Do you believe in just about evry astronomical definition, law, or anythign evr?

Quote from: EIRD on March 06, 2007, 06:39:37 AM

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 04:19:17 AM

Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.

Clouds aren't "outside" of the earth.  They are within the atmosphere so what holds them up there on a RE would do the same for them on a FE.

In the RE model of the earth the reason for the atmosphere staying on the earth is because of the very shape of the earth, a rough sphere. The denser elements are drawn towards the core of the earth (dense iron core), and the lighter elements are in the atmosphere, the outer sphere of the earth. They are prevented from going into space because of the earths gravity.

FE-ers cannot use this explaination, 1 because they do not believe in gravity on the earth and 2, if they do believe the earth has gravity, the very nature of the earth accelerating upwards would mean that the atmosphere would just be left behind in space, and the fact the believe the earth is flat would mean that the atmosphere would only exist in the middle of thier earth (the nort pole) anyway.. if there was no acceleration.

I have told you my truth, now you tell me yours. FE-ers i mean.

Uhhm, wasn't the question about CLOUDS not the ATMOSPHERE?

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 08:36:15 AM

Ok, say you fly unpressurised air craft... you accelerate leaving air behind you, but what do you accerate into?? more air right?

So why is it not windy in airplanes or cars?  I would be lucky if I didn't crash due to being in a 200mph air stream.

It is not windy in cars or aeroplanes... Well it depends what you fly/drive

I think you'll find it is pretty windy in a convertable or a first world war red barron.

However if you are in a car/aeroplane with a roof obviously the air inside the cabin is under some pressure.

200mph air stream? is that not the equavilent of flying an air speed 200 m.p.h? I mean jet planes can do what 10 times that much now?

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 07:14:14 AM

Quote from: EIRD on March 06, 2007, 06:39:37 AM

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 04:19:17 AM

Before i go on to the main topic of my post i would like to question why my thread on clouds got removed. It was not fully answered to me, as to how the clouds are also constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 ms^-2 when there is clearly no force acting on them to accelerate them.

Clouds aren't "outside" of the earth.  They are within the atmosphere so what holds them up there on a RE would do the same for them on a FE.

In the RE model of the earth the reason for the atmosphere staying on the earth is because of the very shape of the earth, a rough sphere. The denser elements are drawn towards the core of the earth (dense iron core), and the lighter elements are in the atmosphere, the outer sphere of the earth. They are prevented from going into space because of the earths gravity.

FE-ers cannot use this explaination, 1 because they do not believe in gravity on the earth and 2, if they do believe the earth has gravity, the very nature of the earth accelerating upwards would mean that the atmosphere would just be left behind in space, and the fact the believe the earth is flat would mean that the atmosphere would only exist in the middle of thier earth (the nort pole) anyway.. if there was no acceleration.

I have told you my truth, now you tell me yours. FE-ers i mean.

Uhhm, wasn't the question about CLOUDS not the ATMOSPHERE?

Clouds comprise of the atmosphere, so i am sure you will forgive the inconsistancy as i assume what happens to the clouds also happens to the atmosphere under the effects of g.

Well, I guess it makes sense to bring the atmosphere into the issue, but it was originally JUST about clouds.

However if you are in a car/aeroplane with a roof obviously the air inside the cabin is under some pressure.

That doesn't answer as to why it is not windy.  If the airplane itself cannot accelerate the air inside, it must also not accelerate the air outside, therefore the air should pass right into the cockpit, at whatever speed the aircraft is flying, e.g. 200mph.

200mph air stream? is that not the equavilent of flying an air speed 200 m.p.h? I mean jet planes can do what 10 times that much now?

And?

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 04:19:17 AM

I still feel that you have not fully answered my question. You see right i do realise that general relativity took the place of newtonian physics, but i read somewhere that even Nasa scientist use newtonian physics to work out things such as the trajectories of shuttles and other complex calculations.
It is still a law of physics that applies if you put the right values in, or else they would not still be teaching it/ using it still. And general relativity is a way of explaining how newtonian physics works and the reason why objects attract each other. But at the end of the day newtonian physics still works and should be considered in your FE model.

Newtonian physics are inaccurate.  While his three laws of motion are still used today and are the basis for most of modern science, they become increasingly wrong as velocities increase.  At slow speeds, Newton's laws are simple to use and the error is very small.  As velocities approach fractions of c, the errors become extreme.  SR is always accurate, and is sometimes used in place of Newton's works, even though the math of SR is much more complicated.

Newtonian physics are accurate enough to predict the mass of the earth to 5 sig. figs, and predict g to alot alot more.
SO, we can sure as the earth being round use it to do basic modelling of the FE world.

But OK, if you are so against it... we ll use general relativity.

The earth is a mass.
It bends time and space.
The same is for the sun and the moon.
Why have we not crashed into the moon or sun?

I told you:  Refer to that 2nd order ODE.

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 08:44:21 AM

However if you are in a car/aeroplane with a roof obviously the air inside the cabin is under some pressure.

That doesn't answer as to why it is not windy.  If the airplane itself cannot accelerate the air inside, it must also not accelerate the air outside, therefore the air should pass right into the cockpit, at whatever speed the aircraft is flying, e.g. 200mph.

Quote

200mph air stream? is that not the equavilent of flying an air speed 200 m.p.h? I mean jet planes can do what 10 times that much now?

And?

the aeroplane is accelerating the air inside, there is pressure inside the cabin. If you have a basic grasp of gas laws, you will know that the pressure inside the plane is pressing against the cabin walls, the cabin is part of the plane, the plane is accelerating, therefore the gas is accelerating.

I told you:  Refer to that 2nd order ODE.

I don't see how a 2nd order Differential Equation can defy the laws of physics.

About the 200 mph air speed thing. Did you not say you would crash in a plane if you did that speed?

the aeroplane is accelerating the air inside, there is pressure inside the cabin. If you have a basic grasp of gas laws, you will know that the pressure inside the plane is pressing against the cabin walls, the cabin is part of the plane, the plane is accelerating, therefore the gas is accelerating.

What you really meant to ask from the begining is what stops the air being pushed to the sides am I right? If there was something encasing the Earth or at least stopping the air getting out the sides then it would be accelerated just as you have described in this quote.

FE-ers cannot use this explaination, 1 because they do not believe in gravity on the earth and 2, if they do believe the earth has gravity, the very nature of the earth accelerating upwards would mean that the atmosphere would just be left behind in space, and the fact the believe the earth is flat would mean that the atmosphere would only exist in the middle of thier earth (the nort pole) anyway.. if there was no acceleration.

This is why I think there has to be some kind of dome over the FE atmosphere. It's hard to say what this dome actually consists of, but it must be there or else we would not be alive. 

Acceleration of the FE and gravity on the RE result in very similar pressure and density gradients.  The differences are negligible at 'human' altitudes. 

Why are you talking about "If there was no acceleration"? 

Edit, sorry this is so old.  I didn't realize there had been two new pages since this post. 

Lucky what do you think the air should be doing in Flat Earth theory? Assuming it cannot escape over the edge some how.

Do you have something against gravitation?

Stop contradicting yourself.  The rocks on the moon would fall off if Gravity=acceleration.  But since the rocks stay on Gravity = force do to something (most likely mass).

the aeroplane is accelerating the air inside, there is pressure inside the cabin.

You said it was not possible.  But now it is?

I don't see how a 2nd order Differential Equation can defy the laws of physics.

It demonstrates those laws, and the interaction of them.

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 05, 2007, 11:19:01 PM

Do you have something against gravitation?

Stop contradicting yourself.  The rocks on the moon would fall off if Gravity=acceleration.  But since the rocks stay on Gravity = force do to something (most likely mass).

I didn't contradict myself.  Gravity does not exist.  Gravitation does.

About the 200 mph air speed thing. Did you not say you would crash in a plane if you did that speed?

If I had to fly with a 200 mph wind in my face, it would make the act of flying a very difficult one.

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 08:57:04 AM

the aeroplane is accelerating the air inside, there is pressure inside the cabin.

You said it was not possible.  But now it is?

Quote

I don't see how a 2nd order Differential Equation can defy the laws of physics.

It demonstrates those laws, and the interaction of them.

I never said this was not possible. Only on the scale of the earth, where there is no apparent dome to keep gas at a constant pressure.

Anyway Eviltoothpaste and kasroa, even this idea is flawed, because there is not a constant pressure throughout the atmosphere. The pressure is greater at the surface. If there was a dome or some container that kept the earths atmosphere in, it would need to be pressurised, and the pressure would need to be constant, which it clearly isn't, as pressure varies at altitudes. ANd if there is a dome around the earth what are asteriods? The dome falling apart? Arn't you concerned FE-ers your 2 minute old theory has just predicted our deaths.

Think of the analogy of putting a divers oxygen tank in a car and accerlerating. The pressure in the tank will remain constant, although it will be accelerating.
SO FE-ers, the question still is.... explain your model ...

And could you please explain this equation Engineer that defies the laws of physics, as to how the gravitational attraction between the sun, the moon and earth can be rendered null?

Honestly, i can't see how... and its like me saying... Elvis's assasination can be explained by the second derivative. Could you put your explaination in clear concise words instead of hiding behind maths.

If there was a dome or some container that kept the earths atmosphere in, it would need to be pressurised, and the pressure would need to be constant, which it clearly isn't, as pressure varies at altitudes.

Yes, the dome would need to be pressurized, but pressure would not be constant if it were accelerating...

Think of the analogy of putting a divers oxygen tank in a car and accerlerating. The pressure in the tank will remain constant, although it will be accelerating.
SO FE-ers, the question still is.... explain your model ...

The average pressure in the tank will remain constant, but not local pressures. 

I never said this was not possible. Only on the scale of the earth, where there is no apparent dome to keep gas at a constant pressure.

is flawed, because there is not a constant pressure throughout the atmosphere. The pressure is greater at the surface.

Uh, which one is it?

By the way, due to Einstein and the Equivalence Principle, there is no local example that is explained by gravity, that cannot be explained by acceleration.  One would think you would have figured that out by now.

One would think you would learn the Earth is round by now.  You do realize you don't believe in millions of pictures and lots of data, and believe in a giant ice wall that no one ever saw.   

Einstein didn't think the Earth was flat.

If you did a experiment on top of a "flat earth" and then tried to do it on the bottom there would be a problem according to you. 

One would think you would learn the Earth is round by now.  You do realize you don't believe in millions of pictures and lots of data, and believe in a giant ice wall that no one ever saw.   

Einstein didn't think the Earth was flat.

If you did a experiment on top of a "flat earth" and then tried to do it on the bottom there would be a problem according to you. 

Getting to the bottom would be the first problem.....

One would think you would learn the Earth is round by now.  You do realize you don't believe in millions of pictures and lots of data, and believe in a giant ice wall that no one ever saw.     

Hmm, I didn't realize that.

Einstein didn't think the Earth was flat.

Who said he did?

If you did a experiment on top of a "flat earth" and then tried to do it on the bottom there would be a problem according to you.

Not really.

Umm according to you, you would fall off the other side of Earth.

Yep, it would be just like having 'gravity' pull you off the surface.

Yep, it would be just like having 'gravity' pull you off the surface.

Except gravity pulls you to surfaces, not away. 

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 06, 2007, 08:33:37 PM

Yep, it would be just like having 'gravity' pull you off the surface.

Except gravity pulls you to surfaces, not away. 

Not on the underside of the FE.

Quote from: lucky on March 06, 2007, 03:10:45 PM

I never said this was not possible. Only on the scale of the earth, where there is no apparent dome to keep gas at a constant pressure.

Quote from: lucky

is flawed, because there is not a constant pressure throughout the atmosphere. The pressure is greater at the surface.

Uh, which one is it?

By the way, due to Einstein and the Equivalence Principle, there is no local example that is explained by gravity, that cannot be explained by acceleration.  One would think you would have figured that out by now.

You have taken two different explanations and merged them into one.

I did not say it was impossible to accelerate a gas. But it is hard to imagine being able to accelerate the atmosphere with no visible force acting on it, gas does not accerate for no apparent reason... But now suddenly a dome has been brought in this.

What is the dome made out of? Does this mean your model in the FAQ is wrong? what is holding the dome up?

 You have just opened a pandoras box of questions, i mean honestly, it seems to me there is no founding fundimental FE model. It just seems to me you are making it up to get round fundimental flaws that i point out.



Equivalence principle, look call it what you want. But at the end of the day masses like the earth and the sun will attract/accelerate towards each other. In newtonian physics and in general relativity. And this harmonics equation is a myth, how... if you understand it so well do masses not attract each other in plane english?


And yes engineer i do realise that the units for g are the same as acceleration. The question still remains the same.

if you like : Why are we not accelerating towards the sun if there is additional acceleration from the attraction of two masses due to the bending of space time???

I did not say it was impossible to accelerate a gas. But it is hard to imagine being able to accelerate the atmosphere with no visible force acting on it, gas does not accerate for no apparent reason... But now suddenly a dome has been brought in this.

So once again, is it hard to imagine being able to accelerate an airplane upwards with no visible force acting on it?

The atmosphere accelerates due to the fact that it is in contact with the earth.

suck it
you guys r retards.  what about satilite tv a consiricy too omg
but i guess you all are uneducated retards

Look guy, if you come and make a post like that on these forums, people who think the earth is flat will ignore you.

I personally believe the earth is shperical. But try telling them that... the only way to get through to them is to tell them the flaws in their model of the flat earth. Which are in abudence.

Wanna try a different approach guy? or issit you who is uneducated enough to make a valid arguement?

Quote from: lucky on March 07, 2007, 12:47:32 AM

I did not say it was impossible to accelerate a gas. But it is hard to imagine being able to accelerate the atmosphere with no visible force acting on it, gas does not accerate for no apparent reason... But now suddenly a dome has been brought in this.

So once again, is it hard to imagine being able to accelerate an airplane upwards with no visible force acting on it?

The atmosphere accelerates due to the fact that it is in contact with the earth.

Look, stop playing on my english, i know it is not perfect... But at the end of the day... their is a valid reason why a plane accelerates upwards... lift. No such thing is true for the atmosphere in the FE model. Anyway, the aeroplane is a solid not a gas.

The atmosphere accelerates because it is in contact with the earth? What kind of reasoning is that??

For that to happen It needs to be pressurised.... like the air plane analagy. Or else it would just be left behind in space.So some FE-ers have proposed a dome theory... that contains the atmosphere and keeps it pressurised. Which i can't see as being a viable model for FE-ers...