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 - NTheGreat

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34]
Flat Earth Debate / The rest of the universe.
« on: December 25, 2007, 02:42:00 PM »
What is the Flat earth stance on the rest of the Universe? I can see 3 possible models for it, each of which seem to have some flaws.

1) The universe is devoid of absolutely everything aside from Space time, UA/FE dark energy and our little system. Problems are the inability of meteors to exist, despite clear observations of them, along with evidence of past collisions with the planet from extraterrestrial objects.

2) The rest of the universe is being accelerated along with our planet. Problems are that the rest of the universe seems to operate on a sphere basis, with no obvious reason for our planet not to. The fact that our understanding of how stars works requires (gravity/gravitation/gravitational force/whatever you want to call the force that causes stuff to move towards each other, I know you're fussy about what you call it here) in order to form them and hold them together is also a small problem.

3) The rest of the universe is stationary and is unaffected by the UA/FE dark energy. This has the main problem of the fact we would observe the rest of the universe streaming past us at a fairly fast rate. Light would also be unpleasantly blue shifted above us, and red shifted around the horizon. Collision with anything is also very nasty in this situation.

Which situation is correct, and what explains away its flaws? Also, is there some kind of collection of the currently accepted FE models?

As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight. We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light. If we walk backwards and recede away from the wall the spot of light grows in diameter. When we walk towards the wall the spot of light becomes smaller again.

This seems completely different to your prior explanation...

It also seems to ignore the fact that doubling the distance leaves the beam at a quarter of it's intensity.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Metors and such.
« on: December 12, 2007, 09:37:21 AM »
If we take into account the idea of having the Earth as a result of the Big Bang (shot upwards), any meteors and such we encounter would just be rocks above us traveling slightly slower than 9.8m/s2.

Only real problems I can see with this are:
  • If the rocks were going slower that us after the big bang, how did they get ahead of us?
  • If the rocks were ahead of us after the big bang, what caused them to slow down?

This idea of glaciers feeding the ice sheet is rather interesting. The glaciers would need to be supplied with snow at their source, lest they dry up. This means that they would have to have a fairly active weather system.

The problem is that out in this vast plain of ice that is the top of the inner ice wall, there are no celestial mechanics to cause the weather. There's no sun to bring water up into clouds and to generate wind to shift them to the top of the glacier.

I expect that the ice shelf would be a very quiet place. As for the 'snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes' You mentioned earlier in the thread, there seems no chance.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Metors and such.
« on: December 12, 2007, 01:46:44 AM »
Care to provide us with these calculations?  I can just about guarantee they are wrong.

In retrospect the maths used probably was a little shoddy. I expect you might be able to halve the number of zeros. All I ended up doing was taking Ek = 1/2 * m * v2, and v = u + a * t, and combining them to end up with Ek = 1/2 * m * ( a * t )2.

At the time I was unable to find the relativity formula for calculating velocity based on constant acceleration, so I just threw together something to translate acceleration directly into energy. I was hoping that Newtonian formulas would be suitable, as the velocity just cancels out and the excessive speeds you end up with would be ignored, but it seems that people think this is not the case. Personally I expect that in the end the exact figure wouldn't matter too much anyway, as it's still going to have a vast amount of energy after having the equivalent energy of being accelerated at 9.8g for 4.6 billion years.

It probably wasn't a particularly good idea to base it on Newtonian physics based of the fact that Newton is such a taboo here. Do you have a relativity equation that allows someone to simply plug in a and t, and get v back?

Is that your version of the Big Bang?
Perhaps it is. It's the one that seems most logical to me, as a big bang which created space everywhere and all matter and energy at a single, infinitely dense point, would just, as far as I'm aware, collapse into a black hole. An event where a non-zero volume of space is created which is filled with a very high, but not infinitely dense mix of energy and matter could expand out to a point where it would not collapse in on itself. Perhaps it is flawed, but it is my current understanding of the state of the universe when it came into being.

You don't even believe you own scientists now?
I was referring to the FE concept of dark energy, a substance that accelerates objects in a certain direction continually. I don't have too much problem with the idea of RE dark energy, which increases the rate of expansion of the space in between two objects without acceleration either object. Although I am a little skeptical of the evidence for it, as estimating the likely spectrum of distant galaxies is difficult and probably based a lot around guesswork, and the only real evidence of it is the redshift of those galaxies.

What the hell is a Metor?
I meant Meteor. A small spelling mistake on my part. I apologize for any confusion it may have caused.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Metors and such.
« on: December 11, 2007, 07:21:35 AM »
You could have meteors traveling along with the flat earth, but that wouldn't explain why you get higher frequencies of them at certain times of the year, why they seem to radiate out of a single point in the sky, and why they only occur after 11PM based on where you are on the planet.

As for everything being blasted out of a single point by the Big Bang, it doesn't really fit the concept of the Big Bang. The Big Bang wasn't really an event that caused everything to explode out of a single point, it was more of an event that caused everything to exist everywhere, without providing it all with an initial velocity. I also question the idea of the Big Bang being responsible for the creation of the FE universe, as the evidence for the Big Bang in the FE model would be different to what we've observed.

I'm also a little skeptical of the idea of the universe being completely saturated in dark energy, aside from the little bubble in which we exist. Indeed, I've heard about all the things such as a bow-shock of dark energy, dark energy not interacting with the matter we are made of and such, but I still feel that there's aspects that don't work. That, however, is discussion for another thread.

Flat Earth Debate / Metors and such.
« on: December 11, 2007, 04:13:13 AM »
How does the FE model explain the presence of metors and evidence of past meteorite strikes?

in the RE model, it's fairly simple. Earth's drifting around the sun at a fairly brisk 30km/s, so any small bits of rock it encounters are going to be moving a fair bit faster than terminal velocity (We even have reliable predictions of when metor showers are going to occur, based on when the orbit of the earth intersects comet trails). As they enter the Earth's atmosphere, they're going to slow down a lot, converting all that speed into friction induced heat, burning up and leaving a glowing trail across the sky. Meteorites are much the same, except they don't completely burn up and end up leaving an impact crater instead.

This doesn't really work on a FE model though. After about 4.6 billion years of accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, We're going at an unpleasantly large fraction of the speed of light. Thus, anything that we encounter is, relative to us, going to me moving with a very, very large amount of energy.

Some quick calculations show that if you take a 10 gram lump of rock, provide it with the energy it would get from being accelerated at 9.8 m/s^2 for 4.6 billion years (what it would be  doing, relative to the earth), and then work out it's kinetic energy, it comes out at about 1 * 10^34 J, or the equivalent of 5 * 10^ 16 Tsar bombs (50,000,000,000,000,000).

And that's from 10 grams of rock.

This shows that nothing's going to be coming from space, and anything that we or NASA puts up there isn't going to move fast enough to burn up. So what is the FE explanation of such things?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravitational pull of stars
« on: December 10, 2007, 11:50:52 AM »
I imagine that the stars would be close enough to have an effect on each other, as at 3,100 kilometers (or was it miles?) they are able to exert a force large enough to produce the effect of objects weighing less on tall mountains. based on observations of the sky at night, I expect that the stars are more than close enough to each other to attract each other, especially over the time periods they have been around for. Likewise for pulling the Earth up to them.

...unless, of course, there's a completely different mechanism for the change in gravitational effects experienced on mountains.

Also, I was referring to the universe being there as anything outside our little 3,000 km/mi high dome in the FE model.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravitational pull of stars
« on: December 10, 2007, 03:38:36 AM »
Out of interest, if the stars have a gravitational field, why is the Earth not pulled towards them? Or, for that matter, why are they not pulled towards each other?

I also have some small concerns about dark energy.
1) From my understanding, dark energy doesn't push objects around. It merely increases the amount of space between two objects, giving the illusion that they are moving apart. Thus, it's not going to cause much acceleration.
2) The only evidence for dark energy is the increasing rate of expansion of the rest of the universe, and the only evidence of the expanding rate of the universe is red shifted images of the rest of the universe. FE theory kind of relies on the rest of the universe not being there.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question regarding the layout of the Flat Earth
« on: December 09, 2007, 02:32:33 PM »
I suppose that if there's reliable evidence for flights and treks across the North pole, and only unreliable evidence for flights and treks across the South pole, I guess that disproves an inverse flat Earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Other planets
« on: December 09, 2007, 02:27:17 PM »
Well, If they exist, how can they have moons and rings? Gravity does not exist, right?
From what I've been able to tell so far from reading prior topics on this board, gravity exists, but only when it's convenient for flat earth views.

45? Where did you get that?

There's something about the people that need to know linked from the FAQ, in this topic:

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question regarding the layout of the Flat Earth
« on: December 09, 2007, 02:09:33 AM »
They chose the North Pole because the South Pole would look like this:

It seems no worse than having the southern hemisphere stretched out of proportion.

It just makes me wonder. If you don't trust the measurements given for the southern hemisphere, why do you trust the ones given for the northern hemisphere? How do you know Russia doesn't stretch 30,000 kilometers around the world? After all, Russia is part of this conspiracy. South America, Australia and Africa aren't, but they never seem to complain that their county is twice as big as the maps show.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question regarding the layout of the Flat Earth
« on: December 08, 2007, 02:13:22 PM »
...I'm fairly certain that you can't find the median average or the mode average of an infinite series, and the mean average would just be, well, the mean of the two, not one or the other.

Personally I'm skeptical of the state collapsing when observed as well, as the state is under constant observation...

Perhaps Flat Earth mathematics operate in a different way to the kind we normally use...

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question regarding the layout of the Flat Earth
« on: December 08, 2007, 11:42:01 AM »
I tried to understand the mathematics you used there, but as far as I can tell, it seems complete nonsense. I guess it's a little out of my league. The only result I could get out of it is that you've got some kind sum to infinity, that's either going to total to, when observed, infinity or zero.

I've provided a small, poorly drawn diagram of what I mean in terms of a south pole based flat earth, in case anyone wasn't getting what I was going on about.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question regarding the layout of the Flat Earth
« on: December 08, 2007, 01:24:26 AM »
If we leave out the...questionable evidence of trips around the southern hemisphere, there's still evidence that the flat Earth is based around the south pole. Antarctica contains fossils from a time when it was warmer, which suggests that at one point it was closer to the equator. this would work fine in a south pole based FE model, as Antarctica is free to move around with continental drift, moving from warmer to colder places, and fitting in nicely in Pangaea. With a north based model, Antarctica is this vast ring of mountains, apparently completely immobile in continental drift and incapable of becoming warm enough to support the fossils it holds. It also leaves a huge hole in Pangaea where Antarctica would be.

There's also the fact that there's a lot more sea in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere. With the North pole model, you end up with Australia, south Africa and South America either stretched out of proportion or separated by insane amounts of sea. A south pole based model would give a lot smoother land coverage.

Finally, there's a lot more researchers at the South pole than the north pole, along with a larger number of tourists and other civilians. The idea of the North pole based model might have been planted by this vast, world spanning conspiracy, so that when people go to the south pole to look for themselves, they found no edge and thus assume the world is round. They are free to circumnavigate the south pole as many times as they like, with the people running the conspiracy safe in the knowledge that nobody will check that the North pole is the same, due to the fact that the north pole is far more difficult to circumnavigate via sea.

Of course, I still believe that the Earth is a globe. Not that it affects me in any way, but everything seems more logical that way.

Flat Earth Debate / Question regarding the layout of the Flat Earth
« on: December 07, 2007, 03:09:59 PM »
Out of interest, what evidence is there that the center of the earth is at the North pole? Wouldn't the idea of the south pole being the center be just as valid? The mechanics of the flat earth seem to be particularly effective at preventing people from detecting whether they are in the inner half or outer half of the circle, so why does every map suggest that the Northern hemisphere is the inner section of the circle?

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34]