A new proof that FE is flawed...

Quote from: TheEngineer on September 02, 2007, 10:39:10 AM

Quote from: Gulliver on September 02, 2007, 10:34:49 AM

You do seen to claim that there are objects that can't be seen. Oh and thanks for the opportunity to list again what you do claim. I appreciate it!

Grammar, please.  BTW, yes, I do claim that.

Quote

You're the one who claims these:

So...how about those Einstein quotes that gravity as a force does not exist?
So...how about that definition that GL can be caused by acceleration of the FE?
So...how about telling us why you applied the EP over thousands of miles?
So...how about telling why all accelerations are gravitations?
So...how about telling how a star that is not directly over some part of FE can be seen from the FE?
So...how about a reference for your assertion that Nature is an observer? Please reference this post.
So...how about telling why Nature can't communicate faster than light?
So...how about explaining how air is an energy source?
So...how about showing where the other 98 posts of this post are?
So...how about telling us how the FE, with a constant, flat gravitational field, and RE, with a variable, curved gravitational field, can produce equal GL effects?
So..how about telling us how acceleration is relative? Reference this post.

*cough*

Aww, I think you are so cute when you are angry.

Thanks for the opportunity to repeat your unsupported and usually just wrong, claims! You're just so helpful today. Each time I get to repeat the claims, by the way, I take the time to add another one or to add documentation. It's so much fun.

So...how about those Einstein quotes that gravity as a force does not exist?
So...how about that definition that GL can be caused by acceleration of the FE?
So...how about telling us why you applied the EP over thousands of miles?
So...how about telling us why all accelerations are gravitations?
So...how about telling us how a star that is not directly over some part of FE can be seen from the FE?
So...how about a reference for your assertion that Nature is an observer?
So...how about telling us why Nature can't communicate faster than light?
So...how about explaining how air is an energy source?
So...how about showing where the other 98 posts of this post are?
So...how about telling us how the FE, with a constant, flat gravitational field, and RE, with a variable, curved gravitational field, can produce equal GL effects?
So..how about telling us how acceleration is relative? Reference this post.
So...how about showing us these stars that you claim are beneath the FE? Reference this post.

I probably shouldn't answer these, but it's getting annoying.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 02, 2007, 10:34:49 AM

So...how about those Einstein quotes that gravity as a force does not exist?
So...how about that definition that GL can be caused by acceleration of the FE?
So...how about telling us why you applied the EP over thousands of miles?
So...how about telling us why all accelerations are gravitations?
So...how about telling us how a star that is not directly over some part of FE can be seen from the FE?
So...how about a reference for your assertion that Nature is an observer?
So...how about telling us why Nature can't communicate faster than light?
So...how about explaining how air is an energy source?
So...how about showing where the other 98 posts of this post are?
So...how about telling us how the FE, with a constant, flat gravitational field, and RE, with a variable, curved gravitational field, can produce equal GL effects?
So..how about telling us how acceleration is relative? Reference this post.
So...how about showing us these stars that you claim are beneath the FE? Reference this post.

1. Einstein probably never stated it outright, but a little reading shows that that's what GR concluded. If you really need me to get quotes, I can.
2. Refer to the physicist's answer.
3. The EP can apply to thousands of miles. Locally each time.
4. All accelerations are not gravitations. You do the same straw man as sokarul. You need to realize that they're different when you switch the words.
5. Light bends? Refraction?
6. Can't say I really agree with nature being an observer.
7. Because information can't?
8. Air powers windmills. (Don't even bring in "moving air" vs. "air" because it's ridiculous. Air cannot be completely stationary outside of a building.)
9. If you're referring to that teacher rebuttal thing, he already told you that they were deleted. It's poor logic to assume everything that's ever been contained on this forum still exists.
10. I don't believe in this flat gravitational field so....
11. Acceleration is relative. The actual number is not, but what is felt is.

1. No. Einstein did not even believe that. Einstein believed that gravity was the most likely cause for the bending of space-time.
2. ThePhysicist answer does not include a definition of GL. Fail.
3. No. That's not what locally mean, but thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.
4. Your claim: If A=B, then B doesn't = A. Interesting world you live in. Regardless, TheEngineer actually claims that all accelerations are gravitations. Do try to avoid straw men.
5. Nonsense.
6. You're right.
7. No. Nature certainly appears to send information FTL.
8. No. Wind powers windmills.
9. No. He never said they were deleted. Nice leg-humping though.
10. You argue FE all the time. Now that your "hero" is in trouble, you're all I don't believe. Weak.
11. No. Even that's wrong.

You got 1 out of 11 correct. Thanks for playing.

So what about stars that are below the FE?

"The interpretation in Einstein’s viewpoint is that there is no "force" of gravity at all, but rather that space and time are bent in such a way that a particle moving freely with no other forces on it will follow a path that bends along with the local geometry of space and time, and follow the paths that are described by Newtonian gravity in the limits in which Newton’s model applies."

2. The physicist answered my question that acceleration can cause GL. How it specifically refers or occurs with the FE is subject to doing the math.

3. You misunderstand. The EP can apply to thousands of miles, but each instance that it is applied, is local. Not all at once...since clearly that's not how the EP works.

4. It's simple. Gravitation in physics is always an acceleration (I've asked for something showing otherwise so I can be corrected, nothing yet). Acceleration is not always gravitation, because well...it's acceleration.

8. And what is wind? Flow of air.

See this quote is so misused. Einstein is explaining the cause for gravitation, as mass bending space time. Gravity may not be a force, but it's effects are sure real. Also I should note the Einstein didn't think the Earth was accelerating, he merely surmised that if it were we couldn't tell the difference without careful measurement.

Actually no, he explained how stars will appear to be somewhere else from where they actually are due to the light being bent by the Earth's gravitation would be the same if the Earth was accelerating. This could be barely considered a fringe aspect of GL. GL as a whole is not explained by acceleration. Please stop saying that.

Haha pure brilliance. If it's applied over thousands of miles, but only locally each time. It can never apply to the whole no matter what you do, as each time you move the last local is no longer valid with the new local.

5. Isn't even worth arguing, can light bend that far?

Stationary air can not produce energy. We can harness the kinetic energy of the wind, but that is a different thing than air producing energy.

Quote from: Marinade on September 02, 2007, 06:58:07 PM

See this quote is so misused. Einstein is explaining the cause for gravitation, as mass bending space time. Gravity may not be a force, but it's effects are sure real. Also I should note the Einstein didn't think the Earth was accelerating, he merely surmised that if it were we couldn't tell the difference without careful measurement.

I wasn't using it for a flat Earth. I also never said that we don't feel effects.

Quote from: Marinade on September 02, 2007, 06:58:07 PM

Actually no, he explained how stars will appear to be somewhere else from where they actually are due to the light being bent by the Earth's gravitation would be the same if the Earth was accelerating. This could be barely considered a fringe aspect of GL. GL as a whole is not explained by acceleration. Please stop saying that.

I asked the physicist if acceleration can cause GL, he said yes. If you have a problem, take it up with him. He's very good about answering questions.

Quote from: Marinade on September 02, 2007, 06:58:07 PM

Haha pure brilliance. If it's applied over thousands of miles, but only locally each time. It can never apply to the whole no matter what you do, as each time you move the last local is no longer valid with the new local.

I never stated it would apply over the whole at once, since the EP cannot do that.

The EP can apply to thousands of miles, but each instance that it is applied, is local.

Quote from: Marinade on September 02, 2007, 06:58:07 PM

5. Isn't even worth arguing, can light bend that far?

I don't know.

Quote from: Marinade on September 02, 2007, 06:58:07 PM

Stationary air can not produce energy. We can harness the kinetic energy of the wind, but that is a different thing than air producing energy.

And how often is air stationary? (Not indoors)

Quote from: Gulliver on September 02, 2007, 05:05:27 PM

1. No. Einstein did not even believe that. Einstein believed that gravity was the most likely cause for the bending of space-time.
2. ThePhysicist answer does not include a definition of GL. Fail.
3. No. That's not what locally mean, but thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.
4. Your claim: If A=B, then B doesn't = A. Interesting world you live in. Regardless, TheEngineer actually claims that all accelerations are gravitations. Do try to avoid straw men.
5. Nonsense.
6. You're right.
7. No. Nature certainly appears to send information FTL.
8. No. Wind powers windmills.
9. No. He never said they were deleted. Nice leg-humping though.
10. You argue FE all the time. Now that your "hero" is in trouble, you're all I don't believe. Weak.
11. No. Even that's wrong.

You got 1 out of 11 correct. Thanks for playing.

1. "The interpretation in Einstein’s viewpoint is that there is no "force" of gravity at all, but rather that space and time are bent in such a way that a particle moving freely with no other forces on it will follow a path that bends along with the local geometry of space and time, and follow the paths that are described by Newtonian gravity in the limits in which Newton’s model applies."
2. The physicist answered my question that acceleration can cause GL. How it specifically refers or occurs with the FE is subject to doing the math.
3. You misunderstand. The EP can apply to thousands of miles, but each instance that it is applied, is local. Not all at once...since clearly that's not how the EP works.
4. It's simple. Gravitation in physics is always an acceleration (I've asked for something showing otherwise so I can be corrected, nothing yet). Acceleration is not always gravitation, because well...it's acceleration.
5. Why is it nonsense?
7. I guess it's apparent FTL. I don't know much about it.
8. And what is wind? Flow of air.
9. Leg humping? Because I know how forums work? I see.
10. Yes, I argue for FE, but I don't have this position of a flat gravitational field.
11. Um, FoRs.

There's no way we'll conclude anything when you keep changing shit. This is pointless but I'll do it anyways.

1. Einstein never stated "gravity as a force doesn't exist", is that so hard to understand? However, his work speaks for him. If you need more quotes, I can get them.

His work doesn't say gravity doesn't exist though, it explains what causes the phenomenon we call gravity.

2. What about the definition? GL is the bending of light around a massive object due to gravitation. I asked if acceleration could cause it, he said yes. To what magnitude (in some aspect) it actually affects the FE or outside the FE isn't being debated.

Yes, but only being true in some aspects doesn't mean it's always true. So the only time it's valid is if we are on the Earth and the light of an incoming star is bent by gravitation... that light could have been equally bent by acceleration. I still fail to see how this addresses all instances of GL?

3. I guess you still don't get it.

Is what I said that hard for you to understand? What you are proposing does not make logical sense. A local is only valid at a single point, it can never cover thousands of miles no matter how many you use, because each is still only valid at it's own point, as soon as you try and look at more it starts to fail.

5. You asked how a star could appear above the FE when it physically isn't; I gave answers. To whether or not conditions would be met to make it possible is irrelevant.

So you don't care if you're explanations are possible? That explains so much.


10. I argue FE properties when I have reasonable explanations for them. My name isn't Tom. I'm not going to talk out of my ass.

Number 5 seems to contradict this.

His work doesn't say gravity doesn't exist though, it explains what causes the phenomenon we call gravity.

Yes, but only being true in some aspects doesn't mean it's always true. So the only time it's valid is if we are on the Earth and the light of an incoming star is bent by gravitation... that light could have been equally bent by acceleration. I still fail to see how this addresses all instances of GL?

Is what I said that hard for you to understand? What you are proposing does not make logical sense. A local is only valid at a single point, it can never cover thousands of miles no matter how many you use, because each is still only valid at it's own point, as soon as you try and look at more it starts to fail.

So you don't care if you're explanations are possible? That explains so much.

Number 5 seems to contradict this.

Quote from: Marinade on September 02, 2007, 08:29:25 PM

His work doesn't say gravity doesn't exist though, it explains what causes the phenomenon we call gravity.

Gravity not existing and the force of gravity not existing are two very different things.

Quote from: Marinade on September 02, 2007, 08:29:25 PM

Yes, but only being true in some aspects doesn't mean it's always true. So the only time it's valid is if we are on the Earth and the light of an incoming star is bent by gravitation... that light could have been equally bent by acceleration. I still fail to see how this addresses all instances of GL?

Why are you bringing all instances into this? That's never what was being discussed in the original thread. Gulliver and sokarul claimed acceleration could not cause GL. I went and asked the physicist and got an answer. Everyone keeps trying to pick it apart so that they aren't wrong.

Quote from: Marinade on September 02, 2007, 08:29:25 PM

Is what I said that hard for you to understand? What you are proposing does not make logical sense. A local is only valid at a single point, it can never cover thousands of miles no matter how many you use, because each is still only valid at it's own point, as soon as you try and look at more it starts to fail.

Exactly. Locally is only at a point. Now, over thousands of miles, that's a lot of points. The EP cannot apply to a lot of points at once.

Quote from: Marinade on September 02, 2007, 08:29:25 PM

So you don't care if you're explanations are possible? That explains so much.

What? It's possible. I do not know the specific conditions that it would be possible though.

To whether or not conditions would be met to make it possible is irrelevant.

There's no way we'll conclude anything when you keep changing shit. This is pointless but I'll do it anyways.

1. Einstein never stated "gravity as a force doesn't exist", is that so hard to understand? However, his work speaks for him. If you need more quotes, I can get them.
2. What about the definition? GL is the bending of light around a massive object due to gravitation. I asked if acceleration could cause it, he said yes. To what magnitude (in some aspect) it actually affects the FE or outside the FE isn't being debated.
3. I guess you still don't get it.
4. If he says all accelerations are gravitations, then he's wrong. It's very simple logic.
5. You asked how a star could appear above the FE when it physically isn't; I gave answers. To whether or not conditions would be met to make it possible is irrelevant.
7. Source? I haven't found anything yet.
8. 
9. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16542.msg277619#msg277619 - That would imply that they've been deleted, or you could just ignore that.
10. I argue FE properties when I have reasonable explanations for them. My name isn't Tom. I'm not going to talk out of my ass.
11. I'll take your word for it.

Quote from: Marinade on September 02, 2007, 08:29:25 PM

His work doesn't say gravity doesn't exist though, it explains what causes the phenomenon we call gravity.

Gravity not existing and the force of gravity not existing are two very different things.
...

Getting back on the original post, My point that I would bring up for your proof of a flawed FE is this. And I will try to keep it simple. How do the stars in the night sky change with the seasons? There are 2 possibilities 1) the earth is round and it orbits the sun, or 2) the earth is a flat plane and the stars revolve around us. Now it is sort fo easy to prove but it does take some time to prove it because you need to do measurements over a long period of time. Luckily for us Brahe and Kepler have already done these observations (which by the way Brahe was a FE'er of sorts and Kepler didnt really care either way) and through these observations is how kepler came up with his revolutionalry laws of planetary motion. He came to this conclusion through testing and eliminating the other models. So in the past 150 years or so the FE community has had plenty of oppertunity to either collect their own data or reevaluate the conclusions made by Kepler.

Quote from: General Rusty Sawmill on September 02, 2007, 02:38:15 AM

Why would all the stars have to be directly above some point? the universe doesn't exist solely above the earth...

Thanks for the comic relief. Imagine a FEer who doesn't understand FET!

I guess since TheEngineer is too lame to understand this, I shouldn't expect any FEer to do so either.

On RE, and in reality, there is always a point where you can stand directly underneath any given star.

On FE there must also be such a point since FE must describe reality.

Look at it this way. You can walk along the Equator until the star is either due North or South. If North, it must lie between you and the North Star, on the northern horizon. The North Star is directly over the North Pole, Polaris. You can walk north until you're underneath the star. If South, it must lie between you and the South Star, Sigma Octantis, on the southern horizon. The South Star is directly over the FE Edge (Don't ask me how a star manages to be over the entire edge all at the same time. It's your theory.). You can walk south until you're underneath the star.

Quote from: Gulliver on September 02, 2007, 10:09:13 AM

Quote from: General Rusty Sawmill on September 02, 2007, 02:38:15 AM

Why would all the stars have to be directly above some point? the universe doesn't exist solely above the earth...

Thanks for the comic relief. Imagine a FEer who doesn't understand FET!

I guess since TheEngineer is too lame to understand this, I shouldn't expect any FEer to do so either.

On RE, and in reality, there is always a point where you can stand directly underneath any given star.

On FE there must also be such a point since FE must describe reality.

Look at it this way. You can walk along the Equator until the star is either due North or South. If North, it must lie between you and the North Star, on the northern horizon. The North Star is directly over the North Pole, Polaris. You can walk north until you're underneath the star. If South, it must lie between you and the South Star, Sigma Octantis, on the southern horizon. The South Star is directly over the FE Edge (Don't ask me how a star manages to be over the entire edge all at the same time. It's your theory.). You can walk south until you're underneath the star.

I disagree. You think that in reality the stars must always be above us but thats only the 'reality' you've been led to believe through believing in a RE. In FE the stars could in 'FE reality' be below the FE, to the side of it, they can be any-fucking-where

I love how half this thread managed to be about TheEngineer.  But, Gulliver, honestly, do you expect to get anything out of showing more holes in FET?

Not really. It's like whipping a dead horse. It's a fun thread though, isn't it?

Well of course we wouldn't be able to see stars below us, Gulliver.  They're not in our field of view.  That doesn't mean they necessarily don't exist.  We can just assume they're there because it makes sense that there would be stars below us, or to the side of us.  Kind of like how round earth scientists assume the existence of dark matter to make their equations work.

Quote from: Leci n'est pas une Roundy on September 03, 2007, 02:39:34 PM

Well of course we wouldn't be able to see stars below us, Gulliver.  They're not in our field of view.  That doesn't mean they necessarily don't exist.  We can just assume they're there because it makes sense that there would be stars below us, or to the side of us.  Kind of like how round earth scientists assume the existence of dark matter to make their equations work.

QFT

Quote from: divito on September 03, 2007, 03:25:43 PM

Quote from: Leci n'est pas une Roundy on September 03, 2007, 02:39:34 PM

Well of course we wouldn't be able to see stars below us, Gulliver.  They're not in our field of view.  That doesn't mean they necessarily don't exist.  We can just assume they're there because it makes sense that there would be stars below us, or to the side of us.  Kind of like how round earth scientists assume the existence of dark matter to make their equations work.

QFT

So divito, why are so sure there are stars there? Did a little fairy tell you? Maybe that space is filled with Tom Bishop quotes?

So divito, why are so sure there are stars there? Did a little fairy tell you? Maybe that space is filled with Tom Bishop quotes?