FE, the most inelegant theory around

  • 46 Replies
  • 9797 Views
?

einstien

FE, the most inelegant theory around
« on: May 29, 2008, 09:33:55 PM »
Okay over the past few months I've come to realize that FE is a extremely complicated theory and in order for it to work certain things unique to earth have to appear ONe such is the constant acceleration-attempt to explain gravity- (which does not truly work), the shadow object-attempt to explain eclipse, and the small size of the sun and moon-attempt to explain numerous things such as the rise and set of the sun. HOwever, each of these have their own flaws. For the sun it is impossible for the sun to undergo nuclear fusion with such little mass, for the shadow object it has never been seen and detected by any means. Finally the constant acceleration would need an infinite amount of energy and a special property so that it did not collapse in one itself.

RE on the other hand easily without any special additives can explain these. The sun is larger than 33 miles. Gravity is just bends in the fabric of space-time and eclipses are just when the sun and moon line up. In conclusion my entire point is that flat earth is to complicated and requires to much unseen and special properties to be successful while RE is simple and elegant.




*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2008, 09:35:03 PM »
Let's consider FE vs RE with an occamistic inclination:
(excuse the repeated material, I am going to keep this thread as a repository, feel free to add to it)

Gravity

FE: "the earth accelerates upwards"
RE: "a super-mysterious fabric, much like the force, that binds all things to existence bends around like it is playing twister and creates potholes where massive objects are attached, these potholes represent gravity because if you place a ball on the fabric, the ball will naturally gravitate roll down due to gravity fall into place because of gravity something but this fabric is super invisible and only comprehensible by super smart people like Einstein, which makes it true also gravitons"

Earths Heat

FE: "heat comes from beneath us"
RE: "heat comes from the sun, but the earth mostly gets heated from the inside out because light warps into the middle of earth and works it's way out. But all heat comes from the sun, except in the shade. But it's still really really hot in deep mines because they get a lot of sunlight."

Constant acceleration

FE: "We undergo constant acceleration upwards"
RE: "We undergo constant acceleration inwards, but even though the outer rim of earth is accelerating inwards it maintains it's shape because we stop accelerating when we are touching the ground, even though we still feel the force of acceleration working on us."

The oceans

FE: "The oceans stay in place because the earth is accelerating into them"
RE: "The oceans stay in place because, even though water is weightless in it's own medium, the oceans have a high pressure system of air above them that keeps the even higher pressure system of water below in place."

Global Warming

FE: "heat comes from beneath us, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would trap the heat inside."
RE: "heat comes from the sun, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would keep the heat of the sun out. Since this is not seen, global warming is actually climate change, and if anything changes it proves that both climate change happens, and the earth is round"

Earths Curve as a sum of its parts

FE: "The earth is flat, just like how it appears"
RE: "Even though the earth is flat everywhere, it is actually round due to large curvatures occurring in the earths surface in the deep unexplored areas of the ocean. This is where the curves must occur, because the earth is flat when I go outside."

Surface tension of individual water molecules

FE: "Works as demonstrated in modern journals."
RE: "Even though the fluid (gas, liquid) water molecules undergo constant gyroscopic acceleration due to the earths spin, the fact that these molecules should spin fast enough to counter their own magnetic field can be ignored because we have no theory to explain this"

Our atmosphere

FE: "it stays there because the earth accelerates into it."
RE: "As earth spins very rapidly, the atmosphere keeps from floating into space by grabbing the pertruding rods of earths merry go round very tightly."

Snowfall

FE: "It falls straight down (neglecting wind of course)"
RE: "It falls down and wedges tighter and tighter the closer to earth it gets but does not build up in higher densities at lower altitudes because of wind, and rainbow magic."

Extending planes

FE: "Neighbors can always level their homes with each other."
RE: "Neighbors cannot level their homes with each other, because that would prove that since the earth's curve is the sum of it's parts, it would be all level. So don't even try it, you will lose your home because of poor craftsmanship and you will die in a fire."

Gravitons

FE: "Don't exist."
RE: "They exist as unmeasurable, invisible, perfect things that are not matter or energy that travel at a speed defined by distance/0 and also make super-massive objects instantly change their acceleration without giving them any energy to do so."

Up

FE: "Is up."
RE: "Is up in the states, down in India, across in Belgium, forward in the antarctic, and whatever the states say in england. We have a table of conversions in the public library if that helps."

Shoe molding

FE: "Walking on a flat earth leads to flat shoe bottoms"
RE: "Yes, its true the average shoe bottom is flat. However, we are convinced that people who wear shoes do not live in the ares of the world where the earth has a curve."


Add your own! Debunking RE is E-Z!

?

einstien

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2008, 09:37:57 PM »
Narc deep mines are warm because of the core and the lava flow around it. Not to mention heat cannot escape from down their

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2008, 09:39:35 PM »
The earth is warm deep because of hot lava which is hot because the deep earth is hot because of lava?

Sounds like you have cause and effect nailed on that phenomena.

And why can't heat escape? No two atoms are in contact with each other?

?

einstien

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2008, 09:39:50 PM »
Narc that might be the most flawed piece of shit I've ever seen in my life. You obviously do not know how even the most simple things occur anyone with a high school education could prove everyone of your points wrong
« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 09:41:51 PM by Einstein »

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #5 on: May 29, 2008, 09:41:05 PM »
anyone with a high school education could prove everyone of our points wrong

Agreed.

?

einstien

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #6 on: May 29, 2008, 09:41:28 PM »
The earth is warm deep because of hot lava which is hot because the deep earth is hot because of lava?

Sounds like you have cause and effect nailed on that phenomena.
Every planet has a molten core at its center if we did not there would be no electro-magnetic field on earth and you know in order for rock to be molten it has to be pretty hot

?

einstien

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2008, 09:43:21 PM »
Oh and for water it has a high surface tension because of an hydrogen bond between the water molecules. You know from one end of a water molecule being positive and the other negative

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2008, 09:44:10 PM »
Where is Mars' magnetic field and molten core?

Tell the terraforming mars org that they no longer have to heat the core...

Water? where did that come from?

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2008, 09:53:11 PM »
Okay over the past few months I've come to realize that FE is a extremely complicated theory and in order for it to work certain things unique to earth have to appear ONe such is the constant acceleration-attempt to explain gravity- (which does not truly work)

Which part of the Equivalence Principle, stating gravity and acceleration are identical, don't you understand yet? ???

?

einstien

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2008, 09:54:32 PM »
Okay I know gravity and acceleration are the same thing, my argument is that the earth would again need and infinte amount of energy to power the acceleration of the earth

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2008, 09:55:57 PM »
Where is Mars' magnetic field and molten core?

Tell the terraforming mars org that they no longer have to heat the core...

Water? where did that come from?

Mars is geologically dead. It has a solid core(or practically anyway) and a very weak magnetic field.

The Earth's liquid core is a result of radioactive decay. Small amounts of heat are generated from tidal interactions and some is a legacy from the formation of the planet.

Generally if you go down deep enough it is quite warm.

Unfortunately for Narc, you can insulate against radiation from the ground and measure the energy coming from the Sun. Heat from the Earth's core is not what keeps the atmosphere warm, but it does keep plate tectonics active

?

einstien

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2008, 09:56:23 PM »
Where is Mars' magnetic field and molten core?

Tell the terraforming mars org that they no longer have to heat the core...

Water? where did that come from?
Mars core is solid and therefore it has a very weak magnetic field, and everyone estimates that Mars's was once molten and that it might have even sustained life. Oh and water showed up on mars the same way it did on earth

?

einstien

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2008, 09:57:02 PM »
Yay for dyno

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2008, 09:58:10 PM »
Okay I know gravity and acceleration are the same thing, my argument is that the earth would again need and infinte amount of energy to power the acceleration of the earth

Please go back to the other thread and tell me what part of this:
Quote
Note also that the body does not actually become more massive in its proper frame, since the relativistic mass is only different for an observer in a different frame.

you don't understand.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2008, 09:59:30 PM »
Every planet has a molten core at its center

Mars core is solid and therefore it has a very weak magnetic field

Aside from the obvious, you haven't decided what you want to argue yet, how does a solid core yield a magnetic field?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2008, 09:59:46 PM »
The word you were looking for was intelligent.  FE theory is the most intelligent theory around.  How ironic of you to make that mistake.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2008, 10:00:50 PM »
This thread and einstein deliver comedic gold.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2008, 10:01:50 PM »
Every planet has a molten core at its center

Mars core is solid and therefore it has a very weak magnetic field

Aside from the obvious, you haven't decided what you want to argue yet, how does a solid core yield a magnetic field?

Solid cores produce magnetic fields the same way permanent bar magnets do. Mars' field is weak and will continue to become weaker unless something happens to liquefy the core.

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2008, 11:27:50 AM »
Narcberry, youre a retard and should be put down like a suffering animal. You would easily be the stupidest person at the Special Olympics.

The Earth is round, there is no such thing as the Ice Wall, youre an idiot, go die.

That is all.

 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2008, 11:40:01 AM »
Solid cores produce magnetic fields the same way permanent bar magnets do. Mars' field is weak and will continue to become weaker unless something happens to liquefy the core.

So the core of a planet doesn't have to be liquid to have a magnetic field. I agree. Tell that to Donkey


Quote from: Donkey
Every planet has a molten core at its center if we did not there would be no electro-magnetic field on earth and you know in order for rock to be molten it has to be pretty hot
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2008, 11:47:30 AM »
The OP is on the right lines. FE theory is vastly more complicated than RE theory and is much more dependant on unclarifyable evidence such as the conspiracy, shadow object, reversal of the laws of phsyics to allow the sun to "set"...etc

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2008, 12:32:18 PM »
The OP is on the right lines. FE theory is vastly more complicated than RE theory and is much more dependant on unclarifyable evidence such as the conspiracy, shadow object, reversal of the laws of phsyics to allow the sun to "set"...etc

if only...

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #23 on: May 31, 2008, 09:17:39 AM »
What are you talking about, Narcberry? What you describe bears about as much resemblence to RET as you do to a sane and logical person.

Gravity
FE: "the earth accelerates upwards"
RE: "a super-mysterious fabric, much like the force, that binds all things to existence bends around like it is playing twister and creates potholes where massive objects are attached, these potholes represent gravity because if you place a ball on the fabric, the ball will naturally gravitate roll down due to gravity fall into place because of gravity something but this fabric is super invisible and only comprehensible by super smart people like Einstein, which makes it true also gravitons"
What you describe is the metaphor that's told to school kids because they can't understand the hard mathematics that is GR.
This point is biased. I could re-write it:

FE: The earth accelerates upwards due to some unknown force that is completely unexplained that we call "dark energy" and only goes in one direction (we will ignore conservation of momentum here) and for some reason is not constant all over the world.
RE: Objects are attracted to each other.

Earths Heat
FE: "heat comes from beneath us"
RE: "heat comes from the sun, but the earth mostly gets heated from the inside out because light warps into the middle of earth and works it's way out. But all heat comes from the sun, except in the shade. But it's still really really hot in deep mines because they get a lot of sunlight."
In RET, the Earth's internal heat comes for radioactive decay. Where does this heat come from in FET?

Constant acceleration
FE: "We undergo constant acceleration upwards"
RE: "We undergo constant acceleration inwards, but even though the outer rim of earth is accelerating inwards it maintains it's shape because we stop accelerating when we are touching the ground, even though we still feel the force of acceleration working on us."
The outer rim of the Earth is not accelerating inwards. Apart from that, your account of RET is pretty much accurate. Also, it is because of GR and the curvature of space-time.
In FET, why do we accelerate upwards continually?

The oceans
FE: "The oceans stay in place because the earth is accelerating into them"
RE: "The oceans stay in place because, even though water is weightless in it's own medium, the oceans have a high pressure system of air above them that keeps the even higher pressure system of water below in place."
Equivalence priciple: the mechanism that keeps oceans in place in FET is the same as in RET.

Global Warming
FE: "heat comes from beneath us, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would trap the heat inside."
RE: "heat comes from the sun, any reflective materials in the atmosphere would keep the heat of the sun out. Since this is not seen, global warming is actually climate change, and if anything changes it proves that both climate change happens, and the earth is round"
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect for the actual reason in RET.

Earths Curve as a sum of its parts
FE: "The earth is flat, just like how it appears"
RE: "Even though the earth is flat everywhere, it is actually round due to large curvatures occurring in the earths surface in the deep unexplored areas of the ocean. This is where the curves must occur, because the earth is flat when I go outside."
No, the Earth appears flat because it is very big, thus curvature is too small to be noticed.

Our atmosphere
FE: "it stays there because the earth accelerates into it."
RE: "As earth spins very rapidly, the atmosphere keeps from floating into space by grabbing the pertruding rods of earths merry go round very tightly."
Narcberry seems to be confusing RET with The Magic Roundabout.
Earth actually spins very slowly (angular speed of 7.3E-5 rad/s), and gravity stops it floating into space.

Snowfall
FE: "It falls straight down (neglecting wind of course)"
RE: "It falls down and wedges tighter and tighter the closer to earth it gets but does not build up in higher densities at lower altitudes because of wind, and rainbow magic."
Indeed it does become (on average) more dense as it falls, but this is effect is tiny. Snow falling from a height of 1km will be 0.03% denser at the bottom.

Extending planes
FE: "Neighbors can always level their homes with each other."
RE: "Neighbors cannot level their homes with each other, because that would prove that since the earth's curve is the sum of it's parts, it would be all level. So don't even try it, you will lose your home because of poor craftsmanship and you will die in a fire."
As above, the effect is too small to be noticed (you don't seem to realise this: the Earth is VERY BIG).

Gravitons
FE: "Don't exist."
RE: "They exist as unmeasurable, invisible, perfect things that are not matter or energy that travel at a speed defined by distance/0 and also make super-massive objects instantly change their acceleration without giving them any energy to do so."
Gravitons are still hypothetical in RET. Anyway, what authority does a FE'er have to dictate particle physics?

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2008, 09:40:23 PM »
What you describe is the metaphor that's told to school kids because they can't understand the hard mathematics that is GR.

The heart of the RE problem; Lies. More specifically, lies that are okay to teach, and okay to believe.

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2008, 07:26:01 AM »
Yes, I suppose it would be more practical to dive straight into the volumes of difficult mathematics and advanced abstract concepts straight away. That could only be beneficial for everyone's education. Anyway, I thought you FE'ers agreed with relativity?

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2008, 11:01:24 AM »
Narc has a point.  Universal linear acceleration is much more elegant than either GR or gravitons.

Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2008, 03:00:29 PM »
No, UA is a simplification to the point of absurdity. You might as well summarise gravity as "things attract each other", which sounds nice and elegant on the face of it. Whenever they try and explain why the UA exists, they tie themselves in knots.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2008, 03:16:15 PM »
How is that any different from 'gravity' for RE'ers?  Gravity is a force.  No, wait, this RE'er says it is not.  Oh, look, this one believes it is from the Earth spinning.  This one thinks it is the same as EM.  That one says it is space time curvature.  This other one says it only affects objects with mass.  That one over there says it can affect objects without mass, as long as the other object has mass.  Another one says it is caused by energy and not mass at all.  About the only thing RE'ers can agree on is that they can't explain why it exists.  When they make an attempt to do so, they tie themselves in knots.


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

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: FE, the most inelegant theory around
« Reply #29 on: June 01, 2008, 03:36:11 PM »
I agree.  I propose that from now on whenever an REer even mentions gravity it is an automatic and epic win for FE.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?