Biggest evidence for flat earth

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2009, 08:52:07 AM

So it's energy which causes "gravity" now?

How does it do that again?

It doesn't matter how. The fact is it does.

First it's matter,

now it's energy,

sometimes gravity is a bend in the aether,

other times it's a Newtonian force,

and other times gravity is a sub-atomic puller particles,

seems that you guys haven't the faintest idea or piece of evidence for your "gravity".

At least we can see directly the cause for our gravity.

In order for you to "see" as you say, you would have to be to the side of the accelerating earth. Since space travel is impossible for you in your little world, you cant possibly see it.

In order for you to "see" as you say, you would have to be to the side of the accelerating earth. Since space travel is impossible for you in your little world, you cant possibly see it.

The accelerating earth can be seen.

Just walk off the edge of your chair and observe the surface of the earth carefully.

seems that you guys haven't the faintest piece of evidence for your "gravity".

At least we can see directly the cause for our gravity.

Directly, huh.  How so?

How can a universal constant be inconsistent?  It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force.  It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me.  It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s² accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it.  It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth.

Directly, huh.  How so?

Yep. Just walk off the edge of your chair and look down.

Quote from: Crustinator on November 18, 2009, 04:15:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 18, 2009, 04:12:46 AM

Which way does it exist?

The attraction between matter.

Photons have "gravity" and they're not made of matter.

So matter can't have anything to do with it!

Maybe you should take a look at the Einstein field equations before trying to refute them.  Even pressure has a gravitational pull.  It is hypothetically possible for gravity to be repulsive if you have pure negative pressure.

Also, even if gravity only worked on massive objects, it would still work on light.  Light doesn't have a rest mass.  It still has mass due to its flight.  Photons have been observed to turn into massive antiparticle-particle pairs while in flight.

Quote

Directly, huh.  How so?

Yep. Just walk off the edge of your chair and look down.

Absent an accelerometer and neglecting air resistance, I would say that I accelerated downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 toward an earth stationary from my view point, but technically could not discern this from other scenarios defined as equivalent.

In addition:

How can a universal constant be inconsistent?  It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force.  It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me.  It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s2 accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it.  It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth.

Absent an accelerometer and neglecting air resistance, I would say that I accelerated downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 toward an earth stationary from my view point, but technically could not discern this from other scenarios defined as equivalent.

Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.

There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.

Quote

Absent an accelerometer and neglecting air resistance, I would say that I accelerated downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 toward an earth stationary from my view point, but technically could not discern this from other scenarios defined as equivalent.

Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.

There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.

I flagged this post to the moderators then you edit it.  =/

Anyways, there is no indication that anything is pushing the Earth into me.  Not to mention, who said anything about us being pushed down?

Quote

Absent an accelerometer and neglecting air resistance, I would say that I accelerated downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 toward an earth stationary from my view point, but technically could not discern this from other scenarios defined as equivalent.

Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.

There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.

Nothing pushing me down.  Pulling, yes, in fact in an equally discernable way as to what you are describing.

Tom,
How can a universal constant be inconsistent?  It acclerates the earth as a contact force, but accelerates the sun and moon as non-contact force.  It doesn't accelerate a meteor, it doesn't accelerate me.  It gives the earth a 9.8 m/s2 accel, but not the atmosphere and not the bits that comprise the earth once they lose contact with the earth, it would allegedly accelerate me if I could stand next to the earth, but not when I'm on it.  It bends light and accelerates it upwards, but not if it is traveling straight at the earth.

I truly think Bishop is one of the most annoying debaters on this forum.  His tactic is ignorance and repetition.

By the way, our theories make sense.  We have formulas down for everything and everthing is connected.

You have a magic flying disc that accelerates only certain things that touch it, giant ellipsoidal perfect space mirrors, and bending light, turning to this unknown constant you call "up".  Things are just like, "it was always like that" and have no underlying cause.  With bendy light, by the way, farther away things would be terribly distorted and the horizon would NOT obscure the far away things, because the horizon would appear lower too!  Ever thought of that?

And plus, can you tell me the formula for finding the difference in angle and position after a photon of angle theta has travelled for one second?  NO, you can't!  You just think it bends upwards some random amount!  Get realistic!  Either make up a new random theory that appears to explain why everything behaves like a round Earth with no underlying logic whatsoever, or the Flat Earth Society will become the Denial Society.  Maybe it already is.

^They'll just say, 'Work in progress.'

Quote

Absent an accelerometer and neglecting air resistance, I would say that I accelerated downwards at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 toward an earth stationary from my view point, but technically could not discern this from other scenarios defined as equivalent.

Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.

There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.

The equivalence principle says otherwise.

^They'll just say, 'Work in progress.'

So true!

So, Tom, now that bendy light doesn't work anymore, what's your new argument?  

Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.

There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.

This still is not a direct obsevation of the earth moving upward.  It is an observation of the results of the earth moving upward, which also happens to be what the result of gravity would be as well.

First it's matter,

now it's energy,

sometimes gravity is a bend in the aether,

other times it's a Newtonian force,

and other times gravity is a sub-atomic puller particles,

seems that you guys haven't the faintest idea or piece of evidence for your "gravity".

At least we can see directly the cause for our gravity.

Here, you gave 2 examples of how gravity could work, and tried to make it look like there were more than that.

It was explained up thread that as far as gravity is concerned, matter and energy are interchangable.  it's not sometimes one, sometimes the other, it's always both.

Newton, as far as I know, never described the mechanics that caused gravity, he only recognised it was there.

so you are left with gravity either being a bend in the aether caused by matter and energy, or sub atomic puller particles caused by matter and energy.

not as convoluted as you try to make it sound.

how many explainations are there for why the earth is accellerating upward at a constant rate?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2009, 05:45:54 PM

Nope. When walking off the edge of a chair the only experience is the earth accelerating upwards.

There is no indication that anything is pushing you down.

This still is not a direct obsevation of the earth moving upward.  It is an observation of the results of the earth moving upward, which also happens to be what the result of gravity would be as well.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2009, 05:05:03 PM

First it's matter,

now it's energy,

sometimes gravity is a bend in the aether,

other times it's a Newtonian force,

and other times gravity is a sub-atomic puller particles,

seems that you guys haven't the faintest idea or piece of evidence for your "gravity".

At least we can see directly the cause for our gravity.

Here, you gave 2 examples of how gravity could work, and tried to make it look like there were more than that.

It was explained up thread that as far as gravity is concerned, matter and energy are interchangable.  it's not sometimes one, sometimes the other, it's always both.

Newton, as far as I know, never described the mechanics that caused gravity, he only recognised it was there.

so you are left with gravity either being a bend in the aether caused by matter and energy, or sub atomic puller particles caused by matter and energy.

not as convoluted as you try to make it sound.

how many explainations are there for why the earth is accellerating upward at a constant rate?

You really don't thinks that's convoluted? How does the aether bend? Why does this attract other things? What are these particles? Why can't we detect their existence in any other way than simply the fact that stuff falls when you drop it?

We can't detect them now, but scientists are genuinely looking. That is why the $8,000,000 LHC was built and is looking for the Higgs boson and gravitons. See, we are trying to find the answer, its just really difficult (otherwise this debate would not be happening).
The same could be said about electrons before people came up with CRT's and other equipment. You can't see them, but your cell phone still works.

So work in progress? Electrons are an entirely different matter, as their effects can be seen and proven experimentally.

Huh, sort of like how gravity can be seen.

Guess it's not magic then.

Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.

So work in progress? Electrons are an entirely different matter, as their effects can be seen and proven experimentally.

The effects of gravity (a close approximation of gravitation) can be seen. The theory makes predictions that we can test, like dropping things in vacuum and launching satellites (regardless of whether you believe this is happening). The theory makes predictions about the motion of the planets and stars, which can be tested. Of course the theory doesn't prove that the stars are moving in a certain way, but its predictions can be tested and are very accurate.
And yes, electrons are an entirely different matter, but only because they happen to be easier to test. The electrical currents and magnetic fields could be predicted long before electrons could be proven to exist (in some form or another). Besides, we are still in the process of understanding electrons. If wave/particle duality doesn't confuse you then you don't underst

Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.

Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:13:27 AM

Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.

Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.

Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 10:18:55 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:13:27 AM

Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.

Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.

Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.

And the observable driver of that accleration is?

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 10:18:55 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:13:27 AM

Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.

Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.

Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.

Your earlier post says that acceleration is an equally valid explanation for gravity, but in both cases all we can observe is acceleration. The only difference between the theories (as far as this particular discussion is concerned) is the source. That leaves UA and gravitons/bending space on a similar footing as far as what can be directly observed (at least until the LHC gets more evidence).

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 10:18:55 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:13:27 AM

Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.

Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.

Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.

The advantage of gravity is that it can be used to explain many different phenomena that are observed in the cosmos as well as why we stick to the earth. Whereas the comedy accelerator can only explain why we stick to the earth. I'm not saying that makes it more likely, but statistically in the history of science, situations where one theory explains several phenomena rather than having seperate theories for each different observance, have been the ones eventually proved correct.
Gravity not only explains why we would stick to a round earth but also has the advantage of explaining WHY the earth is round. I don't think there is a theory that explains why a flat earth is flat, is there?

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:33:34 AM

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 10:18:55 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:13:27 AM

Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.

Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.

Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.

And the observable driver of that accleration is?

The UA.

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:33:34 AM

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 10:18:55 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:13:27 AM

Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.

Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.

Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.

Your earlier post says that acceleration is an equally valid explanation for gravity, but in both cases all we can observe is acceleration. The only difference between the theories (as far as this particular discussion is concerned) is the source. That leaves UA and gravitons/bending space on a similar footing as far as what can be directly observed (at least until the LHC gets more evidence).

Actually, acceleration is a phenomenon which can be seen elsewhere. Accelerate in a car and bam, the effect is also seen. Everything getting magically sucked together is not a phenomenon we see other than that we and the ground seem to like each other.

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:33:34 AM

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 10:18:55 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:13:27 AM

Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.

Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.

Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.

The advantage of gravity is that it can be used to explain many different phenomena that are observed in the cosmos as well as why we stick to the earth. Whereas the comedy accelerator can only explain why we stick to the earth. I'm not saying that makes it more likely, but statistically in the history of science, situations where one theory explains several phenomena rather than having seperate theories for each different observance, have been the ones eventually proved correct.
Gravity not only explains why we would stick to a round earth but also has the advantage of explaining WHY the earth is round. I don't think there is a theory that explains why a flat earth is flat, is there?

And the fact that this idea explains away more phenomena makes it more valid? So I could just say "hand of God" to everything and that would be the best theory ever? Nice.

And the fact that this idea explains away more phenomena makes it more valid? So I could just say "hand of God" to everything and that would be the best theory ever? Nice.

No, because "Hand of God" is not testable, replicable or predictable, which proper scientific theories are. Gravity is entirely testable, replicable and predictable. Its predictions work for all matter that we see everywhere, on earth or for celestial objects. The same can not be said for the comedy accelerator, which picks and chooses what it affects according to no discernable guidelines.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on December 11, 2009, 10:38:31 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:33:34 AM

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 10:18:55 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on December 11, 2009, 10:13:27 AM

Nope, acceleration's equally valid for that. Gravitons can't be seen or proven experimentally.

Acceleration is not equally valid without an observable explanation.
Acceleration without an observable energy source is the same as Gravitation without an observable force carrier or bent medium.

Acceleration is at least an observable phenomenon. Gravity is a whole new field invented to support (which it utterly fails to do, given its utter lack of evidence) RET, the unsupportable.

And the observable driver of that accleration is?

The UA.

In what way?