Why do you think the Earth is round?

-you can see the curve of the earth in africa or on the oceon
-air planes fly
-when i drop a ball, it falls down and hits the ground, this can fit with gravity and with upwards acceleration
-when i throw a ball in the air (upwards), the calculations will point out that it's impossible for the acceleration to fit, while the gravity still fits
-The pictures of the earth
-The space shuttles flying around our earth in space
-The fact that we can sail around the world
and so on

-when i throw a ball in the air (upwards), the calculations will point out that it's impossible for the acceleration to fit, while the gravity still fits

ok, now go show me that the other ones are wrong...

and items that go near lightspeed are gaining in masses
atoms do it, the earth is made of atoms, the earth would grow in masses to

or do you now say that the earth isn't made of atoms?

then it's not nearing light speed, that meens that it's not constant accelerating, which means your theory of 'upwards acceleration' is wrong

oh by the way, lots of people actually pay million to go to space as 'vacation', are you saying that nasa actually sends them to africa and asks them not to say that it's all a fraude? :s

Quote from: Dreak on September 23, 2009, 06:22:30 AM

-when i throw a ball in the air (upwards), the calculations will point out that it's impossible for the acceleration to fit, while the gravity still fits

Wrong.  Please look up the Equivalence Principle.  From our reference frame gravity and acceleration would be indistinguishable.

But the equivalence principle cannot be applied to the (flat) earth as a whole, since gravity varies according to altitude and geographic location.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 23, 2009, 08:19:58 AM

But the equivalence principle cannot be applied to the (flat) earth as a whole, since gravity varies according to altitude and geographic location.

Allegedly.

Quote from: Dreak on September 23, 2009, 07:45:41 AM

then it's not nearing light speed, that meens that it's not constant accelerating, which means your theory of 'upwards acceleration' is wrong

1. It's stationary relative to you because you are accelerating with it.

Quote from: Dreak on September 23, 2009, 07:45:41 AM

oh by the way, lots of people actually pay million to go to space as 'vacation', are you saying that nasa actually sends them to africa and asks them not to say that it's all a fraude? :s

2. Why would they send them to Africa? Parabolic trajectories are perfectly compatible with Flat Earth Theory, which is what most "space tourists" have done.



1. That's not the point, if we are accelerating like that, we would gain incredibly in mass
2. MOST, nice said, not everybody, quite some stay for quite a while in space, nouf said

1. That's not the point, if we are accelerating like that, we would gain incredibly in mass

2. MOST, nice said, not everybody, quite some stay for quite a while in space, nouf said

Well, they claim to.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 23, 2009, 09:36:09 AM

Well, they claim to.

Hello Mr. Conspiracy Sorry for keeping you waiting.

because it takes 2.5 minutes

1. That's not the point, if we are accelerating like that, we would gain incredibly in mass

Only relative to an inertial observer. Do you understand special relativity at all?


made my day

How can you prove that that was filmed in orbit, and not in a parabolic trajectory?

Because parabolic trajectory gives less than a minute of "zero-g". That video, and all these...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Richard+Garriott+Space+Video+Blog&search_type=&aq=f

...are much longer than the maximum time achievable by parabolic trajectory.

Quote from: Dreak on September 23, 2009, 09:56:06 AM

because it takes 2.5 minutes

And what is stopping a spacecraft from travelling in a parabolic path for 2.5 minutes?

Quote from: Dreak on September 23, 2009, 09:56:06 AM

1. That's not the point, if we are accelerating like that, we would gain incredibly in mass

Only relative to an inertial observer. Do you understand special relativity at all?


made my day

I'll take that as a "no".

lightspeed is lightspeed, and the accelleration of earth is a constant
if it goes 9.81m/s? faster every second, then we would reach lightspeed in 303581039.76 seconds
that's 354 days
give it up, your upwards acceleration is a big mistake

parsifal, if you would go study physics, you would know.
i saw it on tv why it wasn't possible, can't explain it however.

Why do you keep saying 'do you have proof'?
people actually DO sail around the world, for example, my brothers best friend will return in a few months, for the record.

Quote from: Dreak on September 23, 2009, 10:02:59 AM

lightspeed is lightspeed, and the accelleration of earth is a constant
if it goes 9.81m/s? faster every second, then we would reach lightspeed in 303581039.76 seconds
that's 354 days
give it up, your upwards acceleration is a big mistake

Again, you don't understand special relativity. You cannot apply classical mechanics when relativistic speeds are involved.

Quote from: Dreak on September 23, 2009, 10:02:59 AM

parsifal, if you would go study physics, you would know.
i saw it on tv why it wasn't possible, can't explain it however.

What sort of study are we talking about here? I'd really like to further my education, so if you could give me any pointers as to the sort of course I might be able to take to enlighten myself, I'd love to hear them.

Quote from: Dreak on September 23, 2009, 10:02:59 AM

Why do you keep saying 'do you have proof'?
people actually DO sail around the world, for example, my brothers best friend will return in a few months, for the record.

And my brother's best friend has been to Jupiter. See how this works if we don't need to provide proof?

Can you provide a source, or any sort of reason, as to why it is not possible to fly in a parabolic trajectory for more than one minute?

There's some very simple maths that explains why.

As a physics student you should be able to figure it out. Let me know if you can't.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 23, 2009, 10:11:38 AM

There's some very simple maths that explains why.

As a physics student you should be able to figure it out. Let me know if you can't.

Parabolas are infinite in length. Therefore, if the Earth is flat and infinite, the only limit on the amount of time a craft can spend in a parabolic trajectory in a vacuum and still come back down to Earth is its initial kinetic energy.

Quote from: Dreak on September 23, 2009, 10:02:59 AM

lightspeed is lightspeed, and the accelleration of earth is a constant
if it goes 9.81m/s? faster every second, then we would reach lightspeed in 303581039.76 seconds
that's 354 days
give it up, your upwards acceleration is a big mistake

1. Again, you don't understand special relativity. You cannot apply classical mechanics when relativistic speeds are involved.

Quote from: Dreak on September 23, 2009, 10:02:59 AM

parsifal, if you would go study physics, you would know.
i saw it on tv why it wasn't possible, can't explain it however.

2. What sort of study are we talking about here? I'd really like to further my education, so if you could give me any pointers as to the sort of course I might be able to take to enlighten myself, I'd love to hear them.

Quote from: Dreak on September 23, 2009, 10:02:59 AM

Why do you keep saying 'do you have proof'?
people actually DO sail around the world, for example, my brothers best friend will return in a few months, for the record.

3.And my brother's best friend has been to Jupiter. See how this works if we don't need to provide proof?

Quote from: Crustinator on September 23, 2009, 10:11:38 AM

There's some very simple maths that explains why.

As a physics student you should be able to figure it out. Let me know if you can't.

Parabolas are infinite in length. Therefore, if the Earth is flat and infinite, the only limit on the amount of time a craft can spend in a parabolic trajectory in a vacuum and still come back down to Earth is its initial kinetic energy.

1.I think you are messing up 'rest' and movement with 'relitive speeds'...
If you send a lightbeam to a place 300.000 km further then here, it will take 1 second to get there
that means light goes at a movement of 300.000km/s
The acceleration (acceleration isn't relative), is 9.81m/s?
so therefor t = v/a
t = (300.000hm/s) / (9,81m/s?)

and then you come to 340 and a bit days
sure speed can be seen relative, but an endless acceleration isn't relative and that's it

2. basic physics would be a good start for you

3. seeing that he has a daily blog with pictures, i can quite follow him

if you want to be certain that your earth is flat, then take a boat and sail from america to the west, guess what? you'll reach land! (and it's not made of ice)

1. you are only at 'zero-g' when the plane goes down again

2. a plane can't always goes up (because as you so beautiful said it, it must have infinite energy to get at infinite hight)

3. plane going down, earth going up, so it certainly isn't infinite

o yes, note to you, sure parabolas are infinite, at least they are on graphics
but i'm QUITE sure that you'll reach the ground after a while

Parsifal, don't you remember that we banned you from participating in discussions about aviation due to your gross ignorance of the entire subject?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 23, 2009, 10:33:17 AM

Parsifal, don't you remember that we banned you from participating in discussions about aviation due to your gross ignorance of the entire subject?

This discussion is about spaceflight, not aviation.