Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award

I believe the earth is flat, but I certainly do not believe it is moving.

The idea that light travels at any speed at all is wrong.  It is instantaneous.

Quote from: "Condraz23"

If the Earth was still then we would all fly off into space and if it was moving, it would have hit something along the way, most likely an object going at 0M/PS relative to Earth's velocity.

Per the RE model, it is moving. I see no reason why there is less chance of the RE being hit by something than the FE being hit by something.

Quote from: "NEEMAN"

Quote from: "Condraz23"

If the Earth was still then we would all fly off into space and if it was moving, it would have hit something along the way, most likely an object going at 0M/PS relative to Earth's velocity.

Per the RE model, it is moving. I see no reason why there is less chance of the RE being hit by something than the FE being hit by something.

The Flat Earthers state that their Earth is travelling over a thousand times faster than light. The Round Earthers claim that the Earth moves over a thousand times slower than the speed of light. Therefore, although their chances of beign hit by a rock would be the same, how much the rocks would impact on Earth would differ immensely.

There's a large difference between being hit by a bullet fired from a gun two metres away from you and being hit by a bullet thrown by a person sitting two metres away from you.

Over a hundred rocks land on Earth every week, you know.

Quote from: "Condraz23"

Quote from: "NEEMAN"

Quote from: "Condraz23"

If the Earth was still then we would all fly off into space and if it was moving, it would have hit something along the way, most likely an object going at 0M/PS relative to Earth's velocity.

Per the RE model, it is moving. I see no reason why there is less chance of the RE being hit by something than the FE being hit by something.

The Flat Earthers state that their Earth is travelling over a thousand times faster than light. The Round Earthers claim that the Earth moves over a thousand times slower than the speed of light. Therefore, although their chances of beign hit by a rock would be the same, how much the rocks would impact on Earth would differ immensely.

There's a large difference between being hit by a bullet fired from a gun two metres away from you and being hit by a bullet thrown by a person sitting two metres away from you.

Over a hundred rocks land on Earth every week, you know.

What you are proposing about the flat earth striking a "stationary" (again, compared to what?) rock is exactly as likely as the round earth being struck by a rock traveling a thousand times the speed of light. All that differs between the two situations is what reference frame you choose to be "absolute", which is certainly a subjective decision, if not entirely arbitrary.

As for your last statement about the round Earth being hit by rocks travelling at thousands of times the speed of light? Well, within a round Earth's frame of reference, there are no rocks travelling at that speed whatsoever.

Quote

The idea that light travels at any speed at all is wrong.  It is instantaneous.

It just gets better and better.  Okay, Dionysios, how do we know the speed of light to be instantaneous?

-Erasmus

I wonder what would happen if you got two mirrors facing each other and shined a beam of light on them. The light would reflect off one mirror and on to the other, and then back onto the first mirror and it would do this an infinite number of times within no space of time at all...

Either way, you don't get light bouncing back and forth forever.

Quote from: "cheesejoff"

I wonder what would happen if you got two mirrors facing each other and shined a beam of light on them. The light would reflect off one mirror and on to the other, and then back onto the first mirror and it would do this an infinite number of times within no space of time at all...

Well, how do you get the light in between the two mirrors?  If it's shining in from outside, then it can't be perpendicular to the mirrors, so it will eventually escape.  If the source is between the mirrors, then it will occlude the passage of the rays that travel perpendicular to the mirrors.

Either way, you don't get light bouncing back and forth forever.

-Erasmus

ok maybe not two mirros but if you contruct a box of mirrors and then drop in a piece of magnesium at a certain point it could work. Although the magnesium will give off light in every direction, it will give off one ray that will refract a mirror, and onto the next, and onto the next, until eventually it reaches the starting mirror where it starts all over again.

You could of course use a one-way mirror, but I'm not sure how they work, they might let some light escape...

Quote

As for your last statement about the round Earth being hit by rocks travelling at thousands of times the speed of light? Well, within a round Earth's frame of reference, there are no rocks travelling at that speed whatsoever.

And within a flat earth's frame of reference, no rocks would be "stationary", since that would be the equivilent of a velocity difference of thousands of times the speed of light, and that's no more possible in the FE universe than it is in the RE universe.

That's what you're choosing not to address when you say things like "A flat Earth covers more distance in a time period compared to the round Earth." Distance - like velocity - has to be measured from a starting point. You can claim D = VT, but velocity, too, needs a reference point. I choose that reference point to my my left foot; in that case the flat earth is moving 0 m/s, and will travel 0 m in the next billion years. How, then, can you claim it covers more ground than the round earth? I mean the earth isn't moving at all, so the only way a collision on the scale you're describing could happen is if a particle was accelerated towards my left foot at thousands of times the speed of light, and that's just silly.

How are you measuring the "speed" of the round earth, anyways? In relation to the sun? Well ok, but choosing the sun as your reference point is no less arbitrary than choosing my left foot. I assure you, relative to a lot of things, the sun is moving very very fast. So what, then, the center of the galaxy? You think that's not moving? Ok, so the center of the universe. What makes you think that's "stationary"?

That's a big, important concept we have to get out of the way; there are no absolute reference points. So when you say the earth is moving relatively slowly relative to the sun, I say that's nice but the flat earth isnt moving at all compared to my foot.

So no, the flat earth won't "cover more distance", and it won't be any more likely to encounter particles moving at the ridiculous speeds that you claim.

The only argument you have for the increased likelihood of a rock hitting the flat earth at all involves surface area, and still that doesn't make it any more likely that the rock will be going faster than the speed of light relative to earth.

This would be exactly the same compared to a round earth, except on slightly different principles. There are two objects, the round earth and a small piece of microscopic rock. Relative to the round earth, the rock would seem to be travelling at 23,178,960,000,000KM/PH. Relative to the rock, the round earth would seem to be travelling at 23,178,960,000,000KM/PH. Both are correct. We would seem to be travelling at 0KM/PH relative to the round earth. Finally, the inevitable collision would occour and everything would be vapourized.

Quote from: "Condraz23"

This would be exactly the same compared to a round earth, except on slightly different principles. There are two objects, the round earth and a small piece of microscopic rock. Relative to the round earth, the rock would seem to be travelling at 23,178,960,000,000KM/PH. Relative to the rock, the round earth would seem to be travelling at 23,178,960,000,000KM/PH. Both are correct. We would seem to be travelling at 0KM/PH relative to the round earth. Finally, the inevitable collision would occour and everything would be vapourized.

So again I ask, what makes the flat earth special? If you can claim that rocks are moving at absurd speeds relative to the flat earth, why is that any less likely with a round earth?

Again, like you pointed out, velocities are measured based on reference points. Whether it's the rock, or the earth, or my foot, or the sun, it doesn't matter. The likelihood of encountering two objects within the same intertial reference frame traveling at speeds thousands of times the speed of light is very unlikely. Say, impossible. This is true whether your earth is round or flat.

Also, even ignoring that, consider; what is pushing the earth along in a FE model? Dark matter? Turtles? Something. The same force is also pushing the sun, the moon, the cosmos, so it is safe to assume it is some pervasive force; I usually think of it as a river, and the earth and cosmos are flowing in the current.

How, then, does your dust particle come to be "statiionary" in the river? How is it anchored so that it moves at such incredible velocities relative to the earth? Why would the same force that propels the earth (as you seem to envision) not propel the particle too, in the same direction?

I tell you, what you say is impossible.  No object is ever measured to be travelling faster than the speed of light in any reference frame.  Furthermore, the inability to do so does not prevent the object from actually travelling faster than light; the limitation is purely the burden of the observer, not the observed.

-Erasmus

and seeing as though Unimportant's flowing-river theory conflicts with the FAQ, his theory must be wrong.

Quote from: "Condraz23"

and seeing as though Unimportant's flowing-river theory conflicts with the FAQ, his theory must be wrong.

Oh, if only I knew it was that simple.

In that case, your round earth theory conflicts with the FAQ, so it must be wrong.

Man, that was easy!

If you agree whole-heartedly with everything in the FAQ, why are you arguing round earth? Or are you just playing the devil's advocate, and you really know the earth is flat.

However, since you are a flat Earther, you must agree with the FAQ. Because you people wrote it in the first place.

Are you saying that the FAQ is incorrect about some aspects of the flat Earth thoery?

Therefore the earth cannot be moving, and thus the earth is round.