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

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

The same kind of reasoning Newton did.

Imagine the earth was a half dome (like a spoon) positioned as a
'U'. Now flip the atmospheric dome upside down, in the 'U' position also, and press it against the earth 13,000,000.00 ft away from the surface. This should answer how pressure and gravity actually function.

D.J.-F.I.C.O.

"There is no path to enlightenment --> Enlightenment is the path!"

Imagine the earth was a half dome (like a spoon) positioned as a
'U'. Now flip the atmospheric dome upside down, in the 'U' position also, and press it against the earth 13,000,000.00 ft away from the surface. This should answer how pressure and gravity actually function.

D.J.-F.I.C.O.

"There is no path to enlightenment --> Enlightenment is the path!"

Sorry i don;t get what you are trying to say. Please explain a bit more..

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 07, 2007, 01:10:25 AM

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...

Newton thought the earth was round. And by saying what you are saying has no context or meaning here. You cannot deny the in-escapable physics. unless the atmosphere is kept in by some container in your FE-model it will just fall off the sides of the earth.

i.e. imagine a plane that could fly into space, this plane has no roof, it is an open top. As you accelerate upwards into space, you will leave the atmosphere behind. Now imagine the plane is the earth. The same thing would happen!!!

i.e. the FE model is flawed.... and yes a dome would be somowhat more viable than what the engineer is saying, at least it has some founding physics. But the idea of it is still a little impluadable...

I GOT IT! The earth is surrounded by a giant glass dome that holds in the atmosphere.

i.e. imagine a plane that could fly into space, this plane has no roof, it is an open top. As you accelerate upwards into space, you will leave the atmosphere behind. Now imagine the plane is the earth. The same thing would happen!!!

Why would the air escape if you are accelerating?  How is your example any different than the RE?

Newton thought the earth was round. And by saying what you are saying has no context or meaning here.

I didn't say Newton thought otherwise.  By Newton's third law, the air is in contact with the earth, therefore, the earth provides a force to the air.  Again, gravity and acceleration are locally indistinguishable.

Quote from: lucky on March 07, 2007, 05:42:46 AM

i.e. imagine a plane that could fly into space, this plane has no roof, it is an open top. As you accelerate upwards into space, you will leave the atmosphere behind. Now imagine the plane is the earth. The same thing would happen!!!

Why would the air escape if you are accelerating?  How is your example any different than the RE?

Quote

Newton thought the earth was round. And by saying what you are saying has no context or meaning here.

I didn't say Newton thought otherwise.  By Newton's third law, the air is in contact with the earth, therefore, the earth provides a force to the air.  Again, gravity and acceleration are locally indistinguishable.

Look, this is basic physics... i don't see why you are having such a hard time grapsing it.

A body will stay at rest or constant motion unless another force acts upon it.

The earth is "accelerating" according to you.

IF we take the atmosphere, which is a gas and consider each gas particle serperately.

The earth is moving into the particle because it is accelerating, and the particle is at rest or constant motion as no force is acting on it. But relative to the particle no matter what speed, the earth is moving towards the particle at 9.81 ms^-2.

Agreed?

Therefore when the particle hits the surface of the earth, it will initially be accelerated by the earth, but then as there is a build up of particles they will eventually run off the side of the earth, leaving the atmosphere behind.

In simple terms imagine the gas particles like marbles suspended in space, a surface is accerating towards the marbles at 9.81 ms^-2, the marbles are going to hit the surface and be accelerated temporarily, untill it runs of the surface.

Look i ll draw you a picture 

how do i link pictures? this one seems to of not worked.

Understand?

And this does not happen in the RE model because the earth is a sphere. And RE believes the earth has its own gravity, that is roughly uniform on the surface of the sphere, so atmosphere is "accerated" towards the centre of the earth, thus keeping it there.

I GOT IT! The earth is surrounded by a giant glass dome that holds in the atmosphere.

glass dome? very plauseable, i mean technically when an asteroid hits the earth, it should shatter the dome and we will all suffocate.

As far as I know there is no FE explanation for why the air doesn't escape over the sides. The atmosphere is hundreds of miles thick so there would have to be something keeping it there. Maybe it's another mysterious force like the UA and selective gravity.

As far as I know there is no FE explanation for why the air doesn't escape over the sides. The atmosphere is hundreds of miles thick so there would have to be something keeping it there. Maybe it's another mysterious force like the UA and selective gravity.

Look engineer, this is someone who knows what i am talking about. There needs to be something containing the atmosphere.

selective gravity? hhaha. such a thing exists? Is there any proof of this?

lol @ lucky trying to host a pic off his computer

http://c:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Kit/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures

lol@ Engineer being blind to the fact that the atmosphere would leave in a gravity not due to mass and the Earth being flat.

so i can't load from my computer??? I need to save it to a URl address?

so i can't load from my computer??? I need to save it to a URl address?

yeah, like imageshack or something.

lmao wat a retard haha

I assume from your FAQ that you are generally familiar with both special and general relativity. I assume that you believe that we are not living in a gravitational field, but in fact an accelerated reference frame. I understand the Equivalence Principle very well. Locally, you cannot do any physical experiment to test the difference between an accelerated reference frame or a gravitational field. However, over large regions you definitely can tell a difference. If the entire earth were an accelerated reference frame, the gravitational field would not vary at all. It wouldn't vary across the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't vary with height. I am a physicist, and I have tested both of these things experimentally. The gravitational field varies across the surface of the earth, due to the different densities of material beneath. The more dramatic field change is that it varies with height. It seems to me that you are also denying that gravity exists at all, which means you are denying the second half of general relativity which explains how mass-energy distorts space-time.

There are also experiments you can do to prove that the earth is spinning. There are measurable Coriolis and Centrifugal forces that change with latitude. These affect projectile motion and are essential in calculating such things as missile trajectories. The direction and magnitude of the measured forces are perfectly consistent with a body the shape of an oblate spheroid rotating about a central axis with a period of one rotation every 24 hours.

I'm not sure if you are denying gravitational affects or not, but don't forget that it is completely possible to measure the gravitational "force" between two masses in a laboratory. I know this, I have done it myself. It's a fairly sophisticated procedure, but it can be done.

The easiest test of geometry would be to measure the circumference and radius of a circle that is confined to the surface of the earth. We should measure the distance around the earth at the equator (circumference), and the radius from the equator to the north pole (radius). If the circumference is exactly 2pi (6.28 . . .) times the radius, we are living on a flat earth. If the circumference is closer to 4 times the radius, we are living on what is close to a spherically shaped earth. If you want to prove to the world that you are correct, you should do this experiment. I would recommend flying in an airplane around the equator at a constant speed and measuring the time it takes to circle it once. Then I would fly from the equator to the North Pole and time that at a constant speed. Does it take 1/4 or 1/6 the amount of time. I'm guessing that it takes you longer to get to the North Pole than you think it would.

I assume from your FAQ that you are generally familiar with both special and general relativity. I assume that you believe that we are not living in a gravitational field, but in fact an accelerated reference frame. I understand the Equivalence Principle very well. Locally, you cannot do any physical experiment to test the difference between an accelerated reference frame or a gravitational field. However, over large regions you definitely can tell a difference. If the entire earth were an accelerated reference frame, the gravitational field would not vary at all. It wouldn't vary across the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't vary with height. I am a physicist, and I have tested both of these things experimentally. The gravitational field varies across the surface of the earth, due to the different densities of material beneath. The more dramatic field change is that it varies with height. It seems to me that you are also denying that gravity exists at all, which means you are denying the second half of general relativity which explains how mass-energy distorts space-time.

There are also experiments you can do to prove that the earth is spinning. There are measurable Coriolis and Centrifugal forces that change with latitude. These affect projectile motion and are essential in calculating such things as missile trajectories. The direction and magnitude of the measured forces are perfectly consistent with a body the shape of an oblate spheroid rotating about a central axis with a period of one rotation every 24 hours.

I'm not sure if you are denying gravitational affects or not, but don't forget that it is completely possible to measure the gravitational "force" between two masses in a laboratory. I know this, I have done it myself. It's a fairly sophisticated procedure, but it can be done.

The easiest test of geometry would be to measure the circumference and radius of a circle that is confined to the surface of the earth. We should measure the distance around the earth at the equator (circumference), and the radius from the equator to the north pole (radius). If the circumference is exactly 2pi (6.28 . . .) times the radius, we are living on a flat earth. If the circumference is closer to 4 times the radius, we are living on what is close to a spherically shaped earth. If you want to prove to the world that you are correct, you should do this experiment. I would recommend flying in an airplane around the equator at a constant speed and measuring the time it takes to circle it once. Then I would fly from the equator to the North Pole and time that at a constant speed. Does it take 1/4 or 1/6 the amount of time. I'm guessing that it takes you longer to get to the North Pole than you think it would.

Stop posting huge retarded posts!! No one reads them cause:
1) theyre long
2) theyre boring
3) THEYRE WRONG

now read the faq+ earth: not a globe and GTFO

Therefore when the particle hits the surface of the earth, it will initially be accelerated by the earth, but then as there is a build up of particles they will eventually run off the side of the earth, leaving the atmosphere behind.

You finally got it.  That's what we have been saying all along.  Since we can breathe at altitude, there must be some type of container that restricts the movement of air out of the system.

lol@ Engineer being blind to the fact that the atmosphere would leave in a gravity not due to mass and the Earth being flat.

See above.

lol @ container. 

Quote from: lucky on March 07, 2007, 07:50:22 AM

Therefore when the particle hits the surface of the earth, it will initially be accelerated by the earth, but then as there is a build up of particles they will eventually run off the side of the earth, leaving the atmosphere behind.

You finally got it.  That's what we have been saying all along.  Since we can breathe at altitude, there must be some type of container that restricts the movement of air out of the system.

Finally i got it? What?? i have said the above non stop from the beginning of the subject. And now suddenly you decide a container comes into it?.. which is what i have said FE-ers would need for there theory to be a little pluasable. And as sokural said earlier, a glass dome. What is this "container" according to you?


And btw..

Quote from: kinereoj on March 07, 2007, 10:06:20 AM

I assume from your FAQ that you are generally familiar with both special and general relativity. I assume that you believe that we are not living in a gravitational field, but in fact an accelerated reference frame. I understand the Equivalence Principle very well. Locally, you cannot do any physical experiment to test the difference between an accelerated reference frame or a gravitational field. However, over large regions you definitely can tell a difference. If the entire earth were an accelerated reference frame, the gravitational field would not vary at all. It wouldn't vary across the surface of the earth, and it wouldn't vary with height. I am a physicist, and I have tested both of these things experimentally. The gravitational field varies across the surface of the earth, due to the different densities of material beneath. The more dramatic field change is that it varies with height. It seems to me that you are also denying that gravity exists at all, which means you are denying the second half of general relativity which explains how mass-energy distorts space-time.

There are also experiments you can do to prove that the earth is spinning. There are measurable Coriolis and Centrifugal forces that change with latitude. These affect projectile motion and are essential in calculating such things as missile trajectories. The direction and magnitude of the measured forces are perfectly consistent with a body the shape of an oblate spheroid rotating about a central axis with a period of one rotation every 24 hours.

I'm not sure if you are denying gravitational affects or not, but don't forget that it is completely possible to measure the gravitational "force" between two masses in a laboratory. I know this, I have done it myself. It's a fairly sophisticated procedure, but it can be done.

The easiest test of geometry would be to measure the circumference and radius of a circle that is confined to the surface of the earth. We should measure the distance around the earth at the equator (circumference), and the radius from the equator to the north pole (radius). If the circumference is exactly 2pi (6.28 . . .) times the radius, we are living on a flat earth. If the circumference is closer to 4 times the radius, we are living on what is close to a spherically shaped earth. If you want to prove to the world that you are correct, you should do this experiment. I would recommend flying in an airplane around the equator at a constant speed and measuring the time it takes to circle it once. Then I would fly from the equator to the North Pole and time that at a constant speed. Does it take 1/4 or 1/6 the amount of time. I'm guessing that it takes you longer to get to the North Pole than you think it would.

Stop posting huge retarded posts!! No one reads them cause:
1) theyre long
2) theyre boring
3) THEYRE WRONG

now read the faq+ earth: not a globe and GTFO

Nice post kinereoj  , already in this thread alone lots of those topics have been brought up, and somehow FE-ers try to explain their way out of them.

And to "The Earth is flat consult FAQ", it is you who is the retard. Seeing as you cannot come up with an answer to any of these EXTREMELY VALID arguements. That make perfect sense and are part of what i have trying to tell you throught this 19 page thread.

Now, FE-ers it looks like you have ALOT of explaining to do.

 

Finally i got it? What?? i have said the above non stop from the beginning of the subject.

What you have said from the beginning was that air can't be accelerated and that invisible forces can't exist.

Quote from: lucky on March 08, 2007, 12:05:52 AM

Finally i got it? What?? i have said the above non stop from the beginning of the subject.

What you have said from the beginning was that air can't be accelerated and that invisible forces can't exist.

Stop putting words in my mouth engineer.

IF your english/ phyics understanding is weak don't put the blame on me.

I did not say that air could not be accelerated. You just read what you wanted to.

 In the FE model the atmosphere would just fall off as the earth is accelerating into it, that it what i maintaned throught my arguement. Therefore there would be no atmosphere left in the FE model. Which is FURTHER PROOF the FE model is flawed.

NOR did i say that invisible forces can't exist. For one i am a strong believer of gravity, which is more than i can say for some people. Did i not give the example of a plane and lift?

But, what force can accelerate gas without being in contact with another body except for gravity?. WHAT IS GIVING THE ATMOSPHERE ENERGY TO ACCELERATE WITH THE EARTH?

Anyway, engineer it seems to me that you have been proven that the earth is spherical by kinereoj. Care to explain how FE gets its way out of this one? Well??? or do you give up?

In the FE model the atmosphere would just fall off as the earth is accelerating into it, that it what i maintaned throught my arguement. Therefore there would be no atmosphere left in the FE model. Which is FURTHER PROOF the FE model is flawed.

DOME. 

But, what force can accelerate gas without being in contact with another body except for gravity?

It sounds like you are saying the Earth is not exerting a force on the atmosphere again.  The Earth is in contact with the atmosphere.  The Earth is accelerating the atmosphere. 

Invisible ice wall invisible dome, good to know.

What is the dome made of? How high is it? Do you have ANY proof of a dome or did u just pull it out of your ass to fit the FE model? Find out NEVER on the FES forums!

The dome is the only possibility for a constant atmosphere over history on a flat Earth, unless all of space is also full of air. 

Do astrophysicists have any proof of dark matter and energy or is it the only possible explanation of galactic rotation and distribution while still keeping the current laws of physics? 

The dome is the only possibility for a constant atmosphere over history on a flat Earth, unless all of space is also full of air. 

Do astrophysicists have any proof of dark matter and energy or is it the only possible explanation of galactic rotation and distribution while still keeping the current laws of physics? 

Do FEers have any proof of dark matter the shadow object or this dome you speak of? Obviously, the dome is easily measurable, send something high into the sky, if it hits something then theres a dome.

Obviously there are many things unknown, people cant measure or observe these and make up theories based on information at the time, unlike a dome.

The dome is the only possibility for a constant atmosphere over history on a flat Earth, unless all of space is also full of air. 

Do astrophysicists have any proof of dark matter and energy or is it the only possible explanation of galactic rotation and distribution while still keeping the current laws of physics? 

Then doesn't asteroid = hole in dome = we all should be dead.

i mean... suddenly a "dome" comes into it... when you have a problem with your model. You FE-ers are just making it up as you go along.....

And for some reason FE-ers still refuse to answer the post by kinereoj. I WONDER WHY?

this is just a guess... but maybe because you can't... because the earth is not flat?

Do a search.  The dome idea has been around for a long time.  It is also much bigger than you are assuming.  Here is a to-scale diagram of the FE and sun.  The little speck in the left of center is the sun.  Asteroids are near or above the level of the sun, putting them inside the dome to begin with. 

Do FEers have any proof of dark matter the shadow object or this dome you speak of? Obviously, the dome is easily measurable, send something high into the sky, if it hits something then theres a dome.

Obviously there are many things unknown, people cant measure or observe these and make up theories based on information at the time, unlike a dome.

Do we really have to tell you guys all this stuff over and over again?  Dark matter is your mess, not ours.  Evidence of the shadow object can be seen by looking at the moon.  Evidence of the dome is there every time you breath. 

Do a search.  The dome idea has been around for a long time.  It is also much bigger than you are assuming.  Here is a to-scale diagram of the FE and sun.  The little speck in the left of center is the sun.  Asteroids are near or above the level of the sun, putting them inside the dome to begin with. 

Quote from: MooBs on March 08, 2007, 02:39:43 PM

Do FEers have any proof of dark matter the shadow object or this dome you speak of? Obviously, the dome is easily measurable, send something high into the sky, if it hits something then theres a dome.

Obviously there are many things unknown, people cant measure or observe these and make up theories based on information at the time, unlike a dome.

Do we really have to tell you guys all this stuff over and over again?  Dark matter is your mess, not ours.  Evidence of the shadow object can be seen by looking at the moon.  Evidence of the dome is there every time you breath. 

And how did venus cross in front of the sun? 

I've never seen it happen so I have little reason to believe it is true. 

I've never seen it happen so I have little reason to believe it is true. 

I saw it happen.  I was at school.  They had telescopes set out for people to watch it.