Edge of space

Quote from: Jack on January 01, 2009, 06:24:03 PM

How about answering my question?

I just did, look up the definition of frame inavariant. It is something you learn in the first days of any particle physics course since relativity plays a big role when you study the effecs of subatomic particles

A particle physicist will tell me that light bends relative to a non-inertial observer. Also, in Einstein's frame invariance, all inertial frame of references are equivalent relative to the speed of light. In other words, the speed of light remains constant relative to any inertial observers; it always travel at c.

Now,

So, from your frame of reference, how do you know that light does not bend even though it appears to be bending?

look up frame invariance again and you will understand a bit better but if it is measure straight in a frame invariant state then it will be straight in all frames inertial and non-inertial. The trick is deriving the frame invariant equations.

look up frame invariance again and you will understand a bit better

I know what frame invariance is. The "invariance" is the key word. I just explained it.

but if it is measure straight in a frame invariant state then it will be straight in all frames inertial and non-inertial.

Now you're mixing things up. Frame invariance does not mean an inertial frame is equivalent to a non-inertial frame. According to frame invariance in SR, light will be straight when taken from all inertial frames of reference. It will not be straight when taken from a non-inertial frame of reference. In GR, not only does all inertial frames are equivalent, but all non-inertial frames are also equivalent.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 01, 2009, 06:58:18 PM

look up frame invariance again and you will understand a bit better

I know what frame invariance is. The "invariance" is the key word. I just explained it.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 01, 2009, 06:58:18 PM

but if it is measure straight in a frame invariant state then it will be straight in all frames inertial and non-inertial.

Now you're mixing things up. Frame invariance does not mean an inertial frame is equivalent to a non-inertial frame. According to frame invariance in SR, light will be straight when taken from all inertial frames of reference. It will not be straight when taken from a non-inertial frame of reference. In GR, not only does all inertial frames are equivalent, but all non-inertial frames are also equivalent.

try again or explain how a physicist can study a particle moving at .99c and understand what is happening inside that particle and determine all the resulting vectors and the amount of energy released/gained during the interaction

That's irrelevant to what we are talking about. I stand by my statement.

A particle physicist will tell me that light bends relative to a non-inertial observer.

That's irrelevant to what we are talking about. I stand by my statement.

Quote

A particle physicist will tell me that light bends relative to a non-inertial observer.

But how does it bend? does it bend as gravitation will predict or does it bend in some other direction. and as I stated that way we would test this would be to use frame invariance. So it is pretty easy to disregard the Bendy light theory

I'm not talking about the Bendy Light theory. I'm talking the bending of light according to GR and its concepts of non-inertial reference frames. For example, gravitational lensing.

I'm not talking about the Bendy Light theory. I'm talking the bending of light according to GR and its concepts of non-inertial reference frames. For example, gravitational lensing.

We can demonstrate Gravitation as the cause of the lensing based upon the predictions made by gravity and how it is a non-uniform field

Oh my god how many times does it have to b said, light does not bend, of follows spacetime, gravitational lensing is not an effect of bent light, and jack if u want people to answer your questions perhaps you should answer other peoples, which you continually fail to do.  Like explain to me how dark energy can propel something through space at a constant acceleration rate?

Oh my god how many times does it have to b said, light does not bend, of follows spacetime, gravitational lensing is not an effect of bent light

..

Like explain to me how dark energy can propel something through space at a constant acceleration rate?

Relative to what?

Relative to anything I don't care, I would like to know your ridiculous theory as to how dark energy can have any effect whatsoever on regular matter, Lmao

That sounds intelligent, "nuclear engineer".

Anyhow,

Relative to anything I don't care

There's no such thing as an absolute frame of reference. Relative to me, the Earth's acceleration remains at 9.8m/s². Relative to an inertial observer in the universe, the Earth's acceleration decreases as it approaches the speed of light asymptote.

Quote from: jargo on January 01, 2009, 02:18:03 PM

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 01, 2009, 12:39:30 PM

Quote from: Ultimateskeptic on January 01, 2009, 12:28:43 PM

You FEers are the ones defending your theory here so that means the burden of proof is on you, why don't you act like it?

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Our position is the default position which may be verified simply by looking out of one's window.

There are loads of evidence that support the RE-model but none that support the FE-model. The horizon that you see when you look out of your window proves that earth is a globe. The FE-explanation for the horizon is that light bends upward which makes the earth only seem like a globe. In either case earth looks like a globe which makes it the default position.

How does the fact that our eyes are limited prove the earth is a globe?

It does not prove that earth is a globe. It only makes it look like one because the horizon looks exactly what it would look like if the earth was a globe. If the earth was flat one would assume that you would see a flat earth as far as the atmosphere allows you. For example a ship going to the sea would just slowly fade away instead of the hull disappearing before the mast.
 Therefore the the earth is a globe is the default position and it is your job to prove that light bends upward or there is some weird perceptive error that can be removed by looking the far away object through telescope that causes the horizon.

You come to the Flat Earth Society forums and declare the earth to be round. How is the burden of proof not on you?

How about if I follow your debating rules and claim, The Earth is not Flat.  Now the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is automatically on any person, society, organization or entity that makes a claim that contradicts a fact that has been extensively and exhaustively proven in the scientific community - through countless repeated experiments, mathematical derivations, instruments that have been specifically developed on the basis of aforementioned evidence and for the purpose of navigating a round globe, and testimony by any person that has ever so much as been on a high vantage pointed and noted the curve of the ground as it approaches the horizon. Why don't you tell the pilots that regularly fly commercial airplanes from New York to New Dehli that the Earth is flat? Are all 107,000 airplane pilots in the U.S. "in on it?" How about the retired ones? Why are they all keeping their mouths shut? Surely ONE, at least one of these fine, upstanding citizens would expose the alleged round earth conspiracy. 

It is very easy to prove to yourselves that the Earth is round. The burden of proof is not on the people that have personally circumnavigated the globe in airplanes, boats, and balloons and that have reached the expanses of beautiful Antarctica and haven't found a wall of ice blocking their path. What a preposterously stupid notion. The burden of proof is not on the people that have seen with their own eyes that the Earth is round and that have the brains to comprehend the incontrovertible mathematics that prove it. If you want to prove to yourselves that the Earth is round (or flat, it really doesn't matter), get in a rowboat and start rowing. The result will be very good no matter what happens. Either you will eventually arrive at roughly the same location that you started at or you will die in the journey and eliminate your mental incompetence from our collective gene pool. Someone so idiotic so as to claim that the Earth must obviously be flat because it appears flat within their limited scope of vision at a low altitude doesn't really deserve my serious consideration and surely cannot ever demand that I carry the "burden of proof." I will tell them to go mountain climbing on their next vacation and to look at the Earth from a high vantage point. The curvature is obvious, believe me. Better yet, don't believe me. Go see for yourself.

If I take a high resolution photograph, open it with my photo editor and then proceed to increase the zoom level to 100000%, do you think that the photograph will still look the same as it does at 100% resolution? Of course not. The same principle applies to your so-called "default position." You cannot claim that the Earth is flat when your scope of visibility is a few miles (at best) while the circumference of the Earth is 24,900 miles! Your eyes do not work like that and science does not work like that. Such reasoning is that of a toddler, which is why I can scarcely believe that many of the proponents of these claims are adults. So, sorry, but your "default" position is extremely flawed and certainly not shared by everyone, mainly, those that have for themselves perceived the truth of the Earth's curvature. The burden of proof is back on you no matter how you look at it. Enjoy.

You come to the Flat Earth Society forums and declare the earth to be round. How is the burden of proof not on you?

Good one. How about this - you put your forum which is on web server which resides in earth which in common belief is round and you claim that earth is flat. In this logic the burden of proof is on you.

Good one. How about this - you put your forum which is on web server which resides in earth which in common belief is round and you claim that earth is flat. In this logic the burden of proof is on you.

The forum has to be internet based to allow all FE'ers reasonably available access to the society. Making it a public allows for FE'ers that are not known to the FES group to join. The site makes no declaration about the majority of beliefs beyond it, but based on its perspective it is only a logical implication. For example, if a site promoting Islam is launched, and Christians came to their site to tell them they were wrong they would need reasoning. Now if one of those Christians claimed that it was there responsibility to prove themselves to the majority of people, because the majority religion is Christianity, would the smaller religion really need to prove themselves? No. The same applies to this society.

This site makes no official reference to others, and there will always be conflicting sites on the internet if you look for them. Popular perspectives doesn't mean it is more correct or more deserving. We have no responsibility to prove ourselves to the masses.

Quote from: zork on January 13, 2009, 03:11:08 PM

Good one. How about this - you put your forum which is on web server which resides in earth which in common belief is round and you claim that earth is flat. In this logic the burden of proof is on you.

The forum has to be internet based to allow all FE'ers reasonably available access to the society. Making it a public allows for FE'ers that are not known to the FES group to join. The site makes no declaration about the majority of beliefs beyond it, but based on its perspective it is only a logical implication. For example, if a site promoting Islam is launched, and Christians came to their site to tell them they were wrong they would need reasoning. Now if one of those Christians claimed that it was there responsibility to prove themselves to the majority of people, because the majority religion is Christianity, would the smaller religion really need to prove themselves? No. The same applies to this society.

This site makes no official reference to others, and there will always be conflicting sites on the internet if you look for them. Popular perspectives doesn't mean it is more correct or more deserving. We have no responsibility to prove ourselves to the masses.

But as the Official Flat Earth Society site should the responsibility be on you to help educate so if someone who may believe different says you are wrong you can then supply them with the knowledge that they need to see. Usong your example if I went to the Islam site and i told them they were wrong the Sheik would probably then start a conversation asking me why I felt that way and then he would try to educate me. Of course at a certain point if I was being rude or condesending then he would have every right to tell me to f**k off same as here I fell that it is your responsibility to help educate people about your theory with anyone who wants to have an intelligent conversation about it.

But as the Official Flat Earth Society site should the responsibility be on you to help educate so if someone who may believe different says you are wrong you can then supply them with the knowledge that they need to see. Usong your example if I went to the Islam site and i told them they were wrong the Sheik would probably then start a conversation asking me why I felt that way and then he would try to educate me. Of course at a certain point if I was being rude or condesending then he would have every right to tell me to f**k off same as here I fell that it is your responsibility to help educate people about your theory with anyone who wants to have an intelligent conversation about it.

The Sheikh would have to care what you believe in for him to take the time to convince you otherwise. I do not care what RE'ers believe. 

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 13, 2009, 09:42:30 PM

But as the Official Flat Earth Society site should the responsibility be on you to help educate so if someone who may believe different says you are wrong you can then supply them with the knowledge that they need to see. Usong your example if I went to the Islam site and i told them they were wrong the Sheik would probably then start a conversation asking me why I felt that way and then he would try to educate me. Of course at a certain point if I was being rude or condesending then he would have every right to tell me to f**k off same as here I fell that it is your responsibility to help educate people about your theory with anyone who wants to have an intelligent conversation about it.

The Sheikh would have to care what you believe in for him to take the time to convince you otherwise. I do not care what RE'ers believe. 

Well then maybe you should no longer be a moderator on the official flat earth society website because you have a responsibility to help your society educate the uninformed with the exception of those that are out there that wish to ask question to be mean spirited and it also does not mean that the burden is on you to prove your thinking but the burden is on you to properly explain the theories and models of the flat earth society and if you are going to take up these questions in the debate and discussion portion of your site then you had better be prepared to do just that, if you do not care that is fine but then you should avoid this section.

it also does not mean that the burden is on you to prove your thinking but the burden is on you to properly explain the theories and models of the flat earth society and if you are going to take up these questions in the debate and discussion portion of your site then you had better be prepared to do just that, if you do not care that is fine but then you should avoid this section.

I only clarified a mistake that zork made, when telling us we had the burden of proof. If you have questions about the model, that is a different issue. What would you like to know of the FE model?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 13, 2009, 11:13:27 PM

it also does not mean that the burden is on you to prove your thinking but the burden is on you to properly explain the theories and models of the flat earth society and if you are going to take up these questions in the debate and discussion portion of your site then you had better be prepared to do just that, if you do not care that is fine but then you should avoid this section.

I only clarified a mistake that zork made, when telling us we had the burden of proof. If you have questions about the model, that is a different issue. What would you like to know of the FE model?

I would love to know why there is no real model, it seems that what you have as your official model does not apply anymore and whatever model there is seems to change by the minute. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with your view there should be some sort fo official model of the earth

I only clarified a mistake that zork made, when telling us we had the burden of proof. If you have questions about the model, that is a different issue. What would you like to know of the FE model?

I didn't tell exactly that the burden of proof is you. I said that in your logic it can also be on you. You say that RE people come to your site and so the burden of proof for RE is on them. But you put your server on round earth(it's also not belief actually but scientifically proven fact) and so you claim otherwise and burden of proof is on you. My point actually is that this is not nice to evade always with this "burden of proof" thing. This only shows that you evade explaining things and don't have enough data or evidence do show otherwise.

In FES' defense,  they do supply the information they have available to them.  To further their defense, many of them are working diligently to get us a wiki with more comprehensive and up to date information.

I would love to know why there is no real model, it seems that what you have as your official model does not apply anymore and whatever model there is seems to change by the minute. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with your view there should be some sort fo official model of the earth

What model and problems are you referring to?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 14, 2009, 01:00:59 AM

I would love to know why there is no real model, it seems that what you have as your official model does not apply anymore and whatever model there is seems to change by the minute. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with your view there should be some sort fo official model of the earth

What model and problems are you referring to?

The majority of the FAQ does not seem to represent the current accepted theories about most things from why ships appear to sink over the horizon to the size and scope of the conspiracy

The majority of the FAQ does not seem to represent the current accepted theories about most things from why ships appear to sink over the horizon to the size and scope of the conspiracy

Ah, so you're suggesting that the FAQ is overdue for an update.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 14, 2009, 02:20:08 PM

The majority of the FAQ does not seem to represent the current accepted theories about most things from why ships appear to sink over the horizon to the size and scope of the conspiracy

Ah, so you're suggesting that the FAQ is overdue for an update.

Just a bit, maybe.  I'm still trying to construct a conspiracy model that makes at least a little bit of sense, and Greeneyes says that she wants to ask a couple of you about the math in some of the UA models.

(Don't get her started, I'll never get the computer back.)

As it stands, the FE hypothesis is disjointed in several areas.  Since you cannot get three people to agree on any one model, it's only a hypothesis.  If you can get everyone on a single track, then you can call it a theory.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 14, 2009, 02:20:08 PM

The majority of the FAQ does not seem to represent the current accepted theories about most things from why ships appear to sink over the horizon to the size and scope of the conspiracy

Ah, so you're suggesting that the FAQ is overdue for an update.

Very much so. I think that if you are going to have a debate section and you guys want to keep it serious then the FAQ should be current and clear that way we have an idea what will be brought up so we can provide our own evidence to support/refute that argument. and not the way it currently is which is whatever a FE'ers thinks up at that moment is the FE model. You may also want to think abou adding a section for the new ideas so these guys  have a place to discuss those ideas that pop into their heads