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.
So now you guys are saying that 0.8888.. does equal 0.9999..
You guys should take math 101.
Than you must agree that 2/3 = 0.666...6667 something that the previous two posters said is absurd!
This just in: no such thing as infinite 9's.
It becomes undefined only when x=1.but if 0.99999..... will eventually equal 1 with enough nines how many can we put before it becomes one and makes the equation undefined since by the logic put forth here the answer is no longer just one.
It becomes 1 when you stop adding nines and add a 0.(some number of 0's)1.
Such as 0.99999 + 0.00001 = 1
You can't add enough nines to equal one, since adding produces a finite number of them. 0.999... is just another way of writing 1.
So infinity = 1...
Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."In one of the odder premises of Zetetic astronomy, there is an odd argument that the appearance of sunrise and sunset is a function of a trick of perspective.
A: It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.
Just out of curiosity, can you please explain why he needs to answer your question before you'll answer his? He asked the first question. He asks, you answer...then you get to ask and he answers. Thats how we learn things from each other and get things done.
In my experience usually someone asks a question the person asked has only a few options.
- Answer the question if he knows the answer.
- Tell the questioner "I don't know".
- Ask a clarifying question so as to be better able to answer accurately.
- Be rude and ignore the question altogether.
- Turn the question back on the original questioner because you haven't the faintest idea of the answer and you hope the original questioner will provide a reasonable answer that you can regurgitate nearly verbatim.
With respect Robosteve, can you tell us which category your line of reasoning falls into in this thread? Or is there a 6th option I have not included above? If there is, please tell us what it is.
There is a sixth option that my question falls into quite nicely. It may be succinctly described as "ask a rhetorical question of similar form to illustrate the inanity of the original question".Will you at least tell us if you do or do not know the answer to the original question? If so, when?
The question does not deserve an answer. See above.
cod and chips twice please
0.4999...5 != 0.5
0.499... = .4 + 0.09999...
0.099999..*100 = 9.99999...
9.9999...-0.0999..=9.9= 0.099999...*99
9.9/99 = 0.1
0.4+0.1=0.5
0.49999... = 0.5
Math still works, sorry
CD
Except you forget the 5 at the end, which disproves everything you just said.
0.4999...5 != 0.5
ok then answer my question:
why is that not an answer to your question?Answers generally provide some sort of response to the question at hand.
this kind of circular argument is why you are not able to convince people the earth is flat. that and the lack of evidence.
In the RE model, why do the stars (and possibly the moon) need to exist? Obviously they are not there specifically for our amusement, so why then do they exist?
Is this a serious question?
If you have to ask that, you don't deserve an answer.
Stop acting stupid then.
Gravity is caused by our natural attraction to our deliciously sweet planet.
If the doughnut floated up causing gravitational pull, the southern hemisphere would be uninhabitable.
What a preposterous idea. ha!
ninjas
please, this is a serious theory
And probably the funniest thing i've heard is that the sunset is an optical illusion...wtf??? Please explain!
From your FAQ:
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"
A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south.
Antarctica as a continent does not exist.
80 miles high or 150 ft?
On foxnews? Really I didnt see it.
You can't get to the icewall. Instant death by armed peguins. OR you are erased by the government either way if you make it, your not coming back. Some believe the earth is an infinite plane. Which would make the end all icewall very far away, as in infinitely far away so you could never get there...but if you can't ever reach the edge then does it really exist in the first place.
The icewall is high enough so that no atmosphere escapes.
Of course you're right - it merely proves that there is a universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.Nope, it does not prove that either. There is no force between the objects. The only forces in the system are in the torsion and tension of the string.
Now, let me ask you this: How can your version of gravity affect light?QuoteNothing to do with gravity - silly to even think so, I was referring to some OTHER universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.Which, again, does not exist.QuoteNope, not gravity, don't know how that even entered the conversation.It entered the conversation because you think you know more than you actually do.
Sadly, however, they were in vain.
If that were the case please explain the results of the Cavendish experiment.The Cavendish Experiment has absolutely zero to do with proving the existence of the force of gravity.
Gravity does not exist. It is a fictitious force that arises due to the transformation of a non inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.
Gravity does not exist, and you appear to have completely missed the point of this thread. lurk moar.
It appears so. He either didn't read the first post very well or didn't read it at all.
Government
Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"
A: It's a conspiracy
Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"
A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.
Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"
A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture.
Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"
A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead
All these are explained far more simply by a spherical earth. You can 'explain' it only by invoking mysterious forces that leave no other sign than the particular phenomena you need explained, bending light in particular ways, having a mysterious linear acceleration without fuel, placing the sun on a path not explainable by gravity, ignoring what seems to me to be a fairly obvious thought experiment, ignoring the training given to artillery officers, and in general ignoring the simple theory in favor of a universe built by an incompetent deity that uses duct tape to hold the heavens together.
That's ah - not an explanation. If your theory requires more undetectable buy highly important forces working behind the scenes that a season of 'Lost' - then the onus is upon you to prove those force exist.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns.
CD
It's all about how you interpret the data. The only reason why RE looks like the better theory right now is that it has been built in as an assumption with all of our major scientific discoveries for centuries, it is something ingrained in everybody's mind from a very young age (much like religion), and it's assumed by some that so-called "pictures from space" somehow prove that the earth is round. However, it's impossible for some to ignore the evidence that the earth is flat. That's what this website is all about: breaking free of the accepted dogma and actually considering something that makes sense for a change.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns either.
RtT
Per the FAQ - "Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets. : A: It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away."Except - no, the sun on the horizon *doesn't* look further away, it looks like it's . . . disappearing below the horizon. Which is interesting and useful since, using a 'Round Earth Theory', one can simply posit that it is in fact . . . . disappearing below the horizon.
Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?" A: The Earth is not one of the other planets. The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways."The Earth is Special" is an argument not notable for it's coherence, and without further support violates the fundamental principle of science that the basic laws of physics are not mutable over time or space.
Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?" A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites can't orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites.Again, this posits a "Special" set of laws for some objects - notably the Sun and the Moon, which quite obviously *are* capable of maintaining a consistent 'orbit-like' frame, albeit with no mathematical model explaining it. Regardless, if the Sun and Moon can maintain the path, why not 'artificial' satellites? Presumably becase Sol and Luna are again . . . 'Special'
Q: "What about gravity?" A: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s^2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity.This requires straight line acceleration which requires energy - fantastical amounts of it in fact. There is no evidence, other than the effects of gravity, for this energy. Also, this theory ignores other constraints of the theory it draws from - notably, if the earth is itself massless, then it cannot 'accelerate' at all - objects without mass are constrained under relativity to move at the speed of light - c, no more, no less. Also, although there is no theoretical method of distinguishing acceleration induced 'gravity' from the gravity generated by a mass, as a practical matter acceleration induced gravity is constant through out the system, whereas mass produced gravity creates a 'gradient' - the weight of items on mountain tops are in fact measurably lighter in weight than the same mass weighed at the base of the mountain.
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?" A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.Non-sequitor - it does not follow . . .
Q: Follow-up to previous question: How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do? A: This argument is a non sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.
Q: Do you have a map?There is a necessary and measurable distortion when mapping a three dimensional object onto a two dimensional plane, a distortion that navigators, pilots, captains, surveyors and a hundred other professions are forced to account for when dealing with large areas. The long and the short of it is that this distortion would be remarkable by its absence on any two-dimensional map that actually gave exactly correct distances.
A: See this one, created by one of our members. There is also this map attributed to a person named Wilbur Voliva, and another by Heinrich Scherer.
Also, there is Cosmas Indicopleustes' world picture, 6 th century in the Christian Topography.
Q: "What about tides?"Tides of this sort would propagate in measurably different ways than those known, measurable effects of tides, one of which is always towards the moon, and one of which is 'released' opposing the moons gravitational influence due to the gravitational gradient of the moons gravity.
A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".
Q: "What about time zones?"That doesn't even make sense - for there to be any possibility for that to make sense, you would have to be able to see the sun during the period when you weren't in the spotlight. Think of a spotlight, and think of a spot light turning away from you - you, uh, still see the spot light. It doesn't mystically disappear behind the nearest object, drop below the horizon, or show any other weird characteristics at all. You see it drop below the horizon.
A: The sun is a spotlight which shines light on a concentrated area, so not everywhere on Earth will be lit at once. Times zones exist so that everyone's clock will be at 12:00 around the time the sun is approximately directly overhead.
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"Now -*this* is a nonsequitor, an answer that doesn't follow the question. Piloting from South America to New Zealand has a physically shortest route, regardless of what topology you're using. For a pilot to cut off time from one route to another, they have to actually traverse less distance or take advantage of the rotation of the earth, or both.
A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)
Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"As with a number of 'Un-disprovable' things in the FAQ, I almost ignored this one, till I caught the minor detail it completly ignores . . . .
A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is, under most circumstances (unless near the centre or deep in the ice wall), pointing toward the centre of the Earth. Therefore, if you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you've just gone around the world in a circle.
Q: How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?Okay - the Coriolis force as applied to a toilet is a myth, but this 'explanation' completely misapplies the way it works; it has to do with the fact that the higher speed of the equator adds a 'torque' to the weather patterns on a the large scale, that increases the larger the weather pattern is.
You're mistaken. On a round Earth, the Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day; fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet/sink/bathtub/funnel spins much faster than that (probably at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day) so the additional/lost rotation from the Coriolis effect wouldn't be noticed.
Q: How do seasons work?
The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.
Here are some very good diagrams of seasons on the flat Earth. The first is by thedigitalnomad:
Sorry no, simple physics has numerous tests to verify a rounded earth quite nicely.
Fascinating. Like what?
Easiest one? Stick a pole in the ground on a date when it leave no shadow at noon. Then stick a pole in the ground 500 miles away. Measure the shadow left by that pole on that date.
The rest is easy math. And, well, hiring camel drivers to pace out the 500 miles, but it worked for Eratosthenes.
Eratosthenes didn't prove that the earth was round. He merely calculated the circumference of the earth, assuming it to be round.QuotePlus you can see different constellations in the sky depending on your latitude, longitude, and the time.
No contradiction with FET here.QuotePlus you can actually see satellites overhead at night. With a low powered telescope, you can actually - y'know, *SEE* them.
You're seeing something. We just dispute that what you're seeing is orbiting the earth, because that is impossible.QuotePlus the field artillery has to take into account the curvature of the earths surface in order to hit it's targets.
I'm not the least convinced of this.QuotePlus you can actually measure the curvature of the earth when measuring peak to peak heights on mountains.
You can quite easily verify the flatness of the surface by performing Rowbotham's experiments.QuotePlus the distance of the horizon would be determined only by atmospheric density in a flat earth - and the horizon would always seem to be at exactly eye level no matter what your altitude - see level or mountain top (Do the thought experiment on this one).
Ooh, a thought experiment. That proves everything!QuotePlus if you went 'around the world' on a flat earth you would neither lose nor gain a day.
Wrong. FE has timezones too.QuoteAlso, by extension, Jet Lag would be an impossibility.
See above.QuoteAtomic Clocks on a flat earth would *not* show any difference in time measurement because of altitude - but do.
Ooh, you finally bring something up related to physics (I thought there were several ways to prove a round earth using physics?). I don't necessarily agree with the reliability of these experiments.
Eratosthenes interpreted his data on his assumption that the earth was round. The data might be evidence that the angle of the sun is different in different places. This also agrees with Flat Earth Theory.
Roundy, you beat me to it.
