Narc's FE Guide: The Flat Earth Model

You need a reference to calculate speed in comparison to. Such a reference as the center of the universe is impossible to calculate, unless we are the center (quite possible). In reference to ourselves, we are traveling at 0 m/s.

And again dark influx does not exist.

Some maths a monkey can do:

seconds in a year = 365 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 31 536 000

9.8 m/s^2 * 31 536 000 s = 309 052 800 m/s

C = 299 792 458 m/s

So, as you can see, we would accelerate to C in under a year. 



Would you like to alter your model?  Maybe you could dispute the speed of light? 

Perhaps you'd care to advance beyond the understanding of a monkey.

Does Narcberry actually believe this stuff?

Well, if you reject the speed of light as a limit on our speed, and you reject the relativistic effects of our mass (which incidentaly would leave the chemistry of the heavier elements unexplained) and accept that somehow we can accelerate by hte speed of light every year, this would give rise to an interesting phenomenen.

That is, as light (and all other EMR) leaves the surface of the Earth, we would equal is speed in ~1 year, and catch it up in ~2 years.  That would mean, we should be able to see an image of the Earth as it was 2 years ago, appearing at the distance of 2 light year from us.  It would also mean all radio and TV transmitions would return in about 2 years, meaning we should be able to pick up radio signals from 2 years ago. 

Perhaps you'd care to advance beyond the understanding of a monkey.

Does Narcberry actually believe this stuff?

Quote from: Robosteve on August 10, 2008, 10:50:47 AM

Perhaps you'd care to advance beyond the understanding of a monkey.

Well, if you reject the speed of light as a limit on our speed, and you reject the relativistic effects of our mass (which incidentaly would leave the chemistry of the heavier elements unexplained) and accept that somehow we can accelerate by hte speed of light every year, this would give rise to an interesting phenomenen.

That is, as light (and all other EMR) leaves the surface of the Earth, we would equal is speed in ~1 year, and catch it up in ~2 years.  That would mean, we should be able to see an image of the Earth as it was 2 years ago, appearing at the distance of 2 light year from us.  It would also mean all radio and TV transmitions would return in about 2 years, meaning we should be able to pick up radio signals from 2 years ago. 

acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity. this implies that since there can be no velocity without frame of reference, there cannot be acceleration without frame of reference. if flat earth is constantly moving at a velocity of 0m/s, then its acceleration in the same frame of reference is 0m/s^2, not 9.8m/s^2. what reference is this constant 9.8m/s^2 acceleration measured against?

I love how you fail to address the point, you cannot invent the idea that there is no point of referance, therefore you are not really exceeding the speed of light, because EM radiation is your refferance, if the speed of light was exceeded, then we would catch up to our own EM radiation. 

This does not happen because we cannot exceed the speed of light, however, it would in the FE model.   

Do you have an answer or do you need more time to think about it?  I'm sure you can come up with something, mabe you can invent some new sort of magic energy to explain it. 

I've already thought of 2 excuses. 

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 11, 2008, 04:02:05 PM

I love how you fail to address the point, you cannot invent the idea that there is no point of referance, therefore you are not really exceeding the speed of light, because EM radiation is your refferance, if the speed of light was exceeded, then we would catch up to our own EM radiation. 

This does not happen because we cannot exceed the speed of light, however, it would in the FE model.   

Do you have an answer or do you need more time to think about it?  I'm sure you can come up with something, mabe you can invent some new sort of magic energy to explain it. 

I've already thought of 2 excuses. 

The only magic needed to explain it is for you to learn special relativity.

I have, you have not, otherwise you would not be able account for relativistic mass increases.  Constant acceleration is not possible without infinite energy. 

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 12, 2008, 03:15:53 AM

I have, you have not, otherwise you would not be able account for relativistic mass increases.  Constant acceleration is not possible without infinite energy. 

Okay, explain this then:

In RET, there are billions of neutrinos passing through your body at close to light speed in many different directions every second. According to the frame of reference of one of these neutrinos, you are moving at close to light speed. So by your own reasoning, you should be completely unable to move because doing so would accelerate you past light speed in at least one of the neutrinos' frames of reference.

No, because relativity means the difference in our speeds is always light speed or less, because of time dilation and change in shape.  When i move, time travels at a different speed thus meaning the /s part of m/s is different,, also length contracts in hte direction of motion, menaing the m part changes for me as well, allowing the speed I measure the neutrinos to be at (if they are infact at light speed, although this is still unknown) to stay the same. 

The closing speed of me and the neutrino would be <c from a 3rd frame of reference. 

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 12, 2008, 05:08:07 AM

No, because relativity means the difference in our speeds is always light speed or less, because of time dilation and change in shape.  When i move, time travels at a different speed thus meaning the /s part of m/s is different,, also length contracts in hte direction of motion, menaing the m part changes for me as well, allowing the speed I measure the neutrinos to be at (if they are infact at light speed, although this is still unknown) to stay the same. 

The closing speed of me and the neutrino would be <c from a 3rd frame of reference. 

I understand how special relativity works, thanks. I was using that example to illustrate the flaw in your argument.

But how is our acceleration maintained at what we experience as a constant speed, when our mass and relative speed is constantly changing from the point of referance of our point of propulsion?  how can it continue to propel us toward light speed?

but how is this maintained from hte frame of reference for the force that is propelling us?