Disproven Flat Earth theories.

  • 111 Replies
  • 26261 Views
?

Percival

Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #60 on: April 22, 2011, 01:52:12 PM »
FET has not been disproven.

Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #61 on: April 22, 2011, 02:46:03 PM »

That is not an answer. Gravitation just states that objects of mass have been to be attracted to each other. The more mass, the more attraction. It does not explain why this attraction occurs, or how it works. Gravitation only states observations.
You don't need to know why it happens, only that it happens. If more massive objects attracts less massive ones, if it is something observable, it is so. If I can play video games, I don't need to know how they are made or anything to understand I can play video games or that they exist. Your theory states that the Earth goes up, but such thing is not observable.

Quote
Electromagnetism and the Strong and Weak Nuclear forces also work with small particles, yet those forces are explained and understood.
Yet electromagnetism was discovered before the protons and electrons.

Quote
Electromagnetism is explained, and the mechanics are understood. The most people can say about gravity is, "It seems to be correlated with mass". There are many discrepancies with the theory of gravity, and observations in the universe. To name a few: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
But I thought you didn't believe in all that conspiracy bullshit, that sustained space flight never existed and such? But then, we're talking about extremes here, there's still things we don't know about science which may change things about high velocities and masses but not for the rest. It's not because we have not perfect understanding of something that everything about it is false, it can only be incomplete. If those discrepancies were true, that would mean gravitation is true, since those discrepancies could only be observed if it was such.

Quote
Let's try something, bend so your head is upside down and stay that way a few seconds/minutes until your head turns red and you feel a bit bad. Why? Because your blood "falls" down to your head. Care to explain?

Universal Acceleration.

Please read the FAQ and lurk before asking tedious questions.
I did. Universal Acceleration states that the Earth goes up, so if you jump the Earth catches you up. But if your feet are still on the floor, your whole body is taken up at the same speed, right? So why your blood goes down if you stay still on the floor? According to Universal Acceleration, the blood should stay at the same place, since gravity doesn't exist. If the blood went down, it would mean the Earth is catching it up, right? Then why does it only catches up your blood, but not your head? Your head isn't hitting the floor, so the Earth can't be catching up your head, so it can't be catching up your blood. But that's not what is observed. What would be observed is that your blood goes down (or tries to stay at the same place) when your head is heading upwards at the same speed of the Earth. So if I follow the Universal Acceleration thing, if your blood is not going down, why is it going up when I stand still and doesn't it go up when my head is upside down? Or is there something else to explain that particular case?
« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 02:47:36 PM by elduderino »

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9549
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #62 on: April 22, 2011, 03:17:09 PM »
You don't need to know why it happens, only that it happens. If more massive objects attracts less massive ones, if it is something observable, it is so. If I can play video games, I don't need to know how they are made or anything to understand I can play video games or that they exist. Your theory states that the Earth goes up, but such thing is not observable.

Correlation does not imply causation. This is tantamount to saying that global warming is caused by the diminishing amounts of piracy in the world.

UA is just as observable as gravitation. I can observe the Earth rising to meet me when I jump off my chair.

Quote
Quote
Electromagnetism and the Strong and Weak Nuclear forces also work with small particles, yet those forces are explained and understood.

Yet electromagnetism was discovered before the protons and electrons.

Incorrect. Protons were known about before the theory of Electromagnetism was developed. Please try again.

Quote
But I thought you didn't believe in all that conspiracy bullshit, that sustained space flight never existed and such? But then, we're talking about extremes here, there's still things we don't know about science which may change things about high velocities and masses but not for the rest. It's not because we have not perfect understanding of something that everything about it is false, it can only be incomplete. If those discrepancies were true, that would mean gravitation is true, since those discrepancies could only be observed if it was such.

Are you even listening to the logic you are using?

"Gravity exists. If there things in nature that directly contradict gravity, then this proves gravity exists."

What?  ??? You are not even making sense! If there are discrepancies, that means that gravity cannot exist, or what we believe it is, is false. Otherwise these discrepancies would not exist.

Quote
I did. Universal Acceleration states that the Earth goes up, so if you jump the Earth catches you up. But if your feet are still on the floor, your whole body is taken up at the same speed, right? So why your blood goes down if you stay still on the floor? According to Universal Acceleration, the blood should stay at the same place, since gravity doesn't exist. If the blood went down, it would mean the Earth is catching it up, right? Then why does it only catches up your blood, but not your head? Your head isn't hitting the floor, so the Earth can't be catching up your head, so it can't be catching up your blood. But that's not what is observed. What would be observed is that your blood goes down (or tries to stay at the same place) when your head is heading upwards at the same speed of the Earth. So if I follow the Universal Acceleration thing, if your blood is not going down, why is it going up when I stand still and doesn't it go up when my head is upside down? Or is there something else to explain that particular case?

It rushes to your head because it is being accelerated. This is no different than if you slammed on the gas pedal while driving. As the car accelerates forward, you get pushed in the opposite direction into your seat.

Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #63 on: April 22, 2011, 04:47:59 PM »
You don't need to know why it happens, only that it happens. If more massive objects attracts less massive ones, if it is something observable, it is so. If I can play video games, I don't need to know how they are made or anything to understand I can play video games or that they exist. Your theory states that the Earth goes up, but such thing is not observable.

Correlation does not imply causation. This is tantamount to saying that global warming is caused by the diminishing amounts of piracy in the world.
Not only is it observable, but it is calculable.


Quote
UA is just as observable as gravitation. I can observe the Earth rising to meet me when I jump off my chair.
I can't see the Earth rising to meet the waterfall. The cliff is still and the water doesn't jump.

Quote
Quote
Yet electromagnetism was discovered before the protons and electrons.

Incorrect. Protons were known about before the theory of Electromagnetism was developed. Please try again.
Yet you don't need a theory to know about something. You don't need a theory to observe physics phenomenon. In fact, the theory is there to explain the phenomenon, and there is a long way from the initial discovery to the actual theory. Lighting was there before the theory was written, people knew about those forces more than a thousand years before the theory was written. Please Try again.

Quote
Quote
But I thought you didn't believe in all that conspiracy bullshit, that sustained space flight never existed and such? But then, we're talking about extremes here, there's still things we don't know about science which may change things about high velocities and masses but not for the rest. It's not because we have not perfect understanding of something that everything about it is false, it can only be incomplete. If those discrepancies were true, that would mean gravitation is true, since those discrepancies could only be observed if it was such.

Are you even listening to the logic you are using?

"Gravity exists. If there things in nature that directly contradict gravity, then this proves gravity exists."

What?  ??? You are not even making sense! If there are discrepancies, that means that gravity cannot exist, or what we believe it is, is false. Otherwise these discrepancies would not exist.
Huh? Have you read the page you linked? For them to be observed, sustained space flights HAVE to be possible. Some of the discrepancies were in regards to some things not working as intended with a spacecraft. But if spacecrafts are not possible, the discrepancy can't exist - if spaceflights can't exist, how can you observe a spacecraft not responding as predicted with gravity? I mean, if you think spaceflight is a conspiracy, that means the discrepancy is also a work of that conspiracy, right? So how is that even proof?

Spaceflights is said to be possible while considering gravity exists, since the spacecraft has to exit the Earth's gravity or be subject to it, so while preparing spaceflights you have to take that gravity part in the equation. If gravity has nothing to do with spaceflight, those discrepancies in the link would be useless since there would be far more important ones.

I mean, it's like you say spaceflight is impossible and that gravity doesn't exist. But then, to prove gravity does not exist, you come up with discrepancies which imply spaceflights exists. What kind of logic is that? You try to prove something with something you believe isn't true and which goes against what you are trying to prove. That's just ridiculous.

Quote
Quote
I did. Universal Acceleration states that the Earth goes up, so if you jump the Earth catches you up. But if your feet are still on the floor, your whole body is taken up at the same speed, right? So why your blood goes down if you stay still on the floor? According to Universal Acceleration, the blood should stay at the same place, since gravity doesn't exist. If the blood went down, it would mean the Earth is catching it up, right? Then why does it only catches up your blood, but not your head? Your head isn't hitting the floor, so the Earth can't be catching up your head, so it can't be catching up your blood. But that's not what is observed. What would be observed is that your blood goes down (or tries to stay at the same place) when your head is heading upwards at the same speed of the Earth. So if I follow the Universal Acceleration thing, if your blood is not going down, why is it going up when I stand still and doesn't it go up when my head is upside down? Or is there something else to explain that particular case?

It rushes to your head because it is being accelerated. This is no different than if you slammed on the gas pedal while driving. As the car accelerates forward, you get pushed in the opposite direction into your seat.
I'd need some clarifications:

-If the Earth accelerates up, wouldn't that mean that the Earth would always catches me up when I jump at increasing speeds? That is not what is observed. When I jump, and then jump using the same energy, the Earth always catches me up at the same speed. Yet if the Earth is constantly moving faster, it should constantly catch me up faster when I jump.

-It would half-work to explain why I constantly drop faster when jumping high, but if I redid the jump, it would take a shorter time since the Earth would constantly accelerate up.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 08:00:36 PM by elduderino »

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9549
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #64 on: April 22, 2011, 08:39:53 PM »
Correlation does not imply causation. This is tantamount to saying that global warming is caused by the diminishing amounts of piracy in the world.
Not only is it observable, but it is calculable.

So are the pirates. You could make a graph if you wanted to.

Quote
Yet you don't need a theory to know about something. You don't need a theory to observe physics phenomenon. In fact, the theory is there to explain the phenomenon, and there is a long way from the initial discovery to the actual theory. Lighting was there before the theory was written, people knew about those forces more than a thousand years before the theory was written. Please Try again.

And did people know that lightning was caused by electromagnetic forces thousands of years ago? Nope. Suggesting they new what they were looking at is like claiming Neanderthals had an intimate understanding of atoms and quarks because they looked at each other. Ridiculous.

Quote
Huh? Have you read the page you linked? For them to be observed, sustained space flights HAVE to be possible. Some of the discrepancies were in regards to some things not working as intended with a spacecraft. But if spacecrafts are not possible, the discrepancy can't exist - if spaceflights can't exist, how can you observe a spacecraft not responding as predicted with gravity? I mean, if you think spaceflight is a conspiracy, that means the discrepancy is also a work of that conspiracy, right? So how is that even proof?

Spaceflights is said to be possible while considering gravity exists, since the spacecraft has to exit the Earth's gravity or be subject to it, so while preparing spaceflights you have to take that gravity part in the equation. If gravity has nothing to do with spaceflight, those discrepancies in the link would be useless since there would be far more important ones.

I mean, it's like you say spaceflight is impossible and that gravity doesn't exist. But then, to prove gravity does not exist, you come up with discrepancies which imply spaceflights exists. What kind of logic is that? You try to prove something with something you believe isn't true and which goes against what you are trying to prove. That's just ridiculous.

Strawman. You are deliberately ignoring the other 6/8 of that page because you do not want to face the hard truth that your theory of gravity is terrible. You are going off on a tangent about the space craft (data that was most likely flubbed on accident) because you do not want to answer the hard issues.

Quote
I'd need some clarifications:

-If the Earth accelerates up, wouldn't that mean that the Earth would always catches me up when I jump at increasing speeds? That is not what is observed. When I jump, and then jump using the same energy, the Earth always catches me up at the same speed. Yet if the Earth is constantly moving faster, it should constantly catch me up faster when I jump.

If you jump and them land, you touch the Earth, do you not? When the Earth catches up to you, both you and the Earth are once again accelerating at the same speed.

Quote
-It would half-work to explain why I constantly drop faster when jumping high, but if I redid the jump, it would take a shorter time since the Earth would constantly accelerate up.

I don't get it. Isn't this you restating your last question?





Here is a gift for you.


Physics

Q: "What about gravity? Wouldn't a Flat Earth eventually form a sphere if gravity existed?"


A: In the Finite Earth model, the Earth does not have any gravity of its own.

Q: "But wait, why then do I see objects fall?"

A: Good question. The phenomenon that you recognize as being gravity is actually the effects of Universal Acceleration, also known as UA.

Q: "How exactly does UA work?"


A: It is quite simple. The Universe is accelerating upwards. The Earth shields us from being affected by UA directly, though we are still indirectly affected by this since the Earth is pushing us upwards.

Q: "How is that I can jump and then come back down then?"

A: This is another good question. Since the Earth is pushing you upwards, you are moving at the same speed as the Earth, much like when you are sitting in a car, the car is pushing you along. When you jump, your upward velocity is for a moment, greater than the Earth's so you rise above it. But after a few moments, the Earth eventually catches up.

Q: "But when I throw a ball, it "falls" down in a parabolic path. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't the ball be moving in a straight diagonal line?"

A: The ball indeed does move in a straight line in the direction you threw it. However, you must also remember that the Earth is moving upwards. Because of this, you eyes mistake the distance between the ball and the Earth changing for the ball moving in a curved path. For the upward part of the arc, the ball's acceleration is greater than the Earth', and for the downward part of the arc the ball's velocity acceleration is no longer greater than the Earth's and thus the Earth catches up.

Q: "It is just too hard to think that an Earth accelerating upwards will simulate the same affects that we see gravity do every day."


A: When you look at Einstein's Equivalence Principle, you will find that it is not only quite possible, but true that they will locally appear to be the same.

Q: "Oh wait! I just remembered that nothing can reach the speed of light, and if the Universe was accelerating upwards at a constant rate, wouldn't this end up happening?"


A: When you look at equations from Special Relativity, you will find this will never happen. The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). Since tanh(at/c) is always less than 1, you can never reach the speed of light.

Q: "Even if that were true, it would create a gigantic amount of energy to do so wouldn't it?"

A: Universal Acceleration requires energy to move objects no more than gravity does. In Round Earth Theory a good example of gravity constantly accelerating objects without outputting energy would be an orbit.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 08:42:15 PM by EnglshGentleman »

Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #65 on: April 22, 2011, 09:45:09 PM »
And did people know that lightning was caused by electromagnetic forces thousands of years ago? Nope. Suggesting they new what they were looking at is like claiming Neanderthals had an intimate understanding of atoms and quarks because they looked at each other. Ridiculous.
But they knew there were two types of charges, they knew the basics of it all. You don't need to understand how the quarks work in order to grasp or use equations regarding electromagnetism. In fact, everything (or almost) we do with electromagnetism doesn't take quarks into consideration. Fact is, the first theories didn't take quarks into consideration when they DO have their place somewhere. Why should we trust such theory if not everything is explained? What I mean, is that you don't need to know the electromagnetic theories to understand the basics of it, or make things work. These theories principally explains why these observations happen, and enables us to do more fancy things. But the observations were there as the knowledge taken from them. If the observations are repeated and work 100% of the time, there is little doubt about their validity, unless proven otherwise. And then, we don't know about everything, our electromagnetic theories could (and probably) need some more work. It was the same thing as these observations, they needed more refinements which were brought, and refinements will be brought to our theories. I hope I won't come across someone in 30 years who will tell me no one knew of electromagnetism before the introduction the the new theory that will be found.


Quote
Strawman. You are deliberately ignoring the other 6/8 of that page because you do not want to face the hard truth that your theory of gravity is terrible. You are going off on a tangent about the space craft (data that was most likely flubbed on accident) because you do not want to answer the hard issues.
It is not a strawman. Firstly, even if I ignore the rest, you using the link is still flawed reasoning because of what I said. You just can't use a document as proof, and then pick up what you want ignoring the rest. Secondly, part of what I said still applies to the rest, since we talk about stars and galaxies. If we have to believe there are gravitation discrepancies (which I believe in, there are things we don't know, there is always things to learn and discover), we have to believe gravity works to some degrees in the first place. A discrepancy is that, showing that something doesn't work in ALL the cases, thus it must work in some cases, but you don't even believe it works in certain cases. So my post dealt with the whole page since my argument was true for the whole of it, only I had an additional argument for the spacecraft thing is more obvious.

Nice try at trying to discredit me by half reading my post. Eh, you guys are strong on the nitpicky, only dealing with the surface of the argument, trying to pick words here and there and find some flaws without reading much deeper.




Quote
Here is a gift for you.


Physics
Q: "Even if that were true, it would create a gigantic amount of energy to do so wouldn't it?"

A: Universal Acceleration requires energy to move objects no more than gravity does. In Round Earth Theory a good example of gravity constantly accelerating objects without outputting energy would be an orbit.

That's not how it works. Gravity doesn't need energy, it is one of the forces that gives the need of energy. You need more effort when taking the stairs because you work against gravity, while you don't when you walk in a straight line. If you take Newton's F=ma formula, you can clearly see that if the acceleration is constant, the greater the mass, the greater the force is needed to go against gravity. So if you take a few pounds, you'll realize you need more energy to go upstairs.

Same thing with electromagnetism, it doesn't need energy, it creates the energy needs. You need energy to put two electrons closer, because they naturally repulse themselves, and then, they do so until they are too far to have an effect to each other. Thus you wouldn't need energy to pull the electron even farther from the other.

The parallel with gravity is just ridiculous.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9549
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #66 on: April 22, 2011, 10:25:29 PM »
But they knew there were two types of charges, they knew the basics of it all. You don't need to understand how the quarks work in order to grasp or use equations regarding electromagnetism. In fact, everything (or almost) we do with electromagnetism doesn't take quarks into consideration. Fact is, the first theories didn't take quarks into consideration when they DO have their place somewhere. Why should we trust such theory if not everything is explained? What I mean, is that you don't need to know the electromagnetic theories to understand the basics of it, or make things work. These theories principally explains why these observations happen, and enables us to do more fancy things. But the observations were there as the knowledge taken from them. If the observations are repeated and work 100% of the time, there is little doubt about their validity, unless proven otherwise. And then, we don't know about everything, our electromagnetic theories could (and probably) need some more work. It was the same thing as these observations, they needed more refinements which were brought, and refinements will be brought to our theories. I hope I won't come across someone in 30 years who will tell me no one knew of electromagnetism before the introduction the the new theory that will be found.

Stating one can know Electromagnetic Theory before it was written is like saying that you can know how the Harry Potter books went before they were even written. You cannot know something before it existed.

It is not a strawman. Firstly, even if I ignore the rest, you using the link is still flawed reasoning because of what I said. You just can't use a document as proof, and then pick up what you want ignoring the rest. Secondly, part of what I said still applies to the rest, since we talk about stars and galaxies. If we have to believe there are gravitation discrepancies (which I believe in, there are things we don't know, there is always things to learn and discover), we have to believe gravity works to some degrees in the first place. A discrepancy is that, showing that something doesn't work in ALL the cases, thus it must work in some cases, but you don't even believe it works in certain cases. So my post dealt with the whole page since my argument was true for the whole of it, only I had an additional argument for the spacecraft thing is more obvious.

Nice try at trying to discredit me by half reading my post. Eh, you guys are strong on the nitpicky, only dealing with the surface of the argument, trying to pick words here and there and find some flaws without reading much deeper.

You state that gravity exists. Then at the same time you concede that observations of reality are in contradiction with gravity. You then conclude that this makes total sense, and that gravity still exists?  ???

That's not how it works. Gravity doesn't need energy, it is one of the forces that gives the need of energy. You need more effort when taking the stairs because you work against gravity, while you don't when you walk in a straight line. If you take Newton's F=ma formula, you can clearly see that if the acceleration is constant, the greater the mass, the greater the force is needed to go against gravity. So if you take a few pounds, you'll realize you need more energy to go upstairs.

Same thing with electromagnetism, it doesn't need energy, it creates the energy needs. You need energy to put two electrons closer, because they naturally repulse themselves, and then, they do so until they are too far to have an effect to each other. Thus you wouldn't need energy to pull the electron even farther from the other.

The parallel with gravity is just ridiculous.

So we are in agreement that Universal Acceleration requires no output of energy? Splendid.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 10:30:00 PM by EnglshGentleman »

Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #67 on: April 22, 2011, 11:01:17 PM »
But they knew there were two types of charges, they knew the basics of it all. You don't need to understand how the quarks work in order to grasp or use equations regarding electromagnetism. In fact, everything (or almost) we do with electromagnetism doesn't take quarks into consideration. Fact is, the first theories didn't take quarks into consideration when they DO have their place somewhere. Why should we trust such theory if not everything is explained? What I mean, is that you don't need to know the electromagnetic theories to understand the basics of it, or make things work. These theories principally explains why these observations happen, and enables us to do more fancy things. But the observations were there as the knowledge taken from them. If the observations are repeated and work 100% of the time, there is little doubt about their validity, unless proven otherwise. And then, we don't know about everything, our electromagnetic theories could (and probably) need some more work. It was the same thing as these observations, they needed more refinements which were brought, and refinements will be brought to our theories. I hope I won't come across someone in 30 years who will tell me no one knew of electromagnetism before the introduction the the new theory that will be found.

Stating one can know Electromagnetic Theory before it was written is like saying that you can know how the Harry Potter books went before they were even written. You cannot know something before it existed.
I never claimed such. All I said, is the electromagnetic phenomenons were observed before the theory was up. And the analogy is ridiculous. We're talking about natural phenomenons, something which can be observed by everyone.

Quote
It is not a strawman. Firstly, even if I ignore the rest, you using the link is still flawed reasoning because of what I said. You just can't use a document as proof, and then pick up what you want ignoring the rest. Secondly, part of what I said still applies to the rest, since we talk about stars and galaxies. If we have to believe there are gravitation discrepancies (which I believe in, there are things we don't know, there is always things to learn and discover), we have to believe gravity works to some degrees in the first place. A discrepancy is that, showing that something doesn't work in ALL the cases, thus it must work in some cases, but you don't even believe it works in certain cases. So my post dealt with the whole page since my argument was true for the whole of it, only I had an additional argument for the spacecraft thing is more obvious.

Nice try at trying to discredit me by half reading my post. Eh, you guys are strong on the nitpicky, only dealing with the surface of the argument, trying to pick words here and there and find some flaws without reading much deeper.

You state that gravity exists. Then at the same time you concede that observations of reality are in contradiction with gravity. You then conclude that this makes total sense, and that gravity still exists?  ???
Yes, because it can explain 99.99999999999999999% of all observable cases. If the theory isn't true, it's not entirely wrong, so yes it still makes sense. If the theory doesn't work in rare and extreme circumstances, but works in countless other situations, it means that something is probably missing. And thing is, a theory is that, a theory. A theory can be built upon, a theory isn't a strictly defined thing with no room for improvements or change, that goes against science. Considering the very rare cases in which gravity doesn't work, the work should be directed at finding what is missing (because the gravity theory wasn't built in a single day, eh, as the electromagnetic one) to make it also work in those cases, and not find something entirely new to explain everything.


Quote
That's not how it works. Gravity doesn't need energy, it is one of the forces that gives the need of energy. You need more effort when taking the stairs because you work against gravity, while you don't when you walk in a straight line. If you take Newton's F=ma formula, you can clearly see that if the acceleration is constant, the greater the mass, the greater the force is needed to go against gravity. So if you take a few pounds, you'll realize you need more energy to go upstairs.

Same thing with electromagnetism, it doesn't need energy, it creates the energy needs. You need energy to put two electrons closer, because they naturally repulse themselves, and then, they do so until they are too far to have an effect to each other. Thus you wouldn't need energy to pull the electron even farther from the other.

The parallel with gravity is just ridiculous.

So we are in agreement that Universal Acceleration requires no output of energy? Splendid.
Nothing in there explains why it requires no output of energy. But Gravitation explains why I need a bigger output of energy when I take the stairs compared to when I walk on a flat surface. The Universal Acceleration only draws a parallel to "explain" why it requires not energy output, rather than coming up with a proper explanation. In a nutshell, that FAQ answer is just poking at gravitation, rather than do what a FAQ does, which is providing an answer.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9549
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #68 on: April 23, 2011, 11:59:29 AM »
I never claimed such. All I said, is the electromagnetic phenomenons were observed before the theory was up. And the analogy is ridiculous. We're talking about natural phenomenons, something which can be observed by everyone.

Electromagnetic phenomenons are described by Electromagnetism. How do you observe something of Electromagnetism before Electromagnetism exists?

Once again, this is like claiming that Neanderthals understood particle physics because they could look at each other, which are made of particles.

Quote
Yes, because it can explain 99.99999999999999999% of all observable cases. If the theory isn't true, it's not entirely wrong, so yes it still makes sense. If the theory doesn't work in rare and extreme circumstances, but works in countless other situations, it means that something is probably missing. And thing is, a theory is that, a theory. A theory can be built upon, a theory isn't a strictly defined thing with no room for improvements or change, that goes against science. Considering the very rare cases in which gravity doesn't work, the work should be directed at finding what is missing (because the gravity theory wasn't built in a single day, eh, as the electromagnetic one) to make it also work in those cases, and not find something entirely new to explain everything.

If the theory isn't true, it is wrong. A statement about how the world works does not get to be either a little right, or a little wrong. It is either incorrect, or it is correct. If reality contradicts the theory of gravity, then the theory of gravity in incorrect, and is not true.

Quote
Nothing in there explains why it requires no output of energy. But Gravitation explains why I need a bigger output of energy when I take the stairs compared to when I walk on a flat surface. The Universal Acceleration only draws a parallel to "explain" why it requires not energy output, rather than coming up with a proper explanation. In a nutshell, that FAQ answer is just poking at gravitation, rather than do what a FAQ does, which is providing an answer.

Nothing in gravitation explains why it requires no output of energy. The FAQ is pointing out that UA doesn't require an output of energy to move objects, and that it is hypocritical to suggest that it should while you simultaneously accept gravity being capable of moving objects without an output of energy.

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #69 on: April 25, 2011, 05:31:55 AM »
If the earth is constantly accelerating, and if that is the reason for things falling down (earth catching up) then each consecutive time the apple falls down, it takes less time to hit the ground, since in your model it is the apple that remains stationary and the earth moves towards it faster each time.

For example: if the earth rises with the speed of 100mph for the first drop, and then accelerates to 200mph at the moment of the second drop, the stationary apple will be hit by the earth twice as fast.

This is not the cases, therefor this theory of an accelerating earth is proven false.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 05:36:23 AM by Omega »
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9549
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #70 on: April 25, 2011, 09:00:25 AM »
If the earth is constantly accelerating, and if that is the reason for things falling down (earth catching up) then each consecutive time the apple falls down, it takes less time to hit the ground, since in your model it is the apple that remains stationary and the earth moves towards it faster each time.

For example: if the earth rises with the speed of 100mph for the first drop, and then accelerates to 200mph at the moment of the second drop, the stationary apple will be hit by the earth twice as fast.

This is not the cases, therefor this theory of an accelerating earth is proven false.

... are you even thinking this through at all?

If the apple is stationary on the Earth, than it is being accelerated by the Earth. The Earth is pushing along objects on the Earth, so they are accelerating at G as well.

For the sake of simple math, I am having G = 10m/s2

Lets say there are two apples on a tree handing about 10 meters above the ground. Just before the first apple falls, the Earth is moving at 100 m/s. This means that the tree is also moving at 100m/s, and therefore the apples are too. Now the first apple falls. It is no longer in contact with anything (besides a small cushion of air) so it is no longer accelerating at G. The Earth is accelerating at 10 meters a second2, so it meets the apple, and it hits the ground in about one second. Now at that instant, the Earth is at 110m/s, the apple on the ground is moving at 110m/s, and the tree and the second apple hanging on it are moving at 110m/s. The second apple drops. It is no longer in contact with anything (besides a small cushion of air) so it is no longer accelerating at G. The Earth is accelerating at about 10 meters a second2, so it meets the apple, and it hits the ground in about one second. At that instant, the whole system is moving at 120m/s and is accelerating at G.

What are you confused about? The Earth is continuously accelerating, but that acceleration is constant.

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #71 on: April 25, 2011, 09:43:26 AM »
If the earth is constantly accelerating, and if that is the reason for things falling down (earth catching up) then each consecutive time the apple falls down, it takes less time to hit the ground, since in your model it is the apple that remains stationary and the earth moves towards it faster each time.

For example: if the earth rises with the speed of 100mph for the first drop, and then accelerates to 200mph at the moment of the second drop, the stationary apple will be hit by the earth twice as fast.

This is not the cases, therefor this theory of an accelerating earth is proven false.


... are you even thinking this through at all?

If the apple is stationary on the Earth, than it is being accelerated by the Earth. The Earth is pushing along objects on the Earth, so they are accelerating at G as well.

For the sake of simple math, I am having G = 10m/s2

Lets say there are two apples on a tree handing about 10 meters above the ground. Just before the first apple falls, the Earth is moving at 100 m/s. This means that the tree is also moving at 100m/s, and therefore the apples are too. Now the first apple falls. It is no longer in contact with anything (besides a small cushion of air) so it is no longer accelerating at G. The Earth is accelerating at 10 meters a second2, so it meets the apple, and it hits the ground in about one second. Now at that instant, the Earth is at 110m/s, the apple on the ground is moving at 110m/s, and the tree and the second apple hanging on it are moving at 110m/s. The second apple drops. It is no longer in contact with anything (besides a small cushion of air) so it is no longer accelerating at G. The Earth is accelerating at about 10 meters a second2, so it meets the apple, and it hits the ground in about one second. At that instant, the whole system is moving at 120m/s and is accelerating at G.

What are you confused about? The Earth is continuously accelerating, but that acceleration is constant.


Well, I did not think it through. My mistake. Should have drunk more coffee. Oh and you made one too: the earth is not accelerating. The earth is round, and its mass generates the gravity.
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #72 on: May 02, 2011, 04:56:17 PM »
Listen PizzaPlanet, the rules regarding civility in the discussion forums apply to you as well.
As they do to you! Isn't it wonderful to remind one another of this every now and then?
Granted, I can't help but notice that you didn't reprimand Oracle for being much less civil than I am.
Granted, I am not allowed to dispute moderation, so this obviously wasn't an attempt at doing so. It was merely an observation. A musing, if you will.

The difference is Oracle does not bait people in every post, whereas almost everything Pizza Plant types is an attempt to goad or provoke anger from other posters.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #73 on: May 02, 2011, 07:02:48 PM »
The difference is Oracle does not bait people in every post, whereas almost everything Pizza Plant types is an attempt to goad or provoke anger from other posters.
Right back at you, Sir "Proud to be the wasp at the Flat Earth picnic.".
Hypocrisy is frowned upon.
Oh, and kudos for bumping a thread just to talk about me. I'm enjoying the personal attention.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2011, 07:04:25 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #74 on: May 02, 2011, 09:38:43 PM »
The difference is Oracle does not bait people in every post, whereas almost everything Pizza Plant types is an attempt to goad or provoke anger from other posters.
Right back at you, Sir "Proud to be the wasp at the Flat Earth picnic.".
Hypocrisy is frowned upon.
Oh, and kudos for bumping a thread just to talk about me. I'm enjoying the personal attention.

Wrong.
Hypocrisy would be if I claimed I did not goad or provoke whilst claiming you did. A bit like when you whined that yourself and Oracle should be treated more equally, your implication being there was no difference between you and him (which is false).
You, sir, are the hypocrite for NOT having text by your avatar saying "I basically am just here to annoy ppl".
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #75 on: May 02, 2011, 10:41:39 PM »
A bit like when you whined that yourself and Oracle should be treated more equally, your implication being there was no difference between you and him (which is false).
Incorrect.

You, sir, are the hypocrite for NOT having text by your avatar saying "I basically am just here to annoy ppl".
Why? I'm not here to annoy people at all. I'm a dick to dicks (such as Oracle, mr attorney) I've already explained my contributions to this place to you personally. Pay attention, please.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #76 on: May 05, 2011, 12:11:36 PM »
No one has discovered the Graviton particle the last time I checked.

Is there even a Graviton particle, in theory?

I was under the impression Gravity was the warping of space based on mass.
 Does such a force require a particle at all?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9549
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #77 on: May 05, 2011, 04:57:30 PM »
No one has discovered the Graviton particle the last time I checked.

Is there even a Graviton particle, in theory?

I was under the impression Gravity was the warping of space based on mass.
 Does such a force require a particle at all?

And just what exactly causes the warping of space time exactly? Magic?

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #78 on: May 05, 2011, 05:14:48 PM »
No one has discovered the Graviton particle the last time I checked.

Is there even a Graviton particle, in theory?

I was under the impression Gravity was the warping of space based on mass.
 Does such a force require a particle at all?

And just what exactly causes the warping of space time exactly? Magic?

He's already answered that.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9549
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #79 on: May 05, 2011, 06:41:19 PM »
Wrong.
Hypocrisy would be if I claimed I did not goad or provoke whilst claiming you did. A bit like when you whined that yourself and Oracle should be treated more equally, your implication being there was no difference between you and him (which is false).
You, sir, are the hypocrite for NOT having text by your avatar saying "I basically am just here to annoy ppl".

You are retarded.

"Hypocrisy is the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie."

It was hypocritical for you to act as though there is something wrong with PizzaPlanet baiting people (which he doesn't) while you also do it at the same time.

Quote
Hypocrisy would be if I claimed I did not goad or provoke whilst claiming you did. A bit like when you whined that yourself and Oracle should be treated more equally, your implication being there was no difference between you and him (which is false).
You, sir, are the hypocrite for NOT having text by your avatar saying "I basically am just here to annoy ppl".

You are retarded, again.

He's already answered that.

So magic?
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 06:43:08 PM by EnglshGentleman »

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #80 on: May 05, 2011, 07:10:21 PM »
No one has discovered the Graviton particle the last time I checked.

Is there even a Graviton particle, in theory?

I was under the impression Gravity was the warping of space based on mass.
 Does such a force require a particle at all?

And just what exactly causes the warping of space time exactly? Magic?
why would a force have to affect something by magic?

is magnatism magic?  you dont send out any particles to make your magnetic field
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43178
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #81 on: May 05, 2011, 08:34:41 PM »
You are retarded.

Please refrain from personal attacks in the discussion forums.
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.

?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #82 on: May 06, 2011, 05:43:44 AM »
So magic?

The word "mass" didn't offer any clue?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9549
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #83 on: May 06, 2011, 12:40:48 PM »
So magic?

The word "mass" didn't offer any clue?

Saying, "mass" does it doesn't explain what causes gravity. How does mass cause gravity? Go through the steps that allows a mass accelerate another mass towards it, even if they are millions of miles apart.

Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #84 on: May 06, 2011, 01:55:00 PM »
Mass curves space. Scientific fact. Easily observed druing solar eclipse. Second effect of gravity - gravitional lensing - project actually pursued here in Poland at the University of Wroclaw and KUL. Mass causes gravitional pull.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9549
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #85 on: May 06, 2011, 02:29:15 PM »
Mass curves space. Scientific fact. Easily observed druing solar eclipse. Second effect of gravity - gravitional lensing - project actually pursued here in Poland at the University of Wroclaw and KUL. Mass causes gravitional pull.

You still haven't explained how it does this. Magic?

All you have done is added a new outlandish claim to your last one.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2011, 02:39:23 PM by EnglshGentleman »

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #86 on: May 06, 2011, 09:41:37 PM »
Mass curves space. Scientific fact. Easily observed druing solar eclipse. Second effect of gravity - gravitional lensing - project actually pursued here in Poland at the University of Wroclaw and KUL. Mass causes gravitional pull.

You still haven't explained how it does this. Magic?

All you have done is added a new outlandish claim to your last one.
it bends space the same way your atoms can retain thermal energy
it is its property.
matter has mass, and a property is that mass exerts gravitational pull. 
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9549
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #87 on: May 06, 2011, 11:20:31 PM »
Mass curves space. Scientific fact. Easily observed druing solar eclipse. Second effect of gravity - gravitional lensing - project actually pursued here in Poland at the University of Wroclaw and KUL. Mass causes gravitional pull.

You still haven't explained how it does this. Magic?

All you have done is added a new outlandish claim to your last one.
it bends space the same way your atoms can retain thermal energy
it is its property.
matter has mass, and a property is that mass exerts gravitational pull. 


So your answer is, "It does it because that is how it is."

Sounds like magic to me.

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #88 on: May 07, 2011, 12:58:15 AM »
Mass curves space. Scientific fact. Easily observed druing solar eclipse. Second effect of gravity - gravitional lensing - project actually pursued here in Poland at the University of Wroclaw and KUL. Mass causes gravitional pull.

You still haven't explained how it does this. Magic?

All you have done is added a new outlandish claim to your last one.
it bends space the same way your atoms can retain thermal energy
it is its property.
matter has mass, and a property is that mass exerts gravitational pull. 


So your answer is, "It does it because that is how it is."

Sounds like magic to me.
so, with your logic
magnetism
ionic bonds
covelant bonds
transfer of momentum
properties of matter
and transfer of energy are all magic
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Disproven Flat Earth theories.
« Reply #89 on: May 07, 2011, 02:15:00 AM »
You know what, I think I will take this invitation to leave these forums and not return... I feel unwelcome here as it is.  Enjoy.
Pizzaplanet, if you run Oracle away from these forums, I'll kill you
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.