a couple of arguments

If given that
1. The earth is moving up at a fixed speed (9.8 m/s)
2. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion until aced upon by an outside force

Then explain why when I hold a ball at arms length in front of me (since I am on the earth and the bell is in my hand then we are both traveling at the same speed as the earth) and then drop the ball it falls to the ground. No force was applied to the ball... WHY did it fall? And don’t say "the air pushed it to the ground" be cause the air would also be moving at the same speed of the earth, and I don’t hear any constant "whoosh" of the air blowing straight down.

Also, if I am at the North pole or whatever you FEers call it and travel due south until I reach the equator, then turn 90 degrees to the left travel the same distance as I traveled from the north pole to the equator and then turned another 90 degrees to the left I am facing due north? Shouldn’t I be out in the middle of the ocean somewhere facing the ice wall?

If given that
1. The earth is moving up at a fixed speed (9.8 m/s)
2. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion until aced upon by an outside force

Then explain why when I hold a ball at arms length in front of me (since I am on the earth and the bell is in my hand then we are both traveling at the same speed as the earth) and then drop the ball it falls to the ground. No force was applied to the ball... WHY did it fall? And don’t say "the air pushed it to the ground" be cause the air would also be moving at the same speed of the earth, and I don’t hear any constant "whoosh" of the air blowing straight down.

Because air doesnt exist, air is just another thing the government made up.

Also, if I am at the North pole or whatever you FEers call it and travel due south until I reach the equator, then turn 90 degrees to the left travel the same distance as I traveled from the north pole to the equator and then turned another 90 degrees to the left I am facing due north? Shouldn’t I be out in the middle of the ocean somewhere facing the ice wall?

You would not be able to try it, the ice wall police would kill you if you tried, and make it look like an accident. Remember, they're watching us.

Learn your physics before you start ranting.  I am not a FE'er, but I am an engineer and I know my physics...

FE'ers believe that the earth is ACCELERATING at a constant 9.8 m/s^2.  This is not a SPEED, it is an ACCELERATION!

Learn your physics before you start ranting.  I am not a FE'er, but I am an engineer and I know my physics...

FE'ers believe that the earth is ACCELERATING at a constant 9.8 m/s^2.  This is not a SPEED, it is an ACCELERATION!

and we haven't reached any kind of terminal velocity yet?
how long would it take to reach the speed of light at 9.8 m/m^2? (i dont have a calculator handy. )
and how old is the earth by comparison (iv'e always held 4.8 billions years to sound about right, im not sure about FEers

and calm down, i know the difference between speed, velocity and accceleration.

so the ball ceases to accelerate...

At this rate of acceleration, we would have reached the speed of light in just 354.3 DAYS.  
   Now FE'ers whould have us believe that since we are in the same reference frame as the earth, this doesn't violate relativity.  Oh but it does!  In order to say that the Earth is accelerating, a reference frame at rest must have been chosen.  This is how someone can say that the Earth is accelerating- we are moving with reference to something.  Therefore, we would be moving at greater than the speed of light with reference to the frame at rest.  A clear violation of Relativity.

Also, if I am at the North pole or whatever you FEers call it and travel due south until I reach the equator, then turn 90 degrees to the left travel the same distance as I traveled from the north pole to the equator and then turned another 90 degrees to the left I am facing due north? Shouldn’t I be out in the middle of the ocean somewhere facing the ice wall?

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you walked due south from the center of the earth to the equator, then walked due east for a few thousand miles, then turned 90 degrees to the left, yes you would be facing the north pole again.

and we haven't reached any kind of terminal velocity yet?

Terminal velocity is only reached because of air resistance (as an objects speed increases, so does air resistance. Eventually, the force from air resistance will equal the force from gravity and the object will stop accelerating).
There's no air in space. No air. No terminal velocity.

Even without a terminal velocity, we would still be bound by relativity, which by the FE view, we are in violation of.

Even without a terminal velocity, we would still be bound by relativity, which by the FE view, we are in violation of.

Erasmus is already explaining why this is not true in another thread. I don't have a good enough understanding of physics to make a convincing argument, so I'll leave it up to him.

Erasmus is already explaining why this is not true in another thread.

Yep, it's the post right after the one where I say, "I'm not explaining this anymore."

To make a long story short, the speed of light is not a barrier for you.  It's a barrier for your communication with me.

-Erasmus

The speed of light is a barrier for everything.

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

Erasmus is already explaining why this is not true in another thread.

Yep, it's the post right after the one where I say, "I'm not explaining this anymore."

To make a long story short, the speed of light is not a barrier for you.  It's a barrier for your communication with me.

-Erasmus

So what you are saying is that we can travel at the speed of light as long as we don't want to communicate with each other?  Wow...

Quote from: "Rejected"

Also, if I am at the North pole or whatever you FEers call it and travel due south until I reach the equator, then turn 90 degrees to the left travel the same distance as I traveled from the north pole to the equator and then turned another 90 degrees to the left I am facing due north? Shouldn’t I be out in the middle of the ocean somewhere facing the ice wall?

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you walked due south from the center of the earth to the equator, then walked due east for a few thousand miles, then turned 90 degrees to the left, yes you would be facing the north pole again.

I didn't say walk due east along the equator. I said turn 90 degrees to the left, then walk that same distance in a straight line, not along the arc of the equator. You see on a sphere I would be walking along the equator but on a pancake I would only start out on the equator, then I would travel in a tangential line off of it out into the ocean. Get a pencil and paper and draw it out.

Another problem with the accleration of 9.8m/s is that once you reached the speed of light squared you become energy

E=mc2

Energy is equal to matter times the constant of light to the second power

We would be a giant nuclear explosion

Another problem with the accleration of 9.8m/s is that once you reached the speed of light squared you become energy

E=mc2

Energy is equal to matter times the constant of light to the second power

We would be a giant nuclear explosion

Yeah I know about relativity and all that, i just wanted to see if any FEer's would pick up the glove.

no, we would just approach it asymptotically, and we would also notice that as time goes by, everything gets heavier, and heavier, and heavier etc...

as time goes by, relative to zero movement, the effect of time on us would be getting slower and slower.
so when we looked at everything else relative to us (on earth), it would be getting faster and faster.

also, if the earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s upwards, then what is pushing it? a giant rocket or something?

So what you are saying is that we can travel at the speed of light as long as we don't want to communicate with each other?  Wow...

Not exactly.  I'm saying that if you make some measurement of your speed relative to me, it requires some communication (such as, you looking at me), whose speed is limited by that of light.

I'm definitely saying that it's meaningless to say, "I'm travelling at speed X."  That just doesn't mean anything.

If the gap between you and me was growing faster than the speed of light, how would we know?  If you sent a photon to me, it would never reach me.  Basically, we would be in causally separated regions of spacetime -- we could never affect each other or communicate with each other in any way.

Thus, anything that we can communicate with or measure must not be moving faster than the speed of light, relative to us.

-Erasmus

Quote from: "Unimportant"

Quote from: "Rejected"

Also, if I am at the North pole or whatever you FEers call it and travel due south until I reach the equator, then turn 90 degrees to the left travel the same distance as I traveled from the north pole to the equator and then turned another 90 degrees to the left I am facing due north? Shouldn’t I be out in the middle of the ocean somewhere facing the ice wall?

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you walked due south from the center of the earth to the equator, then walked due east for a few thousand miles, then turned 90 degrees to the left, yes you would be facing the north pole again.

I didn't say walk due east along the equator. I said turn 90 degrees to the left, then walk that same distance in a straight line, not along the arc of the equator. You see on a sphere I would be walking along the equator but on a pancake I would only start out on the equator, then I would travel in a tangential line off of it out into the ocean. Get a pencil and paper and draw it out.

Oh, ok, I understand what you're saying.

Yeah you'd end up down around the ice wall at some point.

I assert that this is what happens in the real world, and thus the earth is flat.

What happens in the real world is that when I turn to the left the first time I am indeed facing due east and if I travel due east along the equator and turn 90 degrees to the left again I indeed end up facing back at the North Pole. This would be impossible if the earth is flat. And don’t give me any have you ever actually done it BS.

What happens in the real world is that when I turn to the left the first time I am indeed facing due east and if I travel due east along the equator and turn 90 degrees to the left again I indeed end up facing back at the North Pole. This would be impossible if the earth is flat. And don’t give me any have you ever actually done it BS.

What happens in the real world is that when I turn to the left the first time I am indeed facing due east and if I travel due east tangentially away from the equator and turn 90 degrees to the left again I indeed end up facing away from the North Pole. This would be impossible if the earth is round. And don’t give me any have you ever actually done it BS.

You retard.

If I turn along the equator to face due east and maintain that heading, then I am walking in a straight line. In your flat fantasy world if you face due east at the equator and maintain that heading you would be walking in a circle, just like your logic. To walk in a straight line on a flat earth the compass bearing would continually be changing.

You seem to be missing the point. I understand very well what you are saying, but I am claiming that it's based on a faulty assumption.

You are saying that in real life if you walked in a straight line you would stay on the equator. You say this because you think, in real life, the earth is a sphere.

I am saying that in real life if you walked in a straight line you would be walking tangentially away from the equator, and you would run into the ice wall. I say this because I think, in real life, the earth is flat.

You might be interested to discover that you are, in fact, the one arguing in a circle. You're saying "A would happen because B is true, and B is true because A happens."

I'm saying you're wrong.