There are many problems with this theory!

  • 96 Replies
  • 14201 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2011, 01:00:04 PM »
Making up an unprovable hypothesis and challenging others to prove you wrong, does not.

Seems to work for UA, bendy light and the conspiracy.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2011, 01:04:36 PM »
RET is ridiculous and very far fetched, the only thing RET proves is that some people will believe anything.

I agree.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2011, 01:07:39 PM »
Making up an unprovable hypothesis and challenging others to prove you wrong, does not.

Seems to work for UA, bendy light and the conspiracy.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #33 on: February 10, 2011, 03:40:51 PM »
Making up an unprovable hypothesis and challenging others to prove you wrong, does not.

Seems to work for UA, bendy light and the conspiracy.

There is direct evidence which suggests that the earth is accelerating upwards. Step off a chair and observe the surface of the earth.

There is evidence of a NASA conspiracy. That NASA would send Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to give fake moon rocks to foreign heads of state is direct evidence of deception and hoaxing.

There is no evidence that light bends upwards. I do not support the idea of bendy light.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2011, 03:45:38 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #34 on: February 10, 2011, 05:15:57 PM »
Making up an unprovable hypothesis and challenging others to prove you wrong, does not.

Seems to work for UA, bendy light and the conspiracy.

There is direct evidence which suggests that the earth is accelerating upwards. Step off a chair and observe the surface of the earth.

There is evidence of a NASA conspiracy. That NASA would send Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to give fake moon rocks to foreign heads of state is direct evidence of deception and hoaxing.

There is no evidence that light bends upwards. I do not support the idea of bendy light.

1) As has been described to you before, when you step off a chair, you observe that you follow a parabolic path towards the surface of the Earth. There is no specific way to discern whether the Earth comes up to meet you or whether you fall down to the Earth using purely Zetetic observation.

2) I suppose that's one way of looking at it. I can think of a couple other reasons (diplomatic - although I admit I don't know much about the political atmosphere of the time period - and scientific) why they would have done this. I don't know exactly why they did it, but then again, neither do you. You are rather closed-minded for shutting out other reasonable possibilities and only focusing on the one that conveniently supports your theory.

3) You are correct that there is no evidence to support light bending. You should, however, believe in it if you believe in FET seeing as how it doesn't work without it.

7. What causes poles in a permanent magnet? They don't spin either.

True, but the poles on a permanent magnet are also on opposite faces.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #35 on: February 10, 2011, 05:31:46 PM »
If I step off a chair, I see myself falling down to meet the earth.

???
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #36 on: February 10, 2011, 05:48:38 PM »
Actually, come to think of it, Zetetic observation while falling off a chair may evidence gravity. As I recall, that feeling in your stomach that you feel while falling is caused by acceleration acting on your body. If the Earth accelerated up to you, you would not get this feeling because you are not accelerating. If you fall down to the Earth, you are accelerating so you would feel it.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #37 on: February 10, 2011, 06:02:43 PM »
Actually, come to think of it, Zetetic observation while falling off a chair may evidence gravity. As I recall, that feeling in your stomach that you feel while falling is caused by acceleration acting on your body. If the Earth accelerated up to you, you would not get this feeling because you are not accelerating. If you fall down to the Earth, you are accelerating so you would feel it.

I've been thinking about this...it seems as if the actual physical sensation would differ between accelerating downward and not accelerating downward, eh? But I've only experienced one (or the other), so I cannot say for certain.


Also, I often see critics of RET citing rotational velocities (about the RE's axis, around the sun, etc) as evidence of how inherently ridiculous RET is (and it IS remarkable to consider, regardless of your beliefs) but I don't understand how this is more or less astounding than the idea of a flat earth constantly accelerating upward (even though it appears to be at rest when I am standing still upon it).
« Last Edit: February 10, 2011, 06:32:13 PM by Around And About »
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #38 on: February 10, 2011, 06:51:44 PM »
Quote
1) As has been described to you before, when you step off a chair, you observe that you follow a parabolic path towards the surface of the Earth. There is no specific way to discern whether the Earth comes up to meet you or whether you fall down to the Earth using purely Zetetic observation.

If someone throws you a baseball you know that the baseball is moving towards you because you can see it move.

Likewise, when you step off a chair and observe the earth rise upwards you know that the earth is moving because you can see it move. You do not observe yourself traveling towards the earth. You observe that the earth lifts upwards and smacks itself into the bottom of your feet. You can see, directly, that the earth is moving upwards.

No sees "graviton particles" or whatever dribble you RE'rs mumble about in your closets. When stepping off a chair all that is seen is that the earth rises upwards.

Quote
2) I suppose that's one way of looking at it. I can think of a couple other reasons (diplomatic - although I admit I don't know much about the political atmosphere of the time period - and scientific) why they would have done this. I don't know exactly why they did it, but then again, neither do you. You are rather closed-minded for shutting out other reasonable possibilities and only focusing on the one that conveniently supports your theory.

So they did it for "diplomatic reasons"? What kind of "diplomatic reasons" were those?

NASA was clearly caught trying to fool people into believing that they had gone to the moon and brought back rocks from its surface.

Quote
3) You are correct that there is no evidence to support light bending. You should, however, believe in it if you believe in FET seeing as how it doesn't work without it.

"Bendy Light" isn't part of conventional Flat Earth Theory. Read Earth Not a Globe. There is no bendy light described in the text. In ENAG light travels in straight paths.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2011, 07:06:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #39 on: February 10, 2011, 07:07:27 PM »
Actually, come to think of it, Zetetic observation while falling off a chair may evidence gravity. As I recall, that feeling in your stomach that you feel while falling is caused by acceleration acting on your body. If the Earth accelerated up to you, you would not get this feeling because you are not accelerating. If you fall down to the Earth, you are accelerating so you would feel it.

That feeling of falling is actually the feeling of being inert and weightless. You can't "feel acceleration on your body".

If you brought an accelerometer with you while you were in free fall it would read 0 m/s/s. It is inert. Once it is in contact with the ground again it reads 9.8 m/s/s, as it is again traveling upwards with the earth.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2011, 07:13:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

IOA

  • 507
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #40 on: February 10, 2011, 07:12:30 PM »
Likewise, when you step off a chair and observe the earth rise upwards you know that the earth is moving because you can see it move.
Wrong. That is an inference, not an observation.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #41 on: February 10, 2011, 07:28:24 PM »
There is direct evidence which suggests that the earth is accelerating upwards. Step off a chair and observe the surface of the earth.

Sorry Tom, but the equivalence principle says that it's impossible to tell the difference between acceleration and gravity so stepping off a chair is inconclusive.

There is evidence of a NASA conspiracy. That NASA would send Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to give fake moon rocks to foreign heads of state is direct evidence of deception and hoaxing.

Or, there is evidence of corrupt politicians replacing genuine moon rock gifts with fakes.

There is no evidence that light bends upwards. I do not support the idea of bendy light.

Interesting.  Other preeminent FET scholars seem to disagree with you.  Perhaps you should start a thread in FEB to settle the issue once and for all.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #42 on: February 10, 2011, 07:30:31 PM »
Likewise, when you step off a chair and observe the earth rise upwards you know that the earth is moving because you can see it move.
Wrong. That is an inference, not an observation.

It's an observation. It's a direct observation that the earth rises upwards when you walk off the edge of a chair.

The burden is on the claimants to demonstrate the existence of puller-particles. Acceleration is a known phenomenon. "Puller-Particles" are not. How can a particle pull? The idea is absurd and extraordinary.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2011, 07:33:03 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2011, 07:42:47 PM »
It's an observation. It's a direct observation that the earth rises upwards when you walk off the edge of a chair.

It all depends on your frame of reference.  If you use earth as a frame of reference, then it's you that are moving towards the earth, not the other way around.  Or, you could choose another frame of reference where both you and the earth are moving towards each other.  The EP says that all those frames of reference are equally valid.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

IOA

  • 507
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #44 on: February 10, 2011, 07:44:58 PM »
It's an observation. It's a direct observation that the earth rises upwards when you walk off the edge of a chair.
I'm no physics guru. All I'm saying is empirical evidence is evidence of itself and nothing else. The "evidence" that you see when you jump off a chair could be a number of things, not even limited to just gravity and Universal Acceleration. The most empirically accurate statement you could make is this: I took a parabolic path from the chair to the ground.

Anything more is simply your own bias.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #45 on: February 10, 2011, 08:37:12 PM »
Likewise, when you step off a chair and observe the earth rise upwards you know that the earth is moving because you can see it move. You do not observe yourself traveling towards the earth. You observe that the earth lifts upwards and smacks itself into the bottom of your feet.

Fascinating. What do I observe when I watch somebody else step off of a chair, Tom? What do I observe when I stand in the middle of a field when it's raining?
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

IOA

  • 507
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #46 on: February 10, 2011, 09:00:32 PM »
That's really up to you, Around & About, but keep in mind:
empirical evidence is evidence of itself and nothing else.
That's the kind of mindset you have to have before you go out making inferences.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #47 on: February 10, 2011, 09:19:37 PM »
I'm not inferring anything, I'm asking Tom what I would observe if I were to watch somebody step off of a chair.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #48 on: February 10, 2011, 11:58:10 PM »
The burden is on the claimants to demonstrate the existence of puller-particles. Acceleration is a known phenomenon. "Puller-Particles" are not. How can a particle pull? The idea is absurd and extraordinary.

What have "puller particles" got to do with this observation Tom?  Are you smokescreening again?

The burn of proof in one anyone who makes a claim.  You are saying the earth is accelerating upwards, without a shred of evidence to back it up.  "Therefore it must be accelerating upwards" is not evidence.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #49 on: February 11, 2011, 12:11:34 AM »
It's an observation. It's a direct observation that the earth rises upwards when you walk off the edge of a chair.

It all depends on your frame of reference.  If you use earth as a frame of reference, then it's you that are moving towards the earth, not the other way around.  Or, you could choose another frame of reference where both you and the earth are moving towards each other.

Well, either the earth is accelerating upwards or these "puller particles" are a cause for gravity. On one hand we have a phenomenon which is known to exist: Acceleration. No one doubts that acceleration exists in the universe. On the other hand we have these sub-atomic puller particles which no one has ever seen or detected.

How can a particle pull? Not only is this fairy mechanism undetected, but it is unexplained as well.

Quote from: IOA
I'm no physics guru. All I'm saying is empirical evidence is evidence of itself and nothing else. The "evidence" that you see when you jump off a chair could be a number of things, not even limited to just gravity and Universal Acceleration. The most empirically accurate statement you could make is this: I took a parabolic path from the chair to the ground.

Anything more is simply your own bias.

No. When you step off a chair the most accurate empirical statement is that you are inert and the earth moves up towards you. That is what you directly see and experience. When you watch the ground it rises up towards you.

Thus it is the burden of anyone supposing some other fanciful "puller particle" or "bendy space" mechanism to demonstrate their speculations. Upward acceleration is directly observed. None of that other stuff is.

Quote from: Around And About
Fascinating. What do I observe when I watch somebody else step off of a chair, Tom? What do I observe when I stand in the middle of a field when it's raining?

Well, when you are on the ground you can feel the ground pressing up against your feet, right? Hence, you are being pushed up by the earth.

When you watch someone walk off a chair you see yourself and the earth rush up to meet them. When you stand in a field and watch rain drops you watch as you and the earth rush up to meet the drops.

No one sees anything attracting bodies towards the earth. What possible mechanism could cause such a thing? "Puller Particles" are absurd beyond the extreme, unknown, undiscovered, and unexplained. "Bendy Space" is likewise absurd and undiscovered. Complete rubbish.

The upwards acceleration of the earth can happen through a known physical mechanism. Ie. Via combustion or pressure gradients. Puller Particles/Bendy Space need entirely new branches of physics invented for them.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 12:55:09 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #50 on: February 11, 2011, 01:16:52 AM »
It's an observation. It's a direct observation that the earth rises upwards when you walk off the edge of a chair.

It all depends on your frame of reference.  If you use earth as a frame of reference, then it's you that are moving towards the earth, not the other way around.  Or, you could choose another frame of reference where both you and the earth are moving towards each other.

Well, either the earth is accelerating upwards or these "puller particles" are a cause for gravity. On one hand we have a phenomenon which is known to exist: Acceleration. No one doubts that acceleration exists in the universe. On the other hand we have these sub-atomic puller particles which no one has ever seen or detected.

How can a particle pull? Not only is this fairy mechanism undetected, but it is unexplained as well.

Quote from: IOA
I'm no physics guru. All I'm saying is empirical evidence is evidence of itself and nothing else. The "evidence" that you see when you jump off a chair could be a number of things, not even limited to just gravity and Universal Acceleration. The most empirically accurate statement you could make is this: I took a parabolic path from the chair to the ground.

Anything more is simply your own bias.

No. When you step off a chair the most accurate empirical statement is that you are inert and the earth moves up towards you. That is what you directly see and experience. When you watch the ground it rises up towards you.

Thus it is the burden of anyone supposing some other fanciful "puller particle" or "bendy space" mechanism to demonstrate their speculations. Upward acceleration is directly observed. None of that other stuff is.

Quote from: Around And About
Fascinating. What do I observe when I watch somebody else step off of a chair, Tom? What do I observe when I stand in the middle of a field when it's raining?

Well, when you are on the ground you can feel the ground pressing up against your feet, right? Hence, you are being pushed up by the earth.

When you watch someone walk off a chair you see yourself and the earth rush up to meet them. When you stand in a field and watch rain drops you watch as you and the earth rush up to meet the drops.

No one sees anything attracting bodies towards the earth. What possible mechanism could cause such a thing? "Puller Particles" are absurd beyond the extreme, unknown, undiscovered, and unexplained. "Bendy Space" is likewise absurd and undiscovered. Complete rubbish.

The upwards acceleration of the earth can happen through a known physical mechanism. Ie. Via combustion or pressure gradients. Puller Particles/Bendy Space need entirely new branches of physics invented for them.

translation: I don't know how GR works so I'm going to type nonsense about how puller particles don't real.

And why are puller particles so strange? ever heard of electromagnetism?

tell me tom, when something pushes something else, what is the force involved?
if your answer doesn't contain the electric force, you're wrong.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #51 on: February 11, 2011, 01:40:42 AM »
Ahhh. So first I need to see, then I need to feel. I'm starting to get mighty suspicious here, Tom. You say that when I observe somebody walking off a chair, I am observing myself rushing upward along with the ground relative to this person for the duration of their time above the ground. But I am observing no such thing, Tom, I'm standing perfectly still on the ground. It's as plain to see as the flat ground around me. ???


Oh, and while you're considering that, I'm wondering about your claim that you find the idea of so-called "puller-particles" absurd and extraordinary. After we cover the basic observation of motion due to acceleration, perhaps we can discuss your theories involving the basic structure of matter, because now I'm really getting curious. I'm looking forward to learning about these new ideas, Tom.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 02:19:57 AM by Around And About »
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #52 on: February 11, 2011, 06:18:42 AM »
Well, either the earth is accelerating upwards or these "puller particles" are a cause for gravity. On one hand we have a phenomenon which is known to exist: Acceleration. No one doubts that acceleration exists in the universe. On the other hand we have these sub-atomic puller particles which no one has ever seen or detected.

Whether or not not gravitons have been detected is irrelevant.  If you don't like the graviton analogy, why don you try the warped space-time analogy on for size?  No puller particles required.


How can a particle pull? Not only is this fairy mechanism undetected, but it is unexplained as well.

How do magnetic poles push and pull?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #53 on: February 11, 2011, 09:26:51 AM »
This is classic smokescreening from Tom.  The theoretical "pull particles" have been introduced into the argument to obscure the fact that Tom's earth/chair observation is subjective and doesn't (on it's own) explain anything.

With Tom there has to be a clockwork mechanism behind everything.  Questions like "what mechansim is behind gravity" can only be taken seriously by Tom because to anyone else there will be a mechanism behind the mechanism, etc and the question will always remain unanswered.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #54 on: February 11, 2011, 10:47:44 AM »
Sorry this is so long, but TB is just too easy to pick apart.

Actually, come to think of it, Zetetic observation while falling off a chair may evidence gravity. As I recall, that feeling in your stomach that you feel while falling is caused by acceleration acting on your body. If the Earth accelerated up to you, you would not get this feeling because you are not accelerating. If you fall down to the Earth, you are accelerating so you would feel it.

That feeling of falling is actually the feeling of being inert and weightless. You can't "feel acceleration on your body".

If you brought an accelerometer with you while you were in free fall it would read 0 m/s/s. It is inert. Once it is in contact with the ground again it reads 9.8 m/s/s, as it is again traveling upwards with the earth.

That's strange, because I had the same feeling when I was launching out from the loading stations at Rock'n'Rollercoaster at Walt Disney World and Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point. But that whole thing was just a side thought that popped into my head. I personally do not know much about it, but then again, I sincerely doubt you do either.

As for your accelerometer statement, what you are saying may explain the phenomenon in FET, but trying to use it as proof against RET just proves that you don't know how it works (some physicist...). An accelerometer measures acceleration by the movements of an internal ball. If the accelerometer is stationary, the force of gravity still acts on the ball which pulls it down and the machine reads it. If the machine itself is experiencing the same acceleration as the ball, the ball will not move in relation to the machine and, therefore, the machine will read 0m/s^2.

It's an observation. It's a direct observation that the earth rises upwards when you walk off the edge of a chair.

It all depends on your frame of reference.  If you use earth as a frame of reference, then it's you that are moving towards the earth, not the other way around.  Or, you could choose another frame of reference where both you and the earth are moving towards each other.

Well, either the earth is accelerating upwards or these "puller particles" are a cause for gravity. On one hand we have a phenomenon which is known to exist: Acceleration. No one doubts that acceleration exists in the universe. On the other hand we have these sub-atomic puller particles which no one has ever seen or detected.

How can a particle pull? Not only is this fairy mechanism undetected, but it is unexplained as well.

No one has ever explicitly seen or detected the cause of UA either.

Quote from: IOA
I'm no physics guru. All I'm saying is empirical evidence is evidence of itself and nothing else. The "evidence" that you see when you jump off a chair could be a number of things, not even limited to just gravity and Universal Acceleration. The most empirically accurate statement you could make is this: I took a parabolic path from the chair to the ground.

Anything more is simply your own bias.

No. When you step off a chair the most accurate empirical statement is that you are inert and the earth moves up towards you. That is what you directly see and experience. When you watch the ground it rises up towards you.

Thus it is the burden of anyone supposing some other fanciful "puller particle" or "bendy space" mechanism to demonstrate their speculations. Upward acceleration is directly observed. None of that other stuff is.

Taking all bias out of it, all you can objectively say is that you followed a parabolic path from the chair to the Earth. Saying anything more exhibits bias one way or the other.

As for the burden of proof, that lies with you. You are the one trying to disprove accepted science. In order to do so, you must come up with the evidence for your fanciful "universal acceleration." You are once again giving into close-minded bias by refusing to accept an objective point of view.

Quote from: Around And About
Fascinating. What do I observe when I watch somebody else step off of a chair, Tom? What do I observe when I stand in the middle of a field when it's raining?

Well, when you are on the ground you can feel the ground pressing up against your feet, right? Hence, you are being pushed up by the earth.

When you watch someone walk off a chair you see yourself and the earth rush up to meet them. When you stand in a field and watch rain drops you watch as you and the earth rush up to meet the drops.

No one sees anything attracting bodies towards the earth. What possible mechanism could cause such a thing? "Puller Particles" are absurd beyond the extreme, unknown, undiscovered, and unexplained. "Bendy Space" is likewise absurd and undiscovered. Complete rubbish.

The upwards acceleration of the earth can happen through a known physical mechanism. Ie. Via combustion or pressure gradients. Puller Particles/Bendy Space need entirely new branches of physics invented for them.

1) For an object that is experiencing no acceleration in a given reference frame, for every force there is an equal and opposite force. The Earth is pushing against you, and you are pushing against the Earth. This proves nothing.

2) Funny, why wouldn't the Earth rush up to meet the clouds either? And you are biased with the chair.

3) "Puller particles" are no more absurd than universal acceleration. Both rely on mechanisms that we have yet to observe explicitly. Your next statement proves this as you speculate on what might be causing universal acceleration.

As a side note, have you noticed how whenever TB joins a thread all other FEers disappear? Might this have something to do with the fact that no one agrees with him? If they do agree with him, they have to realize that they produce much more effective arguments than he does. TB is one of the worst debaters I've seen for FET.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #55 on: February 11, 2011, 11:09:07 AM »
Well, once I get the nature of gravity cleared up by Tom, the geometry of the surface clarified by PizzaPlanet, and the behavior of light ironed out by whoever-else, I think I'll be ready to consider this theory.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

Thork

Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #56 on: February 11, 2011, 11:34:13 AM »
Deep breath ... damn AoS.
Sorry this is so long, but TB is just too easy to pick apart.

Yes you very nearly got a tl;dr >:(

That's strange, because I had the same feeling when I was launching out from the loading stations at Rock'n'Rollercoaster at Walt Disney World and Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point. But that whole thing was just a side thought that popped into my head. I personally do not know much about it, but then again, I sincerely doubt you do either.

As for your accelerometer statement, what you are saying may explain the phenomenon in FET, but trying to use it as proof against RET just proves that you don't know how it works (some physicist...). An accelerometer measures acceleration by the movements of an internal ball. If the accelerometer is stationary, the force of gravity still acts on the ball which pulls it down and the machine reads it. If the machine itself is experiencing the same acceleration as the ball, the ball will not move in relation to the machine and, therefore, the machine will read 0m/s^2.
I think you are forgetting that it is relative. If you are stationary and everything else is moving, you are actually moving with respect to everything else. If the air is rushing past you because it is moving, you will feel as though you are moving. If your eyes tell you the earth is coming at you as is everything else, your brain will interpret that as you moving. It is also important not to mix up gravity with g-force. Acceleration due to 'g' has nothing to do with gravity upon earth. If you swing a bucket of water around your head fast enough the water will not spill out. This is not gravity defined by mass and distance. It is G-force defined by mass and change of direction or velocity. What you feel when you fall is g-force from acceleration. Not gravity. Theoretically you could feel G-forces in space should it be possible to ever travel there. Forces that push you back into your seat in a fast car or centrifugal forces are not gravity. They do not share the same formula. They are not a function of distance. They are compatible with FE and no FEr has ever tried to dispute them.

No one has ever explicitly seen or detected the cause of UA either.
UA is caused by dark energy. Even RE scientists will claim the universe is 70% dark energy. How does all that energy manifest itself? As the driving force for the universe.

Taking all bias out of it, all you can objectively say is that you followed a parabolic path from the chair to the Earth. Saying anything more exhibits bias one way or the other.

As for the burden of proof, that lies with you. You are the one trying to disprove accepted science. In order to do so, you must come up with the evidence for your fanciful "universal acceleration." You are once again giving into close-minded bias by refusing to accept an objective point of view.
UA is a very concise and simple solution to the causes of why things fall to earth. Gravity suggesting that everything projects a force on everything else, with no additional power source driving all this pulling and attractive force, that no one can see or verify, is a lot more complicated than accepting everything accelerates in one direction due to the enormous amount of dark energy in the universe. I'm sorry but this is where FET must invoke Occam's Razor. It is the simplest and most concise solution.

1) For an object that is experiencing no acceleration in a given reference frame, for every force there is an equal and opposite force. The Earth is pushing against you, and you are pushing against the Earth. This proves nothing.

2) Funny, why wouldn't the Earth rush up to meet the clouds either? And you are biased with the chair.

3) "Puller particles" are no more absurd than universal acceleration. Both rely on mechanisms that we have yet to observe explicitly. Your next statement proves this as you speculate on what might be causing universal acceleration.

As a side note, have you noticed how whenever TB joins a thread all other FEers disappear? Might this have something to do with the fact that no one agrees with him? If they do agree with him, they have to realize that they produce much more effective arguments than he does. TB is one of the worst debaters I've seen for FET.
1) It proves nothing and likewise it also disproves nothing.
2) Because clouds 'float'. They are lighter than the air below them. So as the earth pushes into the air, that pushes into the clouds and they stay where they are. As far as the clouds are concerned the air between them and earth is denser they they are and therefore they cannot fall through it. That was kind of a dumb thing to suggest.
3) As you said before every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Every ying has its yang. Every positive can be matched with a negative. So how would pusher particles or anti-puller particles manifest themselves? Do they rip things apart? I think this way madness lies.

As for your side note, why would we need to help Tom Bishop? We usually bail from the thread confident he will be able to answer all your queries. Most of us have no where near his level of FE expertise and I always fear, should an REr be lucky enough to engage Tom in a thread, the last thing they will need is my input. A mountain goat will always prefer to sip from the source of a stream where the water is at its most pure. And for my part, I can sit back and read, hoping to get dowsed in some of the spray.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 11:37:05 AM by Thork »

*

IOA

  • 507
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #57 on: February 11, 2011, 11:43:38 AM »
Quote from: Thork
Quote from: Ace of Spades
No one has ever explicitly seen or detected the cause of UA either.
UA is caused by dark energy.
Great. But why did you quote Ace of Spades? You didn't say anything relevant to his statement.

Quote
UA is a very concise and simple solution to the causes of why things fall to earth.
Even if it were, the burden still lies on you.

Quote
Gravity suggesting that everything projects a force on everything else with no additional power source driving all this pulling and attractive force that no one can see or verify, is a lot more complicated that accepting everything accelerates in one direction due to the enormous amount of dark energy in the universe. I'm sorry but this is where FET must invoke Occam's Razor. It is the simplest and most concise solution.

As far as everybody knows (including you and every Flat Earther), nobody has observed or verified Universal Acceleration either. Also, like Markjo mentioned, lurk around Wikipedia for an explanation on space-time curvature.

Quote
2) Because clouds 'float'. They are lighter than the air below them. So as the earth pushes into the air, that pushes into the clouds
Pardon me...but where does the air go when it's pushed up? I would think it to simply disperse off the sides of the Earth. Why aren't we in an oxygen crysis right now?

Quote
3) As you said before every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Every ying has its yang. Every positive can be matched with a negative. So how would pusher particles or anti-puller particles manifest themselves? Do they rip things apart? I think this way madness lies.
Like Markjo said, look up spacetime curvature.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 11:46:33 AM by IOA »

?

Thork

Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #58 on: February 11, 2011, 11:46:45 AM »
Quote from: Thork
Quote from: Ace of Spades
No one has ever explicitly seen or detected the cause of UA either.
UA is caused by dark energy.
Great. But why did you quote Ace of Spades? You didn't say anything relevant to his statement.

Quote
UA is a very concise and simple solution to the causes of why things fall to earth.
Even if it were, the burden still lies on you.

Quote
Gravity suggesting that everything projects a force on everything else with no additional power source driving all this pulling and attractive force that no one can see or verify, is a lot more complicated that accepting everything accelerates in one direction due to the enormous amount of dark energy in the universe. I'm sorry but this is where FET must invoke Occam's Razor. It is the simplest and most concise solution.

As far as everybody (including you and every Flat Earther), nobody has observed or verified Universal Acceleration either. Also, like Markjo mentioned, lurk around Wikipedia for an explanation on space-time curvature.

Quote
2) Because clouds 'float'. They are lighter than the air below them. So as the earth pushes into the air, that pushes into the clouds
Pardon me...but where does the air go when it's pushed up? I would think it to simply disperse off the sides of the Earth. Why aren't we in an oxygen crysis right now?

Quote
3) As you said before every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Every ying has its yang. Every positive can be matched with a negative. So how would pusher particles or anti-puller particles manifest themselves? Do they rip things apart? I think this way madness lies.
Like Markjo said, look up spacetime curvature.


I am disappointed such long post had so little content. :(

?

Part of the Problem

  • 385
  • The Liberal
Re: There are many problems with this theory!
« Reply #59 on: February 11, 2011, 12:10:15 PM »

There is evidence of a NASA conspiracy. That NASA would send Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to give fake moon rocks to foreign heads of state is direct evidence of deception and hoaxing.


Please quote where the article states that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were sent by NASA to give fake moon rocks to foreign heads of state.  I actually read the article and couldn't find Armstrong or Aldrin mentioned once.

Or you could just edit your statement so as to remove the parts that are blatantly disingenuous.
By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.