What we as FE'ers need to do

FET, while superior to RET, I believe has a few facets which need to be ironed ou or expanded on.

The greatest of these is the Universal Accelerator.  I believe we need to develop and perform experiments to concretely prove the existence of the UA as soon as possible.

Furthermore, I think that FET needs to find a way to explain flight (and perhaps spaceflight, as I have seen some versions of FET which allow for spaceflight although those are largely rejected by mainstream FE'ers).  There are a great many ways in which flight could be theoretically possible in FET, we just need to experimentally prove one.

Also, I think I think we have a lot to gain from listening to the Re'ers.  When they point out a potential weak spot in our theory, we should not immediately deny its existence, but instead look for a way  to alter the theory to eliminate the weakness, although I understand how some RE'er arguments are so idiotic that their points can't be counted as much of a weakness.

Finally, as a whole I think we FE'ers need to cite more sources.  Many of us argue without actually citing our sources, or citing from Tom Bishop's wiki (which is full of information, but we can't rely on one source like that).  I think if we start citing more sources in our arguments, the debates will be more useful as a whole.

Welcome. Good luck. ClockTower will be along in a minute to tell you, you are deluded.

However, I applaud your efforts and will be happy to assist in any way you might need.

Do you always greet new Fe'ers that way?  I'm suprised you get any new believers this way.

How am I deluded again?

Do you always greet new Fe'ers that way?  I'm suprised you get any new believers this way.

How am I deluded again?

Thork may have signed off for the evening.  He is a respected resident and was not saying you are deluded.  He was referencing that others may have that tilt towards you.  He is a sincere person and was really greeting you cordially...with a warning about what others may say.

I totally misread Thork's post, it seems.

I take back what I said.

I totally misread Thork's post, it seems.

I take back what I said.

These things happen.  Welcome!

A genuine question:
Why do FEers choose to follow flat earth theories?  As Jeffro said, there are obviously several holes in the theory of a flat earth.  I have yet to see a FEer come up with a hole in the round earth theory.

A genuine question:
Why do FEers choose to follow flat earth theories?  As Jeffro said, there are obviously several holes in the theory of a flat earth.  I have yet to see a FEer come up with a hole in the round earth theory.

They are not holes, they are weak spots which could easily be rectified with a little work.

Quote from: HornPiper on October 26, 2010, 06:08:13 PM

A genuine question:
Why do FEers choose to follow flat earth theories?  As Jeffro said, there are obviously several holes in the theory of a flat earth.  I have yet to see a FEer come up with a hole in the round earth theory.

They are not holes, they are weak spots which could easily be rectified with a little work.

Call them what you will, FE is not as solid a theory as RE.  Why follow FE?

Quote from: jeffro12 on October 26, 2010, 06:13:55 PM

Quote from: HornPiper on October 26, 2010, 06:08:13 PM

A genuine question:
Why do FEers choose to follow flat earth theories?  As Jeffro said, there are obviously several holes in the theory of a flat earth.  I have yet to see a FEer come up with a hole in the round earth theory.

They are not holes, they are weak spots which could easily be rectified with a little work.

Call them what you will, FE is not as solid a theory as RE.  Why follow FE?

Define Solid, RE has plenty of shaky tenets.

Another legitimate question:
What tenets of RE are shaky?  I truly have never heard any.

Another legitimate question:
What tenets of RE are shaky?  I truly have never heard any.

Then you obviously haven't been here very long, or read up on FET any further than the FAQ.  Or both.

By your evasive answer, I get the feeling that you do not yourself know any shaky tenets of RE.  Do you?  Please post some prime examples.

By your evasive answer, I get the feeling that you do not yourself know any shaky tenets of RE.  Do you?  Please post some prime examples.

My answer was not a result of evasion, but of laziness on my part.  read through Rowbowtham's Earth Not a Globe first.

apparently you were also too lazy to read it because you just dont seem to have answers.

apparently you were also too lazy to read it because you just dont seem to have answers.

You aren't going to get anywhere in life if you ask everyone to do everything for you.  Essentially, the book points out in various ways the lack of curvature on the Earth.

If you want any more detailed of an explanation, go read the damn book, its not my job to spoonfeed you information.

Quote from: HornPiper on October 26, 2010, 06:33:29 PM

By your evasive answer, I get the feeling that you do not yourself know any shaky tenets of RE.  Do you?  Please post some prime examples.

My answer was not a result of evasion, but of laziness on my part.  read through Rowbowtham's Earth Not a Globe first.

Ignore the troll. He is acting like this in every thread. If you tell him to read anything or do any research he just accuses you of being ignorant.

Quote from: jeffro12 on October 26, 2010, 06:37:12 PM

Quote from: HornPiper on October 26, 2010, 06:33:29 PM

By your evasive answer, I get the feeling that you do not yourself know any shaky tenets of RE.  Do you?  Please post some prime examples.

My answer was not a result of evasion, but of laziness on my part.  read through Rowbowtham's Earth Not a Globe first.

Ignore the troll. He is acting like this in every thread. If you tell him to read anything or do any research he just accuses you of being ignorant.

Indeed, but at least I can say I tried.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 26, 2010, 06:42:53 PM

Quote from: jeffro12 on October 26, 2010, 06:37:12 PM

Quote from: HornPiper on October 26, 2010, 06:33:29 PM

By your evasive answer, I get the feeling that you do not yourself know any shaky tenets of RE.  Do you?  Please post some prime examples.

My answer was not a result of evasion, but of laziness on my part.  read through Rowbowtham's Earth Not a Globe first.

Ignore the troll. He is acting like this in every thread. If you tell him to read anything or do any research he just accuses you of being ignorant.

Indeed, but at least I can say I tried.

True, true.

Lets stop being so angry at each other and make this a civilized discussion.  I am not trolling. Why would I spend hours looking up an answer if you could tell me in a minute or two?  Just because we have different opinions doesnt mean we should be hostile to each other.

Lets stop being so angry at each other and make this a civilized discussion.  I am not trolling. Why would I spend hours looking up an answer if you could tell me in a minute or two?  Just because we have different opinions doesnt mean we should be hostile to each other.

The fact that you think it takes hours shows you haven't even tried looking. There is a wonderful search tab to use that will help you find an answer in minutes and not only that, but you will be able to read entire discussions so we don't have to do them all over again.

For your information, I have tried.  Search is not working on my computer.  You have spent more time telling me to look things up than it would have taken for you to explain them yourself.

For your information, I have tried.  Search is not working on my computer.  You have spent more time telling me to look things up than it would have taken for you to explain them yourself.

sounds like a personal problem

FET, while superior to RET, I believe has a few facets which need to be ironed ou or expanded on.

The greatest of these is the Universal Accelerator.  I believe we need to develop and perform experiments to concretely prove the existence of the UA as soon as possible.

Furthermore, I think that FET needs to find a way to explain flight (and perhaps spaceflight, as I have seen some versions of FET which allow for spaceflight although those are largely rejected by mainstream FE'ers).  There are a great many ways in which flight could be theoretically possible in FET, we just need to experimentally prove one.

Also, I think I think we have a lot to gain from listening to the Re'ers.  When they point out a potential weak spot in our theory, we should not immediately deny its existence, but instead look for a way  to alter the theory to eliminate the weakness, although I understand how some RE'er arguments are so idiotic that their points can't be counted as much of a weakness.

Finally, as a whole I think we FE'ers need to cite more sources.  Many of us argue without actually citing our sources, or citing from Tom Bishop's wiki (which is full of information, but we can't rely on one source like that).  I think if we start citing more sources in our arguments, the debates will be more useful as a whole.

 You really are very optimistic. Overly-superly-hyperly and groundlessly optimistic I would say. Still I welcome your optimism about experiments because this is the area which FE totally lacks. Also the sources which aren't some hundred or more years old. An I really hope that someone gets further than just speaking and speculating because all I see is that FE side degrades to fantasizing and inventing things on spot without any observations and experiments.

EnglshGentleman and jeffro12 keep posting to deny an answer, when they could just post ONCE answering a direct question, and start a debate or even the work proposed in the OP.

Wlecome jeffro 12. It's good to see so many polite and well-mannered users joining th eboards at the moment. As this thread is kind of about FE'ers rather than FET, I'm going to move it to Flat Earth General, but keep up the good posting!

FET, while superior to RET, I believe has a few facets which need to be ironed ou or expanded on.

The greatest of these is the Universal Accelerator.  I believe we need to develop and perform experiments to concretely prove the existence of the UA as soon as possible.

Furthermore, I think that FET needs to find a way to explain flight (and perhaps spaceflight, as I have seen some versions of FET which allow for spaceflight although those are largely rejected by mainstream FE'ers).  There are a great many ways in which flight could be theoretically possible in FET, we just need to experimentally prove one.

Also, I think I think we have a lot to gain from listening to the Re'ers.  When they point out a potential weak spot in our theory, we should not immediately deny its existence, but instead look for a way  to alter the theory to eliminate the weakness, although I understand how some RE'er arguments are so idiotic that their points can't be counted as much of a weakness.

Finally, as a whole I think we FE'ers need to cite more sources.  Many of us argue without actually citing our sources, or citing from Tom Bishop's wiki (which is full of information, but we can't rely on one source like that).  I think if we start citing more sources in our arguments, the debates will be more useful as a whole.

  Yeah, the thing is that UA only works via magic. Meteor strikes blow the entire theory out of the water, I have not heard a single valid explanation for them in FET. Good luck with it.

I totally misread Thork's post, it seems.

I take back what I said.

Indeed. You are welcomed, but you have chosen a rocky path. There will be criticism of your work, but you will also find support.
I will drag the thread back on topic
UA
UA itself hasn't historically been a problem. The equivelence principle in the FAQ seems not a problem to RErs.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle/?set_language=en

The FAQ also states that the earth cannot accelerate past light speed mathematically.

I have in the past proved mathematically, that UA would not allow this at 9.81m/s^2, so that holds up ok.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43405.msg1075981#msg1075981

I have also demonstrated that you can use working formulae to calculate UA
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43249.msg1073613#msg1073613

So UA as a concept does not bother Round Earthers. Their problem with it, stems from the power required to give earth this constant acceleration. Dark Energy

Dark Energy
Now here is where REr double standards come in.
Whilst God can readily be used to explain creation or the big bang, FErs are not allowed to invoke God to explain DE.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43410.msg1076051#msg1076051

And whilst dark matter can be applied to explain the missing pieces of Round Earth universal physics by inference (It must be there because the effects are measurable, even though we can't detect it), FErs are unfairly not allowed to use inference for Dark Energy even though the effect (UA) is measurable.

Round Earthers claim the energy required is ridiculous. So I am now going to show how much energy is required by Dark Energy to accelerate the earth constantly at 9.81m/s^2

E=mc^2
Mass of the earth is 5.9742 * 10^24 kg
We will assume c to be the speed of light. UA is will always be close to but less so we will give RErs the benefit of the doubt and assume it is light speed.
5.9742 * 10^24 kg * 299 792 458 m/s^2
5.369343188809495944888e+47 kgm/s^2 or Newtons.

Now that is a very large number, but it is the amount of energy required from the beginning of the acceleration to get earth to light speed. The number will also be less than that and tending towards it, as light speed is unachievable as shown above.

The instantaneous value or constant force can be calculated by
F=Ma
5.9742 * 10^24 kg * 9.81 m/s^2
= 574933708620000000000000000 Newtons or 5.7493370862 * 10^26N

Again a big number so lets get some perspective.

Lets look at the super massive black hole in the centre of the milky way. It has 3.7million solar masses.
The mass of the sun is
1.98892 * 10^30 kg
So the mass of this black hole is 3.7 mill * 1.98892 * 10^30 = 7.359004e+36 kg

So how far would earth be from this hole to detect the same amount of acceleration using RE's unexplained crutch ... gravity?
F=(m1*m2)/d^2   .... Gravity formula

Rearrange gives
=  F/(m1*m2)=1/d^2
=  sqrt((m1*m2)/F) = d

= sqrt((7.359004e+36*5.9742e+24)/5.7493370862e+26) = d (in metres)

= 276528891111517116.56731144698749 metres or 276,528,891,111,517 km so 276,528 trillion km.
29.2 Light years!

So dark energy is the same as the force as the gravity exerted by the milky way's central black hole on earth at a distance of 29.2 light years. The distance to the nearest star for RE is 4.22 light years and gravity weakens inversely with distance. So when put into perspective, Dark Energy isn't that powerful on a cosmological scale. Its actually quite a weak force like gravity to RErs.

So now all that is left is what caused it? Well I am not the FE version of Stephen Hawking who has incidentally failed to provide answers like what caused the big bang. It is a question for philosophers. Beyond scientific realms at this present time.

I welcome comments from both sides as long as they are constructive. This thread is about constructively filling in the gaps for UA, so lets try to do that.  

That's not my main issue.  My problem is that some things are magically exempt from the UA (which is a contradiction, as it is universal)> I mean, if the sun and moon are affected by it, then why are spacecraft, meteors etc not?

That's not my main issue.  My problem is that some things are magically exempt from the UA (which is a contradiction, as it is universal)> I mean, if the sun and moon are affected by it, then why are spacecraft, meteors etc not?

If you are happy with what I have written above then we can move on to address your concerns.
The earth, sun and moon have all have a lot of time to get to the speed they are. Yes they are different masses but like dropping a kilo and a 2 kilo weight on earth in a vacuum they accelerate at the same speed as gravity's/UA acceleration is constant 9.81 m/s. But when you throw in transient objects like meteors, that have not been accelerating with the earth and sun and moon for all time, its acceleration will be different. Who knows where the meteor came from or how fast it has accelerated to? It is on a different trajectory so its acceleration in relation to our own UA, will of course be different. Its not exempt. It has just been accelerated from a different point in space. Some may be faster if the are older than earth. Some will be slower.