1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham

« on: March 21, 2007, 08:32:31 PM »

Im surprised... Engineer's pointless one-sentence replies usually address the topic in some way...

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham

« on: March 21, 2007, 01:12:23 PM »

Nature is a publication of the Royal Astronomical Society. The Royal Astronomical Society is the precursor to NASA. It is the parent entity which jump started the Conspiracy.

In particular, I describe the origins of the Conspiracy here.

1) Do you have any reference showing that Nature is a publication of the Royal Astronomical Society?

2) How do you explain this?

Rowbotham repeated his experiments several times over the years but his discoveries received little attention until, in 1870, a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham’s experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted explorer and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor’s training, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and he won the bet.[2] Hampden, however, published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel.[3]

In 1901 explorer H Youle Oldham, a geography professor at Cambridge University, conducted the definitive experiment described in Method, above.[4]

Citation 3 refers to:
Hampden, John (1870): The Bedford Canal swindle detected & exposed. A. Bull, London.
and citation 4 refers to:
Oldham, H Youle (1901): Annual Report. British Association for the Advancement of Science,  London.

The British Association for the Advancement of Science was in on the conspiracy back then too? If you take it that far, you start implicating the entire scientific community, which is ludicrous.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Samuel Birley Rowbotham

« on: March 21, 2007, 10:02:32 AM »

Apparently his "scientific" experiments were disproved numerous times... and most of his other "proof" consists of long sequences of non sequitur speculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Before you tell me it's wikipedia, the information about the experiment being disproven came from these sources:

Nature 7 April 1870.
Hampden, John (1870): The Bedford Canal swindle detected & exposed. A. Bull, London.
Oldham, H Youle (1901): Annual Report. British Association for the Advancement of Science,
   London.

You can't really claim it's the conspiracy without involving the entire scientific community... I also don't see the motive for the conspiracy before space travel....

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Viewing other planets.

« on: March 16, 2007, 10:28:15 PM »

That makes sense.

Samuel Birley Robotham actually describes an Earth as an infinite plane beyond the Ice Wall in his work Earth Not a Globe. This FAQ of this forum adopts the Accelerating Coin model, a bastardized finite plane model which came out in the 60's.

Illustration: http://i16.tinypic.com/2h5mqgk.png

In my opinion the Infinite Plane is actually the purest of the Flat Earth models.

Your thoughts?

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity

« on: March 16, 2007, 09:40:06 PM »

I was hoping you would do a little work yourself, but that seems to be too much to ask.  So, here you go:

Einstein combined the equivalence principle with special relativity to predict that clocks run at different rates in a gravitational potential, and light rays bend in a gravitational field, even before he developed the concept of curved spacetime. It is important to note that any accelerated frame of reference has a gravitational potential associated with it. Therefore clocks displaced in the direction of acceleration with respect to an accelerating rocket will be found to be going faster or slower by the observer in the accelerating rocket in accord with gravitational time dilation. The same applies to other gravitaitional effects such as gravitational red shifting and the bending of light.

One of the defining features of general relativity is the idea that gravitational 'force' is replaced by geometry. In general relativity, phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories) are taken in general relativity to represent inertial motion in a curved spacetime. So what people standing on the surface of the Earth perceive as the 'force of gravity' is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration caused by the mechanical resistance of the surface on which they are standing.

Both from Wiki, and can be found in thousands of other creditable places.

Interesting, care to cite something other than wikipedia?  "It is important to note that any accelerated frame of reference has a gravitational potential associated with it" isn't completely clear; it's open to multiple interpretations.  What exactly does it mean for gravitational potential to be associated with any accelerated frame of reference?

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could specifically address each point I made in my last post:

The equivalence principle states that acceleration and gravity are locally indistinguishable.  Being in a gravitational field is equivalent to being a non inertial FOR.  In other words, there is no experiment, example or local physical process which is explained by gravitation, that can't be explained by acceleration.  This acceleration, therefore, must also warp space so as to produce the same 'gravitational' effects such as gravitational lensing, and gravitational potential.

1) By saying that all forms of acceleration warp space to produce gravitational effects (which implies that this gravitation goes in all directions, otherwise it can't explain gravitational lensing), then you're taking Einstein's ideas a step further, are you not?  If this is true, then you better damn well have some form of rationale, evidence, or reference that led you to believe this. If it's not true, then tell me where exactly Einstein said that the equivalence principle worked in the way you're describing.  From what I can tell, you're coming to the conclusion that the equivalence principle (with reference to Gravity) must also work inversely, so as to support the Flat Earth model.  This is purely non sequitur.
2) The experiment:

So, to the experiment. If Einstein was right then the sun is bending space and we should be able to observe this by looking at the stars behind the sun. In other words, if the sun were between us and certain stars whose exact positions in the sky we know to six decimal places then we should see the light of those stars bending through space as that light passes the position of the sun on its way to earth. As a result the stars should appear to us to be out of place by a certain calculable number of degrees. Yes, not only did Einstein say the the sun would bend the light of the stars, he also knew how much bending would be done.

Well, you can't see stars that are behind the sun because the sun is too bright! Even Einstein knew that! So, they all had to wait for an eclipse. And when it came there were lots of people praying for a clear sky! And as the sky got darker and darker more and more stars came into view until it got just dark enough the see one particular star that everyone had agreed to measure the exact position of that day. And sure enough! The star was exactly where Einstein said it would appear to be and that place was not where God, nor Newton, put it! It appeared off position by the exact amount that Einstein's theory said it would be. Of course, Einstein, ever the man of humility, pointed out that an infinite number of experiments could prove him right; but it would take only one to prove him wrong!

Care to explain how light can be accelerated in this circumstance?  EXPERIENCING gravity is the same as experiencing acceleration (and they are the same when you're dealing with calculations and predictions), but acceleration does not produce all the effects of gravity.

You are mistaking gravity and gravitation.  This is what no one appears to be able to understand.  Gravity is a pseudo force that was invented to deal with not being in an inertial FOR.  Gravitation is the acceleration caused by the deformation of spacetime.

And it can easily be observed that this deformation of spacetime is caused by mass.  Unless, of course, the sun is made of pixie dust.

General Relativity EXPLICITLY states that gravity as a force does not exist.

1) I provided a credible source (and a quotation from it) that suggest the opposite.  Why are you unable to do so?  You've said this many times, but have yet to reference a credible source... I wonder why.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity

« on: March 16, 2007, 09:16:24 PM »

The equivalence principle states that acceleration and gravity are locally indistinguishable.  Being in a gravitational field is equivalent to being a non inertial FOR.  In other words, there is no experiment, example or local physical process which is explained by gravitation, that can't be explained by acceleration.  This acceleration, therefore, must also warp space so as to produce the same 'gravitational' effects such as gravitational lensing, and gravitational potential.

1) By saying that all forms of acceleration warp space to produce gravitational effects (which implies that this gravitation goes in all directions, otherwise it can't explain gravitational lensing), then you're taking Einstein's ideas a step further, are you not?  If this is true, then you better damn well have some form of rationale, evidence, or reference that led you to believe this.  If it's not true, then tell me where exactly Einstein said that the equivalence principle worked in the way you're describing.  From what I can tell, you're coming to the conclusion that the equivalence principle (with reference to Gravity) must also work inversely, so as to support the Flat Earth model.  This is purely non sequitur.
2) The experiment:

So, to the experiment. If Einstein was right then the sun is bending space and we should be able to observe this by looking at the stars behind the sun. In other words, if the sun were between us and certain stars whose exact positions in the sky we know to six decimal places then we should see the light of those stars bending through space as that light passes the position of the sun on its way to earth. As a result the stars should appear to us to be out of place by a certain calculable number of degrees. Yes, not only did Einstein say the the sun would bend the light of the stars, he also knew how much bending would be done.

Well, you can't see stars that are behind the sun because the sun is too bright! Even Einstein knew that! So, they all had to wait for an eclipse. And when it came there were lots of people praying for a clear sky! And as the sky got darker and darker more and more stars came into view until it got just dark enough the see one particular star that everyone had agreed to measure the exact position of that day. And sure enough! The star was exactly where Einstein said it would appear to be and that place was not where God, nor Newton, put it! It appeared off position by the exact amount that Einstein's theory said it would be. Of course, Einstein, ever the man of humility, pointed out that an infinite number of experiments could prove him right; but it would take only one to prove him wrong!

Care to explain how light can be accelerated in this circumstance?  EXPERIENCING gravity is the same as experiencing acceleration (and they are the same when you're dealing with calculations and predictions), but acceleration does not produce all the effects of gravity.

You are mistaking gravity and gravitation.  This is what no one appears to be able to understand.  Gravity is a pseudo force that was invented to deal with not being in an inertial FOR.  Gravitation is the acceleration caused by the deformation of spacetime.

And it can easily be observed that this deformation of spacetime is caused by mass.  Unless, of course, the sun is made of pixie dust.

General Relativity EXPLICITLY states that gravity as a force does not exist.

1) I provided a credible source (and a quotation from it) that suggest the opposite.  Why are you unable to do so?  You've said this many times, but have yet to reference a credible source... I wonder why.

RE'ers, mind letting me argue this myself?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Relativity

« on: March 16, 2007, 08:37:08 PM »

This is something that really needs to be sorted out.  FE'ers seem to have many preconceived notions about the implications of general relativity and the equivalence principle that are just untrue.

Einstein didn't deny the existence of gravity, he just said that an acceleration due to gravity feels the same as (thus, is equivalent to) any other form of acceleration in the opposite direction.  This is what the equivalence principle means.  It does NOT by ANY MEANS imply that gravity does not exist.  Thus, gravity creates a field in which objects are accelerated in the same way that anything else accelerates. 

The key idea of general relativity, called the equivalence principle, is that gravity pulling in one direction is completely equivalent to an acceleration in the opposite direction. A car accelerating forwards feels just like sideways gravity pushing you back against your seat. An elevator accelerating upwards feels just like gravity pushing you into the floor.

He also, however, had an explanation for gravity itself.

If gravity is equivalent to acceleration, and if motion affects measurements of time and space (as shown in special relativity), then it follows that gravity does so as well. In particular, the gravity of any mass, such as our sun, has the effect of warping the space and time around it. For example, the angles of a triangle no longer add up to 180 degrees, and clocks tick more slowly the closer they are to a gravitational mass like the sun.

Many of the predictions of general relativity, such as the bending of starlight by gravity and a tiny shift in the orbit of the planet Mercury, have been quantitatively confirmed by experiment. Two of the strangest predictions, impossible ever to completely confirm, are the existence of black holes and the effect of gravity on the universe as a whole (cosmology).

No one except Einstein was thinking of gravity as equivalent to acceleration, as a geometrical phenomenon, as a bending of time and space.

Full article:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/

So why do you pick and choose what to believe Einstein about?  Have you confirmed all his experiments (and the experiments done based on his theories)?  If you have, you will also have proven to yourself that gravity exists.

Please respond respectfully, with a well thought out, logical argument.  Engineer, please refrain from posting your condescending one-sentence bullshit.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THIS IS WRONG, SUPPORT YOUR CONJECTURE WITH A COHERENT RATIONALE BEHIND WHY YOU THINK SO.  DON'T ANSWER THIS POST BY ASKING ME A QUESTION INSTEAD OF ANWERING MINE.

After all, the name of this forum is Flat Earth Questions and Clarification, is it not?

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jewish Ritual Murder

« on: March 16, 2007, 05:18:49 PM »

I would hope that someone proclaiming themselves to be intolerant of intolerance would not let a homicide investigator's philosophical orientation deter them from the facts which that investigator uncovers.  You seem to be intolerant of the producers' views which leads you to wrongly blame the exposers of murderers rather than the murders themselves.  I do not endorse any hatred even of jewish murderers, but I would say your hatred is grossly misplaced.  The victims of these murderers would certainly think so.

1) I never expressed any hatred, just disgust.
2) Mind citing some of the legitimate evidence?  I don't think I can bear listening/reading anything else about this.

I do not share the religious background of the producers, but they do have useful information in spite of some of their very wrong agnostic opinions.

For some reason, I think they're far from agnostic... Religion is often the force behind intolerance, ironically enough.

I have seen a great deal of information from jewish sources illustrating the interaction between hinduism and judaism.  Your observation does not take into account the relationships and interactions between different religions as explored by philosophers and historians of comparative religions like the erudite Sufi writer Abd-Al Wahid Yahya (Rene Guenon) or his friend the universally reknown hindu writer Ananda Coomaraswamy.

Care to cite anything?  I'm just not particularly interested in reading deeply into religion.  In my opinion, taking ideas and philosophies and turning them into a belief structure is a big step in the wrong direction.

Jewish Occult Murders
(On-line Book)
http://www.honestmediatoday.com/jrm_booklet_html.htm

Kosher Cattle Slaughter
(On-line graphic video)
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=agri_short

The first is from a source called "honest media today."  Why don't you take a look at their  recent "news"...
http://www.honestmediatoday.com/RecentNews.htm
About 90% of it seems to be focusing on implicating Jews in various forms of corruption...  Care to tell your reason for citing this source?

The second video you labeled in a misleading way.  It is frightening how something like that can happen in this day and age, but just because their meat is being sold as kosher doesn't mean it is.  If you read the article about it from the site it refers you to, you'll see that this is not kosher in the least.  The reason for kosher slaughter is so that the cattle feel NO PAIN WHATSOEVER.  If you care to read that article, here it is:
http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/
The Jewish community is outraged over these practices as well...

Try to at least represent the dilemma with a bit of integrity, especially when dealing with touchy situations such as these.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jewish Ritual Murder

« on: March 15, 2007, 06:39:08 PM »

This is so above and beyond anti-semitism...

They show one scene at the beginning, a lot of art (mostly oriented around christianity ironically) and talk about their prejudiced theories as facts.

The supposed Ph.D refers to Manasa, which is a Hindu god that is usually invoked through sacrifice....

They even get the story of Abraham wrong.  They say he "reportedly stopped" before sacrificing his son...  In the story, however, he was proving his faith for God, and it was no easy decision for him.  At the very last second, an angel came down and stopped him. 

If this is true, then who's to say Jesus didn't have a son and murder him?

The only thing I'm intolerant of is intolerance, and this is a blinding example.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Light

« on: March 15, 2007, 12:41:04 PM »

delta(psidot) = .0383/RT

Which is the relativistic correction factor in the precession, which agrees with observations.

Cmon Engineer, you're really close to giving a half-reasonable answer, now you just have to elaborate on what that equation means and implies, and how that supports your FE model (or supports the observation of the precession of mercury's perihelion).

Ditch the two-sentence answers and your condescending attitude.  Maybe then we can have a real debate.  On a side note - based on the way you answer people - I really doubt you believe in FE.  If you did you'd support your claims, but you're really just looking to frustrate people...  How's that workin' out for ya?

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which subject do you understand the least about Flat Earth Theory?

« on: March 15, 2007, 12:33:42 PM »

Yeah, too bad you can't vote twice, or three times...
Or four.

Yeah, I had a hard time choosing... If the shadow object was up there I wouldnt've known what to do, but other than that the creation of a completely new force with unlimited properties is the most ludicrous.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Earthhrise"

« on: March 14, 2007, 08:17:19 PM »

How about you answer my post...

I said nothing about making it out of the atmosphere, I said staying out of it, which would require a bunch of mass to eject.

So you agree that we've been outside of the atmosphere? Unless you're still trying to disprove patented technology?

Thanks for the link, but you are the one who needs to read it.

Logically, that should be followed by a quote from the website, showing why what I'm saying is invalid.  Illogically, you should leave it as is.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Earthhrise"

« on: March 14, 2007, 07:41:33 PM »

I said nothing about making it out of the atmosphere, I said staying out of it, which would require a bunch of mass to eject.

So you agree that we've been outside of the atmosphere? Unless you're still trying to disprove patented technology?

Thanks for the link, but you are the one who needs to read it.

Logically, that should be followed by a quote from the website, showing why what I'm saying is invalid.  Illogically, you should leave it as is.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Challenge to all Round Earthers

« on: March 14, 2007, 06:41:53 PM »

You're assuming that the idiots who spend money on this trip would be perceptive enough to study the scenery while grounded.

Yeah, the idiots with more money than you could imagine... they definitely made it by twiddling their thumbs...

Also, i wasn't talking about "scenery," I was talking about the stars, the moon, and even the earth.  As you move around, it would be obvious you're looking through a fisheye lens.  When moving through a normal window while looking out of it, the scenery out the window moves through your field of vision with a constant rate proportional to your velocity.  When you do this with a fisheye window, the curvature will cause the object to seem to move faster, even though you're walking with a constant velocity.  This is a very obvious effect... Also, when you look at the earth through different parts of the lens/window, the earth's curvature will change...

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Earthhrise"

« on: March 14, 2007, 06:27:53 PM »

You've analyzed all the technology of their designs that are patented?  For some reason I doubt it...

I don't have to.  The simple fact that a ship has to maintain an acceleration of 1g means that there must be mass constantly ejected from the ship.  That's a lot of mass to have to carry with them.  That would make for a very large, very heavy ship.  One which would probably not get off the ground.
[/quote]
1) Yes you do have to.  You're the one trying to disprove generally accepted knowledge.  In order to successfully do so, you have to show why their designs would be unable to make it outside of the atmosphere.  You can't just claim something and support it with further speculation, as you just did.
2) Why would you have to constantly eject mass from the ship?  Couldn't you just be propelled by very powerful chemical reactions that release large amounts of energy?

http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/01581/SpaceTravelEnglish/propulsion/currenttechnology.html
Enjoy.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Challenge to all Round Earthers

« on: March 14, 2007, 05:19:55 PM »

Why should we spend money to fly in a high altitude aeroplane with slight fisheye windows?

Wouldn't the ground look blue anyway?  You know, because of all the blue air blocking your view of the ground.

Also, fish-eye lenses don't selectively distort (you know, like gravity does in the FE model).  All light passing through the lens will bend accordingly.  By moving around a little and looking at a few things other than the earth, it would be simple to tell you were looking through a fish-eye lens.

Virgin Galactic, one of the leading space tourism groups, is planning to have passenger service on its first spaceship, the VSS Enterprise (SpaceShipTwo), with the inaugural launch in 2008 and main flights beginning in 2009.[14][15]. The first 100 people will pay $200,000, the next 900 people will pay between $100,000 and $175,000, and everyone after that will pay $20,000 - this is in contrast to the $20,000,000 Dennis Tito had to pay.[16] Headed by Richard Branson's Virgin Group, Virgin Galactic will be the first private space tourism company to regularly send civilians into space, by training them for 3 days before their launch[14].

After the first 1000, it'll only cost $20,000.  Maybe this theory will finally die once it isn't obsenely expensive to go into space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism
http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/overview.htm

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Earthhrise"

« on: March 14, 2007, 05:06:59 PM »

have you ? ^^

No, I havent.  I'm not the one trying to disprove their designs, he is.  Therefore The Engineer is the one who has to support his false declarations with some form of evidence and logic. 

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Earthhrise"

« on: March 14, 2007, 04:36:13 PM »

It's not feasible due to the necessary constant acceleration of the ship.

You've analyzed all the technology of their designs that are patented?  For some reason I doubt it...

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Round Earthers, can you explain this?

« on: March 13, 2007, 06:21:50 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_strip

What are you trying to say though?  How does this support FE or debunk RE?

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: prove me

« on: March 13, 2007, 03:22:30 PM »

Just search for the answers to your questions... they've all been asked many, many times before.  You're not going to get a better answer here.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: prove me

« on: March 13, 2007, 03:16:44 PM »

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe

« on: March 12, 2007, 06:58:39 PM »

Easiest paradox:

I always lie.

They're right, this isn't a paradox.  Say this is false.  That means you don't always lie.  That means you could tell the truth all the time, but much more likely you tell the truth some of the time, and lie some of the time.

Lying about the statement that you're always lying (thus making it false) doesn't imply that you always tell the truth.  It would only be a paradox if this were true.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Equivalence Principle and all its fun

« on: March 12, 2007, 06:42:31 PM »

The Philosopher is just saying that there is a difference if it is you who is actually moving, because you would feel a force. For instance, my hair does not fly when I am just standing while my friend rides a bike.

That's because you and The Philosopher are confusing coordinate and physical acceleration.  In General Relativity, one cannot be preferred over the other.

Let's see a simple velocity example:
I take off in a rocket and my friend stays behind on earth.  He can claim that he is not moving and that the relative velocity is purely due to my movement.  I, on the other hand, can also claim that I am at rest and my friend's movement is causing the velocity difference.  Now, relativity states that all reference frames are equal, thus leading to the apparent Twins Paradox.  Which one is moving?  Which one will be aging slower?  Relativity must have some way of dealing with this contradiction.  Thankfully, it does, in that simultaneous events in one frame are not simultaneous in another.

And the same applies to General Relativity.  If I am able to claim I am not moving, there must be some way to reconcile the apparent paradox: Curved spacetime.

Now, like I said, I am not going to teach you all about relativity.  If you don't want to accept what I have said, well, no one ever said that Relativity was easy to understand, so go take a class on it, or buy a book, or even do some research online.  The validity of frames of reference is not even up for debate, as it has been shown to be true in both General and Special Relativity.  This thread has been sidetracked enough, and was originally about acceleration and it's generation of gravitational effects, so let's get back to it.

I agree with everything you've said here.  When you're moving at a constant velocity, though, you feel no force.  I'm just saying your car/earth example was faulty; read my last post.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Equivalence Principle and all its fun

« on: March 12, 2007, 06:34:50 PM »

But that's just because The Philosopher doesn't know what he's talking about.

Yes I do.  The equivalence principle is used for calculating, describing and predicting third-person physical events relativistically.  When it becomes a first person experience, however, you can use your 5 senses to gain a more specific understanding of the type of acceleration you're experiencing.  Hence, when you push down the gas pedal in your car and the earth seems to move undeneath you, your sense of touch - in the form of your being pressed back against your seat - leads you to the conclusion that you're the one accelerating, not the ground beneath you.

This experience of acceleration, however, would be indistinguishable from undergoing any other type of acceleration.  This is how the equivalence principle applies to this example.  All we're really arguing about at this point is that The Engineer used a faulty example... so just admit it already   

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Equivalence Principle and all its fun

« on: March 12, 2007, 04:00:21 PM »

I'm asking you to explain what the flaw in my logic is.

When you say your frame of reference is preferred over mine.

I think Einstein would agree with me.

Seeing as what you are saying is the exact opposite of what is stated in Relativity, I would venture so far as to say Einstein would not agree with you.

.. the equivalence principle is usually used to predict third-person events.

Then you don't know what it is.

How about a real answer instead of same condescending bullshit

I can only give you the same answer because it is correct and you refuse to accept it.  ALL FRAMES OF REFERENCE ARE EQUAL AND EQUIVALENT IN GENERAL RELATIVITY.  LOOK IT UP IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME.

What a surprise, the same answer again... Why don't you at least quote something that proves your example instead of telling me to learn about the equivalence principle... based on everything I've read about it, your example is invalid.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Equivalence Principle and all its fun

« on: March 12, 2007, 03:26:28 PM »

I get it, you believe your FOR is preferred.  Well, that's fine, if that's what you want to believe.  I would suggest you write up a paper about how Einstein was wrong and there is a preferred FOR, therefore, Relativity is wrong.  You just might get a Nobel Prize if you can prove why.

I'm asking you to explain what the flaw in my logic is.  I'd appreciate a real answer instead of the same old bs over and over again.  I think Einstein would agree with me... the equivalence principle is usually used to predict third-person events.

How about a real answer instead of same condescending bullshit

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE magnetic field

« on: March 12, 2007, 03:12:44 PM »

I propose a new model for the source of the flat Earth's magnetic field.  Instead of the Earth being a single magnet with the north pole in the center and the south pole as a non-single-point curve around the rim, can we have have the Earth  contain or be made of up many bar magnets, each with its north pole at the center?  It would look something like this:



I realize of course that there are certain problems with this model, but I think I can address them:

Q: Wouldn't be strong repulsive forces pushing the magnets apart, essentially tearing the Earth apart?

A: This force would definitely exist, but the picture is just to get an idea of the arrangements -- not the size or density -- of the magnets.  I don't mean to suggest that the entire Earth is comprised entirely of enormous magnets; merely that there is magnetic material mixed in with the nonmagnetic material, and that this magnetic material is arranged just like the magnetic material in bar magnets.

Q: What's with the hole in the middle?

A: Partly it was a way of decreasing the repulsive forces at the center of the world.  Partly it was, well, I figured it would be easier to accept the bar-magnet idea if the magnets were actually bar shaped.  Also, the figure isn't too scale; in reality the hole would be much smaller.  But don't forget, if you use a compass right on the north pole, it just spins around a lot, which is exactly what you'd expect from this model.  Lastly, this gives the model more freedom to place the magnetic north pole (see below).

Q: But the magnetic north pole isn't at the same place as the geographic north pole...

A: True, but I don't insist that all the bar magnets be equally strong.  Maybe bar magnet #7 is a bit stronger than the others, which would make compasses tend to point a bit more towards that one.  That's another reason to have the hole -- this way the magnetic north pole doesn't need to be right at the center.

As a final note, you should take this figure as a schematic; it's not meant to be to scale.  There would probably be many more than ten bar magnets, and each would be much narrower.  The hole is probably way too big, and there's no need for spaces in between the bar magnets.

So... comments?  Questions?

-Erasmus

Standing at that black circle would cause a compass to point south instead of north.  If you claim one of them is stronger than the rest then this would work next to one of the bar magnets (or close enough to any of them).

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Equivalence Principle and all its fun

« on: March 12, 2007, 02:49:51 PM »

Your argument that you can say the earth is accelerating underneath you is easily refuted with the observation that you feel the reactant force pushing you against your seat.

So you are telling me that, yours, is a preferred frame of reference?

I'm saying that the earth moving underneath you wouldn't cause you to be pressed back against your seat, thus proving that situation impossible.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Equivalence Principle and all its fun

« on: March 12, 2007, 02:25:09 PM »

General Relativity asserts that ALL reference frames, including rotating and accelerating ones, are equivalent.  It's not something that I am going to teach you.  I am not your teacher.  Go and research it for yourself.

I never disagreed with that.  I'm talking about the ways in which you can observe an accelerating reference frame, and what this tells you about that acceleration.  Your argument that you can say the earth is accelerating underneath you is easily refuted with the observation that you feel the reactant force pushing you against your seat.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Equivalence Principle and all its fun

« on: March 12, 2007, 01:09:55 PM »

Special and General Relativity allow me to claim it.

Explain

You are missing the point of Relativity.  All reference frames are correct.

Explain.  And please give a real, specific explanation instead of your one sentence im-smarter-than-you-refer-to-this-to-learn-why answers.  I'd really like you to explain exactly what about special relativity/general relativity/the equivalence principle led you to your conclusion.  If you don't want to write it all out yourself, then at least post a few explanatory quotations and a link to the references.