# Metors and such.

• 25 Replies
• 4671 Views
?

#### NTheGreat

• 1019
##### Metors and such.
« on: December 11, 2007, 04:13:13 AM »
How does the FE model explain the presence of metors and evidence of past meteorite strikes?

in the RE model, it's fairly simple. Earth's drifting around the sun at a fairly brisk 30km/s, so any small bits of rock it encounters are going to be moving a fair bit faster than terminal velocity (We even have reliable predictions of when metor showers are going to occur, based on when the orbit of the earth intersects comet trails). As they enter the Earth's atmosphere, they're going to slow down a lot, converting all that speed into friction induced heat, burning up and leaving a glowing trail across the sky. Meteorites are much the same, except they don't completely burn up and end up leaving an impact crater instead.

This doesn't really work on a FE model though. After about 4.6 billion years of accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, We're going at an unpleasantly large fraction of the speed of light. Thus, anything that we encounter is, relative to us, going to me moving with a very, very large amount of energy.

Some quick calculations show that if you take a 10 gram lump of rock, provide it with the energy it would get from being accelerated at 9.8 m/s^2 for 4.6 billion years (what it would be  doing, relative to the earth), and then work out it's kinetic energy, it comes out at about 1 * 10^34 J, or the equivalent of 5 * 10^ 16 Tsar bombs (50,000,000,000,000,000).

And that's from 10 grams of rock.

This shows that nothing's going to be coming from space, and anything that we or NASA puts up there isn't going to move fast enough to burn up. So what is the FE explanation of such things?

• 17693
• President of The Flat Earth Society
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2007, 04:31:59 AM »
They work the same in my model.

In UA however, even the meteors etc will be accelerated.  Relative to us they will not be travelling relativistic speeds.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

#### divito the truthist

• The Elder Ones
• 6903
• Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2007, 04:33:30 AM »
If we take into account the idea of having the Earth as a result of the Big Bang (shot upwards), any meteors and such we encounter would just be rocks above us traveling slightly slower than 9.8m/s2.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

#### NTheGreat

• 1019
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2007, 07:21:35 AM »
You could have meteors traveling along with the flat earth, but that wouldn't explain why you get higher frequencies of them at certain times of the year, why they seem to radiate out of a single point in the sky, and why they only occur after 11PM based on where you are on the planet.

As for everything being blasted out of a single point by the Big Bang, it doesn't really fit the concept of the Big Bang. The Big Bang wasn't really an event that caused everything to explode out of a single point, it was more of an event that caused everything to exist everywhere, without providing it all with an initial velocity. I also question the idea of the Big Bang being responsible for the creation of the FE universe, as the evidence for the Big Bang in the FE model would be different to what we've observed.

I'm also a little skeptical of the idea of the universe being completely saturated in dark energy, aside from the little bubble in which we exist. Indeed, I've heard about all the things such as a bow-shock of dark energy, dark energy not interacting with the matter we are made of and such, but I still feel that there's aspects that don't work. That, however, is discussion for another thread.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2007, 08:53:10 AM »
Some quick calculations show that if you take a 10 gram lump of rock, provide it with the energy it would get from being accelerated at 9.8 m/s^2 for 4.6 billion years
Care to provide us with these calculations?  I can just about guarantee they are wrong.

Quote
they only occur after 11PM based on where you are on the planet.
I didn't realize meteors had such nice watches with the time zones and DST provided with them.

Quote
The Big Bang wasn't really an event that caused everything to explode out of a single point, it was more of an event that caused everything to exist everywhere, without providing it all with an initial velocity.
Is that your version of the Big Bang?

Quote
I'm also a little skeptical of the idea of the universe being completely saturated in dark energy
You don't even believe you own scientists now?

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### Xulfaeon

• 98
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2007, 09:11:09 AM »

Quote
they only occur after 11PM based on where you are on the planet.

Wait, are you saying meteor showers can only be seen after 11pm? Maybe I'm not understanding this right, but I know I've seen meteor showers take place before 11pm. Or did I just read that wrong?

?

#### cpt_bthimes

• 553
• exposer of lies
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2007, 09:29:46 AM »
Quote
they only occur after 11PM based on where you are on the planet.
I didn't realize meteors had such nice watches with the time zones and DST provided with them.

well they do.  [to continue with the anthropomorphicization (word?) of your rhetorical question.]  that's because the meteors are only visible to the intersection of 1] the dark hemisphere of the earth, and 2] the hemisphere facing the earth's orbital vector (thus facing the debris it's moving into).  which works out to about a quarter of the earth.  strictly speaking, that means after midnight, but it's more fuzzy than that given an atmosphere and gravity to catch strays that would otherwise just miss.

and is a pretty compelling case for a re.  (good one, nthegreat.)

Quote
The Big Bang wasn't really an event that caused everything to explode out of a single point, it was more of an event that caused everything to exist everywhere, without providing it all with an initial velocity.

Is that your version of the Big Bang?

i have to agree with you on this, theengineer.  while not necessarily wrong [that sounds like the "brane" hypothesis], it isn't currently the most commonly accepted model of the big bang.  which doesn't prove or disprove anything, other than maybe he should have stated which theory he was referring to.

Quote
I'm also a little skeptical of the idea of the universe being completely saturated in dark energy
You don't even believe you own scientists now?

it's not a matter of belief.  i don't believe "my own" scientists either.  plus, i too am skeptical of the dark energy hypothesis.  we all should be.  of *all* hypothesis.  belief kills.  and let's be clear, that's all it "dark energy" is - a hypothesis.  it is nothing more than a placeholder for a future theory to explain exceptionally subtle observational evidence - which may be wrong - that hints that universal expansion may be accelerating.  not a single scientist actually doing the research or writing the papers have claimed otherwise.  if you think it is being advertised as fact or a solid theory, then you've been listening to too many lay scientists either here, or on good morning america.

(though i'm sure you are more sophisticated than that...i also think you already understand exactly what i am saying but are just playing "trivial devil's advocate"...poking holes in minor gloss-overs that few would find fault with, made for the sake of moving on to bigger points...)

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2007, 09:38:03 AM »
that's because the meteors are only visible
The statement said nothing of them being visible.

Quote
if you think it is being advertised as fact or a solid theory
I don't recall saying anything of the kind.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

#### Gabe

• 485
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2007, 07:14:03 PM »
Why do asteroids hit us at all? Outside the earth bubble (keeping us accelerated only by earth) the asteroids would be accelerating away just like Earth because the UA affects them.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2007, 07:41:42 PM »
They get in our way.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

#### Optimus Prime

• 1148
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2007, 07:50:57 PM »
They get in our way.

That was my first thought - however, since it was brought up I started to think about this a little more.

Since we've discussed that the earth, *and* it's celestial bodies are all accelerating upwards, what cause is there for anything (be it meteors, comets, what have you) to be traveling an irregular "orbit" and be able to 'decellerate' to the point that we would intercept it as it got in our way?

I'm asking this as a serious question that you can probably answer... I'm just scratching my head on this one. If you don't mind, let me know what 'celestial' theory you use. (i.e. gears, etc. - there's a few different ones at this point)

Thanks!
OP
Dyslexics are teople poo!

?

#### cpt_bthimes

• 553
• exposer of lies
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2007, 09:42:54 PM »
that's because the meteors are only visible
The statement said nothing of them being visible.

not sure what you mean here.  but i do see and will volunteer that the statement, by itself, isn't accurate or meaningful - but i'm pretty confident you know what i meant though.  you are no tom bishop.

Quote
if you think it is being advertised as fact or a solid theory
I don't recall saying anything of the kind.

didn't suggest you did, or intend to suggest you did.  not everything i write has to be in direct response to something you said.  it was an attempted preemptive strike against what i anticipated as a rebuttal, to save myself some time.  e.g. "well then why did [some layman's show or publication] say otherwise?"  looks like i didn't save much time.  (though we'll never know...only the parallel universe in which the coin i flipped turned up heads rather than tails on whether to make the rebuttal will know.)

?

#### Loard Z

• 4680
• Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2007, 11:18:07 PM »
What the hell is a Metor?
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

#### Optimus Prime

• 1148
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2007, 11:26:38 PM »
Dyslexics are teople poo!

?

#### Loard Z

• 4680
• Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2007, 11:28:27 PM »
Wow - and they attempt to disprove Flat Earth how?
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

#### Optimus Prime

• 1148
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2007, 12:24:09 AM »
Maybe if you pass each theory through one, it *actually* scans them and tells you which one is right. It's a conspiracy claiming it's nothing more than a simple metal detector but in reality it can do quantum calculations and abstract functions that allow it to perceive and formulate answers based on proposed theories as one walks through. LOL

Dyslexics are teople poo!

?

#### Loard Z

• 4680
• Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2007, 12:25:34 AM »
LOL!
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

#### NTheGreat

• 1019
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2007, 01:46:44 AM »
Quote
Care to provide us with these calculations?  I can just about guarantee they are wrong.

In retrospect the maths used probably was a little shoddy. I expect you might be able to halve the number of zeros. All I ended up doing was taking Ek = 1/2 * m * v2, and v = u + a * t, and combining them to end up with Ek = 1/2 * m * ( a * t )2.

At the time I was unable to find the relativity formula for calculating velocity based on constant acceleration, so I just threw together something to translate acceleration directly into energy. I was hoping that Newtonian formulas would be suitable, as the velocity just cancels out and the excessive speeds you end up with would be ignored, but it seems that people think this is not the case. Personally I expect that in the end the exact figure wouldn't matter too much anyway, as it's still going to have a vast amount of energy after having the equivalent energy of being accelerated at 9.8g for 4.6 billion years.

It probably wasn't a particularly good idea to base it on Newtonian physics based of the fact that Newton is such a taboo here. Do you have a relativity equation that allows someone to simply plug in a and t, and get v back?

Quote
Is that your version of the Big Bang?
Perhaps it is. It's the one that seems most logical to me, as a big bang which created space everywhere and all matter and energy at a single, infinitely dense point, would just, as far as I'm aware, collapse into a black hole. An event where a non-zero volume of space is created which is filled with a very high, but not infinitely dense mix of energy and matter could expand out to a point where it would not collapse in on itself. Perhaps it is flawed, but it is my current understanding of the state of the universe when it came into being.

Quote
You don't even believe you own scientists now?
I was referring to the FE concept of dark energy, a substance that accelerates objects in a certain direction continually. I don't have too much problem with the idea of RE dark energy, which increases the rate of expansion of the space in between two objects without acceleration either object. Although I am a little skeptical of the evidence for it, as estimating the likely spectrum of distant galaxies is difficult and probably based a lot around guesswork, and the only real evidence of it is the redshift of those galaxies.

Quote
What the hell is a Metor?
I meant Meteor. A small spelling mistake on my part. I apologize for any confusion it may have caused.

• 17693
• President of The Flat Earth Society
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2007, 04:18:02 AM »
The acceleration relative to us of meteors is not 0.  They are also not moving away.  They can still be accelerated by UA and this be true.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

#### divito the truthist

• The Elder Ones
• 6903
• Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2007, 04:41:23 AM »
If we take into account the idea of having the Earth as a result of the Big Bang (shot upwards), any meteors and such we encounter would just be rocks above us traveling slightly slower than 9.8m/s2.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

#### Gabe

• 485
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2007, 04:48:28 AM »
If we take into account the idea of having the Earth as a result of the Big Bang (shot upwards), any meteors and such we encounter would just be rocks above us traveling slightly slower than 9.8m/s2.
And the Moon and Sun are accelerated by the UA, yet they do not get "in our way". Asteriods would be accelerated at the same rate, thus never 'falling' to Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.

?

#### NTheGreat

• 1019
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2007, 09:37:21 AM »
Quote
If we take into account the idea of having the Earth as a result of the Big Bang (shot upwards), any meteors and such we encounter would just be rocks above us traveling slightly slower than 9.8m/s2.

Only real problems I can see with this are:
• If the rocks were going slower that us after the big bang, how did they get ahead of us?
• If the rocks were ahead of us after the big bang, what caused them to slow down?

• 17693
• President of The Flat Earth Society
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2007, 03:09:22 PM »
The works of Charles Fort show us the intriguing idea that most of what falls from the sky comes from earth.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

#### cpt_bthimes

• 553
• exposer of lies
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2007, 03:19:03 PM »
The works of Charles Fort show us the intriguing idea that most of what falls from the sky comes from earth.

i looked him up on wikipedia.  skimming the article (too long for time to read), i didn't see anything about this.  i could have easily missed it though.  care to summarize the idea in a sentence?

he was quoted as saying this: "I believe nothing of my own that I have ever written." (though the supporting context doesn't seem to be as bad as that sounds - i think it was more a commentary on the concept of belief.)

the article also said: Wilson suspects that Fort took few if any of his "explanations" seriously, and notes that Fort made "no attempt to present a coherent argument".  i don't know who wilson is, maybe a volleyball.

at any rate, i am genuinely interested in hearing the basic thrust of his idea.

• 17693
• President of The Flat Earth Society
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2007, 05:12:33 PM »
Alot of his writings are like things out of the x-files.  They are on sacred texts if you wish to read them, but they can be a long long horrible read with only occasional "oh thats neat" moments.

He documented alot of weird weird stuff that was reported to happen in newspapers etc such as manna falling from the sky, raining frogs, rocks falling from the sky, etc.  However now and then you will get some very creepy things that give shivers to your skin or goosepimples.

It seems part of his goal was more to point out how little science really tells us and how we put so much faith in it.

More to the point, he talks in many places about meteors and rocks falling from the sky actually being found out to be from earth from various phenomenon as well as many reported "meteors" being impossible to be meteors etc.

Reading his work is most definitely to be taken with a grain of salt, however I don't believe he made any of it up; he just reported it and gave some interesting side notes.  That of course doesn't mean it wasn't made up...

He also has an underlying theme of underdetermination which is obviously relevant to discussions of a flat earth =-).
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 05:15:41 PM by Username »
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

#### cpt_bthimes

• 553
• exposer of lies
##### Re: Metors and such.
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2007, 05:51:58 PM »
Alot of his writings are like things out of the x-files.  They are on sacred texts if you wish to read them, but they can be a long long horrible read with only occasional "oh thats neat" moments.

He documented alot of weird weird stuff that was reported to happen in newspapers etc such as manna falling from the sky, raining frogs, rocks falling from the sky, etc.  However now and then you will get some very creepy things that give shivers to your skin or goosepimples.

It seems part of his goal was more to point out how little science really tells us and how we put so much faith in it.

More to the point, he talks in many places about meteors and rocks falling from the sky actually being found out to be from earth from various phenomenon as well as many reported "meteors" being impossible to be meteors etc.

Reading his work is most definitely to be taken with a grain of salt, however I don't believe he made any of it up; he just reported it and gave some interesting side notes.  That of course doesn't mean it wasn't made up...

He also has an underlying theme of underdetermination which is obviously relevant to discussions of a flat earth =-).

sounds like my kind of reading, as far as pseudoscience that doesn't take itself too seriously goes.  i also have a distrust of mainstream media, *especially* when it comes to science reporting.  because they almost always fuck it up, and blow tiny little temporary hypothesis reported in little published papers all out of proportion into earth-shaking "certainties of existence".  which invariably wind up being wrong (statistically speaking) anyway. it's no wonder the lay public thinks science as a human endeavor is no more deserving of interest or public funding than, say, homeopathy or astrology.  it's not science that's flawed.  it's just a formalized and historically productive method of inquisition.  it's the interpretation and presentation of its outcomes that are more often than not, flawed.  not to mention the hero worship that plagues mankind but has no useful purpose in the scientific community.  i can't even stand opening discover magazine, and i'm not even a scientist, by a long shot.
* cpt_bthimes started