Atmosphere

In a flat Earth, what retains the oxygen of the atmosphere near the Earth?.


One more time, I`m sorry for my english u__u.

In a flat Earth, what retains the oxygen of the atmosphere near the Earth?.


One more time, I`m sorry for my english u__u.

There are two giant walls of ice around the Earth. A lesser ice wall 150ft high, and a greater ice wall 40,000ft high.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21525.0

Note: I'm RE.

In a flat Earth, what retains the oxygen of the atmosphere near the Earth?

The DEF holds the atmolayer.

Quote from: Erume on October 03, 2008, 04:25:06 AM

In a flat Earth, what retains the oxygen of the atmosphere near the Earth?

The DEF holds the atmolayer.

DEF?

Dark Energy Field.

Dark Energy Field.

Just to make sure I am understanding this correctly...

There is a DEF that accelerates the Earth "up" that creates the illusion of gravity, a separate DEF that bends light "up" away from the ground to give the illusion of a horizon, and now, there is a DEF that "pushes down" to hold the atmosphere in place?

Dark Energy Field is one of the results of Dark Energy. When DE encounters an obstacle (the FE), a "bow shock" forms in front of it. That is the DEF.

I prefer this theory because I highly doubt that the gigantic ice-wall can prevent the atmolayer from diffusing out into space due to concentration differences, let alone the acceleration of the Earth. DEF behaves similar to gravitation when interacting with the atmolayer, just like how gravitation holds the atmosphere in RE; however, DEF is not gravitation in that it does not cause things to fall or stand still.



EDIT: Rig Navigator, the mechanism you speak of is Dark Energy.

Proof, proof and more proof. Where is the proof?

Proof, proof, and more proof. Where is the graviton?

Proof, proof, and more proof. Where is the graviton?

Exactly

Glad that you admit your previous post was meaningless.

We can keep going in circles, my friend. But it’s you and your theory of what is holding in the atmosphere that is corrupt, and up to debate.

Proof, proof, and more proof. Where is the graviton?

Just because scientists haven't found the graviton ...

Doesn't mean that gravity is a corrupt theory.

Gravitational theory (either relativistic or Newtonian) is perfectly adequate to explain the nature of the Heliocentric Solar System.

Wheras Flat Earth theory is an inconsisent mish-mash of half-baked ideas.

(Universal Accelaration? Infinite Plane? Sun's light bends upwards? Ordinary light doesn't? Etc.)

or how about these "minor" holes in FET...

Lack of a map of the Earth
- You would think this would be fairly easy after 150 years (assuming Rowbotham is the source of FET)

Lack of a map of the stars
- Once again, should be pretty easy

Lack of a mechanism for tides
- I haven't encountered anyone on this site that supports the "tippy plate" model for tides

Lack of a mechanism for sunspots
- The one theory I have seen (shadow object debris) doesn't fit the observations

Doesn't mean that gravity is a corrupt theory.

Gravity surely is. Gravitation is not.

Wheras Flat Earth theory is an inconsisent mish-mash of half-baked ideas.

(Universal Accelaration? Infinite Plane? Sun's light bends upwards? Ordinary light doesn't? Etc.)

There's no such thing as a Grand Unified Theory of Flat Earth, as stated in the FAQ. That's because not all FE'ers or FE theorists agree in the same thing. This is like the contradiction between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on October 04, 2008, 04:19:54 AM

Doesn't mean that gravity is a corrupt theory.

Gravity surely is. Gravitation is not.

Pedant!

(And other pedants say it is the other way around.)

Quote from: 3 Tesla on October 04, 2008, 04:19:54 AM

Wheras Flat Earth theory is an inconsisent mish-mash of half-baked ideas.

(Universal Accelaration? Infinite Plane? Sun's light bends upwards? Ordinary light doesn't? Etc.)

There's no such thing as a Grand Unified Theory of Flat Earth, as stated in the FAQ. That's because not all FE'ers or FE theorists agree in the same thing. This is like the contradiction between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

GR explains (adequately) big things like galaxies and QM (adequately) explains tiny things like protons.

That's chalk and cheese.

The inconsistencies in Flat Earth Theory are all about the same things:

1. The shape of The Earth: is it a coin or an infinite plane?

2. "Gravity": is it real or is it an illusion caused by "The Universal Acceleration"?

3. Light: does it bend or does it not bend?

Those kinds of inconsistencies dwarf the issue of GR not marrying up perfectly with QM.

GR explains (adequately) big things like galaxies and QM (adequately) explains tiny things like protons.

That's chalk and cheese.

Except gravitation, in general. That's where they contradict each other; One theory explains gravitation as the curvature of spacetime, while the other explains gravitation/gravity (the 4th fundamental interaction/force) as the result of the particle graviton. Of course, should the graviton be discovered by any physical means, the existence of the force of gravity (something RE'ers love so much) will be evident.

The inconsistencies in Flat Earth Theory are all about the same things:

1. The shape of The Earth: is it a coin or an infinite plane?

2. "Gravity": is it real or is it an illusion caused by "The Universal Acceleration"?

3. Light: does it bend or does it not bend?

Those kinds of inconsistencies dwarf the issue of GR not marrying up perfectly with QM.

1. It could be either, but we can't tell which of them is correct in our frame of reference.

2. "gravity" is basically us undergoing proper acceleration, in RE or FE.

3. I think the majority of FE'ers believe that light does bend.

Of course, these "inconsistencies" are nothing compared to the contradiction between the two most dominant theories in modern physics. That's my point.

3. I think the majority of FE'ers believe that light does bend.

But most FErs also believe that The Earth is flat because it looks flat.

Now if The Sun's rays bend upwards (causing sunsets to appear on the horizon) ...

Then light from The Earth must also bend upwards ...

Which would cause an optical illusion of a round Earth as the ground would curve downwards away from you.

Which is, for me, a huge inconsistency.

[Edit: itallics - underlined.]

1. It could be either, but we can't tell which of them is correct in our frame of reference.

Theoretically you could because if you travelled to the edge of the disc (*) you would know it wasn't infinite. ...

But that might be practically impossible, of course, what with all the "Ice wall guards" ...

* As someone has already claimed to have done:

I went and bungee jumped off the edge of the earth into outer space from the ice wall. How is this explained in RET?

2. "gravity" is basically us undergoing proper acceleration, in RE or FE.

But if I jump off a chair:

Round Earth Theory says that I am accelarting downwards towards the centre of The Earth (the vastly more massive body)

Whereas Flat Earth Theory One (Universal Acceleration)  says that The Earth is accelerating upwards to meet me.

I know that "all motion is relative" but isn't that an important distinction?

Flat Earth Theory Two (Infinite Plane) has actual gravity/gravitation just like Round Earth Theory, of course.

Next time, please try and combine all of them into one post. This is known as spamming.

Theoretically you could because if you travelled to the edge of the disc (*) you would know it wasn't infinite. ...

Theoretically, you could not tell in your frame of reference. However, do provide a video of you traveling to the edge...

But that might be practically impossible, of course, what with all the "Ice wall guards" ...

* As someone has already claimed to have done:

Quote from: Sean O'Grady on September 17, 2008, 05:08:56 AM

I went and bungee jumped off the edge of the earth into outer space from the ice wall. How is this explained in RET?

Obviously that was a joke.

But if I jump off a chair:

Round Earth Theory says that I am accelarting downwards towards the centre of The Earth (the vastly more massive body)

You are not accelerating downwards in RE. You are accelerating upwards on the ground. When an inertial ball falls at constant velocity, it is accelerating relative to you. How is following the geodesics in spacetime accelerating?

Whereas Flat Earth Theory One (Universal Acceleration)  says that The Earth is accelerating upwards to meet me.

Right, just like in RE.

I know that "all motion is relative" but isn't that an important distinction?

What distinction?

Afraid to nail your colours to the flag again E.Jack?

I can't really see what a frame of reference has to do with anything. Care to expand?

So you still haven't looked up the definition yet? Figures.

Appeal to ignorance. That's so Tom Bishop.

Appeal to stupidity. That's so Sokarul.

Amazing how quickly this has turned into complaining about each others theories.....

Are the other celestial bodies on the dark matter blanket effected by this "bow shock"?

The bowshock is created upon the interaction between DE and the flat Earth. Any celestial body being accelerated by DE in the universe can create its own bow shock due to the obstacle.

DEF, the so called "bow shock", happens to hold our atmolayer and shield us from the effects of DE.

I don't need to look up "frame of reference" (which I assume is what you're talking about, it's always so hard to tell)

I fail to see how it applies.

So I can see the Earth is round while I'm typing right now?

Looks like I was right. You do know nothing about the importance of FoR and how it applies to our physical world. Of course, you don't even know what it means.

If you can't explain yourself

I already did.

Here,

So I can see the Earth is round while I'm typing right now?

That's my local frame of reference relative to the Earth. Of course, based on your other posts, you don't understand it.

You are not accelerating downwards in RE. You are accelerating upwards on the ground.

That sounds like nonsense to me.

If I am on the ground then I am not moving, with respect to the ground (i.e. ignoring The Earth's rotation). And if I am not moving I cannot be accelerating.

When an inertial ball falls at constant velocity, it is accelerating relative to you.

Now that is definitely nonsense!

Anything moving with "constant velocity" is not, by definition "accelerating".

You fail Physics 101.

How is following the geodesics in spacetime accelerating?

Something makes me think you don't really understand what you are talking about.

Quote from: E.Jack on October 04, 2008, 10:28:19 AM

You are not accelerating downwards in RE. You are accelerating upwards on the ground.

That sounds like nonsense to me.

If I am on the ground then I am not moving, with respect to the ground (i.e. ignoring The Earth's rotation). And if I am not moving I cannot be accelerating.

If you are on the ground, you are not moving relative to the earth.  Although, relative to space-time you are indeed accelerating.

Quote from: E.Jack on October 04, 2008, 10:28:19 AM

When an inertial ball falls at constant velocity, it is accelerating relative to you.

Now that is definitely nonsense!

Anything moving with "constant velocity" is not, by definition "accelerating".

You fail Physics 101.

In that case, Einstein fails physics 101 as well.  Free fall is following geodesics (straight lines) in space-time.  Relative to space time, free fall is going in a straight line at a constant velocity.  Relative to an observer on earth, however, free fall is accelerated.

Quote from: E.Jack on October 04, 2008, 10:28:19 AM

How is following the geodesics in spacetime accelerating?

Something makes me think you don't really understand what you are talking about.

Relativity is not inherent or obvious. 

This is one of the subjects where I won't argue anymore. FET can't set a definitive theory explaining it. To attempt to debate it is to debate the masses.