A Flaw with the EA

Well, in order to this to be a flaw, we have to nail down what the EA accelerates.  Here's what I've been led to believe:

The EA causes both the Flat Earth and the Stars above us to move upward at a speed fast enough to simulate gravity.

If this is true,  Wouldn't we also be accelerated by the EA meaning that we would be moving up at the same speed meaning we would perceive no gravity.

If that's not true, what's making the stars move upward?

And furthermore why do the stars have to be so close to the flat earth?  Would it really affect FET is the stars were millions of light-years away?

UA, universal acceleration, not EA.

The thick earth disc shields us from the effects of the UA.

UA, universal acceleration, not EA.

The thick earth disc shields us from the effects of the UA.

then What's making the stars move up?

The UA. They're far enough away from the surface of earth that it effects them.

The UA. They're far enough away from the surface of earth that it effects them.

How does that work? 

That seems highly illogical that if the waves can't penetrate the Earth Disc to get far enough to effect us, how can they get through it and go far enough to affect objects directly above us?

And furthermore, how can it affect light topside if its influence is blocked?

UA doesn't effect light.

The force that propels earth and the stars upwards isn't the same as the force that effect light.

UA doesn't effect light.

The force that propels earth and the stars upwards isn't the same as the force that effect light.

You've failed to answer the main point and have instead discredited the minor point.  Please address the major point.

Quote from: SupahLovah on March 25, 2010, 11:09:30 AM

UA doesn't effect light.

The force that propels earth and the stars upwards isn't the same as the force that effect light.

You've failed to answer the main point and have instead discredited the minor point.  Please address the major point.

IDK. Maybe it's fluid energy.

Quote from: jtelroy on March 25, 2010, 11:34:37 AM

Quote from: SupahLovah on March 25, 2010, 11:09:30 AM

UA doesn't effect light.

The force that propels earth and the stars upwards isn't the same as the force that effect light.

You've failed to answer the main point and have instead discredited the minor point.  Please address the major point.

IDK. Maybe it's fluid energy.

Interesting idea.  I think this is something that needs to be looked into further though.

Well, in order to this to be a flaw, we have to nail down what the EA accelerates.  Here's what I've been led to believe:

The EA causes both the Flat Earth and the Stars above us to move upward at a speed fast enough to simulate gravity.

If this is true,  Wouldn't we also be accelerated by the EA meaning that we would be moving up at the same speed meaning we would perceive no gravity.

If that's not true, what's making the stars move upward?

And furthermore why do the stars have to be so close to the flat earth?  Would it really affect FET is the stars were millions of light-years away?

They are not moving upward but instead accelerating. If they were simply moving we would be up to speed already.

Also we UA doesn't simulate gravity, gravity simulates UA.

I wouldn't trouble yourself over it.

Nothing you say, do, or attempt to prove is going to change their minds.

I wouldn't trouble yourself over it.

Nothing you say, do, or attempt to prove is going to change their minds.

Evidence most certainly will change my mind, however it is very hard for RE'rs to produce it.

I wouldn't trouble yourself over it.

Nothing you say, do, or attempt to prove is going to change their minds.

Arguing is more of a hobby for me, so that's why I bring up these topics knowing full well they will be ignored if FET can't disprove them, or they will simply be disproven.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 12:53:47 PM

I wouldn't trouble yourself over it.

Nothing you say, do, or attempt to prove is going to change their minds.

Evidence most certainly will change my mind, however it is very hard for RE'rs to produce it.

But Satellite TV doesn't change your mind that something is in orbit I take it?

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 12:55:43 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 12:53:47 PM

I wouldn't trouble yourself over it.

Nothing you say, do, or attempt to prove is going to change their minds.

Evidence most certainly will change my mind, however it is very hard for RE'rs to produce it.

But Satellite TV doesn't change your mind that something is in orbit I take it?

This AntEater guy is just a troll.  He's spouting the stuff that other FE'ers have been saying with little to no innovation or addition.

I would ignore him as he's not adding anything new to these debates.

This AntEater guy is just a troll.  He's spouting the stuff that other FE'ers have been saying with little to no innovation or addition.

I would ignore him as he's not adding anything new to these debates.

The ad hominem fallacy does not legitimize your point.

The ad hominem fallacy does not legitimize your point.

I don't ignore anyone.
I do want to know what you think of Satellite TV.  If the Earth is flat, it's impossible for them to exist.

The ad hominem fallacy does not legitimize your point.

Indeed it doesn't.

But you post didn't illegitimize it as the debate had already moved past the mundane point you had made.

  And also, the post you made isn't well written and doesn't make all that much sense, so I would suggest re-formatting it if you want a true rebuttal.

I don't ignore anyone.
I do want to know what you think of Satellite TV.  If the Earth is flat, it's impossible for them to exist.

Your third statement is true. However sadly, your second I can not answer at this time.  

Indeed it doesn't.

But you post didn't illegitimize it as the debate had already moved past the mundane point you had made.

  And also, the post you made isn't well written and doesn't make all that much sense, so I would suggest re-formatting it if you want a true rebuttal.

and the pot calls the kettle black...

Your third statement is true. However sadly, your second I can not answer at this time.  

Why?
(I'm assuming you can't answer what you think about Satellite TV.)

We know "satellite" TV works and exists. We also know the earth is flat. Thus we know it must not work via satellites. I have not done any testing, therefor (at least to me) the method of there operation is unknown.

We know "satellite" TV works and exists. We also know the earth is flat. Thus we know it must not work via satellites. I have not done any testing, therefor (at least to me) the method of there operation is unknown.

See, that's my problem.  You go on assuming the Earth is Flat and everything must therefore work around that.  THEN you yell at us for assuming the Earth is round.

I know satellite TV works because I have one.  I spent time setting it up.  I know that if I move it only a few degrees, it will lose it's signal.  So I point it at the sky and I get a signal.  This tells me that it appears the signal is coming from the sky.

Now, there are others nearby and in the whole country who have the same company.  Logically theirs works the same way.

Now, because the signal is directional based(ie. you can only get it when pointing the dish at a very specific point), the transmitter can't be an omnidirectional antenna at a high altitude.  It also can't be coming from the ground because if it were, that would mean that the light would bend in the same way the signal was, thus allowing me to see the ground station.

SO....
It must be coming from the sky.

So you agree?

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 01:40:11 PM

We know "satellite" TV works and exists. We also know the earth is flat. Thus we know it must not work via satellites. I have not done any testing, therefor (at least to me) the method of there operation is unknown.

See, that's my problem.  You go on assuming the Earth is Flat and everything must therefore work around that.  THEN you yell at us for assuming the Earth is round.

I do assume the earth is flat. However I know that the earth is not round.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 01:49:43 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 01:40:11 PM

We know "satellite" TV works and exists. We also know the earth is flat. Thus we know it must not work via satellites. I have not done any testing, therefor (at least to me) the method of there operation is unknown.

See, that's my problem.  You go on assuming the Earth is Flat and everything must therefore work around that.  THEN you yell at us for assuming the Earth is round.

I do assume the earth is flat. However I know that the earth is not round.

How?
The only way to know with 100% certainty is to have been to the edge or went high into space and seen the edge.
Prior to the Apollo missions, people were 99% certain the Earth was round but not 100% sure.  Once we managed to get pictures of the whole planet, we were able to confirm that.

That and orbit requires a round planet.

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 01:49:43 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 01:40:11 PM

We know "satellite" TV works and exists. We also know the earth is flat. Thus we know it must not work via satellites. I have not done any testing, therefor (at least to me) the method of there operation is unknown.

See, that's my problem.  You go on assuming the Earth is Flat and everything must therefore work around that.  THEN you yell at us for assuming the Earth is round.

I do assume the earth is flat. However I know that the earth is not round.

How?

Science, disproves RE quite readily.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 02:22:26 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 01:53:57 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 01:49:43 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 01:40:11 PM

We know "satellite" TV works and exists. We also know the earth is flat. Thus we know it must not work via satellites. I have not done any testing, therefor (at least to me) the method of there operation is unknown.

See, that's my problem.  You go on assuming the Earth is Flat and everything must therefore work around that.  THEN you yell at us for assuming the Earth is round.

I do assume the earth is flat. However I know that the earth is not round.

How?

Science, disproves FE quite readily.

Yes I know science disproves FE quite readily. So why do you know the Earth is flat if you science disproves Flat Earth often?

Yes I know science disproves FE quite readily. So why do you know the Earth is flat if you science disproves Flat Earth often?

Sorry bout that the F and R key's are quite close.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 12:53:47 PM

I wouldn't trouble yourself over it.

Nothing you say, do, or attempt to prove is going to change their minds.

Evidence most certainly will change my mind, however it is very hard for RE'rs to produce to get FE'ers to accept it.

Fixed

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2010, 01:49:43 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on March 25, 2010, 01:40:11 PM

We know "satellite" TV works and exists. We also know the earth is flat. Thus we know it must not work via satellites. I have not done any testing, therefor (at least to me) the method of there operation is unknown.

See, that's my problem.  You go on assuming the Earth is Flat and everything must therefore work around that.  THEN you yell at us for assuming the Earth is round.

I do assume the earth is flat. However I know that the earth is not round.

Well, not perfectly round. It's actually an oblate spheroid.