Unanswered questions...

  • 257 Replies
  • 50538 Views
?

elgatofilo

  • 189
  • Have some tap water... on me.
Unanswered questions...
« on: May 19, 2008, 07:05:13 AM »
I've read through the FAQ, and the incredibly long thread attempting to explain gravity on a discworld, but have quite a few issues with the answers presented:

1. Applicaton of special relativity to an ever accelerating Earth:
In the example given, I saw a poor applcation of frame of reference in the example given. According to the theory of Special Relativity, it is true their is no "main frame of reference", but all frame of references are equally correct and must be causally related to each other.
To put into perspective why your example violates causality, you must first understand the basic tenements:

- The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant: it is a ratio derived from several other measured constants such as the permeability of free space. Frame of reference is not applicable because it is a constant, if I'm travelling at the speed of c, the speed of light in a vacuum will still be c. The whole point of the universal constants is they are just that, constants, and are exactly the same for ALL frames of reference, regardless of their relative velocity. To put it into a perspective that would fit your flawed frame of reference model, a photon would act as a universal frame of reference. Even if it becomes impossible to measure time and distance unambigously from the other frame of references, it does not matter, whatever these values are relative to the photon are the master reference.
This is why when measuring the causal relationship of two points the light cone experiment is used. It is the only way to determine whether or not two different objects wth different frames of reference have causal relationship.
Additionally,  I have never seen a more irrelevant application of Lorentz transformation in my life. Your secondary school level of algebraic reasoning is hardly impressive. When dealing with objects in Minkowski spacetime, we must use Poincare transformations. These transformations imply that as an object continues to accelerate towards the speed of light, it will require an exponentially greater amount of energy until it requires more than an infinite amount of energy. It doesn't matter that to the frame of reference of someone inert it appears as though the object will never reach light speed, because it in fact will.
As the observer is inert, he doesn't have a moving causal horizon, this means that  eventhough the Earth would appear to slow down infinetly as it approaches light speed, it in fact is not relative to the constant c. This is simply an illusion caused by the Earth slipping out of the inert observers causal horizon, therefore the causal relationship between the inert observer and the Earth based observer is broken, and the inert observers' observations become irrelevant and wrong. However, the Earth based observers causal link to the constant c is not broken, and neither is the inert observers. Therefore, in regards to the Earth based observer, the planet is still accelerating towards the speed of light at a constant rate of acceleration this means that either of two things must happen: 

1. The Earth would continue to accelerate until the energy needed to contnue accelerating is more than infinity. It is unknown what would happen at this point, but it is generally considered an impossible situation anyways. Most likely the Earth would simply cease to accelerate and everybody would float off into space.

2. The Earth somehow breaks the speed barrier and voids causality; this would cause a causal loop where it becomes impossible to determine sequence of events from any frame of reference. To the inert observer, it would begin to appear as though the Earth is travelling back in time. This is considered mathematically unsound and therefore impossible.

2. Atmosphere:

You explained that oceans did not simply spill off the disc because of a 150ft wall sorrounding it. However you failed to explain how the atmosphere, another fluid, would be contained above the 150ft wall. I happen to live 2800m (more than 8000ft) above sea level, and am happy to report I have not yet asphixiated. Maybe you should have read the book Ringworld before makng this up.

3.Tides:

Your explanation of tides is extremely poor and shows little undertsanding of how tides work even from general wisdom viewpoint. Your wobble theory doesn't explain opposing tides that are caused by the moon's gravity's dfferential field on the ocean. The closest explanation you could give on the forums was an illogical moon/anti-moon theory that was sarcastically(and very poorly) explained by IvantheSomewha where he claimed two hemispheres acted in tandem to create the tide and opposing tide; yet he failed to explain how two moons have never been observed at the very same time. Near the equator, "boat moons" can often be observed as early as 1 PM, which would clearly conflict with a moon observed at night time at 1 AM on the opposing side.
And a combined wobble/moon theory still does not work because it would become impossible to explain when the moon happens to be on the same side as the wobble tilt, causing a double tide and no opposing tide.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2008, 07:14:41 AM »
1. The Earth would continue to accelerate until the energy needed to contnue accelerating is more than infinity. It is unknown what would happen at this point, but it is generally considered an impossible situation anyways. Most likely the Earth would simply cease to accelerate and everybody would float off into space.

More than infinity? Hah.

2. The Earth somehow breaks the speed barrier and voids causality; this would cause a causal loop where it becomes impossible to determine sequence of events from any frame of reference. To the inert observer, it would begin to appear as though the Earth is travelling back in time. This is considered mathematically unsound and therefore impossible.

Except, it would never pass the speed of light.

You explained that oceans did not simply spill off the disc because of a 150ft wall sorrounding it. However you failed to explain how the atmosphere, another fluid, would be contained above the 150ft wall. I happen to live 2800m (more than 8000ft) above sea level, and am happy to report I have not yet asphixiated. Maybe you should have read the book Ringworld before makng this up.

The 150ft Ice Wall has long since been seen as illogical. An Ice Wall of some sort is still possible and would be fine for containment of the atmosphere. As well as the other possible theories.

Your explanation of tides is extremely poor and shows little undertsanding of how tides work even from general wisdom viewpoint. Your wobble theory doesn't explain opposing tides that are caused by the moon's gravity's dfferential field on the ocean. The closest explanation you could give on the forums was an illogical moon/anti-moon theory that was sarcastically(and very poorly) explained by IvantheSomewha where he claimed two hemispheres acted in tandem to create the tide and opposing tide; yet he failed to explain how two moons have never been observed at the very same time. Near the equator, "boat moons" can often be observed as early as 1 PM, which would clearly conflict with a moon observed at night time at 1 AM on the opposing side.
And a combined wobble/moon theory still does not work because it would become impossible to explain when the moon happens to be on the same side as the wobble tilt, causing a double tide and no opposing tide.

The wobble theory is also old and unnecessary.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

elgatofilo

  • 189
  • Have some tap water... on me.
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2008, 07:27:32 AM »
1. Yes, that's sort of the point. The poincare transformations yield a result where travelling faster than light for an object of mass WILL require more than infinite energy.This is obviously considered unsound is why point 1 is impossible. If you have a problem with poincare transformations you are welcome to postulate new mathematical theories to explain the phenomena.

2 and 3: I'm glad you've learned they're llogical: so what's the answer?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2008, 07:37:13 AM »
1. Yes, that's sort of the point. The poincare transformations yield a result where travelling faster than light for an object of mass WILL require more than infinite energy.This is obviously considered unsound is why point 1 is impossible. If you have a problem with poincare transformations you are welcome to postulate new mathematical theories to explain the phenomena.

Yes, but the Earth will never pass the speed of light; Special Relativity forbids it. The transformations and their results are thus, useless.

2 and 3: I'm glad you've learned they're llogical: so what's the answer?

The answer to what? Either the atmosphere is held in by a more significant Ice Wall or one of the other theories apply.

As for tides, again, it depends on the model. One idea is that there is an anti-moon, under the Earth causing them.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

drizzlefrizzle

  • 167
  • Rubiks Cube Personal Best Time: 1 Min 38 Sec
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2008, 07:41:09 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18053.0

the moon does not exist, why do we need an anti-moon?
"my mind goes in  and  out  of focus"
The spaces between in and and and and and out are, unfortunately, incorrect.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2008, 07:44:45 AM »
That guy isn't even a real FEer. Plus, as you'll find, many people have different models for explanations of phenomena.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

drizzlefrizzle

  • 167
  • Rubiks Cube Personal Best Time: 1 Min 38 Sec
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2008, 07:49:08 AM »
That guy isn't even a real FEer. Plus, as you'll find, many people have different models for explanations of phenomena.

Correct, I am a RE'er. I just wonder how the FE'ers can argue a point when, amongst themselves, they don't actually know what they are talking about...
I guarantee that if you asked ANY RE'er a question about the existence of the moon or star placement, we would have similar if not identical answers...thats one hell of a conspiracy...nearly 6 billion all on the same brain wavelength.
"my mind goes in  and  out  of focus"
The spaces between in and and and and and out are, unfortunately, incorrect.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2008, 07:57:54 AM »
I guarantee that if you asked ANY RE'er a question about the existence of the moon or star placement, we would have similar if not identical answers...thats one hell of a conspiracy...nearly 6 billion all on the same brain wavelength.

I guess you're unaware of what a fallacy is.

And no, the conspiracy doesn't include 6 billion people.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

elgatofilo

  • 189
  • Have some tap water... on me.
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2008, 08:00:22 AM »
1. This is not the prevailing model of thought in Minkowski-Einstein spacetime.

Anyways, I'm hardly done, I have a few more questions:

4. Why is the causal horizon of the Earth spherical?
The causal horizon of the Earth as measured by Earth based instruments is spherical. If the Earth was flat, and as large as you claim it to be in relation to the universe there would be:

1. No observation of the effects of the causal horizon, that is to say: Red shift of galaxies and stars would not be observed, and no celestial bodies would have been observed slipping out of the Earth's causal horizon.

2. The causal horizon would be cylindrical, not spherical and would be impossible to see the "underside" because it would become an avoidance zone.

5.How do you explain the heavy elements?

If the sun and stars were as small as you claimed, they would be of insufficient mass to create elements heavier than carbon, yet we observe several of these elements everyday on Earth.


 

?

drizzlefrizzle

  • 167
  • Rubiks Cube Personal Best Time: 1 Min 38 Sec
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2008, 08:04:18 AM »
I guarantee that if you asked ANY RE'er a question about the existence of the moon or star placement, we would have similar if not identical answers...thats one hell of a conspiracy...nearly 6 billion all on the same brain wavelength.
I guess you're unaware of what a fallacy is.

And no, the conspiracy doesn't include 6 billion people.

EDIT:
This should've been out here

Does the conspiracy not only include those who conspire, but also those who believe and accept that conspiracy? For what is a conspiracy without mindless drones and idiots to fool?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2008, 08:18:57 AM by drizzlefrizzle »
"my mind goes in  and  out  of focus"
The spaces between in and and and and and out are, unfortunately, incorrect.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2008, 08:17:26 AM »
1. No observation of the effects of the causal horizon, that is to say: Red shift of galaxies and stars would not be observed, and no celestial bodies would have been observed slipping out of the Earth's causal horizon.

I've yet to hear anything that suggests why red shifting can't occur with a flat Earth.

If the sun and stars were as small as you claimed, they would be of insufficient mass to create elements heavier than carbon, yet we observe several of these elements everyday on Earth.

How does the mass of the sun and stars play an effect on the elements found on Earth? Are you assuming the creation of the universe is the exact same?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2008, 08:18:54 AM »
Does the conspiracy not only include those who conspire, but also those who believe and accept that conspiracy? For what is a conspiracy without mindless drones and idiots to fool?

Well, that'd be a new definition of conspiracy. But no, the conspiracy does not include those who live by fallacies.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

drizzlefrizzle

  • 167
  • Rubiks Cube Personal Best Time: 1 Min 38 Sec
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2008, 08:28:14 AM »
i never said that i was changing the definition of conspiracy. But surely, if one is to conspire, one must have a person or persons to conspire against. What is the point if you don't?
"my mind goes in  and  out  of focus"
The spaces between in and and and and and out are, unfortunately, incorrect.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2008, 08:33:40 AM »
I suppose the point in all of it is that none of the members of the world are willing conspirators. They live by fallacies and accept the given information as fact. They are apart of the conspiracy in the overall sense, if you could even phrase it that way. But by the actual definition of conspiracy, no, they are not.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

elgatofilo

  • 189
  • Have some tap water... on me.
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2008, 08:39:28 AM »
1. No observation of the effects of the causal horizon, that is to say: Red shift of galaxies and stars would not be observed, and no celestial bodies would have been observed slipping out of the Earth's causal horizon.

I've yet to hear anything that suggests why red shifting can't occur with a flat Earth.

If the sun and stars were as small as you claimed, they would be of insufficient mass to create elements heavier than carbon, yet we observe several of these elements everyday on Earth.

How does the mass of the sun and stars play an effect on the elements found on Earth? Are you assuming the creation of the universe is the exact same?


Sorry, I hadn't realized you had developed a whole new theory of physics complete with new equations and universal constants. You do realize the immense amount of work it would take to prove your theory? We're talking centuries of scientific work. I'm just trying to not throw out the baby wth the bath water and use what I've got, I have to assume that current equations and constants presented by science are correct if you provide no alternatives.

This question stands as unanswered unless you can provide the math and theory to back up that the Universe is not as described.  

I shouldn't even respond to your red shift comment as your already claiming modern physics is wrong anyways, you can't pick and choose whatever just conveniently fits into your theory and ignore everything else; that's not how science works; but here it goes:

Red shift would not be observed at the scale of universe you are talking about because the stars are 3100 miles above the Earth as according to your FAQ. The expansion of space would have an effect so negligible it would be undetectable with our instruments.

?

elgatofilo

  • 189
  • Have some tap water... on me.
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2008, 08:50:26 AM »
On a secondary note, after reading the forums a bit more, there's no way you guys are for real.

For this level of crazy you people claim to have here I'd expect creationist foaming at the mouth rants. Instead I see SA helldump style rants with everyone making fun of each other complete with titles like "truthist" and "truthiness" and posted diagrams showing sequences like "Big Bang ---> Magic ----> Flat Earth".

Are you basically just a group of people who discuss something so incredibly silly just for the fun of it?

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65294
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2008, 08:53:02 AM »
yesnomaybe
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

elgatofilo

  • 189
  • Have some tap water... on me.
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2008, 08:55:53 AM »
yesnomaybe


At least helldump has variety...and more memes.
I can't beleive I actually got fooled into posting such a longwinded response, Now I feel really dumb.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65294
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2008, 08:57:35 AM »
Its ok, happens to everyone when they first come here
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43163
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2008, 09:44:12 AM »
Well, he seems to have caught on a lot quicker than most.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

elgatofilo

  • 189
  • Have some tap water... on me.
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #20 on: May 19, 2008, 09:56:39 AM »
I have SA training. ;)
Seriously though, divito the truthist's responses are about as thorough and complete as those on SA's D&D anyways.
The only reason I beleived this is because of creationists. I dare you to read a Chick Tract and come back here and not think you guys are serious. You guys seem 10,000 times saner than Young Earth Creationists, and they're actually being serious.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2008, 10:09:06 AM »
Sorry, I hadn't realized you had developed a whole new theory of physics complete with new equations and universal constants.

FET requires no change in physics.

I shouldn't even respond to your red shift comment as your already claiming modern physics is wrong anyways

Really? Where did I claim that?

Red shift would not be observed at the scale of universe you are talking about because the stars are 3100 miles above the Earth as according to your FAQ. The expansion of space would have an effect so negligible it would be undetectable with our instruments.

The appropriate conclusion is that the stars are not 3100 miles above the Earth, and that they are accelerating slower than the Earth.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

elgatofilo

  • 189
  • Have some tap water... on me.
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2008, 10:23:24 AM »
Sorry, I hadn't realized you had developed a whole new theory of physics complete with new equations and universal constants.

FET requires no change in physics.

I shouldn't even respond to your red shift comment as your already claiming modern physics is wrong anyways

Really? Where did I claim that?

Red shift would not be observed at the scale of universe you are talking about because the stars are 3100 miles above the Earth as according to your FAQ. The expansion of space would have an effect so negligible it would be undetectable with our instruments.

The appropriate conclusion is that the stars are not 3100 miles above the Earth, and that they are accelerating slower than the Earth.


1. Yeah, except the ones where the Earth's made out of magical mass with no gravitational pull, and a 35 mile wide ball of hydrgen is sufficient to initiate nuclear fusion. 
I have a theory where the moon is made of pop rocks, when I become an astronaut and smuggle a can of coke on board... Let's just say it'll "eclipse" the 4th of july.

2. I think you meant to say they're accelerating faster than Earth; otherwise their net acceleration relative to the Earth is negative, which means they would have crashed into the Earth a long time ago.

?

eric bloedow

Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #23 on: May 19, 2008, 10:42:23 AM »
ok, so name ONE person you think IS a member of the conspiracy, and WHY you think he is!

?

elgatofilo

  • 189
  • Have some tap water... on me.
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2008, 10:46:28 AM »
As a Freemason and a Jew, I can tell you we The Illuminati, have never attempted to hide the flatness roundness of the Earth!

Stay in school and drink plenty of tap water.


*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2008, 10:50:45 AM »
1. Yeah, except the ones where the Earth's made out of magical mass with no gravitational pull

Why is it magical? Whether or not it has a pull, it isn't detected.

and a 35 mile wide ball of hydrgen is sufficient to initiate nuclear fusion.

I've never been shown any source indicating fusion having anything to do with size.

I have a theory where the moon is made of pop rocks, when I become an astronaut and smuggle a can of coke on board... Let's just say it'll "eclipse" the 4th of july.

Ah yes, mockery, the form of great argument.

2. I think you meant to say they're accelerating faster than Earth; otherwise their net acceleration relative to the Earth is negative, which means they would have crashed into the Earth a long time ago.

Red shift means they have an acceleration faster than Earth. Blue shift means their acceleration is slightly slower.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

drizzlefrizzle

  • 167
  • Rubiks Cube Personal Best Time: 1 Min 38 Sec
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2008, 10:53:19 AM »
2. I think you meant to say they're accelerating faster than Earth; otherwise their net acceleration relative to the Earth is negative, which means they would have crashed into the Earth a long time ago.

Red shift means they have an acceleration faster than Earth. Blue shift means their acceleration is slightly slower.

I think he was refering to the fact that the stars have yet to smash into the earth, not the colors phases
"my mind goes in  and  out  of focus"
The spaces between in and and and and and out are, unfortunately, incorrect.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2008, 11:00:49 AM »
I think he was refering to the fact that the stars have yet to smash into the earth, not the colors phases

Yes, they haven't crashed into the Earth yet.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

drizzlefrizzle

  • 167
  • Rubiks Cube Personal Best Time: 1 Min 38 Sec
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2008, 11:01:45 AM »
when will they?
"my mind goes in  and  out  of focus"
The spaces between in and and and and and out are, unfortunately, incorrect.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Unanswered questions...
« Reply #29 on: May 19, 2008, 11:02:16 AM »
when will they?

I don't know how fast they are accelerating. So I don't know.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good