Poll

Are you planning on leaveing this boreing topic for...

A better RE VS. FE Topic
1 (12.5%)
Pornography
7 (87.5%)
Dinner
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 6

Voting closed: May 26, 2006, 12:27:23 PM

« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Just a few quick questions

  • 8 Replies
  • 2490 Views
?

SilverWing

Just a few quick questions
« on: May 26, 2006, 12:27:23 PM »
I think I'll start this out by saying I'm not a Flat earth guy and I don’t think this is going to sway anyone into joining the other party. So lets just be cool about it, you dig?... So moving on.

I read the FAQ and a bunch of the topics and I couldn’t figure out whether the FE theory supports gravity or doesn't. Could you clear this up for me?

Oh and I was wondering is there a working theory on how the FE universe came to be. You know how the planets developed and other bodies like the sun. Could there possibly be more flat earths?

One last thing I swear. In the FAQ you talked about why planes don't just slam into the earth considering it’s always moving up. I didn’t quite understand what you had there, so if you could please clear that up for me.
Logged
?

Unimportant

  • 1229
  • +0/-0
Re: Just a few quick questions
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2006, 12:50:28 PM »
Quote from: "SilverWing"
I read the FAQ and a bunch of the topics and I couldn’t figure out whether the FE theory supports gravity or doesn't. Could you clear this up for me?

Some people believe the earth is flat and has gravity. Others dismiss the concept of gravity entirely, and instead claim the earth is constantly experiencing a local acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2

Quote
Oh and I was wondering is there a working theory on how the FE universe came to be. You know how the planets developed and other bodies like the sun. Could there possibly be more flat earths?

I'm not sure about this. Maybe there was a "Big bang" at the beginning of time and everything just randomly ended up this way?

Quote
One last thing I swear. In the FAQ you talked about why planes don't just slam into the earth considering it’s always moving up. I didn’t quite understand what you had there, so if you could please clear that up for me.

Fill a glass with water, and put a cork in the water. Now, accelerate the glass upwards. Does the cork sink?

The idea on the accelerating earth is much the same; like the water in the glass, the air in the atmosphere is being "pushed" upwards by the earth itself. The air is what provides lift to the airplanes, just like the water provides boyancy to the cork. Airplanes would have no trouble flying in an upwards-accelerating earth.
Logged
?

SilverWing

Just a few quick questions
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2006, 06:25:11 PM »
Quote
Some people believe the earth is flat and has gravity. Others dismiss the concept of gravity entirely, and instead claim the earth is constantly experiencing a local acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2


Just trying to understand this here so bear with me for a second. All right assuming you discount gravity altogether and go with the theory that the earth is being propelled upward. How do you take into account the fact that the farther you move from earth (even within the atmosphere) gravity’s effect decrease? What would keep the atmosphere around the earth? Wouldn’t the earth going upward push the gas right out of the way?

Furthermore if you don't discount gravity why would earth form in a disk shape anyway? The sun would have no reason to orbit around the earth’s equator.

Quote
I'm not sure about this. Maybe there was a "Big bang" at the beginning of time and everything just randomly ended up this way?


Its an honest answer but... It doesnt exactly support the credablity of your position. THe big bang theory doesn't state that all the matter just appeared in the form its in. The theory states that it took millions and billions of years to form and it dident just form any which way it wanted.

 
Quote
Fill a glass with water, and put a cork in the water. Now, accelerate the glass upwards. Does the cork sink?

The idea on the accelerating earth is much the same; like the water in the glass, the air in the atmosphere is being "pushed" upwards by the earth itself. The air is what provides lift to the airplanes, just like the water provides boyancy to the cork. Airplanes would have no trouble flying in an upwards-accelerating earth.


I don't study fluids and gravity for a living so I can't say for certain but this seems to make sense.
Logged
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
Just a few quick questions
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2006, 07:43:14 PM »
Quote from: "SilverWing"
How do you take into account the fact that the farther you move from earth (even within the atmosphere) gravity’s effect decrease?


That prediction, as far as we know, has not been tested by anybody trusted by the Flat Earth Society.  Recently it was estimated (by me) that an object taken to the top of Mt. Everest would weigh over 99% its weight at sea level.  The change in the strength of the gravitational field is very small.

Quote
What would keep the atmosphere around the earth? Wouldn’t the earth going upward push the gas right out of the way?


Ice wall + meniscus effect (surface tension).

Quote
Furthermore if you don't discount gravity why would earth form in a disk shape anyway?


Chance?  Earth's preferred place in the universe?  Fragmentation from meteor impact?  the same reasons that galaxies form in disc shapes?  I dunno, there's no FE model for the origins of the Earth.

Quote
The sun would have no reason to orbit around the earth’s equator.


It would have no reason not too.

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

Sas

  • 101
  • +0/-0
Just a few quick questions
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2006, 02:20:08 PM »
Earth doesn't have a preferred place in the universe, it's a ludicrous statement, espcially for someone who keeps asking people if they've actually been somewhere or actually seen something.

Again one can determine velocities of celestial bodies and all sorts of other data, including the distances of faraway galaxies. We aren't at the centre of anything... or at least no more at the centre than anywhere else is.

But of course, red shift and blue shift, radio telescopy and tides are all made up.

There are two tides, not one, and their existence demands a gravity which pulls "up" towards the moon anyway, so doubly already the tides are a proof too...

Also, nothing travels round in circles for nothing... spinning on its axis due to conservation of angular momentum yes, describing circles no... and this is clear to see every day, everywhere.

As you all know.

But ignore.
Logged
elling people in africa not to use condoms if a crime against humanity. I believe there's a God I just don't believe he is out to make our lives miserable.
?

Sas

  • 101
  • +0/-0
Just a few quick questions
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2006, 02:26:07 PM »
By the way Silverwing, note that "someone trusted by the FES" is by definition someone who hasn't personally carried out one of the very many experiments any one of which would disprove their ridiculous ideas.
Logged
elling people in africa not to use condoms if a crime against humanity. I believe there's a God I just don't believe he is out to make our lives miserable.
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
Just a few quick questions
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2006, 10:33:03 AM »
Quote from: "Sas"
Earth doesn't have a preferred place in the universe, it's a ludicrous statement, espcially for someone who keeps asking people if they've actually been somewhere or actually seen something.


Why is it ludicrous, and why "especially" for that reason?

Quote
Again one can determine velocities of celestial bodies and all sorts of other data, including the distances of faraway galaxies. We aren't at the centre of anything... or at least no more at the centre than anywhere else is.


You're referring to the fact that the rest of the universe is all moving away from us?  Sounds to me like that puts us in the middle of some sort of big explosion thingy that must have happened in the distant past.

Quote
There are two tides, not one, and their existence demands a gravity which pulls "up" towards the moon anyway, so doubly already the tides are a proof too...


I don't see how any such demands are made.  When I picture tides on a flat Earth, I basically imagine a big sort of wave thing that slowly rotates and sloshes from side to side.

Quote
As you all know.

But ignore.


More like... leave on the side for now.

-Erasmus
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

Sas

  • 101
  • +0/-0
Just a few quick questions
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2006, 03:45:31 PM »
Ludicrous because its something that's very difficult to ever have "seen" for oneself... so one of YOU saying it is EXTRA ludicrous, because you often rely on that.

Point 2, it doesn't matter where you are, any particle in an explosion has everything moving away from it.

Point 3, where did this wave come from in your world, and is it consistent with where the tides actually are? There are tables of tides which would likely contradict one wave moving from "side to side" unless these are generalised sides we're on about here, with no previous definition except the one you're about to make up.

point 4, are these the same sides the waves are going between?
Logged
elling people in africa not to use condoms if a crime against humanity. I believe there's a God I just don't believe he is out to make our lives miserable.
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
Just a few quick questions
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2006, 05:26:09 PM »
Quote from: "Sas"
Ludicrous because its something that's very difficult to ever have "seen" for oneself... so one of YOU saying it is EXTRA ludicrous, because you often rely on that.


Yeah I don't really follow this... it's difficult to have seen a preferred position in the universe, which is something we rely on, and thus us claiming its true is ludicrous?  Man, I even don't know what I just asked.

Quote
Point 2, it doesn't matter where you are, any particle in an explosion has everything moving away from it.


With the same distribution of speeds?

Quote
Point 3, where did this wave come from in your world, and is it consistent with where the tides actually are? There are tables of tides which would likely contradict one wave moving from "side to side" unless these are generalised sides we're on about here, with no previous definition except the one you're about to make up.


Gravity from the sun/moon/planets/celestial sphere?  Sloshing?  I don't know.

Have a look at the cause of the tides for various difficult-to-read stuff about tides by the founder of the Flat Earth Society.

point 4, are these the same sides the waves are going between?[/quote]
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »