Question...

First off, I would like to say that I'm not here to "diss" your guys' theory, I think that it is very well thought out.

My question, though, is that why, when you drop, say, a bowling ball and a piece of paper at the same time that they do not reach the ground at the same time? If the Earth really was accelerating upward, wouldn't they hit the ground at the same time?

Another question: Why IS the Earth accelerating upward? There is no substantial evidence on your site that can prove me this, yet there are plenty of proofs for gravity.

One more: You say that the Government is blocking, or rather, denying access to these "ice walls", but it's impossible that it has always been that way. There has been no documentation of anyone, anywhere that has seen these "ice walls". Please do not tell me that the Government has removed any proof from existence, that would be nearly impossible.

Lastly: Do you raise your children having them believe the Earth is flat or round?

Please, take no offense, I am completely intrigued by your ideas and I don't judge any one of you.

1) air resistance.  The air is moving upward also.

2) I don't know

3) Good point.

4) Well, I'm a Round Earther, so I'd have to say round.

1) air resistance.  The air is moving upward also.

2) I don't know

3) Good point.

4) Well, I'm a Round Earther, so I'd have to say round.

Yes, I know what Air Resistance is, but that is only valid if you believe in Gravity, which FE believers do not consider real.

Another quicky: If the Earth is indeed moving upward, then the "bottom" of this cylinder would have absolutely nothing on it, it would have all fallen off.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 03, 2007, 07:59:20 PM

1) air resistance.  The air is moving upward also.

2) I don't know

3) Good point.

4) Well, I'm a Round Earther, so I'd have to say round.

Yes, I know what Air Resistance is, but that is only valid if you believe in Gravity, which FE believers do not consider real.

Air resistance would perform the same primary effect in either model. Please refer to The RE Primer for an explanation. (You'll also find dozens of documented experiments that prove that the Earth is round. (So go ahead, diss their theory.)

This stuff is pretty interesting, I want to say funny, but I don't want to offend anyone.

I mean, I can relate a little to people who say the moon landing was fake (Not saying I don't believe the moon landing). There were real motives then, and the theory of the Van Allen radiation belt says it's impossible as well. But these guys really don't have much of an argument. They have plenty of untested theories, however.

The air is sitting on top of the Earth moving upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s².  Therefore an object falling will accelerate through the air, creating air resistance.

The air is sitting on top of the Earth moving upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s².  Therefore an object falling will accelerate through the air, creating air resistance.

But if the Earth was moving upward, it would hit the object. The air is irrelevant.

One more thing: Sputnik. Do not doubt it's existence. It was there, along with many other spectators.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 03, 2007, 08:09:01 PM

The air is sitting on top of the Earth moving upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s².  Therefore an object falling will accelerate through the air, creating air resistance.

But if the Earth was moving upward, it would hit the object. The air is irrelevant.

Erm, you hit stuff with gravity too.  Please rephrase the question.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 03, 2007, 08:09:01 PM

The air is sitting on top of the Earth moving upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s².  Therefore an object falling will accelerate through the air, creating air resistance.

But if the Earth was moving upward, it would hit the object. The air is irrelevant.

One more thing: Sputnik. Do not doubt it's existence. It was there, along with many other spectators.

Why is the air irrelevant?

Quote from: holynapkin on October 03, 2007, 08:12:00 PM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 03, 2007, 08:09:01 PM

The air is sitting on top of the Earth moving upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s².  Therefore an object falling will accelerate through the air, creating air resistance.

But if the Earth was moving upward, it would hit the object. The air is irrelevant.

Erm, you hit stuff with gravity too.  Please rephrase the question.

You don't understand. If you throw a target in the air, and then throw a ball at the target, it hits the target. Now, if the Earth is TRULY moving upwards, then if you dropped a piece of paper and a bowling ball off of the top of a building, Earth would collide with them at the same time.

Quote from: holynapkin on October 03, 2007, 08:12:00 PM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 03, 2007, 08:09:01 PM

The air is sitting on top of the Earth moving upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s².  Therefore an object falling will accelerate through the air, creating air resistance.

But if the Earth was moving upward, it would hit the object. The air is irrelevant.

One more thing: Sputnik. Do not doubt it's existence. It was there, along with many other spectators.

Why is the air irrelevant?

Explain how it isn't.

Quote from: Gulliver on October 03, 2007, 08:14:47 PM

Quote from: holynapkin on October 03, 2007, 08:12:00 PM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 03, 2007, 08:09:01 PM

The air is sitting on top of the Earth moving upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s².  Therefore an object falling will accelerate through the air, creating air resistance.

But if the Earth was moving upward, it would hit the object. The air is irrelevant.

One more thing: Sputnik. Do not doubt it's existence. It was there, along with many other spectators.

Why is the air irrelevant?

Explain how it isn't.

It's your assertion. Support it or we'll just conclude that you're not worth the effort [Rules Violation].

Quote from: holynapkin on October 03, 2007, 08:16:42 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on October 03, 2007, 08:14:47 PM

Quote from: holynapkin on October 03, 2007, 08:12:00 PM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 03, 2007, 08:09:01 PM

The air is sitting on top of the Earth moving upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s².  Therefore an object falling will accelerate through the air, creating air resistance.

But if the Earth was moving upward, it would hit the object. The air is irrelevant.

One more thing: Sputnik. Do not doubt it's existence. It was there, along with many other spectators.

Why is the air irrelevant?

Explain how it isn't.

It's your assertion. Support it or we'll just conclude that you're not worth the effort to educate.

Fine. If there is indeed air "sitting on top of Earth" that is moving at the same rate as Earth, Earth just barely collides with it, correct? So if I threw a ball in the air, Earth accelerates towards it, hitting it. If you threw a piece of paper into the air, Earth would do the same. Hit it. If the paper was thrown into the air at the same time as the ball, the Earth would hit it at the same time. It's hard to explain.. I'm a tad tired, but if ANYTHING fell, or rather, to you guys, hit by Earth, at a different rate than something else, it's impossible for Earth to be accelerating upward.

The Earth pushes against the air.  The Earth is moving up towards the bowling ball and the paper.  However, the Earth is pushing the air and therefore the air rushes past the objects as well as the objects sit still is space.  However, the air will start to push so that at a certain point critical velocity is reached and the air pushes up on the objects so that they rise in such a way that the Earth's speed relative to the objects is constant.  The bowling ball and the paper will not reach critical velocity at the same time, therefore they will not collide with the earth at the same time.

In other words, the ball stays still in space while the paper is pushed upward by the accelerating air, making them hit at different times.

In other words, the ball stays still in space while the paper is pushed upward by the accelerating air, making them hit at different times.

Hmm.. You make a good argument, I'll let it sit for now. But another question: What's the force that keeps you sustained in mid-air if you are not on Earth?

Trekky's right, of course.

Another victory for FE! (sorry, I had to )

But hear this: What about the law "Objects in motions stay in motion"? Are you going to tell me you don't believe that? What if you threw a ball at 9.8m/s^2, would it not just appear to stay in mid-air forever?

holynapkin, you're wrong on the air resistance argument. An accelerating flat earth vs. a non-accelerating ground with gravity has absolutely no difference whatsoever in terms of the arrival times at any height of these objects. The equivalence principle dictates it. And the reason is that the air creating the air resistance is affected by the gravity the same as it would be by an accelerating earth. Your first point is not an argument against flat earth. I'm sorry, but it's not. You need to think about it some more.

But hear this: What about the law "Objects in motions stay in motion"? Are you going to tell me you don't believe that? What if you threw a ball at 9.8m/s^2, would it not just appear to stay in mid-air forever?

It is not possible to throw a ball upwards at a constant 9.8 m/s² acceleration.

The figure of 9.8 m/s² is an acceleration. Which means the earth is moving upwards at a faster velocity every second.

But hear this: What about the law "Objects in motions stay in motion"? Are you going to tell me you don't believe that? What if you threw a ball at 9.8m/s^2, would it not just appear to stay in mid-air forever?

No. I assume that you're accelerating the ball at the rate relative to the FE at the moment of the throw, so the acceleration would be 19.6 ms^-2. Once the ball leaves your hand, you're no longer accelerating the ball. The Earth would accelerate to catch up  with the ball.

Quote

But hear this: What about the law "Objects in motions stay in motion"? Are you going to tell me you don't believe that? What if you threw a ball at 9.8m/s^2, would it not just appear to stay in mid-air forever?

It is not possible to throw a ball upwards at a constant 9.8 m/s² acceleration.

The figure 9.8² is an acceleration. Which means it is getting faster every second.

Where did he say it was?

Diagram:

If a ball is thrown upward, it travels upward at the speed of the Earth at the time thrown plus the speed you threw it.  However, because the Earth is accelerating, it catches up to it.

If a ball is thrown upward, it travels upward at the speed of the Earth at the time thrown plus the speed you threw it.  However, because the Earth is accelerating, it catches up to it.

As soon as the ball leaves your hand, gravity acts on it immediately, decreasing its speed as gravity pulls it down.

Wait, gravity doesn't exist on the Flat Earth. 

It is not possible to throw a ball upwards at a constant 9.8 m/s² acceleration.
The figure of 9.8 m/s² is an acceleration. Which means the earth is moving upwards at a faster velocity every second.

Ok whatever. Does the FE theory predict polar days/nights that occur in the polar regions ?

Yes, except Antarctic days.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 03, 2007, 08:52:43 PM

If a ball is thrown upward, it travels upward at the speed of the Earth at the time thrown plus the speed you threw it.  However, because the Earth is accelerating, it catches up to it.

As soon as the ball leaves your hand, gravity acts on it immediately, decreasing its speed as gravity pulls it down.

Wait, gravity doesn't exist on the Flat Earth. 

Exactly.  And the Round Earth doesn't accelerate upwards.  So what's your point? 

Okay, I'll admit,  I was completely shut down on the Air Resistance thing. But answer this:

WHY is Earth accelerating upwards? What force compels it to do so? From a RE standpoint, the Universe rotates and spins and such due to the force of gravity, why does Earth move upwards from a FE standpoint?

They say that "dark matter" pushes it up.