This Accelerating Earth...

Unfortunately, that is one of the few areas FEers have their asses covered. Read up on Special Relativity- there are some bizarre technicalities in there that I believe mean we can accelerate at a constant rate forever and never reach C.

A much better way to argue this is pointing out experiments that demonstrate the mass of mountains by measuring their gravitational field, or by demonstrating the varying gravitational strength of the earth depending on where you are. Those are arguments FE has always ignored due to not having a good rebuttal.

Unfortunately, that is one of the few areas FEers have their asses covered. Read up on Special Relativity- there are some bizarre technicalities in there that I believe mean we can accelerate at a constant rate forever and never reach C.

A much better way to argue this is pointing out experiments that demonstrate the mass of mountains by measuring their gravitational field, or by demonstrating the varying gravitational strength of the earth depending on where you are. Those are arguments FE has always ignored due to not having a good rebuttal.

Thanks, but that does not nullify my inability to hear myself if I travel faster than 343 meters/s at sea level, regardless of the fact that I will never reach C.

What are you talking about? Speed of sound? Hear yourself? You hear yourself even with your ears covered, through the internal cavities in your head.

Thanks, but that does not nullify my inability to hear myself if I travel faster than 343 meters/s at sea level, regardless of the fact that I will never reach C.

If you're traveling faster than 343 m/s at sea level without the benefit of a cockpit of some sort, hearing yourself is going to be the least of your worries.

Quote from: Obama Llama on December 22, 2009, 10:46:55 AM

Unfortunately, that is one of the few areas FEers have their asses covered. Read up on Special Relativity- there are some bizarre technicalities in there that I believe mean we can accelerate at a constant rate forever and never reach C.

A much better way to argue this is pointing out experiments that demonstrate the mass of mountains by measuring their gravitational field, or by demonstrating the varying gravitational strength of the earth depending on where you are. Those are arguments FE has always ignored due to not having a good rebuttal.

Thanks, but that does not nullify my inability to hear myself if I travel faster than 343 meters/s at sea level, regardless of the fact that I will never reach C.

Speed of sound is relative to the speed of the air. The air is accelerating upward with everything else.

Unfortunately, that is one of the few areas FEers have their asses covered. Read up on Special Relativity- there are some bizarre technicalities in there that I believe mean we can accelerate at a constant rate forever and never reach C.

In particular, in order to feel a gravitational acceleration of 9/8 m/s², we would need to be accelerating at a constant rate of 9.8 m/s² in our own reference frame. This is not a fixed (inertial) reference frame, but rather a varying one, and in fact our acceleration in an inertial reference frame would not be fixed. If you work it out, our speed in a fixed inertial reference frame actually goes as v(t)=at/sqrt[1 + (at/c)2], and asymptotically approaches c. [source]

A much better way to argue this is pointing out experiments that demonstrate the mass of mountains by measuring their gravitational field, or by demonstrating the varying gravitational strength of the earth depending on where you are. Those are arguments FE has always ignored due to not having a good rebuttal.

Unless you have personally measured discrepancies in the acceleration due to gravity near mountains or depending on elevation, which nobody on these forums ever has (to within the sensitivities of their instruments), this is easily explained by the conspiracy.

Thanks, but that does not nullify my inability to hear myself if I travel faster than 343 meters/s at sea level, regardless of the fact that I will never reach C.

As mentioned above, that would be true if you were traveling at more than 343 m/s relative to the air. In fact, the air is traveling with you, so this is a non-issue. (Simple Galilean invariance should have made that obvious.)

Quote

A much better way to argue this is pointing out experiments that demonstrate the mass of mountains by measuring their gravitational field, or by demonstrating the varying gravitational strength of the earth depending on where you are. Those are arguments FE has always ignored due to not having a good rebuttal.

Unless you have personally measured discrepancies in the acceleration due to gravity near mountains or depending on elevation, which nobody on these forums ever has (to within the sensitivities of their instruments), this is easily explained by the conspiracy.

Like hell it is. You'd have to get every physicist in the world in on the conspiracy if people are just making up varying gravitational pull.

I wish I still had the book I was reading that would give me names to look up for this, but I know that people have been doing plumb bob experiments on mountains for centuries at least, in order to find the relative density of the earth. The results have never been contested, and have been repeated throughout history. It's another one of those ideas that saturates the world of physics.

Either an entire branch of science (and, by extension, scientists) are in on the conspiracy, or these effects are real.

True. If FE is to have the slightest shred of credibility, you have to postulate a vast world-wide conspiracy anyways, which is already extremely improbable. But I like to think of the FE vs. RE debate here as a game (which it essentially is, since more-or-less-nobody actually believes that the Earth is flat, although many here have adopted that pose). The goal of this game, for the round-Earthers, is to prove, using only experiments they have personally conducted or observations that they have personally made, that the FE model is impossible. The goal of the game for the flat-Earthers, is to produce a model convincing enough that the round-Earthers can't reach their goal, and to expose the logical fallacies and errors of math, physics, and so on in the arguments of the round-Earthers. Postulating a huge globe-spanning conspiracy puts the two sides on more equal footing, since it's much harder (but still possible!) to prove that the Earth is round using experiments and observations that you can personally perform.

Of course, the round-Earthers have a huge advantage in this game, but then there are also a great many idiots who adopt the round-Earth position, who make many flawed arguments, so the flat-Earthers have many opportunities to score points.

It's not a matter of "scoring" points. It's a matter of truth.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

It's not a matter of "scoring" points. It's a matter of truth.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Except there's parts in ENaG that you don't agree with, so obviously aren't truth according to you.

Plus you should also highlight the section in ENaG where Rowbotham discusses the accelerating earth. We'd all like to know.

Except there's parts in ENaG that you don't agree with, so obviously aren't truth according to you.

Maybe one or two things. But he generally got it right.

Plus you should also highlight the section in ENaG where Rowbotham discusses the accelerating earth. We'd all like to know.

I never said that he did.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 02:20:02 AM

It's not a matter of "scoring" points. It's a matter of truth.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Except there's parts in ENaG that you don't agree with, so obviously aren't truth according to you.

Plus you should also highlight the section in ENaG where Rowbotham discusses the accelerating earth. We'd all like to know.

Or the part where he says that the FE is an infinite plane.

True. If FE is to have the slightest shred of credibility, you have to postulate a vast world-wide conspiracy anyways, which is already extremely improbable. But I like to think of the FE vs. RE debate here as a game (which it essentially is, since more-or-less-nobody actually believes that the Earth is flat, although many here have adopted that pose). The goal of this game, for the round-Earthers, is to prove, using only experiments they have personally conducted or observations that they have personally made, that the FE model is impossible. The goal of the game for the flat-Earthers, is to produce a model convincing enough that the round-Earthers can't reach their goal, and to expose the logical fallacies and errors of math, physics, and so on in the arguments of the round-Earthers. Postulating a huge globe-spanning conspiracy puts the two sides on more equal footing, since it's much harder (but still possible!) to prove that the Earth is round using experiments and observations that you can personally perform.

Of course, the round-Earthers have a huge advantage in this game, but then there are also a great many idiots who adopt the round-Earth position, who make many flawed arguments, so the flat-Earthers have many opportunities to score points.

I agree. This whole website is a game to me - sort of a mind trick. Proving the world is round is a lot harder than it would seem at first and it really exercises the muscle between your ears.

The people on this website who say the Earth is flat are either insane, uninformed, or lying. We know this to be true because flat earth theory is riddled with contradictions and lacking in any substantial evidence. "Just look outside your window"... Ha!