The origins of a flat earth...

  • 63 Replies
  • 8407 Views
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #30 on: December 29, 2007, 09:38:58 AM »
RE; hey, the worlds round, scientist have concluded through observation that this is how it happened, blah blah blah

FE; earth's flat, how it happen? whos knows.

Yup, poor logic.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #31 on: January 02, 2008, 07:23:02 PM »
Quote
RE; hey, the worlds round, scientist have concluded through observation that this is how it happened, blah blah blah

What scientists have observed the creation of the earth?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #32 on: January 02, 2008, 07:26:58 PM »


They have.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #33 on: January 02, 2008, 07:31:45 PM »
Gah. 

Creation of the universe has flaws in any theory imaginable.  This is because we cannot know the answer to what caused the universe.  You say the Big Bang caused RE, I say what caused the Big Bang?  What was there BEFORE the Big Bang?  What caused whatever was there before the Big Bang?  Et cetera, et cetera.

Neither side can perfectly explain creation, so it doesn't really matter that the FE's creation can't be perfectly explained.  It's simply an unknown.
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #34 on: January 03, 2008, 12:15:19 PM »
Quote
RE; hey, the worlds round, scientist have concluded through observation that this is how it happened, blah blah blah

What scientists have observed the creation of the earth?

they ones who came up with the accepted theory of how the universe was created, who else.
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #35 on: January 03, 2008, 12:55:44 PM »
Gah. 

Creation of the universe has flaws in any theory imaginable.  This is because we cannot know the answer to what caused the universe.  You say the Big Bang caused RE, I say what caused the Big Bang?  What was there BEFORE the Big Bang?  What caused whatever was there before the Big Bang?  Et cetera, et cetera.

Neither side can perfectly explain creation, so it doesn't really matter that the FE's creation can't be perfectly explained.  It's simply an unknown.

In science, the explanation which best predicts the current state of things, and can make a prediction about the future that is verified as correct, is considered best. Therefore RE/Big Bang is the best scientific explanation. You can't just say, "who knows?" about something, if you are trying to overturn a theory that gives a legitimate explanation.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2008, 02:02:19 PM »
In science, the explanation which best predicts the current state of things, and can make a prediction about the future that is verified as correct, is considered best. Therefore RE/Big Bang is the best scientific explanation. You can't just say, "who knows?" about something, if you are trying to overturn a theory that gives a legitimate explanation.

exactly, if we are given 2 answered to a question (creation of the world) and 1 (RE) has a explanation and and 1 (fe) dose not who are you going to accept as most credible and likely ?
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #37 on: January 03, 2008, 03:55:46 PM »
Yes, but if a theory seems in any way implausible, it cannot be used to verify another theory.  The Big Bang, to me, seems extremely implausible.  For Big Bang theory to have created the world, that would mean that the world would not have existed before the Big Bang, right?  Well, for matter to be created from nothing, an exponential source of energy would be required.  The explosion would, theoretically, have to release energy at an efficiency rate above 100%.  That is, it would have to release much more energy than its source actually provided.  Because we have no way of knowing if such is physically possible, the Big Bang theory cannot be relied on - by itself - to prove RE. 

But, just for the sake of discussion, I'm going to invent a theory.  That's right, a theory off the top of my head.  It is not commonly accepted FET, but it should go to show that it is entirely possible to come up with a theory. 

The universe was not created.  It exists in a loop, which has no beginning and no end.  It was never caused, it just is.  There are other bodies similar to Earth, but they are accelerating at the same rate as Earth and are far enough ahead in space that we cannot detect them and will never catch them.  Because there was no creation, there is no need for rhyme or reason.  Nothing resulted from the same thing, it all just exists.  This is why the Earth exists differently then many celestial bodies.

If that doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't prove anything, because the Big Bang doesn't make any sense to me.  If you can decisively disprove the idea, go ahead.  Until then, we've rendered creation as a moot point.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 04:01:49 PM by Mongrelman »
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #38 on: January 03, 2008, 04:07:31 PM »
Look, if in a maze, you can't figure out a way to get from point A to point B, that's your problem, not the mazes. Just for the sake of argument, you make a common mistake of misunderstanding time. Time and space are one, one cannot exist without the other. Asking what happened before time is about as absurd as asking what happens outside the universe. You just can't do that. It's as absurd as attempting to impose your FOR to another one, and claiming light can go at 2c.

In fact, your theory is not as absurd as you think. However, the Big Bang does make predictions, such as an expanding universe, which are confirmed. Now, the Big Bang is not entirely verified, and is unproven enough to an extent that it may need modifications. That does not mean we throw it out. Your theory makes several predictions that aren't found, which you just keep brushing off, which means your theory is untestable. Just as Newton needed modification(Einstein), so will the Big Bang. Should we have thrown away Newton if someone else created the theory that tiny invisible spiders, that were completely undetectable, were pulling us down to the Earth, and moving the planets? That is obviously a gross exaggeration but it makes my point.

EDIT: Just wanted to make a note:
Quote
The universe was not created.  It exists in a loop, which has no beginning and no end.  It was never caused, it just is.

That is, in layman's terms, part of what the Big Bang says. It has no real beginning, at least as far as time is concerned. So, funnily enough, you do agree with one of the major tenets of Big Bang.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 04:10:56 PM by fshy94 »
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #39 on: January 03, 2008, 04:18:59 PM »
Look, if in a maze, you can't figure out a way to get from point A to point B, that's your problem, not the mazes. Just for the sake of argument, you make a common mistake of misunderstanding time. Time and space are one, one cannot exist without the other. Asking what happened before time is about as absurd as asking what happens outside the universe. You just can't do that. It's as absurd as attempting to impose your FOR to another one, and claiming light can go at 2c.

In fact, your theory is not as absurd as you think. However, the Big Bang does make predictions, such as an expanding universe, which are confirmed. Now, the Big Bang is not entirely verified, and is unproven enough to an extent that it may need modifications. That does not mean we throw it out. Your theory makes several predictions that aren't found, which you just keep brushing off, which means your theory is untestable. Just as Newton needed modification(Einstein), so will the Big Bang. Should we have thrown away Newton if someone else created the theory that tiny invisible spiders, that were completely undetectable, were pulling us down to the Earth, and moving the planets? That is obviously a gross exaggeration but it makes my point.

Do me a favor, please.  Empty a room to the best of your ability.  Obviously, you cannot get rid of bacteria easily, but I mean, just empty it of all human and human-manufactured things.  Close the door, and open it again in nine months.  Will there be a newborn human baby inside?  Of course not.  There were no humans to cause a baby.  The room will still just be empty.

Nothing can be caused without a force acting to cause it.  And if, at any point, there was nothing at all, there would be no forces to act on anything.  Therefore, nothing would be caused.  There would still just be nothing.  Logic tells us that if there is nothing, there will never be anything.  And since there is something now (a universe), I have deduced that there was never nothing.  Therefore, the loop theory makes infinitely more sense than the Big Bang theory, at least to me. 

And my theory accounts for expanding universe because we are moving through a loop, therefore noticing new things as we go.  The universe will have cycled dozens of times by now, but this could be the first time the human species has been alive to experience it, so the cycle would actually appear to be expansion.

By the way, I don't really feel that my theory is absurd at all.

EDIT:

EDIT: Just wanted to make a note:
Quote
The universe was not created.  It exists in a loop, which has no beginning and no end.  It was never caused, it just is.

That is, in layman's terms, part of what the Big Bang says. It has no real beginning, at least as far as time is concerned. So, funnily enough, you do agree with one of the major tenets of Big Bang.


Fair enough.  I agree that the universe had no real beginning as far as time is concerned.  However, like you said, space cannot exist without time, so I'm taking it a step further and saying there is no beginning as far as space is concerned.  The universe was always as it is, and evolutions accounts for modern life.  I've created a theory in which something does not have to be created from nothing.  And if, in RE theory, the universe has always existed as it is, then the Big Bang isn't necessary in the first place.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 04:31:06 PM by Mongrelman »
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #40 on: January 03, 2008, 04:38:12 PM »
But you are using the rules within the universe to attempt to describe its beginning. It's sort of hard to picture.  You see, Big Bang theory is woefully incomplete, which is why I can't answer those questions. Many have asked your questions, and the debate rages today. Why? Because it requires us to unify Einstein's greatest achievements without him, Quantum Theory and General Relativity. And the two don't play very well together. Such a unification would explain almost all of the age old questions, leading them to be called the "Theories of Everything." Until then, however, science is not an everything or bust process. Theories that are currently accepted are allowed to not explain phenomena provided that it explains more phenomena better than any existing theories. FE gives us a blank look on everything. RE gives us a complete explanation of the creation of the Earth, and the solar system, and the galaxy, but only gives us a partial explanation of the creation of the universe. Which is better, scientifically? I vote for RE. You?
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #41 on: January 03, 2008, 04:44:03 PM »
Theories that are currently accepted are allowed to not explain phenomena provided that it explains more phenomena better than any existing theories. FE gives us a blank look on everything. RE gives us a complete explanation of the creation of the Earth, and the solar system, and the galaxy, but only gives us a partial explanation of the creation of the universe. Which is better, scientifically? I vote for RE. You?

What does FE give you a blank look on?  Maybe I can help.

But, I disagree with you.  Because RE says that the solar system and the galaxies and the planet Earth are all a result of the Big Bang.  And the Big Bang cannot perfectly explain the issue at it's very core: the creation of the universe.  According to Big Bang Theory, the universe was created.  I cannot logically believe that something was created from nothing, so I cannot logically believe Big Bang Theory.  Therefore, I'm not exactly likely to trust it to explain everything else when it all still boils down to something from nothing.

I mean, really.  If you cannot trust it to explain why the universe exists in the first place perfectly, how can you trust it to explain things in that universe?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 04:47:21 PM by Mongrelman »
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #42 on: January 03, 2008, 05:01:23 PM »
I have heard no explanation of how a flat earth evolved. Gravity would pull all the objects into a sphere.

The Big Bang is woefully incomplete, I said so myself. That said, so is gravity. We have not yet discovered the graviton. Yet our current theories of gravity, while incomplete, explain many things, and lend support to many theories. It's sort of the same thing. You are probably right(in fact, I agree with you) that the Big Bang theory seems very wrong. It is my belief that it will need modification. Yet, if we throw it out, we have to explain the known expansion of the universe, which would be tricky. In fact, you are not only excusable to doubt Big Bang, you are RIGHT to doubt it. That makes a good scientist.

However, as a scientist, you also must acknowledge the fact that it explains things a helluva lot better than most theories. From there, you must say that we also know certain things. One, by way of astronomic observations, we know about nebulae, the formation of stars and planets, and so on. The Big Bang does connect well to this evidence. Secondly, we know the universe is expanding. The Big Bang connects well to that. There are also(you have stated some of them) problems with Big Bang. These must be addressed, but then, so did odd effects that Newton did not predict.

FE gives a severe blank look on the formation of the planet(not really knowing how the Earth became flat despite gravity), a larger blank look on how our solar system doesn't crash into one another, and doesn't say anything about the universe's formation. It's sort of "I dunno?" vs "Look, all of this theory doesn't tally, but this evidence supports this. However, these are the problems." I just prefer a theory with flaws to vague speculation that doesn't work. You can't not have a theory, and stand in the peanut gallery pointing at flaws in someone else's theory. You've got to have one of your own, that can be poked at just as hard.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #43 on: January 03, 2008, 05:11:49 PM »
I have heard no explanation of how a flat earth evolved. Gravity would pull all the objects into a sphere.

The Big Bang is woefully incomplete, I said so myself. That said, so is gravity. We have not yet discovered the graviton. Yet our current theories of gravity, while incomplete, explain many things, and lend support to many theories. It's sort of the same thing. You are probably right(in fact, I agree with you) that the Big Bang theory seems very wrong. It is my belief that it will need modification. Yet, if we throw it out, we have to explain the known expansion of the universe, which would be tricky. In fact, you are not only excusable to doubt Big Bang, you are RIGHT to doubt it. That makes a good scientist.

However, as a scientist, you also must acknowledge the fact that it explains things a helluva lot better than most theories. From there, you must say that we also know certain things. One, by way of astronomic observations, we know about nebulae, the formation of stars and planets, and so on. The Big Bang does connect well to this evidence. Secondly, we know the universe is expanding. The Big Bang connects well to that. There are also(you have stated some of them) problems with Big Bang. These must be addressed, but then, so did odd effects that Newton did not predict.

FE gives a severe blank look on the formation of the planet(not really knowing how the Earth became flat despite gravity), a larger blank look on how our solar system doesn't crash into one another, and doesn't say anything about the universe's formation. It's sort of "I dunno?" vs "Look, all of this theory doesn't tally, but this evidence supports this. However, these are the problems." I just prefer a theory with flaws to vague speculation that doesn't work. You can't not have a theory, and stand in the peanut gallery pointing at flaws in someone else's theory. You've got to have one of your own, that can be poked at just as hard.

Life evolved on the flat Earth, though, which was my point.  Remember, UA produces the same effects for us as gravity would, therein providing the same conditions for evolution. 

As for Big Bang Theory being faulty, agreed.  Whether the Earth is a sphere, a disk, a moebius strip, a cube, a triangular prism or a one dimensional point, I do not support Big Bang Theory.  It just doesn't work for me.

The Earth became flat because it did not have a gravitational pull pulling it towards its center.  Accelerating upwards alone would not cause it to bend into a sphere.  It started flat, and with no gravtiational core, nothing was stopping it from staying flat.

As for the other celestial bodies not ramming into each other, most believe that they are accelerating too.  The reason they exist in different shape is, according to my theory, because they started that way and had nothing acting against their roundness.

As for not having a theory but attacking a different theory, well, I've presented my theory, so I'm safe attacking Big Bang Theory now, right?  And even if I didn't, I don't agree with you.  Modern society is thoroughly convinced that the Earth is round.  No logical scientists with any real funding are going to support FET, so we cannot afford the research it would take to decisively prove FE.  Therefore, the first step is questioning RET so that we can raise support for further experimentation.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 05:22:23 PM by Mongrelman »
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #44 on: January 03, 2008, 05:25:37 PM »
I don't think you'll find a scientist willing to waste research money(it is rare, atm), on what is generally considered proved. BTW, I like the Earth being a one dimensional point ;D.

That said, yes, YOU have provided a theory which can now be attacked, but most FE'ers don't. Your theory can be fairly easily disproved by noting that you have no real explanation for the expansion of the universe, or for this, how can the Earth not have a gravitational core? You must either deny gravitation(hard to do, given asteroid collisions and etc.), or you must explain this:

A round Earth states that gravitational force will be around the same at all points of the Earth(barring elevation differences), whereas a flat Earth states that, as the center of mass of the Earth is under the North Pole, the North Pole would have stronger gravity than that of say...South America, or Antarctica. Which could easily be measured, yet it isn't. Heck, even you or I, if we went to different locations, could calculate this with a few object drop tests to test whether the gravitational force is = 9.8 blah blah blah m/s.

I also don't think that RET needs to be questioned right now, given how tantalizingly close we are to unifying Quantum Theory and General Relativity, which would answer so much, it's hard to say what wouldn't be known about the universe. Very little. Heck, physics itself may reach the point where in order to progress, we must meld it with other sciences, like biology, or philosophy. But yeah, it does excite me a lot, and I think every penny of scientific money should be spent on research projects such as discovering the Higg's Boson, or the graviton. If we want, we can spend a little money on a simpler test, like the two I outlined, the aircraft one, and the gravity test. But no serious cash should be spent on this.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #45 on: January 03, 2008, 05:33:21 PM »
I don't think you'll find a scientist willing to waste research money(it is rare, atm), on what is generally considered proved. BTW, I like the Earth being a one dimensional point ;D.

That said, yes, YOU have provided a theory which can now be attacked, but most FE'ers don't. Your theory can be fairly easily disproved by noting that you have no real explanation for the expansion of the universe, or for this, how can the Earth not have a gravitational core? You must either deny gravitation(hard to do, given asteroid collisions and etc.), or you must explain this:

A round Earth states that gravitational force will be around the same at all points of the Earth(barring elevation differences), whereas a flat Earth states that, as the center of mass of the Earth is under the North Pole, the North Pole would have stronger gravity than that of say...South America, or Antarctica. Which could easily be measured, yet it isn't. Heck, even you or I, if we went to different locations, could calculate this with a few object drop tests to test whether the gravitational force is = 9.8 blah blah blah m/s.

I also don't think that RET needs to be questioned right now, given how tantalizingly close we are to unifying Quantum Theory and General Relativity, which would answer so much, it's hard to say what wouldn't be known about the universe. Very little. Heck, physics itself may reach the point where in order to progress, we must meld it with other sciences, like biology, or philosophy. But yeah, it does excite me a lot, and I think every penny of scientific money should be spent on research projects such as discovering the Higg's Boson, or the graviton. If we want, we can spend a little money on a simpler test, like the two I outlined, the aircraft one, and the gravity test. But no serious cash should be spent on this.

I deny gravitation.  Asteroid collisions occur because when an object breaks off from a celestial body, it is no longer in contact with the force that was accelerating celestial bodies, so it stops accelerating and crashes into whatever catches up to it first.  Yes, this does sound a bit far fetched, but you have to keep in mind:  I'm limited to making up ideas on the spot because scientists won't fund my experimentation.  I can't know the answer without funding, so I have to speculate.

Which is why I mention funding in the first place.  RE theory may seem more complete, but that's because all time in the technological era has been spent researching RE.  None of it has been spent questioning RE.  I've never had access to the technology required to make my theories more complete.  If you want to fund me, I'll gladly go find the answers for you.

Think about it.  If, if, the Earth is flat, then all the time we are spending on researching RE is going to waste.  If the Earth is, indeed, flat, we should be spending our funds trying to figure out the answers to the questions about it.  Like you said, the maze makes sense, we just haven't figured out how yet, and we cannot be expected to while alternate theories are bogarding the technology for experimentation. 
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 05:40:05 PM by Mongrelman »
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #46 on: January 03, 2008, 05:43:02 PM »
Then how do you explain a college experiment that does prove gravitation. It's sort of long winded, but it involves two metal balls, and they gravitationally attract each other, which is just measurable. How does that happen? That one, actually is done, on many college campuses. Of course, I've haven't done the experiment myself, but I know people who have...explanation?

EDIT: I also wanted to note that, while a lot of FE'ers mention the "research assuming RE" phenomenon, I would like to point out that such research would produce many contradictory findings that would easily lead to a FE. Seismic research(read the geologist thread for more on that, I can't retype everything there), and so on indicates a round earth, something that would have to be explained very very well by any FE'er. So far I've been getting a lot of waffling by FE'ers. You at least seem to try to provide theories, but they hold very little water.

However, I do like this discussion, and of course, there is the very very dim possibility that an FE exists, with the conspiracy, odd effects, and so on.. I just find RE far more probable, and my best guess is that the probability of FE is about 1*10^-15. Pretty low.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 05:47:36 PM by fshy94 »
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #47 on: January 03, 2008, 05:47:00 PM »
Replicate it or it didn't happen. 

... Yeah, I'm kidding.  I have tried something similar with wooden balls, though, and noticed no gravitation.  Might have something to do with the minute magnetic fields of the metal.  But I'd really need to be able to see the details of the experiment in order to speculate.  Can you link me, please?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 06:04:24 PM by Mongrelman »
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #48 on: January 03, 2008, 05:51:35 PM »
PM cwolfe. He knows more about it than I do. Lemme give you the wiki link though. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Really, the reason you can't measure it is because
1. Your balls are too small, and
2. The effect is too small to measure visually. and
3. Friction.

All three of which are nasty.

I'm pretty sure that cavendish amplifies the effect. and the two balls are supposed to be lead, which is non-magnetic.

Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #49 on: January 03, 2008, 06:06:28 PM »
PM cwolfe. He knows more about it than I do. Lemme give you the wiki link though. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Really, the reason you can't measure it is because
1. Your balls are too small, and
2. The effect is too small to measure visually. and
3. Friction.

All three of which are nasty.

I'm pretty sure that cavendish amplifies the effect. and the two balls are supposed to be lead, which is non-magnetic.

I'm not going to pretend to be able to explain that, honestly.  When I'm stumped, I'm stumped.  It doesn't change my mind on anything, I just need to do some research on it.  See if I can't get on a campus where the Cavendish is being performed.  Until then, I am personally willing to count that as a point against my theory.  But, like I said, I need to do more research before I can account for it. 
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #50 on: January 03, 2008, 06:11:23 PM »
If you do get the chance, can you take a camera? I'd love to see how this experiment is done as well.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #51 on: January 03, 2008, 06:14:59 PM »
If you do get the chance, can you take a camera? I'd love to see how this experiment is done as well.

If they'll let me, certainly.  I tried a simple youtube search with no real results showing it actually happening, but I'd rather experience it first hand anyway.  I'll let you know.  Anyway, yeah, this is a flaw in my theory, at least for now.  But again, I might be able to explain this inconsistency after I've done some research.  Might not.  Might need to refine my theory.  But, that's what science is about anyway, isn't it?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 06:17:20 PM by Mongrelman »
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #52 on: January 03, 2008, 06:15:56 PM »
Exactly. That's science, eh?  ;D
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #53 on: January 03, 2008, 06:25:27 PM »
Sorry to double post, but I found a video of it being done... You'll need the divx player to view it, they've only used that codec...

http://www.mediafire.com/?0v2etnmymmg

That's the link. Download it, and you can try it. Oh, and if I were you, I'd do a virus scan of it just in case, never know what the hell happens. I did it on my end, but you never know what happens...
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #54 on: January 03, 2008, 06:37:16 PM »
Sorry to double post, but I found a video of it being done... You'll need the divx player to view it, they've only used that codec...

http://www.mediafire.com/?0v2etnmymmg

That's the link. Download it, and you can try it. Oh, and if I were you, I'd do a virus scan of it just in case, never know what the hell happens. I did it on my end, but you never know what happens...

Went there, clicked download.  Windows Media Player immediately opened, loaded for about two seconds, and then told me it couldn't play the file.   :-\

In any case, secondary theory to be used in tandem with looping universe theory:

Because everything has just always existed without a design, nothing was caused by the same effect.  Nothing was caused at all, it just always was.  Without a universal cause, not all things are going to be bound by the same laws of existence.  Some celestial bodies and some materials could have gravitational cores while others, theoretically, didn't.  As it applies to universal acceleration, that'd mean the celestial bodies that we can observe as round do have gravitational cores, thus their roundness.  But Earth, and any other flat bodies accelerating ahead or behind us and out of our range of detection, could exist without haivng their own gravitational core.  And then the Cavendish experiment is explained by the possibility that the materials used for the experiment do not originate on Earth.  Whereever they originated did have a gravitational core, thus materials that broke off and collided with Earth could have gravitation while the Earth does not.

Again, far fetched, I know.  It's obviously total speculation and guessing.  But if you asked "what caused this", the fact that the universe wasn't caused really is a valid answer, so this idea is theoretically possible, even if unlikely.
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #55 on: January 03, 2008, 06:40:51 PM »
You need the Divx Video Player. Windows media player can't. Blasted *******'s have used a proprietary compression codec.

You're theory has a few problems, namely that strictly, nothing came from the Earth, and that the materials used in the experiment are easily repeatable with materials mined from the Earth. I know you acknowledge its unlikeliness, but I felt obligated to point these out :D Also, you're some have gravity, some don't argument, doesn't hold much water because all other celestial bodies exhibit gravitation. Either the Earth is the only example in the universe of this material, or...we're round. Just felt obligated ;D
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #56 on: January 03, 2008, 06:45:57 PM »
You need the Divx Video Player. Windows media player can't. Blasted *******'s have used a proprietary compression codec.

You're theory has a few problems, namely that strictly, nothing came from the Earth, and that the materials used in the experiment are easily repeatable with materials mined from the Earth. I know you acknowledge its unlikeliness, but I felt obligated to point these out :D Also, you're some have gravity, some don't argument, doesn't hold much water because all other celestial bodies exhibit gravitation. Either the Earth is the only example in the universe of this material, or...we're round. Just felt obligated ;D

According to this theory, the Earth existed seperate from the other stuff, so some stuff does come from the Earth.  But the material for the Cavendish could have impacted with the Earth billions of years ago, so mining it from the Earth wouldn't prove that it was a part of what Earth originally was. 

And about the Earth being the only thing without gravitation in the universe, I've already specified that there could be similar bodies that are outside of our range of detection.  We'd never notice them if they were accelerating at the same rate as us in the same direction.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 06:50:40 PM by Mongrelman »
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #57 on: January 03, 2008, 07:00:10 PM »
True, but Cavendish can be done with nearly any heavy material. It seems like dodging, which, you pretty much acknowledge it is. What separates non-gravitic materials from gravitic ones(I made that word up). There is no known difference, and it ought to be testable, as it ought to be that the material that mainly makes up the Earth, which is...I'm not sure, but I think a combo of iron, silicon, oxygen, and magnesium, those materials ought to fail Cavendish. It may be expensive, but I think surely someone would test these objects in Cavendish, and it ought to work. Iron almost certainly will work. It's a little tough to get around, this Cavendish experiment. :D
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Mongrelman

  • 701
  • Blasphemy!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #58 on: January 03, 2008, 07:05:09 PM »
With my particular theory, it is a bit difficult, yes.  But, as we've agreed, science is about refinery, so I still need to do more research. 

Honestly, you should make a questions and clarification topic asking for explanation on the Cavendish.  I'd like to see the responses you get.  I'll continue to work on refining my model, but I'm sure we can agree that it isn't an overnight process.  :)
NOTICE:
I believe the Earth is round, and anything I say that suggests the contrary is stated for the spirit of debate.

Also, Viscount Dead Kangaroo > You.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The origins of a flat earth...
« Reply #59 on: January 03, 2008, 07:09:10 PM »
We do agree about refining your theory. However, the thing is that most FE'ers don't really advance a coherent theory, like I said, they create an amalgam of theories to fit each attack, but that contradict each other... Some people believe in gravitation, others don't, some believe in rotation of a flat Earth, some don't, etc. It's hard to attack a theory which doesn't really exist... I'm probably going to get the response that gravity exists to that thread, and when I point out the discrepancy in gravity, I'll get no answer...that's what happened last time I brought it up. Oh, right, actually I got Tom Bishop saying "because it does"...does that count?
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!