Seriously Confused

  • 132 Replies
  • 12129 Views
*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2008, 11:21:41 PM »
Roger, see ya tomorrow.


Heres the thread.  Pages 2 and 3.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21654.20

Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2008, 02:03:18 AM »
You have asked what to my point about the ether experiment. Excuse me if I sound a little patronising it is not intentional, I am just unsure of the level of your understanding, which may be greater than mine. The original experiment was designed to work out the relative speed of the earth based on the theory that the earth was moving through a stationary ether. The scientists would shoot a pulse of light and then measure the lag caused by the fixed ether. Very similar to dropping a piece of cloth from a moving car and measuring how far the car has travelled at the point the cloth touches the floor. Any movement on the light pulse should have detected i.e if the earth was moving in the direction that the pulse was 'fired' then a relative slowing of the pulse would have been observed, if it had been moving towards the pulse then a quickening of the pulse would have been obsereved and finally the experiment also tested the lateral movement of the pulse so any sideways movement would also have been seen. The result of the experiment was that zero movement or slowing/increasing of the light pulse was detected. Now traditionalists say that this experiment proves the non existence of the ether. However some use the results as proof that the earth isn't moving at all but more that the earth is the fixed centre point and everything else moves around us. Interestingly I have heard FE's say that waves i.e. light waves, have to have a medium to move through, even if ether does not exist, therefore a drag on the light should always have been observed.

My point was simply this, if FE's use this evidence as proof that the earth is not moving, then it is also the case that the earth cannot be moving upwards in order to simulate gravity. So how can these two coexist.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2008, 05:44:12 AM »
Heres the thread.  Pages 2 and 3.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21654.20
Nothing in that thread explains why I should be seeing your car decrease in velocity.  In fact, I don't even know why you are talking about velocity.


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

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2008, 05:47:15 AM »
I have heard FE's say that waves i.e. light waves, have to have a medium to move through
Really?  Who?

Quote
a drag on the light should always have been observed.
Then I suppose it is a good thing then that a drag is observed.

Quote
if FE's use this evidence as proof that the earth is not moving, then it is also the case that the earth cannot be moving upwards in order to simulate gravity.
What?


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

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2008, 08:19:31 AM »
Heres the thread.  Pages 2 and 3.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21654.20
Nothing in that thread explains why I should be seeing your car decrease in velocity.  In fact, I don't even know why you are talking about velocity.

Because acceleration is directly proportional to the velocity of the vehicle.  If you are seeing a slower acceleration then you are obviously seeing a slower velocity as well.

That maybe, but measuring different accelerations, is not accelerating and decelerating at the same time.
The stationary observer is seeing your rate of acceleration decrease.

Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2008, 01:14:39 PM »
I can only assume I'm not being very clear. Are you aware of the experiment that I am refering to because I have seen it quoted in a couple of flat earth theory websites. The websites use this experiment as one of the founding pieces of evidence for a flat earth.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2008, 08:30:20 PM »
Because acceleration is directly proportional to the velocity of the vehicle.  If you are seeing a slower acceleration then you are obviously seeing a slower velocity as well.
Uh, no that is not obvious at all.  In fact, that does not even make sense.


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

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2008, 08:31:20 PM »
I can only assume I'm not being very clear. Are you aware of the experiment that I am refering to
Quite aware.

Quote
The websites use this experiment as one of the founding pieces of evidence for a flat earth.
Which websites do?


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

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #38 on: August 05, 2008, 08:38:50 PM »
Because acceleration is directly proportional to the velocity of the vehicle.  If you are seeing a slower acceleration then you are obviously seeing a slower velocity as well.
Uh, no that is not obvious at all.  In fact, that does not even make sense.

Acceleration has nothing to do with velocity?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #39 on: August 05, 2008, 08:41:56 PM »
It's not proportional, an awesome claim that's re-entered you into my hall of fame.

Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #40 on: August 05, 2008, 08:43:13 PM »
Because acceleration is directly proportional to the velocity of the vehicle.  If you are seeing a slower acceleration then you are obviously seeing a slower velocity as well.
Uh, no that is not obvious at all.  In fact, that does not even make sense.

Acceleration has nothing to do with velocity?

Acceleration has to do with velocity, and velocity has to do with inertia, the main ingredient to physics. I learned that or something close (although confusing for a while) to that in 7th grade science. Inertia, is real, for anyone who says wrong then note when you take a turn your body wants to keep going forward while your car wants to go left/right. And now I have no idea for why I wrote that.....
"Everything we believe is based on our preception of the universe around us.  We know nothing.  There is no proof, only evidence."
-Moonlit

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #41 on: August 05, 2008, 08:49:02 PM »
It's not proportional, an awesome claim that's re-entered you into my hall of fame.


Go troll a NAMBLA website.


Law II.     The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.



?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #42 on: August 05, 2008, 08:54:52 PM »
Tell me if you can see a difference between these two relationships:
Acceleration and Velocity
Force and Acceleration

Now explain to me, since you don't know the difference between velocity and force, how a bullet can fly at super sonic speeds, yet have a negative acceleration (wind resistance).

Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #43 on: August 05, 2008, 09:04:27 PM »
Tell me if you can see a difference between these two relationships:
Acceleration and Velocity
Force and Acceleration

Now explain to me, since you don't know the difference between velocity and force, how a bullet can fly at super sonic speeds, yet have a negative acceleration (wind resistance).

Acceleration isn't a constant, The bullet accelerates amazingly and then slows down. So therefore, if it slows down, (from friction) it's going to have a negative/0 acceleration rate because it's slowing down. Also the difference between velocity and force is that velocity is the rate of change while force is a pull or push on an object.
"Everything we believe is based on our preception of the universe around us.  We know nothing.  There is no proof, only evidence."
-Moonlit

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #44 on: August 05, 2008, 09:05:27 PM »
Uh, no that is not obvious at all.  In fact, that does not even make sense.

Acceleration has nothing to do with velocity?
Physical acceleration, it does not. 

Another reason it did not make sense is that acceleration is in no way proportional to velocity.


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

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #45 on: August 05, 2008, 09:06:02 PM »
Acceleration isn't a constant, The bullet accelerates amazingly and then slows down. So therefore, if it slows down, (from friction) it's going to have a negative/0 acceleration rate because it's slowing down. Also the difference between velocity and force is that velocity is the rate of change while force is a pull or push on an object.

Wait a second, this is rich.
After all that, are you still holding that acceleration and velocity are proportional?

Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #46 on: August 05, 2008, 09:10:55 PM »
Acceleration isn't a constant, The bullet accelerates amazingly and then slows down. So therefore, if it slows down, (from friction) it's going to have a negative/0 acceleration rate because it's slowing down. Also the difference between velocity and force is that velocity is the rate of change while force is a pull or push on an object.

Wait a second, this is rich.
After all that, are you still holding that acceleration and velocity are proportional?

Yes they are because without each other they wouldn't work.

Definition of Acceleration....Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity...Definition of Velocity....Velocity is the rate of change of position.
"Everything we believe is based on our preception of the universe around us.  We know nothing.  There is no proof, only evidence."
-Moonlit

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #47 on: August 05, 2008, 09:12:02 PM »
Uh, no that is not obvious at all.  In fact, that does not even make sense.

Acceleration has nothing to do with velocity?
Physical acceleration, it does not. 

Another reason it did not make sense is that acceleration is in no way proportional to velocity.

What the fuck is non physical acceleration?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #48 on: August 05, 2008, 09:12:49 PM »
Yes they are[proportional] because without each other they wouldn't work.
Definition of Acceleration....Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity...Definition of Velocity....Velocity is the rate of change of position.

So my bullet example, that completely destroyed your idea that they are proportional, was meaningless to you?
Could you please define what you mean when you say "proportional"?

Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #49 on: August 05, 2008, 09:13:15 PM »
Not sure...Something made up by FE?
"Everything we believe is based on our preception of the universe around us.  We know nothing.  There is no proof, only evidence."
-Moonlit

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #50 on: August 05, 2008, 09:15:56 PM »
RE definition of "proportional"
"something made up by FE"


Can I suggest you check your infallible yahoo answers source for information regarding the word proportional?

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #51 on: August 05, 2008, 09:16:23 PM »
Yes they are[proportional] because without each other they wouldn't work.
Definition of Acceleration....Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity...Definition of Velocity....Velocity is the rate of change of position.

So my bullet example, that completely destroyed your idea that they are proportional, was meaningless to you?
Could you please define what you mean when you say "proportional"?

Yours doesn't make sense.  Try this one.


If I accelerate at 9.8m/s then at one second my velocity would be 9.8 m/s after 2 seconds my velocity would be 19.6 m/s and so on and so on and so on..........

Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #52 on: August 05, 2008, 09:16:57 PM »
RE definition of "proportional"
"something made up by FE"


Can I suggest you check your infallible yahoo answers source for information regarding the word proportional?


HAHA, I was talking to someone else...
"Everything we believe is based on our preception of the universe around us.  We know nothing.  There is no proof, only evidence."
-Moonlit

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #53 on: August 05, 2008, 09:19:49 PM »
What the fuck is non physical acceleration?
A coordinate one.  The cussing is not necessary.


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

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #54 on: August 05, 2008, 09:20:27 PM »
What the fuck is non physical acceleration?
A coordinate one.  The cussing is not necessary.

I appologize....and as for my example?

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #55 on: August 05, 2008, 09:20:33 PM »
Yours doesn't make sense.  Try this one.


If I accelerate at 9.8m/s then at one second my velocity would be 9.8 m/s after 2 seconds my velocity would be 19.6 m/s and so on and so on and so on..........

Actually mine perfectly demonstrated that a bullet start (lets say at t+1microsecond from firing) with positive acceleration and positive velocity, but after just 1 second has negative acceleration and positive velocity. That means they cannot be proportional.

Let's look at your SUPER AWESOME example as well. You accelerate at 9.8 m/s? That's a velocity you idiot. I'll correct it to be 9.8 m/s/s (an acceleration) as a constant acceleration that doesn't change. At all. Your velocity is constantly changing. Constantly. These are not proportional.


I reiterate, you are an idiot.

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #56 on: August 05, 2008, 09:21:57 PM »
HAHA, I was talking to someone else...

Oh.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #57 on: August 05, 2008, 09:22:19 PM »
What the fuck is non physical acceleration?
A coordinate one.  The cussing is not necessary.

I appologize....and as for my example?
What example?


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

Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #58 on: August 05, 2008, 09:23:47 PM »
Yours doesn't make sense.  Try this one.


If I accelerate at 9.8m/s then at one second my velocity would be 9.8 m/s after 2 seconds my velocity would be 19.6 m/s and so on and so on and so on..........

Actually mine perfectly demonstrated that a bullet start (lets say at t+1microsecond from firing) with positive acceleration and positive velocity, but after just 1 second has negative acceleration and positive velocity. That means they cannot be proportional.



Let's look at your SUPER AWESOME example as well. You accelerate at 9.8 m/s? That's a velocity you idiot. I'll correct it to be 9.8 m/s/s (an acceleration) as a constant acceleration that doesn't change. At all. Your velocity is constantly changing. Constantly. These are not proportional.


I reiterate, you are an idiot.

So you're saying that when we slow down we're accelerating?
"Everything we believe is based on our preception of the universe around us.  We know nothing.  There is no proof, only evidence."
-Moonlit

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Seriously Confused
« Reply #59 on: August 05, 2008, 09:26:05 PM »
So you're saying that when we slow down we're accelerating?

Um, yeah. Anytime you are changing the inertia of an object, you are accelerating it. Whether you call it "slowing down" or "speeding up" is simply consequent to your frame of reference.