Question...

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

WHY is Earth accelerating upwards?

It's also unknown how/why gravity in the RE theory works.

BTW: On FE, air is not accelerating upwards, because then air would not have any weight (but a balloon filled with air has more weight than a balloon without air).

Quote from: holynapkin on October 04, 2007, 02:18:45 PM

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

WHY is Earth accelerating upwards?

It's also unknown how/why gravity in the RE theory works.

BTW: On FE, air is not accelerating upwards, because then air would not have any weight (but a balloon filled with air has more weight than a balloon without air).

(BTW) the air is accelerating upwards. The air has weight.

Quote from: holynapkin on October 04, 2007, 02:18:45 PM

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

WHY is Earth accelerating upwards?

It's also unknown how/why gravity in the RE theory works.

BTW: On FE, air is not accelerating upwards, because then air would not have any weight (but a balloon filled with air has more weight than a balloon without air).

Wrong.  The air is neutrally buoyant.  Air has no weight in air.  The air sits on top of the Earth and is accelerated.

A balloon filled with air sinks because the balloon has weight.

Okay, off of the air thing. Saying dark matter pushed Earth up is half-assed if you ask me.

Agreed

Quote from: holynapkin on October 04, 2007, 02:18:45 PM

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

WHY is Earth accelerating upwards?

It's also unknown how/why gravity in the RE theory works.

BTW: On FE, air is not accelerating upwards, because then air would not have any weight (but a balloon filled with air has more weight than a balloon without air).

It's known how gravity works. Objects follow geodesics in warped spacetime. Just because you aren't able to understand how this works doesn't mean that science hasn't explained it.

It's known how gravity works. Objects follow geodesics in warped spacetime. Just because you aren't able to understand how this works doesn't mean that science hasn't explained it.

Quantum Mechanics tells us that gravity exists as a particle called a graviton.

If we "know" how gravity works, why isn't there a Grand Unified Theory to combine these theories of bending space and gravity particles?

Why do these alternate theories of gravity exist if we "know" how it works?

This is like saying that we don't know how biology works if we haven't found all the species yet.

GR is not usurped by quantum mechanics. Just as Newtonian mechanics is correct in the realm it attempts to describe, both QM and GR are correct in their realms of validity.

Of course you probably knew that already.

Ya Tom... were not totally positive about how gravity works so the Earth most be flat.  We all know thats the only logical explination.  Congratulations your a genius.

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

My point is gravity can be proven.

This is like saying that we don't know how biology works if we haven't found all the species yet.

It's more like claiming to know for a fact that life evolves through Natural Selection, when life could very well evolve through symbiosis or genetic drift.

GR is not usurped by quantum mechanics. Just as Newtonian mechanics is correct in the realm it attempts to describe, both QM and GR are correct in their realms of validity.

In that case, the Universal Accelerator is also correct in its realm of validity. After all, if we can't disprove it, it exists.

In that case, the Universal Accelerator is also correct in its realm of validity. After all, if we can't disprove it, it exists.

No but we can prove you're a troll, as we have.

Quote

This is like saying that we don't know how biology works if we haven't found all the species yet.

It's more like claiming to know for a fact that life evolves through Natural Selection, when life could very well evolve through symbiosis or genetic drift.

Nah. Natural selection has long been proven to be part of evolution.

Quote

GR is not usurped by quantum mechanics. Just as Newtonian mechanics is correct in the realm it attempts to describe, both QM and GR are correct in their realms of validity.

In that case, the Universal Accelerator is also correct in its realm of validity. After all, if we can't disprove it, it exists.

Nah. You miss the point. GR and QM solve problems and make predictions. The UA theory doesn't make predictions and doesn't match known, verified experimental results.

After all, if we can't disprove it, it exists.

This is like saying "You can't disprove the Easter Bunny.  Therefore, it EXISTS!".

If you can't disprove it, that doesn't mean it exists.
If you can prove or can't disprove it, then it might exist.

Heh, these get intense.

So, does a Flat-Earther want to describe why the Earth is accelerating upwards?

Heh, these get intense.

So, does a Flat-Earther want to describe why the Earth is accelerating upwards?

Consult the FAQ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HERE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Nah. Natural selection has long been proven to be part of evolution.

Then perhaps you should tell me, without invoking symbiosis, how some dogs have evolved into the weak little critters they are today, entirely incapable of surviving out in the wild.

Nah. You miss the point. GR and QM solve problems and make predictions. The UA theory doesn't make predictions and doesn't match known, verified experimental results.

Sure it does. UA solves the problem of why the earth seems to accelerate into objects without invoking mysterious hypothetical undiscovered contradictory particles called gravitons. UA also falls in line with the accelerating universe.

If the stars and cosmos are detected to be accelerating, does it not follow that the earth is also accelerating?

So, does a Flat-Earther want to describe why the Earth is accelerating upwards?

Over the years this tidbit has gotten lost, but I believe the reason is that according to theory there is an ocean beyond the firmament of the earth, of which the stars and celestial bodies swim. Historically, the FE universe consists of a transparent dome above the disk of the earth called the firmament. The firmament is also known as the eighth sphere in Poltomy's geocentric model. It is the vault of the heavens, a divider between here and there, made of a substance neither fluid nor solid.

Beyond the firmament exists a vast ocean called the quintessence, containing waters described as a luminiferous substance which pervades the universe. The stars and cosmos exist here, swimming and co-existing together in their fanciful swirls and dances, forever separate from earthly existence. The Quintessence ocean is dynamic, and generally has a density and equation of state that varies through time and space.

It is through these perpetual waters that the bubble of the earth moves upwards via a form of buoyancy. The waters of the universe are endless, and so the earth continues to rise, tracked by a quintessence field which closely tracks the radiation density until matter-radiation equality.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 04, 2007, 06:47:26 PM

In that case, the Universal Accelerator is also correct in its realm of validity. After all, if we can't disprove it, it exists.

No but we can prove you're a troll, as we have.

Erroneous, spurious lies!

Quote

Nah. Natural selection has long been proven to be part of evolution.

Then perhaps you should tell me, without invoking symbiosis, how some dogs have evolved into the weak little critters they are today, entirely incapable of surviving out in the wild.

That's a meaningless question. Why would I not be able to invoke symbiosis?

Quote

Nah. You miss the point. GR and QM solve problems and make predictions. The UA theory doesn't make predictions and doesn't match known, verified experimental results.

Sure it does. UA solves the problem of why the earth seems to accelerate into objects without invoking mysterious hypothetical undiscovered contradictory particles called gravitons. UA also falls in line with the accelerating universe.

If the stars and cosmos are detected to be accelerating, does it not follow that the earth is also accelerating?

No, the Earth is not a planet, is not a star. (I just love being able to use your own logic against you. Hehe.)

So, does a Flat-Earther want to describe why the Earth is accelerating upwards?

Over the years this tidbit has gotten lost, but I believe the reason is that according to theory there is an ocean beyond the firmament of the earth, of which the stars and celestial bodies swim. Historically, the FE universe consists of a transparent dome above the disk of the earth called the firmament. The firmament is also known as the eighth sphere in Poltomy's geocentric model. It is the vault of the heavens, a divider between here and there, made of a substance neither fluid nor solid.

Beyond the firmament exists a vast ocean called the quintessence, containing waters described as a luminiferous substance which pervades the universe. The stars and cosmos exist here, swimming and co-existing together in their fanciful swirls and dances, forever separate from earthly existence. The Quintessence ocean is dynamic, and generally has a density and equation of state that varies through time and space.

It through these perpetual waters that the bubble of the earth moves upwards via a form of buoyancy. The waters of the universe are endless, and so the earth continues to rise, tracked by a quintessence field which closely tracks the radiation density until matter-radiation equality.

[/quote]Anyone see any reason to accept this wild idea? I sure don't see one bit of experimental evidence to support any part of it. Fail.

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. I see thats been answered in this thread already
2. Cos it wants to, cos it wants to
3. The goverment isn't blocking or denying access to the ice walls, only Edmunds believes in ice wall guards
4. Yes, all 14 of them believe the earth is flat now

It's known how gravity works. Objects follow geodesics in warped spacetime.

What is the mechanism?

Quote from: emailking on October 04, 2007, 04:23:40 PM

It's known how gravity works. Objects follow geodesics in warped spacetime.

What is the mechanism?

If TB is a troll. TheEngineer is a stuck record.

Quote from: TheEngineer on October 08, 2007, 07:36:18 AM

Quote from: emailking on October 04, 2007, 04:23:40 PM

It's known how gravity works. Objects follow geodesics in warped spacetime.

What is the mechanism?

If TB is a troll. TheEngineer is a stuck record.

I resent that, TheEngineer, is NOT a stuck record!

Quote

Nah. Natural selection has long been proven to be part of evolution.

Then perhaps you should tell me, without invoking symbiosis, how some dogs have evolved into the weak little critters they are today, entirely incapable of surviving out in the wild.

Your constraints on answering the question are arbitrary and meaningless.

But still, it can be done.  It's called, artificial selection.

Your constraints on answering the question are arbitrary and meaningless.

But still, it can be done.  It's called, artificial selection.

And exactly how is artificial selection not considered symbiosis?

Quote

Your constraints on answering the question are arbitrary and meaningless.

But still, it can be done.  It's called, artificial selection.

And exactly how is artificial selection not considered symbiosis?

I guess the bigger question would be, how do you find the two synonymous?  Surely you have taken a genetics 101 course where they cover such high-level ideas?  (I don't remember mine either other that that they covered these concepts...and later kept the knowledge alive thruogh reading.)

Just because we artificially select for traits in a species, doesn't mean that species "chose" the relationship or benefits as an individual and/or species from it.  That may be the case with dogs, but think a little wider, and it also doesn't need to involve mammalian megafauna.  If you are looking for a global definition, just focusing on one example by your feet is not going to divine it for you.  (Fortunately neither you nor I have to redefine either term's definition all over again.)

Quote

Your constraints on answering the question are arbitrary and meaningless.

But still, it can be done.  It's called, artificial selection.

And exactly how is artificial selection not considered symbiosis?

You haven't answered the questions I responded to this earlier with, see immediately above.  Are you dodging?

You haven't answered the questions I responded to this earlier with, see immediately above.  Are you dodging?

Artificial Selection quite obviously involves symbiosis between dog and human. Your argument has been defeated.

Stop posting.

Quote

You haven't answered the questions I responded to this earlier with, see immediately above.  Are you dodging?

Artificial Selection quite obviously involves symbiosis between dog and human. Your argument has been defeated.

Stop posting.

I am going to kill myself.  You are a fucking moron!  You look at a dog, and divine laws of nature from it.  And you obviously didn't read my rebuttal.  Here's the main bit:

Just because we artificially select for traits in a species, doesn't mean that species "chose" the relationship or benefits as an individual and/or species from it.  That may be the case with dogs, but think a little wider, and it also doesn't need to involve mammalian megafauna.  If you are looking for a global definition, just focusing on one example by your feet is not going to divine it for you.  (Fortunately neither you nor I have to redefine either term's definition all over again.)

Tom just because you think up of whacky shit with blinders on, and it makes perfect sense to you, doesn't mean that is the accepted definition.  Scientists and other smart people have spent a lot more time thinking about it than you have.  And their "opinion" doesn't match yours.  Artificial selection is not symbiosis.  The two may at times be in play for a given example--e.g. dogs and man, but one goddamned dog does not mean the terms are suddenly synonyms.

I'm done.  I can't do this anymore.  I know Tom is a troll, but nevertheless he is driving me crazy.  I cannot accept that anyone is so fucking stupid.  I can't and I won't.  I would go on a killing spree after determining that mankind doesn't deserve this planet.  Good night.

Artificial selection is not symbiosis.  The two may at times be in play for a given example--e.g. dogs and man, but one goddamned dog does not mean the terms are suddenly synonyms.

Lets consult literature and see if you are correct. The definitions for symbiosis are as follows:


1. The close association of two different organisms, in which one or both benefit from the relationship.
www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/bbb-lgb/library-bibliotheque/glossary-glossaire/index_e.asp

2. a relationship between two organisms defined as 'living together. It is not always a beneficial relationship and may be 'parasitism' where one organism feeds off of the other in a harmful way, or may be 'mutualism' where both organisms benefit.
www.hamiltonnature.org/habitats/glossary.htm

3. Symbiosis is a situation in which two dissimilar organisms live together. There are many types of symbiosis, including mutualism (in which both organisms benefit), commensalism (in which one organism benefits and the other is not affected), or parasitism (in which one organism benefits at the ...
www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/indexs8.shtml


Well gee, those sounds like elements involved in Artificial Selection to me. Again, your argument has been defeated.

Stop posting.