Intelligent discussion

To sven and Smee, and everybody else who keeps making this mistake, which at first glance means just sven and Smee: the FE theory is not that the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s -- this is incoherent, as 9.8 m/s is a speed -- but that it is accelerating upwards at 1g = 9.8 m/s^2.

The practical importance of this distinction -- aside from being an indication that perhaps you should brush up on your backgrounds in basic mechanics before you try to make arguments about it -- is that the rate of motion of the Earth is constantly increasing, whereas the rate of motion of everything that isn't rigidly connected to the Earth is not constantly increasing in the same way.

-Erasmus

So speed changes depending on weight? Isn't that gravity?

my brother however, has a masters in astrophyics, and could tell you exactly why you're wrong.

Maybe he could, but then his masters in astrophysics wouldn't be good anwhere except maybe the 19th century, before Einstein formulated the principle of equivalence.

I'm guessing that you -- who lacks a masters degree in astrophysics -- really have no idea what your brother would say to us, and are just betting that he would side with you out of family solidarity.

but you accept magnetism? why isnt that magic?

It may interest you to know that the Standard Model -- which describes the fundamental particles and their interactions -- has a lot to say about electromagnetism, but makes no mention of gravity.

and your still not answering my questions about the stars.

I don't remember any "questions" about the stars; just some small-minded inflammatory garbage about how "it's not some shite about lamps in the sky", where you don't really say what "it" is or what this sentence is supposed to mean.

I'd ask it to reask your question in a civil, clear, intelligent manner, but I'm pretty sure my request would be in vain.

-Erasmus

yes, yes you are absolutely right. there are no new avenues of research for theoretical physics.

as for magnetism, i wasnt linking it to gravity, i was making a point. ie. you cant see the interractions but you accept they are there.

and finally, for the stars, i guess i must have pressed the preview button instead. my bad. my point was that if you travel to the antipodes (and yes, you are right. they are not antipodal to my location. im 100miles too far north) and look up on a clear night, whilst facing north, you will see a completely different set of stars to those in the northern hemisphere. how does that work then?

as for my point about lamps up in the sky, i was pointing out that there is no evidence for it. if its true, why dont you people take your own damn photos and post them on here?

So speed changes depending on weight? Isn't that gravity?

*coughs*

If the earth is accelerating upwards, why do things weigh less at the tops of mountains?

If gravity does not work it seems like an awfully big coincidence that all our observations of the planets in our solar system and the stars in our galaxy conform very closely to a theory of gravity. If the stars and planets are just dots moving around a couple of thousand miles up, why do they do so exactly as if they were in fact massive bodies under the influence of gravity as described by modern physics? Given no prior predisposition to either theory, it seems sensible to follow Occams Razor and accept the least complicated theory to which all the evidence conforms. That would be gravity in this case.

So speed changes depending on weight?

An objects speed while falling on the earth has nothing to do with it's weight. All objects accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second towards the ground. The only reason objects like paper "fall" more slowly is because of air resistance (paper is less dense that an anvil, so it has a harder time moving the air out of it's way).

yes, yes you are absolutely right. there are no new avenues of research for theoretical physics.

Save your sarcasm for those affected by that sort of thing: I never said anything like that.  On the other hand, I suggest that an interesting avenue of research would be to find an answer to the age-old question:

if you travel to the antipodes and look up on a clear night, whilst facing north, you will see a completely different set of stars to those in the northern hemisphere. how does that work then?

as for my point about lamps up in the sky, i was pointing out that there is no evidence for it. if its true, why dont you people take your own damn photos and post them on here?

Do you really want me to download a picture of the night sky and post it, and say, "Look, lamps!"?

-Erasmus

Quote from: "sven1988uk"

So speed changes depending on weight?

An objects speed while falling on the earth has nothing to do with it's weight. All objects accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second towards the ground. The only reason objects like paper "fall" more slowly is because of air resistance (paper is less dense that an anvil, so it has a harder time moving the air out of it's way).

No you've changed the equation.

1g = 9.8m/s^
If it's 2g?

No you've changed the equation.

1g = 9.8m/s^
If it's 2g?

What?

What do you mean

What?

You heard.

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity.

1g equals that. What about 2g?

What do you mean

Quote

What?

I mean "what do you mean by "No you've changed the equation"

Yes you said that all objects travel at 9.8m/s^ or whatever.
But since the equation says:
1g (9.8m/s-2)

It's wieght relative, if something was 2g, it would fall faster?

Yes you said that all objects travel at 9.8m/s^ or whatever.

I said that all objects falling in earths gravity accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 towards the earth, regardless of weight.

It's wieght relative, if something was 2g, it would fall faster?

 
A "g" isn't a measure of weight.
"g"=an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 (or 32 feet per second per second if you prefere).

Oh you're using an Algebric function?
Acceleration is normally refered as A...

Oh you're using an Algebric function?
Acceleration is normally refered as A...

Don't even try to use words like "algebraic"; you simply aren't qualified.

"g" refers to a unit of acceleration, equal to the downward acceleration of an object in freefall in a vacuum at sea level on the Earth, or approximately 9.8 m/s^2.  So "2g" would be twice that acceleration, or approximately 19.6 m/s^2.  No object in freefall accelerates at this rate; it would have to be subject to some external force.

-Erasmus

ok theres a lot of slagging off of this theory, understandable. so im going to try and have a rational debate with you flat earthers. bring forward your reasons, and i mean REASONS not just "the government is covering up" i need evidence of this.

and dont give me that bullshit about "no evidence for one thing doesnt mean the opposite is correct" because in this case, it does.

First of all. G in relation to 9.8m/s^2 is the force of Gravity. Hence 1g, 2g, etc... Using G to define the force pushing the Flat Earth is like saying gravity doesn't pull objects down, it in fact pushes the ground up at that rate constantly. Sorry. That isn't logical.

There is no force strong enough to be pushing our little flat world along at that rate. *shakes head*

Secondly. Go to a highpoint. A tall building. Or a tall mountain. Look out at the horizon. It curves. Hence the world is not flat. Curvature = a distinct lack of flatness. This is especially obvious from a plane in a cloudless sky.

Thirdly. If I were to assume for the sake of argurment the world is flat and looks like a map of the Flat Earth. We would all be dead. I'll try not to get all scientific and I will explain this as easily as I can. The Atmosphere is an all encompasing ball around the Round Earth. If the Earth were flat Atmosphere would not exist. The sun which is a lamp in the sky would not produce enough heat to sustain plant life. Life would never have evolved. And if we say, "Well wait, we are here and the earth is flat." Then atmosphere would be continously leaking away. We would litterally have to be in a self contained Biome in order for us to exist. If that were the case, we would have already destroyed our biome with our polution. And I hate to say it but no one has climbed any ice walls at the edge of the Earth and run into invisible walls.

And Fourth point. Geothermal energy/activity wouldn't exist because there would not be enough pressure in the earths crust to create the tectonics and heat we have proved lie below the surface. So the earth Must be round and Gravity Must exist.

Edit:

Main topic is at top. I am supporting the main topic and refuting any theories that a Flat Earth is possible. Therefore, I am indeed on topic.

Explain Atomic Theory in relation to Flat Earth Theory. Atoms exist. Explain the fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force in your flat earth reality. Explain chaos theory. Explain string theory. Explain astrophysics. Explain satelites. Explain Space. Explain gamma radiation. Explain xrays. Explain Solar flares. Explain the Earths Magnetic field. Explain the aurora borealis. Explain tides. Explain time zones. Explain the horizon. Explain the space shuttle. (Which I have seen lift off with my own eyes.) Explain the international space station. Explain weightlessness. Explain why planes in flight are not constantly climbing but fly at cruising altitudes and the ground doesn't get closer. Explain Rockets. Explain Meteors. Explain Comets. Explain the other Planets. Explain pictures of the others planets we have in graphic detail from passing satellites. Explain nebulae. Explain gas clouds. Dark Matter. The big bang.  Cosmology. Physics.

Do I need to go on?

First of all. G in relation to 9.8m/s^2 is the force of Gravity. Hence 1g, 2g, etc... Using G to define the force pushing the Flat Earth is like saying gravity doesn't pull objects down, it in fact pushes the ground up at that rate constantly. Sorry. That isn't logical.

I think it's a lot more logical than some "there's this wierd force we can't explain at all and we don't know why it happens but for some reason massive objects just attract each other". If you think I'm wrong about that, you're going to have to explain why.

As for the rest of your post, it's completely off topic. Please post a new thread to discuss any of those points, or better yet use the search function to read some discussions that have already taken place.

]I think it's a lot more logical than some "there's this wierd force we can't explain at all and we don't know why it happens but for some reason massive objects just attract each other".

Actually, it is much more logical. The whole "mysterious force" known as gravity was invented by Isaac Newton to explain why he observed the planets to be disobeying his law of inertia. Einstein pretty much destroyed that notion of gravity with his theory of general relativity.

Actually, it is much more logical. The whole "mysterious force" known as gravity was invented by Isaac Newton to explain why he observed the planets to be disobeying his law of inertia. Einstein pretty much destroyed that notion of gravity with his theory of general relativity.

I think you're leaving out Kinetic and Potential Energy. But what do I know.

I think you're leaving out Kinetic and Potential Energy. But what do I know.

Pretty much nothing, as what you said has virtually no coherent connection to what EP said.

im not sure im going to even bother, as all argument with a bunch of retards who just say "its a conspiracy" to everything isnt going to acheive anything, but i was referring to the star positions. like, different star charts for different hemispheres. if the earth really was flat, this wouldnt be the case, as the star charts would be essentially the same, with just some reorientation needed for different areas. however, im pretty sure that centuries of accurate navigation are part of the conspiracy. how else did they get by before GPS? (oh, wait, that doesnt exist either, does it)

secondly, all of today's maintstream (ie. correct) theories are backed up by mathematical proofs. they work in maths, and this can be related to the real world, albeit with some discrepancies to allow for the chaotic nature of this universe.

im not sure im going to even bother, as all argument with a bunch of retards who just say "its a conspiracy" to everything isnt going to acheive anything

You might find it interesting that you are the very first person to mention the conspiracy in this thread. I noticed you RE'ers tend to fall back on the "everything's a conspiracy" thing whenever you don't feel like discussing something logically. You should stop that.

 how else did they get by before GPS? (oh, wait, that doesnt exist either, does it)

Sure it does.

Oh the conspiracy is very much so real, and I just happen to know what the motive is.

well done, again you avoid the real point of my post.

and stop contradicting yourself. GPS cant exist if satelites are a hoax.

and stop contradicting yourself. GPS cant exist if satelites are a hoax.

Stop embarassing yourself and read the FAQ.

On a flat earth GPS would work flawlessly if the signals came from very tall radio towers.

no, i think you'll find that GPS stands for Global Positioning Satelite.


SATELITE.


dickhead.

and try answering the REAL question.

Hey guys,

This is my first post here. Although I am a round earth believer, I have a bit of a problem with RE and FE believers in here alike in their inability to understand gravity. As an engineering major at a large university I know this like the back of my hand. Gravity is the force of attraction of two objects towards each other.  Whether this is the Earth and a person, or two in animate objects, the same equation holds true:



Where G is a gravitational constant :

The F is what some people are refering to "g" which is in fact the force that attracts. The force of gravity of the Earth is this acceleration of -9.81 m/s^2 you have been refering too. m1 and m2 are the two masses, and r is the distance apart from the two mass centers. These formulas have been proven time and time again with many objects even at the atomic level, hence where the equation comes from.

As a RE believer, it is my opinoin that this theory that all objects with mass are attracted to each other makes more sense than a so-called 9.81 acceration of the earth plane upwards. I'm failing to see what is causing this accereation upward? Who is behind this? If some FE'ers can inform me it would be appreciated. I hope some of my information has helped.

Wrong.

Cute...Wrong where?

That the earth has existed for at least 315,576,000,000 seconds?

That if there was a constant rate of acceleration of 9 meters per second squared for a third of a trillion seconds we would be at many times the speed of light (299,792,458 m / s).

Or is Einstein wrong, all of the particle accelerator experiments faked, and the speed of light is not a limit to acceleration regardless of the reason?  

Perhaps you are using the term "Linear Acceleration" in a way other than it's normal definition?  If not, than the idea of the Earth Accelerating at a rate of 9M^s past the speed of light would seem to be a problem.

Or am Iwrong that my computer does not calculate to that many digits?
(O.K. it can, that was just hyperbole.  The answer comes out to 2,989,714,657,811,705 times the speed of light in the past 10,000 years of acceleration)

Smee, stop being churlish,

no, i think you'll find that GPS stands for Global Positioning Satelite.


SATELITE.


dickhead.

You'll find that he meant that the "phenomenon" which you describe as GPS could easily be due to tall radio towers, and the name, would then, clearly be simple propaganda to convince you space travel is possible.

Hey guys,

This is my first post here. Although I am a round earth believer, I have a bit of a problem with RE and FE believers in here alike in their inability to understand gravity. As an engineering major at a large university I know this like the back of my hand. Gravity is the force of attraction of two objects towards each other. Whether this is the Earth and a person, or two in animate objects, the same equation holds true:



Where G is a gravitational constant :

The F is what some people are refering to "g" which is in fact the force that attracts. The force of gravity of the Earth is this acceleration of -9.81 m/s^2 you have been refering too. m1 and m2 are the two masses, and r is the distance apart from the two mass centers. These formulas have been proven time and time again with many objects even at the atomic level, hence where the equation comes from.

You'll find that most FEers here do, in fact, have a fairly firm grasp of what gravity is.  We're familiar with the equations you present, but unless you can prove to me, in an experiment I can replicate, that this phenomenon you call gravity exists, I see no reason to believe that large masses cause a curve in space-time, which causes acceleration towards the mass.

The standard FE response for "what is propelling the earth?" seems to have become "dark energy", which is another thinly veiled term for magic, which is why Erasmus proposed a new model, accepting gravity as true, wherein the earth is simply the surface area of the top of a large cylinder.

Cute...Wrong where?

That the earth has existed for at least 315,576,000,000 seconds?

That if there was a constant rate of acceleration of 9 meters per second squared for a third of a trillion seconds we would be at many times the speed of light (299,792,458 m / s).

Or is Einstein wrong, all of the particle accelerator experiments faked, and the speed of light is not a limit to acceleration regardless of the reason?

Perhaps you are using the term "Linear Acceleration" in a way other than it's normal definition? If not, than the idea of the Earth Accelerating at a rate of 9M^s past the speed of light would seem to be a problem.

Or am Iwrong that my computer does not calculate to that many digits?
(O.K. it can, that was just hyperbole. The answer comes out to 2,989,714,657,811,705 times the speed of light in the past 10,000 years of acceleration)

The reason everyone is so terse in answering this question is because it's been done to death, avail yourself of the search function to save yourself further embarassment, because no one here feels like endlessly reiterating why the speed of light is not a "speed limit" to someone who is overly confident in that "B" they got as a grade in their grade 10 physics course.