Formation of Bodies disproves FET

  • 106 Replies
  • 13040 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2012, 06:57:53 PM »
Is that the closest we'll see to an admission of error?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2012, 07:00:44 PM »
Is that the closest we'll see to an admission of error?

Quite the opposite. It's my deflection of Robbyj's attempt at switching topics to avoid my very relevant point, by illuminating a minor technicality.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2012, 07:20:57 PM »

He's not taking the conversation off-topic. He directly answered your first incorrect claim that the earth could not deform without air resistance. He told you exactly how and why a flat earth would so deform, and your only response was your next incorrect notion that the earth would be going faster than the speed of light. And now you are trying to deflect the conversation away from either error.


Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.

Not to become flat. Not unless it had a completely uniform force forming a wall at enough speed and density to do so. If you're suggesting that, Earth would be going faster than light.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2012, 07:25:20 PM »

He's not taking the conversation off-topic. He directly answered your first incorrect claim that the earth could not deform without air resistance. He told you exactly how and why a flat earth would so deform, and your only response was your next incorrect notion that the earth would be going faster than the speed of light. And now you are trying to deflect the conversation away from either error.


Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.

Not to become flat. Not unless it had a completely uniform force forming a wall at enough speed and density to do so. If you're suggesting that, Earth would be going faster than light.

Oh? I wouldn't say so. Then again, misinterpretation is a wondrous thing.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2012, 07:29:20 PM »
If you have some sort of clarifying remark or relevant point to make, I'm sure we'd all be interested to read it. Which point am I misunderstanding?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #35 on: May 28, 2012, 05:42:32 AM »
Is that the closest we'll see to an admission of error?

Quite the opposite. It's my deflection of Robbyj's attempt at switching topics to avoid my very relevant point, by illuminating a minor technicality.

I said the force of acceleration can cause deformation.  You said if that was the case the earth would be traveling faster than light.  I then said that it is impossible to reach the speed of light making it possible to continuously accelerate causing said deformation.  This is a minor technicality? 
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #36 on: May 28, 2012, 12:23:17 PM »
Just what would be causing said deformation? And so regularly? At such speed?

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2012, 12:53:08 PM »
Just what would be causing said deformation?

Acceleration.  I believe I have already mentioned this six times in this thread.

And so regularly?

Constant acceleration.

At such speed?

Speed is irrelevant.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2012, 02:39:13 PM »
Just what would be causing said deformation?

Acceleration.  I believe I have already mentioned this six times in this thread.

And so regularly?

Constant acceleration.

At such speed?

Speed is irrelevant.

Constant acceleration of matter is terminal; eventually it will be travelling at the speed of light, at which point it will cease accelerating. Speed is absolutely not irrelevant. I am aware that you have already mentioned it. However, you have yet to use any kind of specific language. You're on something, going somewhere, somehow.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2012, 02:44:30 PM »
Constant acceleration of matter is terminal; eventually it will be travelling at the speed of light, at which point it will cease accelerating.

This is where you are incorrect.

Speed is absolutely not irrelevant.

Speed has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2012, 02:47:13 PM »
Constant acceleration of matter is terminal; eventually it will be travelling at the speed of light, at which point it will cease accelerating.

This is where you are incorrect.

Speed is absolutely not irrelevant.

Speed has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Oh? Perhaps, for once, you would like to explain why?

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2012, 02:53:28 PM »
The speed of light is not some magical speed limit that inhibits acceleration once you reach it.  You cannot exceed the speed of light because you can never reach the speed of light.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2012, 03:13:52 PM »
The speed of light is not some magical speed limit that inhibits acceleration once you reach it.  You cannot exceed the speed of light because you can never reach the speed of light.

Again, not true. Light has mass, and travels at the speed of light. Therefor matter can reach the speed of light. However, matter can't surpass the speed of light. Space, however, can travel faster than the speed of light.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2012, 04:10:28 PM »
Again, not true. Light has mass, and travels at the speed of light.

Photons have energy and momentum, but rest mass is zero.

Therefor matter can reach the speed of light.

Incorrect.

Space, however, can travel faster than the speed of light.

Relative to what?
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2012, 09:17:44 PM »
I feel the need to point out that actually reading the FAQ (as has already been suggested elsewhere) would have saved both Grandiloquent Granduncle and (the ever-patient and persevering) Robbyj a lot of trouble:


Q: "If the Earth's acceleration is constant, wouldn't it be traveling faster than light eventually?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object with mass from reaching or passing the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that the Earth can accelerate at a constant rate forever in our reference frame and never reach the speed of light. Click here for an in depth explanation.


I suggest you read the above, GG, and then do some independent research.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #45 on: May 29, 2012, 05:18:18 AM »
The FE would be courved upwards on the border, in a pizza like shape
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #46 on: May 29, 2012, 05:37:05 AM »
I feel the need to point out that actually reading the FAQ (as has already been suggested elsewhere) would have saved both Grandiloquent Granduncle and (the ever-patient and persevering) Robbyj a lot of trouble:


Q: "If the Earth's acceleration is constant, wouldn't it be traveling faster than light eventually?"

A: The equations of Special Relativity prevent an object with mass from reaching or passing the speed of light. Due to this restriction, these equations prove that the Earth can accelerate at a constant rate forever in our reference frame and never reach the speed of light. Click here for an in depth explanation.


I suggest you read the above, GG, and then do some independent research.

Do you have an idea why should Einstein's equation should apply to a theory he would have dismissed as utterly wrong?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #47 on: May 29, 2012, 06:26:18 AM »
How can one believe in relativity and a flat Earth en lieu?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #48 on: May 29, 2012, 08:53:52 AM »
How can one believe in relativity and a flat Earth en lieu?
There have been two main arguments around this. One of them is to attack the Michelson-Morely experiment, believing that this is enough to demolish Relativity like a house of cards, and the other is to believe Einstein was so intelligent that he discovered relativity but such and idiot that he calculated the effects of gravitational lensing and of Relativity on the planets' orbits without noticing that the Sun and planets as we know them do not exist.

If there was one person in human history capable of discovering the Conspiracy, it would have been Einstein. Instead, he gave us better evidence of the absurdity of Rowbotham than anyone else ever could.

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #49 on: May 29, 2012, 08:58:45 AM »
Interesting thought..

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #50 on: May 29, 2012, 09:28:15 AM »
Well, as Relativity requires gravity, can we disprove the use of Relativity on a FE theory? Then, why
earth isn't traveling FTL?
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2012, 10:19:17 AM »
General Relativity (bendy space causes gravity) is not the same as Special Relativity (moving frames of references). Only Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity has been demonstrated through experimentation (See the Hadfel-Keatng Experiment).

No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Like most physicists, Einstein has a lot of failed theories. He spent 40 years trying to unify electromagnitism and gravity, which didn't really get anywhere.

One other way he failed was in a 1935 paper called the "EPR Paradox" for Einstein-Podolski-Rosen, the authors. They tried to show that quantum mechanics could not be a complete description of reality with a careful argument. Unfortunately it did not convince everyone.

His most famous equation might be E = mc2, but Einstein himself doubted how important it was. He dismissed the notion that it might one day be at the heart of a new energy source, declaring in 1934 that “there is not the slightest indication” that atomic energy will ever be possible.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2012, 10:24:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2012, 10:20:55 AM »
General Relativity (bendy space causes gravity) is not the same as Special Relativity (moving frames of references). Only Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity has been demonstrated through experimentation. No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth.

Like most physcists, Einstein has a lot of failed theories. He spent 40 years trying to univy electromagnitism and gravity, which didn't really get anywhere.

One other way he failed was in a 1935 paper called the "EPR Paradox" for Einstein-Podolski-Rosen, the authors. They tried to show that quantum mechanics could not be a complete description of reality with a careful argument. Unfortunately it did not convince everyone.

His most famous equation might be E = mc2, but Einstein himself doubted how important it was. He dismissed the notion that it might one day be at the heart of a new energy source, declaring in 1934 that “there is not the slightest indication” that atomic energy will ever be possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2012, 10:58:38 AM »
General Relativity (bendy space causes gravity) is not the same as Special Relativity (moving frames of references). Only Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity has been demonstrated through experimentation (See the Hadfel-Keatng Experiment).

No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Like most physicists, Einstein has a lot of failed theories. He spent 40 years trying to unify electromagnitism and gravity, which didn't really get anywhere.

One other way he failed was in a 1935 paper called the "EPR Paradox" for Einstein-Podolski-Rosen, the authors. They tried to show that quantum mechanics could not be a complete description of reality with a careful argument. Unfortunately it did not convince everyone.

His most famous equation might be E = mc2, but Einstein himself doubted how important it was. He dismissed the notion that it might one day be at the heart of a new energy source, declaring in 1934 that “there is not the slightest indication” that atomic energy will ever be possible.
The "EPR" paradox resulted to be true, and it was only to strange to people's minds. In fact, the EPR paradox (Something can be at two different places in the same time I think) is the core of actual quantum physics. Also, the cosmological constant has a new meaning in Dark Energy Theory. And General Theory HAS been proved. Read about Mercury's anomaly amd Gravitatorial lens
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #54 on: May 29, 2012, 11:17:49 AM »
General Relativity (bendy space causes gravity) is not the same as Special Relativity (moving frames of references). Only Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity has been demonstrated through experimentation (See the Hadfel-Keatng Experiment).

No one has demonstrated that the fabric of space bends to cause the gravity we feel on earth, which is why General Relativity is rejected on this forum.

Like most physicists, Einstein has a lot of failed theories. He spent 40 years trying to unify electromagnitism and gravity, which didn't really get anywhere.

One other way he failed was in a 1935 paper called the "EPR Paradox" for Einstein-Podolski-Rosen, the authors. They tried to show that quantum mechanics could not be a complete description of reality with a careful argument. Unfortunately it did not convince everyone.

His most famous equation might be E = mc2, but Einstein himself doubted how important it was. He dismissed the notion that it might one day be at the heart of a new energy source, declaring in 1934 that “there is not the slightest indication” that atomic energy will ever be possible.
This is, as everything Tom Bishop does, a word game. He tries to discredit some of Einstein's theories by showing that Einstein was not infallible, as if science depended on this. We accept both theories of Relativity because they have been extensively verified, not because Einstein wrote them or because we believe he was a Quantum Mechanics genius.

Even if you do not want to accept other evidence, we have seen the effect of gravitational lensing and we have seen the effect of General Relativity in the orbits of planets. We even have mounting evidence of the existence of black holes.

On the other hand, Tom Bishop does not even have a working model of the movement of the stars, planets, Moon and Sun. If Einstein had ever known about Rowbotham, he would have died of laughter.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #55 on: May 29, 2012, 11:20:55 AM »
Who proved through experimentation that the fabric of space-time bends? Gravitational Lensing shows that light bends around stars, nothing about the fabric of space-time bending. The Quantum Mechanics Graviton theory also predicts that stars pull photons.

Please show me how General Relativity was experimentally proven.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2012, 11:34:23 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #56 on: May 29, 2012, 11:25:24 AM »
Who proved through experimentation that the fabric of space-time bends? Gravitational Lensing shows that light bends around stars, nothing about the fabric of space-time bending. The Quantum Mechanics Graviton theory also predicts that stars also pull photons.

Please show me how General Relativity was experimentally proven.

Photons are particles of light. You just said "Gravity bends light, and it also bends light." If space-time does not conform, then explain gravitational lensing.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #57 on: May 29, 2012, 11:32:02 AM »
Who proved through experimentation that the fabric of space-time bends? Gravitational Lensing shows that light bends around stars, nothing about the fabric of space-time bending. The Quantum Mechanics Graviton theory also predicts that stars also pull photons.

Please show me how General Relativity was experimentally proven.

Photons are particles of light. You just said "Gravity bends light, and it also bends light." If space-time does not conform, then explain gravitational lensing.

Under Quantum Mechanics the theory for gravity is that there are these little subatomic particles called the Graviton which pull us to the earth. This is what is responsible for "gravity". It also predicts that light will be pulled towards stars.

How does observing light warp around some stars show that the fabric of space is bending, rather than any other effect which attracts light to stars?

It was claimed that General Relativity was proven experimentally, so where are the experiments?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #58 on: May 29, 2012, 11:35:02 AM »
Who proved through experimentation that the fabric of space-time bends? Gravitational Lensing shows that light bends around stars, nothing about the fabric of space-time bending. The Quantum Mechanics Graviton theory also predicts that stars also pull photons.

Please show me how General Relativity was experimentally proven.
So, here come more word games. Tom Bishop does not want an experiment or observation that verifies the model, he wants an experiment that shows that the word "fabric" is well used.

But somehow the real Physicists of this world have been able to understand the meaning that was intended, and are in agreement that the proposed experiments verify or falsify General Relativity. If everyone else understands the intended use of the terminology except Tom Bishop, what does that say about his intelligence?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #59 on: May 29, 2012, 11:39:23 AM »
So, here come more word games. Tom Bishop does not want an experiment or observation that verifies the model, he wants an experiment that shows that the word "fabric" is well used.

All Gravitational Lensing shows us is that light is attracted to stars. You might as well tell me to step off a chair for evidence of General Relativity.

General Relativity makes specific claims that the fabric of space bends to cause 'gravity'. This is what needs to be proven, not "things attract". Please reference a single experiment which suggests that the fabric of space is bending, or even exists.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2012, 01:09:35 PM by Tom Bishop »