Speed?

If i am wrong correct me but i read that the acceleration of the earth according to FE theories is 9.8m.s². If this is true and i assume the Earth is older than 1500 years then at that rate of acceleration the earth would be traveling at 463896720km.h² (i think and do stand open to correction) this is faster than the speed of light.

If i am wrong correct me but i read that the acceleration of the earth according to FE theories is 9.8m.s². If this is true and i assume the Earth is older than 1500 years then at that rate of acceleration the earth would be traveling at 463896720km.h² (i think and do stand open to correction) this is faster than the speed of light.

Quote from: Shadro on March 06, 2007, 11:00:27 PM

If i am wrong correct me but i read that the acceleration of the earth according to FE theories is 9.8m.s². If this is true and i assume the Earth is older than 1500 years then at that rate of acceleration the earth would be traveling at 463896720km.h² (i think and do stand open to correction) this is faster than the speed of light.

God can make the earth move as fast as he wants it to.  If people like you keep bitching about it he might stop and then we'll all be flying around and that won't be good. 

You can't apply Newtonian mechanics to a relativistic situation.  The earth is accelerating a 9.81m/s^2, and can continue to do so forever and never reach the speed of light.  This can be seen in the equations of relativity.

dont u realise God is misqouted in the bible several times as the devil??

did u not know god is the root of all evil???
it's religions that worship god that cause war. it's "god's wrath" that will kill you etc etc

God wouldn't care. he'd rather let you fry

plus, in christianity, god and heaven are believed to be in the sky's whereas as the devil is in the firey pits under the earth so therefore your flawed by saying god is pushing us up where in fact the devil is below us

i love how christianity contradicts itself

p.s im an aethiest so i don't believe in spiritual forces.

please give a scientific explanation

Quote from: self on March 08, 2007, 09:36:38 AM

dont u realise God is misqouted in the bible several times as the devil??

So?

Quote

did u not know god is the root of all evil???
it's religions that worship god that cause war. it's "god's wrath" that will kill you etc etc

Yep.

Quote

God wouldn't care. he'd rather let you fry

Probably.

Quote

plus, in christianity, god and heaven are believed to be in the sky's whereas as the devil is in the firey pits under the earth so therefore your flawed by saying god is pushing us up where in fact the devil is below us

i love how christianity contradicts itself

p.s im an aethiest so i don't believe in spiritual forces.

The guy's a troll, if you'll notice the fact that he hardly has any posts and isn't even arguing for the flat Earth, he's just trying to make everyone else look stupid because he's a dick.

Quote

please give a scientific explanation

We don't know the mechanism for the Universal Accelerator, but we can see by observation that it's accelerating us.

~D-Draw

Well, I was just pointing out that the majority of those who argue for the flat Earth aren't religious--that is to say, most of us are atheists. Also, I was pointing out that you shouldn't listen to trolls as they tend to like making you want to pull your hair out.

~D-Draw

It's possible, but pretty stupid, seeing as if it WAS a conspiracy, it would be a pretty goddamned sucky one.

~D-Draw

and why do u not feel that way about the possible RE conspiracy?

Quote from: self on March 09, 2007, 12:36:46 AM

and why do u not feel that way about the possible RE conspiracy?

Okay, lemme run this down for ya:

Flat Earth Conspiracy -- Everyone thinks the Earth is round. They must really fail at their job.
Round Earth Conspiracy -- Everyone thinks the Earth is round. They're damned good at their job.


~D-Draw

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.

Hi, I just found your site and have to admit I am intrigued by your theory of a flat Earth. But, having read through a few threads, it seems that you are not doing yourselves any favors by not replying to any of the challenges put to you in a serious way. Here's just one example of what I think totally blows your theory out of the water:

Quote from: kinereoj on March 07, 2007, 10:03:00 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.

...and yet you choose not to reply to such posts because? (I suspect it is because you have no counter argument). Please be aware, I'm not trying to flame you, only to point out that if you want to be taken seriously, you have to be prepared to counter rational, well thought out arguments like the one above. So, yeah, can you tell me what your take on what kinereoj said is?

If the Earth is accelerating and has been for megayears, and taking onto account relativistic effects etc, etc, is there any concensus on how fast we are actaully going at the moment? Is it close to the speed of light/ fraction of? anyone? if there is a figure, how was it arrived at?

Quote from: joe90 on March 09, 2007, 06:35:17 AM

If the Earth is accelerating and has been for megayears, and taking onto account relativistic effects etc, etc, is there any concensus on how fast we are actaully going at the moment? Is it close to the speed of light/ fraction of? anyone? if there is a figure, how was it arrived at?

We are currently going less than the speed of light.  To get an exact figure, we would need to know exactly when the earth started accelerating.

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.

No one will comment on this guys post?  What gives?

Quote from: kinereoj on March 07, 2007, 10:03:00 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.

at that rate of acceleration the earth would be traveling at 463896720km.h²

No one will comment on this guys post?  What gives?

Quote from: kinereoj on March 07, 2007, 10:03:00 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.