Proof that FE'ers are wrong.

So the FE'ers say there is no gravity? What keeps us here, on the ground is that the Earth is constantly accelerating.

So if I jump of a tall building, I would not infact move. I would not fall to my death, rather I would be stationary and the Earth would just slam into me. So how is the wind generated, well rather, why is there resistance? My hair would blowing, my clothes would be blowing up because of the resistance. But supposedly, I'm not moving. If there is no gravity, I should be floating there with no resistance and my hair, clothes, etc would not be blowen upwards. So where does this resistance come from?

So the FE'ers say there is no gravity? What keeps us here, on the ground is that the Earth is constantly accelerating.

So if I jump of a tall building, I would not infact move. I would not fall to my death, rather I would be stationary and the Earth would just slam into me. So how is the wind generated, well rather, why is there resistance? My hair would blowing, my clothes would be blowing up because of the resistance. But supposedly, I'm not moving. If there is no gravity, I should be floating there with no resistance and my hair, clothes, etc would not be blowen upwards. So where does this resistance come from?

I'm new, but I believe the air is also being accelerated upward. Wind resistance and what-not is still in effect. The acceleration is a constant on all molecules and particles on Earth.

Correct me if I am wrong, Flat Earthers (although, I think they may be quite tired of this topic  )

Quote from: RoundEarth_101 on December 19, 2009, 06:26:37 AM

So the FE'ers say there is no gravity? What keeps us here, on the ground is that the Earth is constantly accelerating.

So if I jump of a tall building, I would not infact move. I would not fall to my death, rather I would be stationary and the Earth would just slam into me. So how is the wind generated, well rather, why is there resistance? My hair would blowing, my clothes would be blowing up because of the resistance. But supposedly, I'm not moving. If there is no gravity, I should be floating there with no resistance and my hair, clothes, etc would not be blowen upwards. So where does this resistance come from?

I'm new, but I believe the air is also being accelerated upward. Wind resistance and what-not is still in effect. The acceleration is a constant on all molecules and particles on Earth.

Correct me if I am wrong, Flat Earthers (although, I think they may be quite tired of this topic  )

Ah ok. Makes sense I guess.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34980.0

I actually started out asking about this very thing...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34980.0

I actually started out asking about this very thing...

Oh wow. I'm new aswell, so I'm still not really sure on all the details of what FE'ers believe. Some wierd theories they have too.

It doesn't effect the atmosphere (atmoplane), the earth pushing it does, though.

Regrettably, for both sides, the equivalence principle means that every more or less every comprehensible feature of aerodynamics, weather and so on require similar (often identical) levels of explanatory power in either model. This is because globularist science is designed to mimic as best it can the observable phenomena whilst maintaining the lie of the spherical Earth, so most of their bases are covered. Most of the FE bases are covered because they do indeed accurately report observable phenomena (i.e., the theories of Flat Earthers are by and large correct, since they are empirically derived).

The earth is constantly accelarating upwards and you can prove this by letting yourself fall....you will see the earth(floor/ground) meeting your face....it's a matter of perspective

The earth is constantly accelarating upwards and you can prove this by letting yourself fall....you will see the earth(floor/ground) meeting your face....it's a matter of perspective

How does that perspective feel exactly?

The earth is constantly accelarating upwards and you can prove this by letting yourself fall....you will see the earth(floor/ground) meeting your face....it's a matter of perspective

Are you Tom Bishop?

There's a guy named Bishop, Cardinal and Priest on here now.

Anyway, that thing you said there has been said. It goes nowhere. The RE'ers are going to say, "But no, that's not correct" and then the FE'ers will say, "But fall down!"

...and so on.

Regrettably, for both sides, the equivalence principle means that every more or less every comprehensible feature of aerodynamics, weather and so on require similar (often identical) levels of explanatory power in either model. This is because globularist science is designed to mimic as best it can the observable phenomena whilst maintaining the lie of the spherical Earth, so most of their bases are covered. Most of the FE bases are covered because they do indeed accurately report observable phenomena (i.e., the theories of Flat Earthers are by and large correct, since they are empirically derived).

Odd how the "globularists" are so brilliantly clever that we've managed to come up with a single fake theory that explains about 40 different phenomena, while you've had to make 40 different theories, one for each observation. And yet you still have no explanation for the presence of two celestial poles, nor for how a person watching the moon set sees the same face of it as a person who is watching it rise, and since you personally think it's a flat disc I shall add you have no explanation of why it looks circular at all times rather than elliptical as it rises and sets. We do. Isn't our theory fantastic?

Yeah, it's fantastically simple while at the same time so explanatory. That's the elegance of science, isn't it (see Maxwell's equations)? It's almost like RET is correct and FET is not........

Regrettably, for both sides, the equivalence principle means that every more or less every comprehensible feature of aerodynamics, weather and so on require similar (often identical) levels of explanatory power in either model. This is because globularist science is designed to mimic as best it can the observable phenomena whilst maintaining the lie of the spherical Earth, so most of their bases are covered. Most of the FE bases are covered because they do indeed accurately report observable phenomena (i.e., the theories of Flat Earthers are by and large correct, since they are empirically derived).

FE is empirically derived?  I don't know if making shit up counts as an empirical observation.

Quote from: The Swede on December 19, 2009, 07:24:35 AM

Quote from: RoundEarth_101 on December 19, 2009, 06:26:37 AM

So the FE'ers say there is no gravity? What keeps us here, on the ground is that the Earth is constantly accelerating.

So if I jump of a tall building, I would not infact move. I would not fall to my death, rather I would be stationary and the Earth would just slam into me. So how is the wind generated, well rather, why is there resistance? My hair would blowing, my clothes would be blowing up because of the resistance. But supposedly, I'm not moving. If there is no gravity, I should be floating there with no resistance and my hair, clothes, etc would not be blowen upwards. So where does this resistance come from?

I'm new, but I believe the air is also being accelerated upward. Wind resistance and what-not is still in effect. The acceleration is a constant on all molecules and particles on Earth.

Correct me if I am wrong, Flat Earthers (although, I think they may be quite tired of this topic  )

Ah ok. Makes sense I guess.

No, it makes no sense what so ever.

I'm sorry, this has no doubt been answered, but I was just wondering. If all those air molecules are being accelerated upwards with the earth, why aren't objects other than air as well? When I let go of a rock, why does the earth hit it rather than push it forwards along with the air molecules?

I'm sorry, this has no doubt been answered, but I was just wondering. If all those air molecules are being accelerated upwards with the earth, why aren't objects other than air as well? When I let go of a rock, why does the earth hit it rather than push it forwards along with the air molecules?

The atmosphere is being pushed upwards by the earth, resting upon it.

The atmosphere is thickest at the bottom than at the top.

Quote from: Sadistic on December 23, 2009, 07:32:59 PM

I'm sorry, this has no doubt been answered, but I was just wondering. If all those air molecules are being accelerated upwards with the earth, why aren't objects other than air as well? When I let go of a rock, why does the earth hit it rather than push it forwards along with the air molecules?

The atmosphere is being pushed upwards by the earth, resting upon it.

The atmosphere is thickest at the bottom than at the top.

Oh thanks Tom, that clears things up.

Quote from: Sadistic on December 23, 2009, 07:32:59 PM

I'm sorry, this has no doubt been answered, but I was just wondering. If all those air molecules are being accelerated upwards with the earth, why aren't objects other than air as well? When I let go of a rock, why does the earth hit it rather than push it forwards along with the air molecules?

The atmosphere is being pushed upwards by the earth, resting upon it.

The atmosphere is thickest at the bottom than at the top.

TOM DIDN'T SAY "READ E:NaG"!

I'm new; so I'm really sorry if this was answered in the FAQ already. I know about the whole "the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards, which simulates this so-called gravity. However, can someone please explain this? If I am standing, leaning forward on my toes, and I let myself fall, I will land face down on the ground. But my feet will be in the same exact place. So can someone tell me why, according to FET, my feet don't move an inch and yet I fall or otherwise collide with the ground? I don't think the whole UA thing explains that, since unless the Earth tilts, I should be balancing in midair. Sorry if it's confusing.

I'm new; so I'm really sorry if this was answered in the FAQ already. I know about the whole "the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards, which simulates this so-called gravity. However, can someone please explain this? If I am standing, leaning forward on my toes, and I let myself fall, I will land face down on the ground. But my feet will be in the same exact place. So can someone tell me why, according to FET, my feet don't move an inch and yet I fall or otherwise collide with the ground? I don't think the whole UA thing explains that, since unless the Earth tilts, I should be balancing in midair. Sorry if it's confusing.

Imagine that you're in space, standing on a table, leaning forward on your toes, and suddenly the table starts accelerating upwards.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2009, 07:57:46 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on December 23, 2009, 07:32:59 PM

I'm sorry, this has no doubt been answered, but I was just wondering. If all those air molecules are being accelerated upwards with the earth, why aren't objects other than air as well? When I let go of a rock, why does the earth hit it rather than push it forwards along with the air molecules?

The atmosphere is being pushed upwards by the earth, resting upon it.

The atmosphere is thickest at the bottom than at the top.

TOM DIDN'T SAY "READ E:NaG"!

It must be an impostor then!