Why is the Round Earth model untestable?

Chiro, if you don't stop digging you are just going to make yourself look really dim.

If it helps imagine the system (cup and water) in space.
At rest the water does not flow out as no forces are acting.
Accelerate the system in the direction of the open end and water flows out of the hole.

I'll use your own words to explain it:

There is a hole in the cup, right?  The water above that hole is not being accelerated by the cup.  Therefore, it drains out.  The water that is above the cup's bottom is still being accelerated by the cup.

Here you say the bottom water is not accelerating and the top water is. You also say that the top water is being accelerated by the cup but when I prove you wrongyou later change your mind with this quote:

The water below is accelerating the water above.  Try to fail less.

So your saying that the non-accelerating water is accelerting the water above

Try to fail less.

If you don't believe the cup in space example, or don't understand it, you need to go away and think about it before telling people who do understand physics that they don't.

The water above the hole is not being accelerated.  The water that is supported by the bottom of the cup is supporting the water above.  Due to molecular forces.

Youre avin a larf I was going to let you be but if we have to argue could you plz read from the beginning because in order to get you up to date I would have to repeat myself a lot. But just to get you thinking think about what happens try and explain why the water flows out of the cup when its travelling at the same speed as everything else. That should get you up to date.

here you say the bottom water is not accelerating and the top water is. You also say that the top water is being accelerated by the cup

Wrong, he is saying the water over the hole is not being accelerated. The water above over the bottom of the cup is being accelerated.

Ok Engineer you've decided to change your mind of physics again but thats alright because now you have to face the other side of the paradox which is FE.

I've said it before so you might want to go back and read but if the water isn't accelerating then it would be travelling at a different speed to the cup which means that when the cup is dropped they would have a different velocity. This means that the water wouldn't stay inside the cup as it falls but is does.

Youre avin a larf I was going to let you be but if we have to argue could you plz read from the beginning because in order to get you up to date I would have to repeat myself a lot. But just to get you thinking think about what happens try and explain why the water flows out of the cup when its travelling at the same speed as everything else. That should get you up to date.

What makes you think I haven't read this from the start?

Once again you have confused velocity and acceleration.

Water does not flow out of the cup when everything is traveling at the same speed.
Again think of a cup in the space shuttle. The water and cup are traveling at the same speed, but with no acceleration.
Make a hole in the cup: nothing happens.

What's cute is that he's so convinced that he's right....

at a different speed to the cup which means that when the cup is dropped they would have a different velocity. This means that the water wouldn't stay inside the cup as it falls but is does.

The water supported by the bottom of the cup is traveling at the same speed as the F'in cup!

Althalus I'll be tolerent and accept your reading disability. The Engineer said:

The water below is accelerating the water above.  Try to fail less.

I responded by saying:

So your saying that the non-accelerating water is accelerting the water above

Try to fail less.

I never said that the water below was accelerating!

I tryed to explain this to you before Engineer:

Engineer you honestly don't know FE's rules!!! Ok... I'll explain it to you:

FE believes that the Earth and every thing on it is accelerating. Acceleration =  rate of change of velocity. That means that something on the Earth has a higher velocity then something that is not eg. suspended in mid-air. That also means that if something remains on Earth longer than something that isn't it will have a higher velocity. In this case if we let the water flow and then drop the cup, the cup remains on Earth longer than the water giving it a higher velocity.

This means that the water supported by the bottom of the cup isn't traveling at the same speed as the F'in cup!

Can everyone please remember this post because I have a funny feeling that I'll have to bring it up again.

It's this kind of narcissism that leads RE theorists to FET.

That means that something on the Earth has a higher velocity then something that is not eg. suspended in mid-air.

Wrong.

Something 'suspended' in mid air has no differential velocity or it would not be 'suspended', it would be moving up or down.

Thus they have the same velocity.

You clearly haven't thought about the cup in space yet have you?

You never know Ski if you can give me a satisfactory answer I might become an FE'er.

Quote from: Chiro on June 01, 2008, 03:37:39 AM

That means that something on the Earth has a higher velocity then something that is not eg. suspended in mid-air.

Wrong.

Something 'suspended' in mid air has no differential velocity or it would not be 'suspended', it would be moving up or down.

Thus they have the same velocity.

Your correct I shouldn't have used the word suspended, I ment something in mid-air. However, your grammer correction doesn't fix anything. The truth is the cup and the water would still have different velocities.

Cup in space has nothing to do with this because we're on Earth. With your FE theory the cup and water would have a velocity when they're dropped. This wouldn't be so in space. You've just dug a hole through your flat Earth theory.

lol... It's a wonder the RE theory ever took hold...

This means that the water supported by the bottom of the cup isn't traveling at the same speed as the F'in cup!

Then the water would not be supported.

THANKYOU Engineer!!! So you agree that according to the FE theory when we drop the cup the water would not be supported.

If you do, I suddenly have developed a great respect for you!

THANKYOU Engineer!!! So you agree that according to the FE theory when we drop the cup the water would not be supported.

Right.  But neither is the cup.

What do you mean by the cup not being supported?? It is falling.

Yeah... definitely a troll.

What do you mean by the cup not being supported?? It is falling.

It is falling because it is not being...supported.

Right. But do you agree that according to the FE theory the water wouldn't remain supported inside the cup and would flow out as the cup is falling???

What do you mean by the cup not being supported?? It is falling.

Pretty much the definition of falling.

The point to the space analogy is that it allows you to think about it in a different context.
The intention is that the insight you then gain can be transferred to your example.

Saying 'suspended' is not a grammatical difference.

I am not an FE'er. I would have thought the line under my avatar would have given that away.

Right. But do you agree that according to the FE theory the water wouldn't remain supported inside the cup and would flow out as the cup is falling???

Why would it?

But do you agree that according to the FE theory the water wouldn't remain supported inside the cup and would flow out as the cup is falling???

The water would not be supported by the cup, hence the reason for the falling.  But the cup is also falling.  At the same velocity.  So therefore, no water flows out.

Cup in space has nothing to do with this because we're on Earth. With your FE theory the cup and water would have a velocity when they're dropped. This wouldn't be so in space. You've just dug a hole through your flat Earth theory.

I didn't suggest that that the cup in space should be dropped, I said "Accelerate the system in the direction of the open end".
How could you possibly read this to mean 'drop'.
This is why I suggested going away and thinking about it.

Kasroa I think your trying to be the troll. If your being serious please read from the start.

Youre avin a larf there are FE'ers who claim to be RE'ers in order to undermine the RE theory. The correct use of words in context is part of grammer so it was a grammer. The space analogy is correct but is under completely different circumstances so it doesn't really explain anything. It would be like me explaining falling through air with the analogy of sinking in water.