questioning the FAQ

  • 23 Replies
  • 2659 Views
questioning the FAQ
« on: December 23, 2011, 06:07:33 AM »
I was reading the FAQ and I have a few questions about its contents


Here we go:

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

In the McIntyre model, the sun and the moon are metallic discs instead. These discs are being held above the Earth by photoelectric effect. See: Photoelectric Suspension Theory. The celestial bodies are also being suspended above the Earth by photoelectric effect in the Bishop model.

----------------------
Now, let's try some history with this one.  How was the chemical element Helium first discovered?
The first evidence of helium was observed on August 18, 1868 as a bright yellow line with a wavelength of 587.49 nanometers in the spectrum of the chromosphere of the Sun.

Basically, by turning a spectroscope towards the Sun it is possible to determine its composition from our vantage point (mostly hydrogen and helium).

Since in your model the difference in distance between stars and Sun is only 100 miles (3000 vs 3100 miles) - i conclude that in your model Sun and the stars are viewed as separate entities (not the same) since the stars would then appear as big as the sun. However, why is it that spectrometers show very similar readings when turned against those tiny points of light we call stars? Why the same composition?


----------

Second:

Q: "What about gravity?"

A1: In the dark energy model, DE accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.81m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as "gravity" in our local reference frame. See: Equivalence Principle.

A2: In both the McIntyre and the Bishop model, the Earth is being pushed up by the Universal Accelerator underneath it at 9.8m/s2. This mediates observable gravitational effects in our local reference frame.

--------------

According to this - the rate at which we're moving upwards increases by 9.81 meters each second..
According to that - if we start with zero (0), then at this rate we reach the speed of light (300 000 000 m/s)
in just ~354 days..   However, anything with rest mass would require an infinite amount of energy in order to be accelerated to the speed of light (or even beyond that)...Yet if we follow your model our speed increases by C every single year... That's an impossibility.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42612
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2011, 07:01:53 AM »
According to this - the rate at which we're moving upwards increases by 9.81 meters each second..
According to that - if we start with zero (0), then at this rate we reach the speed of light (300 000 000 m/s)
in just ~354 days..   However, anything with rest mass would require an infinite amount of energy in order to be accelerated to the speed of light (or even beyond that)...Yet if we follow your model our speed increases by C every single year... That's an impossibility.

*sigh*  Someone really needs to update the FAQ to include Special Relativity's velocity addition formula that shows that it is possible to accelerate forever without ever reaching the speed of light.
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.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2011, 07:17:30 AM »
According to this - the rate at which we're moving upwards increases by 9.81 meters each second..
According to that - if we start with zero (0), then at this rate we reach the speed of light (300 000 000 m/s)
in just ~354 days..   However, anything with rest mass would require an infinite amount of energy in order to be accelerated to the speed of light (or even beyond that)...Yet if we follow your model our speed increases by C every single year... That's an impossibility.

*sigh*  Someone really needs to update the FAQ to include Special Relativity's velocity addition formula that shows that it is possible to accelerate forever without ever reaching the speed of light.

*sigh*  Someone really needs to update the FAQ to include variations in gravitational force at different locations on earth, that shows it is not possible for the force holding us down to be caused by uniform acceleration.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2011, 09:14:49 AM »
I think we should keep the FAQ. I like seeing the same thread over and over again.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42612
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2011, 09:38:39 AM »
That's because you're still new here.
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.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2011, 12:50:12 PM »
That's because you're still new here.

I forgot how hard it is to detect sarcasm over the internet.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2011, 01:53:51 PM »
According to this - the rate at which we're moving upwards increases by 9.81 meters each second..
According to that - if we start with zero (0), then at this rate we reach the speed of light (300 000 000 m/s)
in just ~354 days..   However, anything with rest mass would require an infinite amount of energy in order to be accelerated to the speed of light (or even beyond that)...Yet if we follow your model our speed increases by C every single year... That's an impossibility.

*sigh*  Someone really needs to update the FAQ to include Special Relativity's velocity addition formula that shows that it is possible to accelerate forever without ever reaching the speed of light.

I have been petitioning Wilmore to add that bit in along with Thork's explanation of flight times for a while now. :P

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2011, 02:12:19 PM »
According to this - the rate at which we're moving upwards increases by 9.81 meters each second..
According to that - if we start with zero (0), then at this rate we reach the speed of light (300 000 000 m/s)
in just ~354 days..   However, anything with rest mass would require an infinite amount of energy in order to be accelerated to the speed of light (or even beyond that)...Yet if we follow your model our speed increases by C every single year... That's an impossibility.

*sigh*  Someone really needs to update the FAQ to include Special Relativity's velocity addition formula that shows that it is possible to accelerate forever without ever reaching the speed of light.

I have been petitioning Wilmore to add that bit in along with Thork's explanation of flight times for a while now. :P

Thork doesn't have an explanation of flight times.
Also, the FAQ will never be updated because it's a good source of questions for noobs to ask that you can smack down easily. The trolls love that.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2011, 02:37:25 PM »
According to this - the rate at which we're moving upwards increases by 9.81 meters each second..
According to that - if we start with zero (0), then at this rate we reach the speed of light (300 000 000 m/s)
in just ~354 days..   However, anything with rest mass would require an infinite amount of energy in order to be accelerated to the speed of light (or even beyond that)...Yet if we follow your model our speed increases by C every single year... That's an impossibility.

*sigh*  Someone really needs to update the FAQ to include Special Relativity's velocity addition formula that shows that it is possible to accelerate forever without ever reaching the speed of light.

I have been petitioning Wilmore to add that bit in along with Thork's explanation of flight times for a while now. :P

Thork doesn't have an explanation of flight times.
Also, the FAQ will never be updated because it's a good source of questions for noobs to ask that you can smack down easily. The trolls love that.

Lurk moar, specifically, the believers section. Also, you are wrong considering that the FAQ was updated by Wilmore just last year.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2011, 03:47:07 PM »
According to this - the rate at which we're moving upwards increases by 9.81 meters each second..
According to that - if we start with zero (0), then at this rate we reach the speed of light (300 000 000 m/s)
in just ~354 days..   However, anything with rest mass would require an infinite amount of energy in order to be accelerated to the speed of light (or even beyond that)...Yet if we follow your model our speed increases by C every single year... That's an impossibility.

*sigh*  Someone really needs to update the FAQ to include Special Relativity's velocity addition formula that shows that it is possible to accelerate forever without ever reaching the speed of light.

I have been petitioning Wilmore to add that bit in along with Thork's explanation of flight times for a while now. :P

Thork doesn't have an explanation of flight times.
Also, the FAQ will never be updated because it's a good source of questions for noobs to ask that you can smack down easily. The trolls love that.

Lurk moar, specifically, the believers section. Also, you are wrong considering that the FAQ was updated by Wilmore just last year.

OK, let me amend that. Thork doesn't have an explanation of flight times which explains flight times in any realistic or sensible way.
If the FAQ was updated by Willmore last year, why is all this stuff that people object to still in it?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2011, 06:07:07 PM »
It has been updated much more recently than last year, in fact.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2011, 08:05:52 AM »
I really hope the creators of this site have a really dry sense of humor. To belive that the Earth is flat is preposterous. What would be the reason to hoax moon landings and space missions? Have you not seen footage from the space station on the news? The theorists who created this absurd idea, and anyone who believes, are extremely ignorant. Let's just hope that this is all a joke.

?

Thork

Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2011, 10:29:38 AM »
OK, let me amend that. Thork doesn't have an explanation of flight times which explains flight times in any realistic or sensible way.
If the FAQ was updated by Willmore last year, why is all this stuff that people object to still in it?
Ahhh, I was once an ambitious young FE academic. I would peruse the flat earth archives gobbling up theories and historic events like sweet treats at a children's party. I would research into the wee hours and deliver my findings, eagerly hoping to establish a name for my works amongst the flat earth society. Alas no one gave a flying ****. But its all there if you lurk for it. The bitter crusty old b*st*rd before you now, is all that is left of that once precocious talent. My efforts wasted, my enthusiasm drained, but never let it be said that I didn't try.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2011, 10:37:17 AM by Thork »

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2011, 12:16:57 PM »
I would research into the wee hours and deliver my findings...

Like the Queen secretly being a lizard?  ???

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2011, 04:28:45 PM »
According to this - the rate at which we're moving upwards increases by 9.81 meters each second..
According to that - if we start with zero (0), then at this rate we reach the speed of light (300 000 000 m/s)
in just ~354 days..   However, anything with rest mass would require an infinite amount of energy in order to be accelerated to the speed of light (or even beyond that)...Yet if we follow your model our speed increases by C every single year... That's an impossibility.

*sigh*  Someone really needs to update the FAQ to include Special Relativity's velocity addition formula that shows that it is possible to accelerate forever without ever reaching the speed of light.

I have been petitioning Wilmore to add that bit in along with Thork's explanation of flight times for a while now. :P

Also, the FAQ will never be updated because it's a good source of questions for noobs to ask that you can smack down easily. The trolls love that.

1) Stop with the personal attacks. You are the most obnoxious person on this forum right now.
2) We actually hate it. It's not fun to explain the same phenomenon 100 times. It's the reason so many old, respected members have left.

?

Thork

Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2011, 04:29:51 PM »
I would research into the wee hours and deliver my findings...

Like the Queen secretly being a lizard?  ???
Shush you! >:(

Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2011, 05:42:15 PM »
According to this - the rate at which we're moving upwards increases by 9.81 meters each second..
According to that - if we start with zero (0), then at this rate we reach the speed of light (300 000 000 m/s)
in just ~354 days..   However, anything with rest mass would require an infinite amount of energy in order to be accelerated to the speed of light (or even beyond that)...Yet if we follow your model our speed increases by C every single year... That's an impossibility.

*sigh*  Someone really needs to update the FAQ to include Special Relativity's velocity addition formula that shows that it is possible to accelerate forever without ever reaching the speed of light.

I have been petitioning Wilmore to add that bit in along with Thork's explanation of flight times for a while now. :P

Also, the FAQ will never be updated because it's a good source of questions for noobs to ask that you can smack down easily. The trolls love that.

1) Stop with the personal attacks. You are the most obnoxious person on this forum right now.
2) We actually hate it. It's not fun to explain the same phenomenon 100 times. It's the reason so many old, respected members have left.
There's no reason to blame the Board or its admins.

To resolve your problem, simply collect the best and brightest model, publish it along with its FAQ. Put a link in your sig to it with the claim: "Here is the best model complete with its FAQ: <link>. Put it somewhere where only you can update it. (If you need help finding a site to host it for free, ask for help by PM.)

Now would you please stop whining?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2011, 09:08:41 PM »
I would research into the wee hours and deliver my findings...

Like the Queen secretly being a lizard?  ???
Shush you! >:(

As I recall that thread being removed was the one that caused you to rage and out yourself.

Bonus points to whoever can find a quoted form of it! I know GD probably has it.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #18 on: December 25, 2011, 04:51:34 PM »
I would research into the wee hours and deliver my findings...

Like the Queen secretly being a lizard?  ???
Shush you! >:(

As I recall that thread being removed was the one that caused you to rage and out yourself.

Bonus points to whoever can find a quoted form of it! I know GD probably has it.

Is this the one?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=46739.msg1155119
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #19 on: December 25, 2011, 05:01:10 PM »
I would research into the wee hours and deliver my findings...

Like the Queen secretly being a lizard?  ???
Shush you! >:(

As I recall that thread being removed was the one that caused you to rage and out yourself.

Bonus points to whoever can find a quoted form of it! I know GD probably has it.

Is this the one?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=46739.msg1155119
Thanks. I enjoyed that.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #20 on: December 25, 2011, 06:28:09 PM »
I would research into the wee hours and deliver my findings...

Like the Queen secretly being a lizard?  ???
Shush you! >:(

As I recall that thread being removed was the one that caused you to rage and out yourself.

Bonus points to whoever can find a quoted form of it! I know GD probably has it.

Is this the one?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=46739.msg1155119

Nope. That was the thread that caused his rage thread. The actual post Thork has editted so it says something to the effect of "We all know what this said. Lets move on, guys."

The original post only exists now from other people quoting it. Believe me, you'll know it when you see it.

?

Silverdane

  • 346
  • Deutschland Double Heil!! @_@//
Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #21 on: December 25, 2011, 09:12:05 PM »
IS this actually, for real?

How could Ivid Di**e (suggestive alliteration was insert) believe in FET, if that stupid theory demands some sort of Hollow Earth baloonery to be present?

Such is not. Hollow Earth is like saying we live on the inside of a Concave Earth. And the other side of the world like Australia is straight above me.

And when I want to send a Christmas gift to my relatives on the other side of the world, I just launch a rocket Straight Up, strap those presents on the rocket first, then call to get them safely in their bunkers for the next 10-30 minutes.

Until the present arrive. Assuming they don't crash into the Center Sun, midway through ....

RET is just as Dogmatic Filthery as Hollow Earth or Concave Earth.

Also that David Ign (orant) inspired directly from the tv show "V", which unfortunately was cancelled only 3 season in. DAMMIX !!

Anna, was the "charismatic Queen of the Visitors", and of course, her human flesh was artifically grown in a lab, she looked like a green bipedic tiny dinosaurus in her real skin, and ate people.

The End.

This is why WW2 should have ended differently ... THIS ... IS WHY ....

Westerners don't know when to draw the line between fiction and reality. Colonials have this passion for delusion. I blame your tropical drugs, which affected you over generations of drug abuse.

Oh well.
We shall have a magnificent orgy garden party & you're not invited

Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #22 on: December 27, 2011, 05:09:41 AM »
You guys are pro's at going off-topic... Thanks for nothing.

Re: questioning the FAQ
« Reply #23 on: December 27, 2011, 06:10:55 AM »
You guys are pro's at going off-topic... Thanks for nothing.

You really know how to flatter a forum spammer.

Oh wait...you never meant that as a compliment. You never meant it that way at all!! :(