realize you need more energy to go upstairs.

Same thing with electromagnetism, it doesn't need energy, it creates the energy needs. You need energy to put two electrons closer, because they naturally repulse themselves, and then, they do so until they are too far to have an effect to each other. Thus you wouldn't need energy to pull the electron even farther from the other.

The parallel with gravity is just ridiculous.

So we are in agreement that Universal Acceleration requires no output of energy? Splendid.

Nothing in there explains why it requires no output of energy. But Gravitation explains why I need a bigger output of energy when I take the stairs compared to when I walk on a flat surface. The Universal Acceleration only draws a parallel to "explain" why it requires not energy output, rather than coming up with a proper explanation. In a nutshell, that FAQ answer is just poking at gravitation, rather than do what a FAQ does, which is providing an answer.

3

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Rules for scientificly valid debate

« on: April 22, 2011, 10:35:29 PM »

Now that you have an answer to "why does electricity flow" please predict the dissipation of energy in a resistance, the production of electricity in a battery, or how much electricity can be produced by a waterfall 10 meters high where 100 cubic meters of water flow per second. Why does a typical carbon-zinc battery produce about 1.5 volts? Did your magical zebra tell you?

I don't need to, eld stated so. I can observe what happens. I don't need to know why it happens.

You don't need to know why it happens, only that it happens. If more massive objects attracts less massive ones, if it is something observable, it is so. If I can play video games, I don't need to know how they are made or anything to understand I can play video games or that they exist. Your theory states that the Earth goes up, but such thing is not observable.

That was me writing too fast, that was a shitty post. Gravitation is not solely about objects being attracted to others, but it explains orbits and weight among others. A good theory offers predictability and and explication to numerous situations, which gravitation does. What I mean is, gravitation doesn't explain why objects are attracted to each other, THAT is the theory, what it explains is what I just said. So it's not about why objects are attracted to each other, but why there are orbits, why we have a certain weight or why apples fall with the same acceleration than bricks. So I wasn't talking about the same thing. Electromagnetism doesn't explain why electrons are attracted to protons either, but it can explain a shitload of natural phenomenons.

The point of a theory is that it can't be 100% proven, and that its ability to predict and explain numerous situations which provides its strength. Your UA theory never explains us why the Earth goes upwards either, it explains where we fall, but that's it.

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Rules for scientificly valid debate

« on: April 22, 2011, 10:24:02 PM »

Are you suggesting that those rules don't have any merit?

    * Theories that give no path towards reliable predictions have no scientific validity

The Big Bang

You use a theory that can only predicts over a very, very long period of time. I think there are exceptions to that rule since such theory would be looked down at because of our own nature. But then, it's not ALL about predictions, but explanations. The Big Bang theory doesn't explain a single situation, but can explain a lot of them which is why it has a lot of credibility. Your theories have both no path towards reliable predictions and don't explain an important number of observations.

    * Explanations that are made just to address just one specific issue are not useful scientific instruments. If you have to come up with a new explanation for every new challenge, this is no science at all.

Gravity

1. It explains objects falling down.
2. It explains orbits.
3. It explains our weight.

That's already 3 I can think of from the top of my head.

    * Preponderance of evidence is the measurement of the strength of a theory. While no single piece of evidence, by itself, gives the final answer, the accumulation of evidence does give strength to a theory

String theory.

And the string theory is a widely accepted one? You're joking on this one? There is a lot of controversy surrounding it if it should be called a scientific theory at all, and a lot of people claim it has no predictive power and can't be properly tested. You were to come up with a supposedly strong theory, yet come with a very weak one.

    * All repeatable experiments are evidence.

Unless horribly misinterpreted.

Then they would all have to be horribly misinterpreted the same way to yield the same results. And then, taking back what has been misinterpreted into account, you come up with something which has repeatable experiments.

    * Literiture can constitute evidence if backed by experimental data.

Literature is something the author of these should read. Perhaps then they'd know how to write. And yes, literature does constitute evidence.

Anyone can write a book and claim bullshit. I could write a book saying the Earth is a spiral, would it be true? Of course not. Literature only constitute evidence if it is backed by experimental data.

5

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Rules for scientificly valid debate

« on: April 22, 2011, 09:57:42 PM »

I have a theory that there is a magical Zebra in the sky that causes electricity to come from clouds from time to time. It also causes the ocean waters to change in elevation locally, and it causes earthquakes to occur when it gets angry. The magical Zebra makes flowers bloom in the spring, and it makes them open up each morning. The magical Zebra is what causes electricity to flow.

Because my theory has great predicting power, my theory is highly valid, and more so than any of the single theories that predict only one of the pneumonia. It can predict a lot of things, so it is more probable than the other theories.

What does it predicts? Do you know what a prediction is? What you gave are explanations. All these phenomenons have previously been observed, thus your explanations didn't predict them. Can you tell me what he magical Zebra can predict that has NOT been observed yet? Or can it at least predict when one of these known phenomenons will happen next and where? That is what predictions are about, either the theory can explain a newfound phenomenon - rather than coming up with random bullshit explaining it - either it can predicts a presently unknown phenomenon or it can predict when a known one will take place and how.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: April 22, 2011, 09:45:09 PM »

And did people know that lightning was caused by electromagnetic forces thousands of years ago? Nope. Suggesting they new what they were looking at is like claiming Neanderthals had an intimate understanding of atoms and quarks because they looked at each other. Ridiculous.

But they knew there were two types of charges, they knew the basics of it all. You don't need to understand how the quarks work in order to grasp or use equations regarding electromagnetism. In fact, everything (or almost) we do with electromagnetism doesn't take quarks into consideration. Fact is, the first theories didn't take quarks into consideration when they DO have their place somewhere. Why should we trust such theory if not everything is explained? What I mean, is that you don't need to know the electromagnetic theories to understand the basics of it, or make things work. These theories principally explains why these observations happen, and enables us to do more fancy things. But the observations were there as the knowledge taken from them. If the observations are repeated and work 100% of the time, there is little doubt about their validity, unless proven otherwise. And then, we don't know about everything, our electromagnetic theories could (and probably) need some more work. It was the same thing as these observations, they needed more refinements which were brought, and refinements will be brought to our theories. I hope I won't come across someone in 30 years who will tell me no one knew of electromagnetism before the introduction the the new theory that will be found.

Strawman. You are deliberately ignoring the other 6/8 of that page because you do not want to face the hard truth that your theory of gravity is terrible. You are going off on a tangent about the space craft (data that was most likely flubbed on accident) because you do not want to answer the hard issues.

It is not a strawman. Firstly, even if I ignore the rest, you using the link is still flawed reasoning because of what I said. You just can't use a document as proof, and then pick up what you want ignoring the rest. Secondly, part of what I said still applies to the rest, since we talk about stars and galaxies. If we have to believe there are gravitation discrepancies (which I believe in, there are things we don't know, there is always things to learn and discover), we have to believe gravity works to some degrees in the first place. A discrepancy is that, showing that something doesn't work in ALL the cases, thus it must work in some cases, but you don't even believe it works in certain cases. So my post dealt with the whole page since my argument was true for the whole of it, only I had an additional argument for the spacecraft thing is more obvious.

Nice try at trying to discredit me by half reading my post. Eh, you guys are strong on the nitpicky, only dealing with the surface of the argument, trying to pick words here and there and find some flaws without reading much deeper.

Here is a gift for you.

Physics
Q: "Even if that were true, it would create a gigantic amount of energy to do so wouldn't it?"

A: Universal Acceleration requires energy to move objects no more than gravity does. In Round Earth Theory a good example of gravity constantly accelerating objects without outputting energy would be an orbit.

That's not how it works. Gravity doesn't need energy, it is one of the forces that gives the need of energy. You need more effort when taking the stairs because you work against gravity, while you don't when you walk in a straight line. If you take Newton's F=ma formula, you can clearly see that if the acceleration is constant, the greater the mass, the greater the force is needed to go against gravity. So if you take a few pounds, you'll realize you need more energy to go upstairs.

Same thing with electromagnetism, it doesn't need energy, it creates the energy needs. You need energy to put two electrons closer, because they naturally repulse themselves, and then, they do so until they are too far to have an effect to each other. Thus you wouldn't need energy to pull the electron even farther from the other.

The parallel with gravity is just ridiculous.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I've never seen a satisfactory explanation to this...

« on: April 22, 2011, 08:43:39 PM »

Atmosphere transparency... how ridiculous. Hey, look at mountains far away. They don't look as clear right? Now try using a telescope with no magnification. Notice the difference. How would it be atmosphere transparency if you can see it clearer by standing at the same place? Thing is, to see something, we need to receive its light. And light can't be infinitely accumulated by our small eyes, so telescopes work as very large pupils, thus accumulating much more light. That's why the stars appear clearer when looking through one, they are not bigger, you just accumulate more light and thus see them more. You can use a magnifier, but then you'll need to accumulate more light (because the object will appear bigger) to be able to see with the same quality, thus requiring a bigger one. So yeah, you can also experience this by looking at mountains. The light has to go through the atmosphere and it's the only thing that affects how we see. Light goes from the sun to down on us, and when you look at mountains you look horizontally and since the atmosphere is transparent, only distances affects this.

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing.

It doesn't matter, the atmosphere transparency thing still doesn't work. Thus it can't explain why ships can't sink or whatnot. Anyway, why the hell would atmosphere transparency have anything to do with distances? If the atmosphere isn't totally transparent, the level of "un-transparency" (don't know the real word) would still stay the same at whatever distance you look at. Why you can't look at the bottom of the ocean isn't because of transparency, it's because the photons are slowed down and stopped by the dense water particles (while it can easily go through air). But then, that's when you look vertically, not horizontally, since the sunlight travels mostly vertically (at least it does almost perfectly so at the equator).

Try something, go to a very large pool with clear water. Then go underwater at the deepest end of the pool but stay at the surface, look at the farthest end and then look at the bottom. You'll see that visibility decrease a lot more when looking at the depths (you'll probably notice a difference even if it isn't that deep) than looking across the pool through a much greater distance, you'll see that the visibility barely decreases if the water is clean. That is explained because the water stops the photons, and whether or not something is totally transparent the level of visibility remains the same until your small pupils fail you, which then you can use a telescope on the ground (or in the water if you want to try) to accumulate the light your pupils can't.

Another point about the telescope (and your pupils) accumulating light. You can't see stars during the day, right? It's because the sun throws too much light at you, and the stars being so far, along your limited ability to accumulate light means you'll accumulate all you can from the closest objects, mountains, buildings, water, everything. And then look at night when the light coming on the Earth is minimal, look from when the sun sets up to total darkness, you'll see you'll be able to increasingly see the stars better. You can also see the moon over a blue sky when the sun isn't too high in the sky, although you'll see a very faint one, it's because the sun's light has to go through more atmosphere because of the Earth turning around the sun. But not because of the atmosphere lack of total transparency, as the same phenomenon isn't witnessed when looking horizontally far distances with a telescope. The sky will look as blue when the sun is on top of you if you use a telescope, but when the sun is lower, the sky will be more pale everywhere you look with a telescope. Another thing you can try regarding this: look at the night sky in the countryside, where there is no city lights and such, and then look at it in the middle of the illuminated city, you'll see you won't be able to see them much, because you need your pupils to accumulate all these lights before, lights which can be quite bright. Objects appearing fainter when looking horizontally has nothing to do with the atmosphere's transparency.

So, if you use a good telescope without unnecessary magnification (so everything can look sharp and clear, you don't need to anyway), the only explanation to your inability to see the Himalayas from anywhere is that the Earth is round.

8

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Rules for scientificly valid debate

« on: April 22, 2011, 08:14:53 PM »

It's funny how the Flat Earth Society ignores a lot of these things.

Because we should all follow the rules of a parody site. 

The work of science isn't solely explaining things, it's predicting things too. How can a theory that can predicts more things than another be less good? If a theory can predict a lot of things, those things it predicts constitutes additional evidence towards the validity of that theory. If you come up with theories with the sole purpose in mind of saying things completely differently than another set of theories, you'd need them to be as relevant as the other. If the other set of theories can predict a lot of things, it means that it works, and the more it works the more probable it is. As far as I know, all the FE related theories do little to predict or explain other phenomenons, thus even if that doesn't mean that much against the theories being able to predict other phenomenons, it still means the theories are not all that powerful. And if they are not all that powerful, they shouldn't be trusted too much unless something gives them more weight.

Saying predictability is irrelevant in sciences reeks of amateurship, and it reeks of not using common sense. Anyone can come up with any fancy story to explain something, it doesn't mean it works. Look at all the weather, space weather (which affects auroras or magnetic disturbances), they all work, and they all work while taking the Earth being round as granted. I never read about how the dominant winds system works, how the precipitation system works and how in conjunction with the winds it determines the climate (along the sunlight incidence angle). Why are there dominant winds from the equator to the North, and then from the equator to the south, and eastward winds near the equator and westward winds near the poles. It is easily explained with a round Earth, but then looking at a flat Earth map, the winds system seem to have no logic whatsoever.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Really?

« on: April 22, 2011, 06:11:08 PM »

According to Globularists, my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion. My eyes are constantly deceiving me, and I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour (faster than the speed of sound at the equator),

It's not speed that you sense, but acceleration. But then, why do we only feel the Universal Acceleration if we don't jump or anything? Why don't I feel it presently, but feel the car accelerating at a much slower rate?

whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe, despite being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration.

All is relative. Since we are "stuck" on the Earth, we are constantly pulled towards its centre, we have the source of the force right under us. But the sun is far, far away, the whole Earth gravitates around the sun, but we can't feel the gravity the Earth is subject to since we are part of the Earth's mass in a way. So the sun doesn't really attracts us, but the Earth AND us. We sense the Earth's gravity countless times more than the sun's because we are directly on top of the Earth, thus the resulting force (which is all that matters) we feel is directed towards the Earth. Same thing for galaxies circling around each other. How can we feel the force if we are just a tiny part of the whole thing? We are bound to what attracts us most which is the Earth, or at least, the resulting force we feel is greatly dominated by the force the Earth has on us. So that means our referential is that downward resulting force. Down is where it attracts us and up the opposite direction, it's forces that makes us feel acceleration, and how exactly can you feel a force that doesn't really contribute to the resulting force you are subject to?

Do you guys realise how ridiculous you sound?


(adapted from the FEW)

Well, you should think about it more then, it's not all that alien if you actually think about it. Unlike a big theory which is a soup of smaller unrelated theories that only work together because they don't work against each other.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I've never seen a satisfactory explanation to this...

« on: April 22, 2011, 05:39:20 PM »

Why can't I see the Himalayas from very far away and why do sails appear to enter before the ship?

The Himalayas can't be seen because the atmosphere isn't perfectly transparent.  As for the sails becoming visible before the ship?  There's a thread: "Sinking Ship in Enag," that you may want to look through.  It's about the best explanation you will get.

Atmosphere transparency... how ridiculous. Hey, look at mountains far away. They don't look as clear right? Now try using a telescope with no magnification. Notice the difference. How would it be atmosphere transparency if you can see it clearer by standing at the same place? Thing is, to see something, we need to receive its light. And light can't be infinitely accumulated by our small eyes, so telescopes work as very large pupils, thus accumulating much more light. That's why the stars appear clearer when looking through one, they are not bigger, you just accumulate more light and thus see them more. You can use a magnifier, but then you'll need to accumulate more light (because the object will appear bigger) to be able to see with the same quality, thus requiring a bigger one. So yeah, you can also experience this by looking at mountains. The light has to go through the atmosphere and it's the only thing that affects how we see. Light goes from the sun to down on us, and when you look at mountains you look horizontally and since the atmosphere is transparent, only distances affects this.

11

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Rules for scientificly valid debate

« on: April 22, 2011, 04:56:13 PM »

It's funny how the Flat Earth Society ignores a lot of these things.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: April 22, 2011, 04:47:59 PM »

You don't need to know why it happens, only that it happens. If more massive objects attracts less massive ones, if it is something observable, it is so. If I can play video games, I don't need to know how they are made or anything to understand I can play video games or that they exist. Your theory states that the Earth goes up, but such thing is not observable.

Correlation does not imply causation. This is tantamount to saying that global warming is caused by the diminishing amounts of piracy in the world.

Not only is it observable, but it is calculable.

UA is just as observable as gravitation. I can observe the Earth rising to meet me when I jump off my chair.

I can't see the Earth rising to meet the waterfall. The cliff is still and the water doesn't jump.

Yet electromagnetism was discovered before the protons and electrons.

Incorrect. Protons were known about before the theory of Electromagnetism was developed. Please try again.

Yet you don't need a theory to know about something. You don't need a theory to observe physics phenomenon. In fact, the theory is there to explain the phenomenon, and there is a long way from the initial discovery to the actual theory. Lighting was there before the theory was written, people knew about those forces more than a thousand years before the theory was written. Please Try again.

But I thought you didn't believe in all that conspiracy bullshit, that sustained space flight never existed and such? But then, we're talking about extremes here, there's still things we don't know about science which may change things about high velocities and masses but not for the rest. It's not because we have not perfect understanding of something that everything about it is false, it can only be incomplete. If those discrepancies were true, that would mean gravitation is true, since those discrepancies could only be observed if it was such.

Are you even listening to the logic you are using?

"Gravity exists. If there things in nature that directly contradict gravity, then this proves gravity exists."

What?  You are not even making sense! If there are discrepancies, that means that gravity cannot exist, or what we believe it is, is false. Otherwise these discrepancies would not exist.

Huh? Have you read the page you linked? For them to be observed, sustained space flights HAVE to be possible. Some of the discrepancies were in regards to some things not working as intended with a spacecraft. But if spacecrafts are not possible, the discrepancy can't exist - if spaceflights can't exist, how can you observe a spacecraft not responding as predicted with gravity? I mean, if you think spaceflight is a conspiracy, that means the discrepancy is also a work of that conspiracy, right? So how is that even proof?

Spaceflights is said to be possible while considering gravity exists, since the spacecraft has to exit the Earth's gravity or be subject to it, so while preparing spaceflights you have to take that gravity part in the equation. If gravity has nothing to do with spaceflight, those discrepancies in the link would be useless since there would be far more important ones.

I mean, it's like you say spaceflight is impossible and that gravity doesn't exist. But then, to prove gravity does not exist, you come up with discrepancies which imply spaceflights exists. What kind of logic is that? You try to prove something with something you believe isn't true and which goes against what you are trying to prove. That's just ridiculous.

I did. Universal Acceleration states that the Earth goes up, so if you jump the Earth catches you up. But if your feet are still on the floor, your whole body is taken up at the same speed, right? So why your blood goes down if you stay still on the floor? According to Universal Acceleration, the blood should stay at the same place, since gravity doesn't exist. If the blood went down, it would mean the Earth is catching it up, right? Then why does it only catches up your blood, but not your head? Your head isn't hitting the floor, so the Earth can't be catching up your head, so it can't be catching up your blood. But that's not what is observed. What would be observed is that your blood goes down (or tries to stay at the same place) when your head is heading upwards at the same speed of the Earth. So if I follow the Universal Acceleration thing, if your blood is not going down, why is it going up when I stand still and doesn't it go up when my head is upside down? Or is there something else to explain that particular case?

It rushes to your head because it is being accelerated. This is no different than if you slammed on the gas pedal while driving. As the car accelerates forward, you get pushed in the opposite direction into your seat.

I'd need some clarifications:

-If the Earth accelerates up, wouldn't that mean that the Earth would always catches me up when I jump at increasing speeds? That is not what is observed. When I jump, and then jump using the same energy, the Earth always catches me up at the same speed. Yet if the Earth is constantly moving faster, it should constantly catch me up faster when I jump.

-It would half-work to explain why I constantly drop faster when jumping high, but if I redid the jump, it would take a shorter time since the Earth would constantly accelerate up.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: April 22, 2011, 02:46:03 PM »

That is not an answer. Gravitation just states that objects of mass have been to be attracted to each other. The more mass, the more attraction. It does not explain why this attraction occurs, or how it works. Gravitation only states observations.

You don't need to know why it happens, only that it happens. If more massive objects attracts less massive ones, if it is something observable, it is so. If I can play video games, I don't need to know how they are made or anything to understand I can play video games or that they exist. Your theory states that the Earth goes up, but such thing is not observable.

Electromagnetism and the Strong and Weak Nuclear forces also work with small particles, yet those forces are explained and understood.

Yet electromagnetism was discovered before the protons and electrons.

Electromagnetism is explained, and the mechanics are understood. The most people can say about gravity is, "It seems to be correlated with mass". There are many discrepancies with the theory of gravity, and observations in the universe. To name a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

But I thought you didn't believe in all that conspiracy bullshit, that sustained space flight never existed and such? But then, we're talking about extremes here, there's still things we don't know about science which may change things about high velocities and masses but not for the rest. It's not because we have not perfect understanding of something that everything about it is false, it can only be incomplete. If those discrepancies were true, that would mean gravitation is true, since those discrepancies could only be observed if it was such.

Let's try something, bend so your head is upside down and stay that way a few seconds/minutes until your head turns red and you feel a bit bad. Why? Because your blood "falls" down to your head. Care to explain?

Universal Acceleration.

Please read the FAQ and lurk before asking tedious questions.

I did. Universal Acceleration states that the Earth goes up, so if you jump the Earth catches you up. But if your feet are still on the floor, your whole body is taken up at the same speed, right? So why your blood goes down if you stay still on the floor? According to Universal Acceleration, the blood should stay at the same place, since gravity doesn't exist. If the blood went down, it would mean the Earth is catching it up, right? Then why does it only catches up your blood, but not your head? Your head isn't hitting the floor, so the Earth can't be catching up your head, so it can't be catching up your blood. But that's not what is observed. What would be observed is that your blood goes down (or tries to stay at the same place) when your head is heading upwards at the same speed of the Earth. So if I follow the Universal Acceleration thing, if your blood is not going down, why is it going up when I stand still and doesn't it go up when my head is upside down? Or is there something else to explain that particular case?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: April 22, 2011, 01:43:49 PM »

Let's try something, bend so your head is upside down and stay that way a few seconds/minutes until your head turns red and you feel a bit bad. Why? Because your blood "falls" down to your head. Care to explain?

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: April 22, 2011, 01:36:06 PM »

So what is the mechanism of electric charges that makes electrons attracted to protons?

The mechanism is electromagnetism, which is extremely well understood, documented, and proven. Gravity is not. In fact, many mainstream physicists believe that Gravity is not a fundamental force at all.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

Please at least understand science before you come here and attempt to debate it, and tell people that they do not understand how physics work.

I study sciences. I know electromagnetism is the mechanism, as gravitation is the mechanism for gravity. I am not attempting to debate these things as you would have understood if you properly read my post in the first place. Gravitation is harder to grasp because it works with even smaller particles, because the work of these particles is harder to see, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The mechanism is that bigger masses attracts smaller ones, like the mechanism of electric charges is that positive charges attracts negative ones. Maybe there's something very obscure that make these things work that way, but then, what would make the graviton do what it would do?

Please at least understand science before you come here and attempt to debate it, and tell people that they do not understand how physics work.

What wrong did I say? Please enlighten me on electromagnetism if you know so much about it, I'm certainly not taking classes of this right now. And well! Why do you believe everything we tell you about electromagnetism if you can't believe gravitation?

I mean, we'll always need to explain something, it's like if god exists, why does he exist? How was he created? Etc. Why wouldn't the universe be timeless? Why do you need to explain the universe with a god, if it means not explaining the god? It's throwing the ball at someone else. Saying there needs to be a fancy particle for gravitation to work is the same thing, you'd still need to explain the graviton.

So we ask for you to explain and prove how something works, and your answer is, "It is just one of those big questions!!! We'll never know how it works! We'll never know how everything works, so what does it matter if we know how this works?"

I mean, I'm not saying there's no particle making gravitation work, what I mean is that it's irrelevant. Even if we do find these particles, even if we understand them like we understand electrons and protons, we'd still need to explain why they act like this, we'd have to go all the way back to the beginning of the universe, and then, we wouldn't be able to explain why things would work that way in the first place. We would only be able to observe what they do, thus explaining how they affect other things, which then gives you the understanding of these particles and give you the ability to work with them. That's how science works.

All this to say, my answer was not "It is just one of those big questions!!! We'll never know how it works!..." at all. My answer is "do we have to go all the way to the beginning of the universe to prove you something?" We CAN observe the effect of gravity, thus knowing if there is the graviton or whatever how it can be called or not would have no impact on this, but only help with our better understanding of how things work and it would help us do other things. We could observe electromagnetism before we knew about the electrons and protons. We know there were positive and negative charges (although we didn't call them that way), we knew all this, we knew the basics, but we knew nothing about particles being behind it. But that didn't mean it didn't exist.

My question for you then, is if you accept this conclusion, how can you justify rejecting any scientific theory. I may say that sun light is actually produced by Zebra on the Sun. If you ask how it possibly could work that it is ridiculous, you are being a hypocrite since you have already accepted before that things do not need explanations.

Can you quote me on where I rejected any scientific theory? I was only playing with your wonderful way to refute arguments, if it wasn't obvious enough. I mean, I come here as a "RETer", and you think I'd try to disprove the biggest scientific discoveries? - well, you do try to disprove gravitation"

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Industrial flat glass, needs a flat earth

« on: April 22, 2011, 01:14:54 PM »

I am assuming that someone pointed out that while the assembly like may be a kilometer long, the  piece of glass is nowhere near that length.

Yes, they have. If you haven't read the entire thread (I wouldn't recommend it), the argument relies entirely on the assumption that the glass produced by this method is perfectly flat. It has been proved that the glass would bend only a few micrometers under RET, "but the glass is pefectly flat", so that proves FE for them. I'm glad we can take the word of propagandists.

Adding to this, we can certainly make kilometer-long assemblies perfectly flat. You know, the assembly floor doesn't have to follow the Earth's curvature. That, and the Earth's curvature isn't even perfect, some spots ARE flat, some others are mountains, etc. The Earth is just a ball with a very uneven surface. Hell, the Earth doesn't even have the same radius at the poles and at the equator, nor is the radius constant there. It's easy to find flaws in the "RET" if you take the Earth as a perfect sphere.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The end of the flat earth theory. Everyone can go home and find a new hobby

« on: April 22, 2011, 01:05:30 PM »

Heh, we all know they basically come up with some random explication for an observation, without making sure that the implications of their explications are true. ANYONE can come up with explications to anything they can observe if they have the time and if they can look far enough so it doesn't go against other easy observations. It's not because you can come up with an explication that doesn't contradict what can be observable by the common people that it's true. The FET works because of circular logic. Basically, they create their own "science" without going through the whole elementary process you must do first. What I mean is that they can't prove their explications all the way back, they always use unproven or unexplained elements in their explications, rather than using 100% true elements. Or they always ignore something.

And then, we can't really prove several things, because they take into account hundreds and hundreds of years of things proven by science. And since most are not scientific, we'd have to prove them every single element of an explication, and then these elements could go down to another concept to demonstrate with several other elements. So it's much easier to simply ignore something which can't be "proven" by a 10 y-o kid messing with numbers and geometrical figures.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: April 22, 2011, 12:09:52 PM »

The Graviton? What the hell would that be? It's the MASS that makes something attracted to another, not some fancy particle.

Well, you're half right (which, basically, makes you wrong).  According to relativity, it's mass that causes gravity.  But according to quantum theory, which contradicts relativity but is equally respected (go modern science!), fancy particles cause it.

Well, it's because the fancy particle would cause the mass, else all our equations and such wouldn't work. But that doesn't make the particle much more relevant to our problem here, because we'd have to find a reason why the particle has such effect.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: April 22, 2011, 12:07:30 PM »

The Graviton? What the hell would that be? It's the MASS that makes something attracted to another, not some fancy particle.

Oh really? So what is the mechanism of mass that attracts them to each other? This mechanism is supposed to be able to work over millions of miles, even light years!

So what is the mechanism of electric charges that makes electrons attracted to protons? The mechanism is that bigger masses attracts smaller ones, like the mechanism of electric charges is that positive charges attracts negative ones. Maybe there's something very obscure that make these things work that way, but then, what would make the graviton do what it would do? I mean, we'll always need to explain something, it's like if god exists, why does he exist? How was he created? Etc. Why wouldn't the universe be timeless? Why do you need to explain the universe with a god, if it means not explaining the god? It's throwing the ball at someone else. Saying there needs to be a fancy particle for gravitation to work is the same thing, you'd still need to explain the graviton. It's the same thing here. It's proven because it has been observed. It's proven because the Earth revolve around the sun because of their masses. I know this doesn't explain why the Earth is round as it takes this to be granted to be explained, but that's not my point.

Anyway, you can do several observations if you want. Go to an observatory, and look at the sky with the big telescope. Look at it during winter, and look at it during summer. Then go to the south pole (if you're not there already, else do the contrary) and do the same thing. You'll realize you won't be able to see the same constellations and stars, the same galaxies and all. The Magellan clouds being only observable in the south pole. Or you can use a special filter to look at the sun, and you'll see sunspots these days (they're not always there, sometimes they can disappear for decades) and then look a few days later and compare with here, there won't be at the same places. And look at the corona while you're at it. Then look at it half an hour later, and you might see the sun's ejections being taller. There's plenty of things you can look at. And the only thing that can explain Venus' phases is the heliocentric system. And how do you think they can predict auroras.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.

« on: April 22, 2011, 10:49:21 AM »

i think we're all missing the point here. gravity exists.

therefore the earth is not rising upwards at 9.8m/s²

Proof? Last time I check the Graviton has yet to be discovered

The Graviton? What the hell would that be? It's the MASS that makes something attracted to another, not some fancy particle. Look, the Earth is VERY massive, so that anything with a mass much smaller has little effect on attracting the Earth and is very attracted by it, hence why apples fall, because the Earth is so massive compared to it.


This experiment is also ridiculous and reeks of un-scientificism if you allow me the expression. First and foremost, the Earth is not a perfect sphere, thus the radius varies, what you have is an average. Second, usually when presenting scientific results (like the Earth's average radius) we present only 3 "significant" (sorry for my English) digits. But when you find out the a length, you keep LOADS of those digits after, while the average Earth radius HAD such digits but were dropped for the sake of having a decent number. So, doing such calculations means you IGNORE that what you have is a rounded average radius of the Earth... So that's a number not so precise (we don't need the precision considering what we use it for) and you use it in conjunction of a very precise calculation? That makes up for BIG errors. The bigger and more precise the other numbers you use, the bigger the error the result will have.

So, for such calculations with very small and precise numbers, you'd need a very precise radius, you'd at least need to know the absolute error thing, you need to know from within which range the result is in. So by knowing the range of the real value, you can give the range in which your results reside in, so you can't have a 100% accurate result. In order to have a 100% accurate result, you need 100% accurate numbers, which isn't the case here. Usually the Earth's radius is more commonly used for astrophysics and such, equations working with other big numbers which are as accurate (or almost), thus giving you a plausible result, not 100% accurate, but relatively close. But if you are looking for very very accurate numbers (ie. inches and feets are VERY accurate compared to thousands of miles), you need very very accurate numbers, and that rounded average is far from a very very accurate number, thus giving BIG errors, a BIG range of possible results which you don't even know about. That "experiment" reeks of amateurship. I'll try to come with a more accurate experiment, one probably using "cake slices" or something, with numbers with the same precision.

Okay, I tried something and came up with more than 100 feet less for the 30 miles thing. I have no idea of my thing is accurate, but I managed to use to not use the 30 miles value and use something much bigger instead. But then, thinking about it, we could always be surprised by the results. First of all, I call bullshit on his ability to see people 30 miles from where he is with a "good" telescope. 30 miles, is very far, so you'd need great magnification. And talking of good telescopes, a telescope's job isn't magnification, but accumulation more light so you can see more objects and clearer (particularly sky objects). So a good telescope might not even have magnification. And then, the bigger the magnification, the bigger your telescope needs to be, so it can accumulate more light, otherwise you won't see much. So if he REALLY can look 30 miles away with a telescope, well, he wouldn't be able to lay on his stomach at all as it would have to be way too big for that, otherwise he wouldn't see anything at all at that point. And then such telescope would be very expensive. In other words, you don't buy a telescope to be able to see 30 miles away from you on the sea level, you don't, and you can't. He probably looked on another beach much more closer than he thought, or he is making this up.