Proof that accelerating earth theory is wrong.

But of coarse now...

Because similar sized comets make similar sized craters through time, it is proof that the earth has a constant and consistent force of gravitation.

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on June 02, 2008, 06:36:22 PM

Because similar sized comets make similar sized craters through time, it is proof that the earth has a constant and consistent force of gravitation.

Or is it that the crater is measured to determine the size of the comet/meteor?  Perhaps I've misunderstood you?

Well, I was thinking. If our earth is constantly accelerating (going faster and faster), the craters that comets make would get bigger/deeper every time a comet hits us.

Scientist can see one and predict how the impact will be. They can tell us how big the crater will be (approx) and how much damage will be caused. But if the earth was accelerating, the damage and size of crater would dramatically increase, rendering all mathematical predictions wrong.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot... There have been similar sized comets that have hit the earth over long periods of time between each other, but have caused similar sized craters. If earth was constantly getting more and more speed through acceleration, 2 of the same sized comets would make massively different craters. Meaning, the later one would make a bigger crater then the earlier one. Get it? Hope so!

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on June 02, 2008, 06:10:36 PM

Well, I was thinking. If our earth is constantly accelerating (going faster and faster), the craters that comets make would get bigger/deeper every time a comet hits us.

Scientist can see one and predict how the impact will be. They can tell us how big the crater will be (approx) and how much damage will be caused. But if the earth was accelerating, the damage and size of crater would dramatically increase, rendering all mathematical predictions wrong.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot... There have been similar sized comets that have hit the earth over long periods of time between each other, but have caused similar sized craters. If earth was constantly getting more and more speed through acceleration, 2 of the same sized comets would make massively different craters. Meaning, the later one would make a bigger crater then the earlier one. Get it? Hope so!

In short, no. Meteors and comets will only ever hit Earth provided they are at a lesser rate than the Earth. If we suppose that the Earth started with the Big Bang and was sent upwards, anything hitting the Earth is due to a slower rate of acceleration. This does not mean that comets and meteors must make larger craters.

PLUS: If a person was 'free falling' off from a plane, because the earth is constantly accelerating, this persons free fall speed would increase every time. But there is a sort of 'speed limit' of free falling. Read into it, it is interesting. This, 'speed limit' would not exist if the earth was constantly accelerating. It would exist though if the earth had the same constant force applied to it, through gravitation.

Comets/meteors = They travel at the same speed as they have since the explosion. There is no DE propelling them.

You must be wrong. If we are accelerating, that means that comets/meteors would hit us at different amounts of pressure.

Look at it this way.. You have the big bang. Out of the big bang there are too many comets to count going at the same speed. BUT, because of the "dark energy' proposed by FES, the EARTH is constantly getting faster and faster, meaning that each time a comet hits, it 'should' have more impact!

Comets/meteors = They travel at the same speed as they have since the explosion. There is no DE propelling them.

Earth = Is constantly accelerating at such a high rate

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on June 02, 2008, 06:36:22 PM

PLUS: If a person was 'free falling' off from a plane, because the earth is constantly accelerating, this persons free fall speed would increase every time. But there is a sort of 'speed limit' of free falling. Read into it, it is interesting. This, 'speed limit' would not exist if the earth was constantly accelerating. It would exist though if the earth had the same constant force applied to it, through gravitation.

Hmm, I would say you are wrong.  Actually, Einstein would say you were wrong too.  Perhaps you have forgotten about air resistance?

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on June 02, 2008, 06:36:22 PM

PLUS: If a person was 'free falling' off from a plane, because the earth is constantly accelerating, this persons free fall speed would increase every time. But there is a sort of 'speed limit' of free falling. Read into it, it is interesting. This, 'speed limit' would not exist if the earth was constantly accelerating. It would exist though if the earth had the same constant force applied to it, through gravitation.

Hmm, I would say you are wrong.  Actually, Einstein would say you were wrong too.  Perhaps you have forgotten about air resistance?

If air resistance came into it, it would NOT make a difference. Does air resistance make a difference when a car crashes into a tree at 10mh/h, or 200km/h?

The speed of this earth so far must be so high that AIR resistance would not make much of a difference..

You're still ignoring the comet's acceleration.

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on June 02, 2008, 07:38:47 PM

If air resistance came into it, it would NOT make a difference. Does air resistance make a difference when a car crashes into a tree at 10mh/h, or 200km/h?

Two words: terminal velocity. Plus, Einstein.

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on June 02, 2008, 07:38:47 PM

The speed of this earth so far must be so high that AIR resistance would not make much of a difference..

You're still ignoring the comet's acceleration.

Quote from: divito the truthist on June 02, 2008, 07:45:40 PM

You're still ignoring the comet's acceleration.

So you 2 guys are going by Einstein? He was working from a RE. Don't try to prove me wrong using a RE'rs theory.

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on June 02, 2008, 07:59:05 PM

So you 2 guys are going by Einstein? He was working from a RE. Don't try to prove me wrong using a RE'rs theory.

I'm not.  I'm using FE theory to prove you wrong.  I only mention Einstein because then maybe you would realize you were wrong earlier.  But, to be honest, I do love dragging out the pain and embarrassment of RE'ers as long as possible, so, by all means, continue.  Show me how this skydiving scenario would be different in the FE.

The sky diving incident would be much different then in RE. Because the FE must be going at SUCH HIGH SPEEDS by now

air resistance wouldn't play much part in how fast a person travels down towards the earth. Is it that hard to understand.

Do you honestly think that no matter how fast this earth is going, air resistance is ALWAYS going to bring a free faller back to this 'speed limit' that free fallers experience every time?

Quote

Do you honestly think that no matter how fast this earth is going, air resistance is ALWAYS going to bring a free faller back to this 'speed limit' that free fallers experience every time?

Yes.

hehe, Ok. Thanks.

Quote from: MessiahOfFire on June 02, 2008, 08:24:31 PM

hehe, Ok. Thanks.

You are welcome.  I am always pleased to point out to you RE'ers, your mistakes.