How open are FErs??

I'm a REer and am open to any good explanation of FE or OE (Oval Earth) CE(Cylindrical Earth) or NEAA(No Earth At All) if provided with good explanations and proof.. and I'm ready to study some books on the matter and look at the works done by FErs to prove that the earth is flat... But I'd like to know how open are the believers of Flat Earth? Will FErs take in any information which might show them that the earth is in fact spherical or cylindrical?? Can they be shown that they are wrong and are they ready to accept it if they find it reasonable?? I'd like to see the answer of some expert FErs and I don't want answers of those who are FErs just because they think they are different and want to show themselves that they are in fact different from others... and they know the truth now.. and they are among the few elite ones who know the truth.. Sorry blind FErs, experts can go on..

Welcome.

Welcome.

Thank you

I'd also like to know the few scientific laws that you completely agree on... common to RErs...

-Newton's three laws of motion
-The equivalence between free-fall and inertial motion
-The equivalence between proper acceleration and gravity

etc.

Nope.

I'm a REer and am open to any good explanation of FE or OE (Oval Earth) CE(Cylindrical Earth) or NEAA(No Earth At All) if provided with good explanations and proof.. and I'm ready to study some books on the matter and look at the works done by FErs to prove that the earth is flat... But I'd like to know how open are the believers of Flat Earth? Will FErs take in any information which might show them that the earth is in fact spherical or cylindrical?? Can they be shown that they are wrong and are they ready to accept it if they find it reasonable?? I'd like to see the answer of some expert FErs and I don't want answers of those who are FErs just because they think they are different and want to show themselves that they are in fact different from others... and they know the truth now.. and they are among the few elite ones who know the truth.. Sorry blind FErs, experts can go on..

You forgot HE (Hollow Earth)...

"Antistatic bag"?

Do we have a better explanation for that than an "antistatic bag"?

But how would it work physically, and how could it have been formed?

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on October 15, 2008, 12:34:00 PM

Do we have a better explanation for that than an "antistatic bag"?

Any other kind of bag would not offer the antistatic benefits.

It certainly sounds like it came from the same batch of complete-nonsense-in-a-can, as the rest of the FE theories so far

Do we have a better explanation for that than an "antistatic bag"?

Yes, it's been around for as long as modern FET has. It's called Dark Energy.

Dark Energy, great.  I assume that goldstein was just being an asshole.

Dark Energy, great.  I assume that goldstein was just being an asshole.

he's just getting into the spirit of things round here

You don't have to be a troll to contribute.

You don't have to be a troll to contribute.

most of the time the two do coincide though. Eventually if not at first

Yes. Very quickly. That's why you need to leap in with the Dark Energy Field, and the UA, and the antistatic bag, and all the other wonko nonsense, to somehow keep the earth and it's close celestial bodies from whacking into each other.

Newton's three laws:

1st: When I'm "free-falling" in FE under no fluidity, no force is acting on me. Thus, I'm undergoing inertial motion. Fluid exerts the drag force on me, causing me to accelerate slightly up; therefore, I'm no longer undergoing inertial motion in my inertial frame of reference.
2nd: Relative to an inertial observer, the FE surely is accelerating while having mass and momentum with respect to time. Thus, the FE has a net force.
3rd: DE exerts a force on FE, and the FE exerts an equivalent reaction force back on FE. I exert a force on a brick wall in FE, and the brick wall exerts an equivalent reaction force back on me.

The equivalence between free-fall and inertial motion:

When I jump out of a plane in FE under no fluidity, I undergo inertial motion. That's free-fall in FE.

The equivalence between proper acceleration and gravity:

Proper acceleration is something we feel. Thus, while standing on the surface of FE, we undergo proper acceleration because the FE exerts an upward force on us. We perceive that as "gravity".


How about you try and explain why these laws don't work on a FE? I doubt you can.

Explain more about NEAA theory, I'm very interested.

You haven't explained why the laws don't work on a FE:

This

Newton's three laws:

This

The equivalence between free-fall and inertial motion:

And this

The equivalence between proper acceleration and gravity:

I'm waiting.

This is what you said previously.

Quote from: E.Jack on October 15, 2008, 03:51:44 AM

-Newton's three laws of motion
-The equivalence between free-fall and inertial motion
-The equivalence between proper acceleration and gravity

etc.

Although imposing these laws on a flat earth causes things to go "bang" very quickly.

Of course these laws work on FE. You replied that these laws are incompatible, but, as I expected, you couldn't explain why.

Sucks to be you.

That doesn't even explain why the laws (every one of them) don't work on a FE. Of course, your claim is irrelevant.

Obvious trolling is obvious.

If the earth were flat, and Newton's laws were applicable the moon (a mere 3000 miles away) would crash down to earth, probably in a matter of minutes. Then the sun. Swiftly followed no doubt by the rest of the heavenly bodies.

Based on Newton's first law, an object accelerate only if it is applied by a force. DE exerts a force on Earth, causing it to accelerate. DE exerts a force on the moons and sun, causing them to accelerate at an equivalent rate relative to Earth. Based on the formula from Newton's second law, force is inversely proportional to mass, so the smaller objects experience smaller force from DE: DE accelerates all objects in the universe at 9.8m/s². They won't collide in any way. Based on Newton's third law, DE exerts a force on FE, and the FE exerts an equivalent reaction force back on DE.  Newton's laws surely are compatible to FE to me.

Oh, you still ignored these:

Newton's three laws:

1st: When I'm "free-falling" in FE under no fluidity, no force is acting on me. Thus, I'm undergoing inertial motion. Fluid exerts the drag force on me, causing me to accelerate slightly up; therefore, I'm no longer undergoing inertial motion in my inertial frame of reference.
2nd: Relative to an inertial observer, the FE surely is accelerating while having mass and momentum with respect to time. Thus, the FE has a net force.
3rd: DE exerts a force on FE, and the FE exerts an equivalent reaction force back on FE. I exert a force on a brick wall in FE, and the brick wall exerts an equivalent reaction force back on me.

The equivalence between free-fall and inertial motion:

When I jump out of a plane in FE under no fluidity, I undergo inertial motion. That's free-fall in FE.

The equivalence between proper acceleration and gravity:

Proper acceleration is something we feel. Thus, while standing on the surface of FE, we undergo proper acceleration because the FE exerts an upward force on us. We perceive that as "gravity".

The laws work on FE. Deal with it.

The laws work on FE. Deal with it.

Just because the laws themselves work, that doesn't mean that they are always being properly applied to FE phenomena.

Newton makes no reference to Dark Energy. Try and stop things crashing to earth without refering to an unproven Energy field.

That doesn't mean Newton's laws don't work on FE, as I've demonstrated already.

Then try and stop celestial bodies (all hovering about 3000 miles up) crashing into each other even with that Dark Energy field.

DEF doesn't stop celestial bodies from crashing into each other. It's DE.

Oh, and force is proportional to mass, when acceleration is constant.  F=m.a.

When acceleration is constant (9.8m/s²), we can determine the amount of force an object experiences with respect to its mass.

Acceleration is inversely proportional to mass when the force is constant. a=F/m.

Maybe that's what you meant.

That's not what I meant; force is not constant in this scenario (DE interaction with FE and celestial bodies). The amount of force experienced by an object is determined by its mass, assuming acceleration is constant. From Newtonian physics, the amount of gravitational force experienced by an object is determined by its mass, since the "gravitational acceleration" is constant. The larger the object, the more "gravity" it experiences.

Just because the laws themselves work, that doesn't mean that they are always being properly applied to FE phenomena.

As long as the laws are applying to the relevant phenomena, the laws are compatible with FE. Reread my post again.

I'm not even sure this makes sense. What does "it's DE" mean?

Uh, Dark Energy.

More correctly, we can determine the force an object experiences in relation to another object, defined by the mass of the other object and the distance from said object. Then we calculate the resulting acceleration from that force. See below.

Except in this scenario, the acceleration is constant.

Actually, from Newtonian physics, the amount of gravitational force m₁ recieves is determined by the mass of the object m₂ in whose gravitational field m₁ is sat, the distance between m₁ and m₂, and of course the mass of m₁.

The larger the mass of m₂ the faster m₁ will accelerate towards m₂.

The mass of m₁ is effectively a resistance to acceleration.

So you can't even follow an argument? Obviously, we're not talking about the gravitational force. We're talking about how Newton's laws apply to FE. I don't really care if you use the equation from the Universal Law of Gravitation, because I'm only using Newton's second law to determine the amount of force a celestial object experiences from Dark Energy. As I've said before, acceleration is constant in this scenario; thus, we can use the object's mass to determine the magnitude of force it experiences.

At that time, you will learn that the acceleration of an object is directly proportional to force and inversely proportional to mass. Increasing force tends to increase acceleration while increasing mass tends to decrease acceleration. Thus, the greater force on more massive objects is offset by the inverse influence of greater mass. Subsequently, all objects free fall at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of their mass.

Also, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9208/u2l3e.html

(Hence, when I jump up, I accelerate back down to earth, the earth does not accelerate (much) up to me)

Then I guess General Relativity is wrong and Newtonian physics is correct.

So far you've failed in my request to stop things crashing to earth without refering to an unproven Energy field.

Hmm.

Things don't crash to Earth because DE accelerates all objects in the universe at a rate of 9.8m/s². Get less n00bish.

Under Round Earth mechanics, the "force" of gravity is countered by the angular acceleration of an orbiting body, hence stable orbit.

I don't think you understand what angular acceleration is.

Does that mean that the approximation given by Newton's Gravitational Constant don't apply to the FE? I having difficulty getting to the bottom of whether objects under the FE obey this (observed) phenomenon.

The FE doesn't even have a gravitational field. The perceived effects of gravitation are generated by the upward acceleration from DE.

You can't use Newton's laws to determine the force an obect experiences from Dark Energy. Newton only defined the forces experienced under his own Newtonian Gravity.

Yes I can. There is acceleration and mass.

I can see how you're trying to cook the books on this one, but before you can do that you need to provide simple equations to define the forces exerted by the so called Dark Energy.

Shouldn't be too hard.

F=ma

Quote from: goldstein on October 17, 2008, 03:48:20 AM

Does that mean that the approximation given by Newton's Gravitational Constant don't apply to the FE? I having difficulty getting to the bottom of whether objects under the FE obey this (observed) phenomenon.

The FE doesn't even have a gravitational field. The perceived effects of gravitation are generated by the upward acceleration from DE.

Thanks for proving GR wrong.

Except GR states that the perceived effects of gravitation in our FoR is basically us undergoing proper acceleration.

That's a misapplication of newton's second. (the fudge I was expecting) The acceleration is derived once all the forces are resolved.

F=ma is derived from F = dp/dt, which is the original equation of Newton's second law.

It's hard to see how Dark Energy can "look ahead" to see how much a mass is accelerating and then apply the appropriate force, that's getting towards magic, or divine intervention.
What the hell are you talking about?

And no, before you jump in. It's not the same as gravity. Yes gravity can apply a varying force, but the variances come from differing masses and distances between those masses.

But anyway. I take it from this you have figures for the mass of the earth, moon and other bodies in the solar system?

What the hell are you talking about?

And I take it that the Dark Energy (Field?) applies to all objects with mass, as the equation suggests?

Yes. Photons are unaffected by DE, so light emitted by the sun can still successfully reach FE without being accelerated. Gravitational lensing is caused by other massive celestial bodies exerting significant levels of gravitation.