Which way is up again?

I didn't think of this before so will reply to the whole quote again:

I fail to see your problem, Theorist. The only reason "up" and "outwards" are not the same in the English language is because locally the Earth appears flat (because it is so big), but "up" and "outwards" only mean the same thing on a large body.

Just look at my definition above: "up" and "outwards" are clearly the same.

01. The English Dictionary is not compiled according to RE theory or FE theory.

02. The English Dictionary is only compiled by putting definitions to words.

03. To communicate properly, we need to use dictionary definitions, otherwise we are wrong.

04. RE theory has to misuse these words to artificially support RE theory.

05. To say "up = outward" is a misnomer.

06. RE theory needs to use this nonsense to construct the appearance of "up" being "outward".

07. Doing this with the two words is to artificially support the spherical earth model.

08. Artificial support is not allowed, only legitimate factual confirmations, or sound theory.

09. Interchanging the word "up" and "outward" is not a legitimate argument or fact, it is wrong.

10. RE loses this one hands down.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 09, 2008, 01:11:22 AM

here is a good hypothetical "up" question for you:  You are deep sea diving and there is no light whatsoever and due to the currents undderwater you get spun in every direction for 10 minutes, after you stop you must point "up", which way do you point?

You are quite possibly the dumbest RE'er on these boards. Congratulations.

Just because 'up' is universal, doesn't mean a dazed diver of the dark deeps is going to know where it is. Whether he can identify up or not, the up direction would be towards the waters surface (as that happens to be the direction the earth is accelerating). Of course, we can't tell him this, I hope you weren't expecting us to.

so why is that up

By definition.

Would be nice to see you RE'ers agree on a definition for up, seeing as you are all arguing in different ways.

By definition.

Would be nice to see you RE'ers agree on a definition for up, seeing as you are all arguing in different ways.

what is the FE definition of left again?

By definition.

Would be nice to see you RE'ers agree on a definition for up, seeing as you are all arguing in different ways.

I have modified my points, see the 10 points above, this explains.

what is the FE definition of left again?

Which way on the flat earth are you facing?
North, South, East or West?

what is the FE definition of left again?

Feel free to discuss new topics in new threads. We are still waiting for you to properly discuss the topic at hand.

AH! I scared away all the RE'ers with cognitive reasoning and foolproof conjecture!

Another victory for FE!!!

Quote from: Robosteve on August 09, 2008, 10:14:36 AM

Quote from: bobbyg2 on August 09, 2008, 10:13:21 AM

They do when gravity pulls on them.

Fictitious forces usually don't pull on things very strongly.

Have you ever been in a car when someone slams on the brakes?  Tell me that the fictitious force "pushing" you forwards didn't feel real.

I have, and nothing pushed me forwards at all. If it did, I would have accelerated forwards - clearly the opposite effect to that which a brake is supposed to have (unless the car is moving in reverse).

You people are difficult. OK: here's a definition of "up" that is consistent with GR:

"Up" is the direction of fastest increasing gravitational potential.

In a Newtonian system, this is equivalent to my previous definition ("up" is opposite to the direction objects fall), but also works with GR.
Can we all agree on this?

It could be better worded, but I wouldn't have thought to put it like that, so I commend you for coming up with that definition, and accept it.

FE Theory:
1 - Up is up.
2 - Outward is outward.

Since when do you define a word with the word that you are defining? 

They do when these "fictitious" forces aren't actually fictitious.

Except the fact that they are and will always be fictitious.

Since when do you define a word with the word that you are defining? 

Those aren't definitions, those are synonyms. In FE up is, has always been and will always be, up. In RE, who knows? Lor' knows they don't!

Quote from: markjo on August 10, 2008, 12:18:32 AM

Since when do you define a word with the word that you are defining? 

Those aren't definitions, those are synonyms. In FE up is, has always been and will always be, up. In RE, who knows? Lor' knows they don't!

In RE up will always be opposite of down.  What is so hard to grasp about that? 

You are quite possibly the dumbest RE'er on these boards. Congratulations.

And you are probably the most hostile and bitter person on these boards. Congratulations for being so sad.

Quote from: narcberry on August 09, 2008, 03:16:07 PM

You are quite possibly the dumbest RE'er on these boards. Congratulations.

And you are probably the most hostile and bitter person on these boards. Congratulations for being so sad.

Oh thats just wrong, there's lots of people much more hostile and bitter than Narcypants on here

Quote from: Josef on August 12, 2008, 06:02:49 AM

Quote from: narcberry on August 09, 2008, 03:16:07 PM

You are quite possibly the dumbest RE'er on these boards. Congratulations.

And you are probably the most hostile and bitter person on these boards. Congratulations for being so sad.

Oh thats just wrong, there's lots of people much more hostile and bitter than Narcypants on here

And all RE'ers.

Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin on August 12, 2008, 06:08:59 AM

Quote from: Josef on August 12, 2008, 06:02:49 AM

Quote from: narcberry on August 09, 2008, 03:16:07 PM

You are quite possibly the dumbest RE'er on these boards. Congratulations.

And you are probably the most hostile and bitter person on these boards. Congratulations for being so sad.

Oh thats just wrong, there's lots of people much more hostile and bitter than Narcypants on here

And all RE'ers.

Very mature..

Very mature..

I think you misunderstand. i am not saying all RE'ers are much more bitter etc than Narc, just that the people who are more bitter etc than Narc are all RE'ers, and I think there is more than ample evidence of that on this board.

Quote from: Josef on August 12, 2008, 07:05:24 AM

Very mature..

I think you misunderstand. i am not saying all RE'ers are much more bitter etc than Narc, just that the people who are more bitter etc than Narc are all RE'ers, and I think there is more than ample evidence of that on this board.

Nah.. They are more angry and frustrated.

Nah.. They are more angry and frustrated.

And schizophrenic.

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 12, 2008, 07:14:24 AM

Quote from: Josef on August 12, 2008, 07:05:24 AM

Very mature..

I think you misunderstand. i am not saying all RE'ers are much more bitter etc than Narc, just that the people who are more bitter etc than Narc are all RE'ers, and I think there is more than ample evidence of that on this board.

Nah.. They are more angry and frustrated.

Why, though?  What's the point of getting angry and frustrated on an internet forum?  Do REers really think they're going to blind FEers with science and turn them around on the debate?  Do they get angry and frustrated because FEers actually defend their position instead of meekly backing away and proclaiming that REer an intellectual god for finally making them see the light?

I mean, really, what do you REers expect when you come here? 

Quote from: Josef on August 12, 2008, 09:46:10 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 12, 2008, 07:14:24 AM

I think you misunderstand. i am not saying all RE'ers are much more bitter etc than Narc, just that the people who are more bitter etc than Narc are all RE'ers, and I think there is more than ample evidence of that on this board.

Nah.. They are more angry and frustrated.

Do REers really think they're going to blind FEers with science and turn them around on the debate?  Do they get angry and frustrated because FEers actually defend their position instead of meekly backing away and proclaiming that REer an intellectual god for finally making them see the light?

Yes to all those questions. hehe.

I mean, really, what do you REers expect when you come here? 

For me, this forum is a way to open my mind, learn how other people think... And also to have an argument. Like the Monty Python sketch, but its free.

It's easy to get frustrated though, because its impossible to win. For either side. But one has to remind himself/herself that its how a internet forum works. No one ever "wins", and thus it cant be the goal.

RE'ers smell funny too

For me, this forum is a way to open my mind, learn how other people think... And also to have an argument. Like the Monty Python sketch, but its free.

Then you're ahead of the pack.  The average REer seems to come here to be insulting and to get a false sense of superiority.  I think the anger and frustration mostly stems from the fact that they end up feeling like idiots because they realize that (by and large) they had no idea what the fuck they were talking about.

Quote from: NEEMAN on August 12, 2008, 07:14:24 AM

Quote from: Josef on August 12, 2008, 07:05:24 AM

Very mature..

I think you misunderstand. i am not saying all RE'ers are much more bitter etc than Narc, just that the people who are more bitter etc than Narc are all RE'ers, and I think there is more than ample evidence of that on this board.

Nah.. They are more angry and frustrated.

I've said it many times before- those RE'ers who come here with an open mind and are polite always earn my respect, if not my agreement, and that is usually the case with all FE'ers. I came here a RE'er, and I am proud to say I was always respectful and polite. It's just we get a lot of very ignorant people here, and 99% of the time, they're here to tell us the earth is round and that we're stupid.

The earth is round, but your not stupid. 

1: A bubble will go up in China
2: A bubble will go up in the United States
3: If the earth is round, bubbles will rise outwards from the earth
4: Since bubbles always rise up, the earth cannot be round

Before I begin, I am a RE moron. No concept of physics, laws of motion, gravity E=MC2 etc etc.... but allow me to try and engage in a semi sensible discussion.

The earth is flat and constantly moving upwards in the same direction according to FET. So, if I use a telescope to look at stars in Scotland I should be seeing exactly the same stars and constellations as if i was using the telescope in Australia. The stars would never change position relative to my own position as FE and the universe are moving in same direction.

However, the constellations do change relative to my position and new stars and constellations appear depending on the time of year I am observing.

Dont refer me to FAQ, because, as with many questions raised on this forum, the answers are vague and are based on speculation rather than fact. I am merely interested in your theory, scientifically difficult or not.

I personally think that we should all refer to Robotsteve's argument.  He seems the most levelheaded in the forum.  Narc, you should listen to your fellow FEr in this case.

Asking which way is "up" on a Round Earth is like asking which way is "out" from the centre of a ball. If you attempt to use this reasoning to prove that a Round Earth can't exist, then one could also attempt to use it to show that a ball can't exist.

One has to remember words can have arbitrary meanings attached to them, especially in a different frame of reference.  We simply assign common meanings to them IF YOU THINK OF THINGS THE SAME WAY.  If you say, "hey look, this is a GREEN apple" to a colour blind person, what you're seeing is not the same as what they're seeing.  Similarly saying the same sentence makes even less sense if you say it to someone who only understands, say, French.

In FE, "up" is defined as the direction of Earth acceleration.  In this case, EXPRESSION = DEFINITION
In RE, "up" is defined as the vector formed by starting at the observer and continuing with the sky.  So yes, the EXPRESSION of what "up" is changes depending on location but the DEFINITION does not. 

Just because one cannot determine the orientation all the time is meaningless.  Using Narc's example only:

Nobody can tell me the orientation of an FE Earth model in respect to the galaxy / the entirety of Space (I believe even your FAQ mentions this possibility; that only our local known space is known to move your definition of "up").  There may be an another Flat Planet that is moving the opposite direction.  Their definition of up, according to you, would contradict ours.  You must admit the possibility of this alternate planet if you believe in Newtonian physics:  Anything action (force) has an equal and opposite reaction ("negative" force).  The energy to move a FE earth "up" (your def) must necessitate energy moving in the opposite direction.

Either way, any arguments using these definitions of "up" to prove either FE or RE is flawed, as numerous people have pointed out on both RE / FE sides.  There's no relationship between the two definitions of "up", so you can't (easily) use one definition of "up" to prove itself or disprove the opposite.

Can't we all just agree that this thread is a typical Narcberry troll and just let it die.

Please.

I personally think that we should all refer to Robotsteve's argument.  He seems the most levelheaded in the forum.

Fucking sig'd!

DIE THREAD SPAWNED FROM HELL!!  DIE, DIE, DIE!!!