Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award

  • 80 Replies
  • 17084 Views
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #60 on: April 17, 2006, 05:50:49 PM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
I believe the earth is flat, but I certainly do not believe it is moving.


Go on.... tell us why we perceive gravity then.  Maybe it has something to do with "on the ground" being the "natural place" for rocks, because the Earth is made of rock?  Presumably, then, you also do not believe in heavier-than-air flying machines....

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
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

6strings

  • The Elder Ones
  • 689
Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #61 on: April 17, 2006, 06:14:02 PM »
Erasmus, don't you read the rest of his posts?

Clearly science is bunk, and a horrible way to look at the universe; the idea that something should have to be proven in a way weak-minded people such as yourselves, that can only comprehend things through supposed "logic", is utterly foolish.

Gravity exists because God said so.

Light is instantaneous...try to guess why...betcha can't...God said so.

And if you can't understand that, it's simply because you're a fool.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #62 on: April 17, 2006, 06:24:04 PM »
My head a-splode.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #63 on: April 17, 2006, 09:56:34 PM »
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.

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #64 on: April 18, 2006, 04:48:36 AM »
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.

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #65 on: April 18, 2006, 05:24:16 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
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.


A flat Earth covers more distance in a time period compared to the round Earth. It also travels alot faster too. There are many microscopic particles of rock in front of the accelerating Earth's way. Whichever frame of reference you choose to select, whether it's the constantly accelerating, faster-than-light-speed Earth in front of the motionless individual particles or the individual particles in front of the Earth, you're gonna end up with lots of high-speed collisions that would strike faster than the speed of light. That would completely obliterate the entire planet, the Moon, the Sun, and the four elephants living underneath.

A round Earth covers less distance in a time period compared to the flat Earth. It travels over a billion times slower too. There are less microscopic particles in front of the Earth's way. Whichever frame of reference you choose to select, whether it's the slow-moving Earth in front of the motionless individual particles or the individual particles in front of the Earth, you're not going to end up being destroyed. The collisions would be tiny and unnoticable.

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.

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #66 on: April 18, 2006, 07:50:10 AM »
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.

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #67 on: April 18, 2006, 09:59:43 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
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


Because he believes it's instantaneous...

However, 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...

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #68 on: April 18, 2006, 01:56:33 PM »
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
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #69 on: April 18, 2006, 02:44:50 PM »
Quote
Either way, you don't get light bouncing back and forth forever.


I thought of the same exact thing.  But it's possible with infinite mirror on both sides.
ooyakasha!

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #70 on: April 18, 2006, 02:48:49 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
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.

Of course the box needs to be built right and the magnesium dropped in at the right point, but it would work.

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

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #71 on: April 18, 2006, 03:47:50 PM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
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.


So, you're assuming that the fragment of magnesium will cease to exist after it emits the flash of light?  Okay, it will work in that case, assuming that there's no residue left behind in the box, which is a vacuum.

What are we demonstrating with this experiment?  That light takes nonzero time to travel nonzero distances?

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


They would, yes.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #72 on: April 18, 2006, 04:00:09 PM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
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.


I should have made this clearer. I was talking about how microscopic rocks would impact on the Earth. We don't need to know how fast your left foot is moving relative to the Earth. Nor do we need to know how fast the Earth is moving relative to the Sun, the galaxy, or the universe. All we're talking about is the interactions of two objects, the Earth and the rock.

So there are only two reference frames we should consider. Even still, it doesn't really matter what frame of reference you decide to base this upon. Sure, you may argue that the flat Earth is stationary and the rocks are travelling at thousands of times the speed of light but the results would be the same. In relation to the thousands of microscopic rock particles inhabiting space, they'll think the flat Earth is accelerating into them. Both ways to view the situation are the same. However, choosing your left foot is just absurd. I'll give you a similar example for a car crash...

Okay, imagine this... There are two cars, a Toyota Camry and a Honda Civic. Each car is travelling at 30KM/PH on their speedometers. The two cars are accelerating towards each other. Relative to the Honda Civic, the Toyota Camry would seem to be accelerating at 60KM/PH, and vice versa. The drivers situated within the car would be travelling at 0KM/PH relative to their vehicles. Finally, the inevitable collision would occour and the drivers would eventually die. It doesn't matter whether the cars are on a moving ship or inside an aeroplane. As in the case of the round Earth, nor does it matter whether the Sun is travelling around the universe or not.

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

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #73 on: April 18, 2006, 07:04:31 PM »
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?

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #74 on: April 18, 2006, 10:58:14 PM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
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?


A flat Earth must propel itself upwards at a specific rate of 9.8M/PS^2 to prevent everything from falling off. Since 4,500,000,000 years have passed since Earth's creation, we would be travelling much faster than the speed of light now. That is, compared to the rock's frame of reference.

Are you saying that the same group of elephants or dark energy that accelerates the Earth upwards also accelerates everything else in space? That would mean that everything in space would be travelling at 0M/PS^2 in relation to every other object in space.

However, the FAQ states that if you fall off the Earth, you would enter an inertial reference frame, moving at a constant velocity in the direction the Earth was moving before you jumped. The Earth would continue accelerating upwards past you at a rate of 9.8M/PS^2, so it would appear to you that you were falling into space.

Actually, you would halt to a complete stop in a few million years due to the fact that space is not a perfect vacuum.

It's either that you're wrong or the FAQ's wrong. From the dead man's perspective, the Earth would continue to accelerate away from him at faster-than-light speeds. Now imagine that instead of being under the accelerating Earth, a small piece of rock is directly overhead the Earth. From the rock's perspective, the Earth would be accelerating towards it.

How would the rock stay "anchored" relative to the Earth's frame of reference? Easy. If everything in Earth's way was like a river and happily travelled along with the Earth, there would be no meteorites here either. Unfortunetly there are many, including one that struck 65 million years ago. Seen the recent story about the meteorite that crashed into someone's roof?

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #75 on: April 19, 2006, 12:56:37 AM »
Quote from: "Condraz23" since 4,500,000,000 years have passed since Earth's creation, we would be travelling much faster than the speed of light now. That is, compared to the rock's frame of reference.[/quote


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
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #76 on: April 19, 2006, 01:21:46 AM »
I agree with you Erasmus. It is impossible for anyone to measure the speed of a faster-than-light object since there is no applicable frame of reference to compare it to. However, the flat Earth theory states that the Earth is travelling faster than the speed of light. But from the rock's frame of reference, it would seem to be traveling just under the speed of light.

The microscopic rock would still have the same disastrous impact on a flat Earth though, and seeing as though Unimportant's flowing-river theory conflicts with the FAQ, his theory must be wrong.

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #77 on: April 19, 2006, 08:49:30 AM »
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.

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #78 on: April 19, 2006, 07:06:34 PM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
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.


I believe that the Earth is round. The FAQ presumes that the Earth is flat. Therefore, my view cannot comply with the FAQ.

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?

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #79 on: April 19, 2006, 07:40:43 PM »
Quote from: "Condraz23"
However, since you are a flat Earther, you must agree with the FAQ. Because you people wrote it in the first place.

Absolutely incorrect.

The FAQ isn't a set of rules that you have to follow in order to be a "Flat earther", it is a concise presentation of one particular FE model, which answers many of the quesitons new people have.

Do you think all RE scientists agree on exactly what causes the effect of gravity? I mean, they're all round earthers, so they must, right? No, you couldn't be more wrong.

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

No, I'm saying it doesn't represent all of my personal views.

Whoever proof-read your FAQ deserves an award
« Reply #80 on: April 21, 2006, 01:58:05 PM »
Quote from: "General Specific"

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

no because theround earth is moving also, it orbits the sun thusly moving