Please explain

  • 25 Replies
  • 9527 Views
?

Battery72

  • 140
  • +0/-0
Please explain
« on: July 28, 2012, 12:30:34 AM »
Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

?

LolaTheRabbit

  • 185
  • +0/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2012, 02:09:16 AM »
Quote
Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon?

The magical antimoon.

Quote
Please explain with something you can backup 100%.

You aren't going to get anything.

?

Battery72

  • 140
  • +0/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2012, 02:40:14 AM »
I went back and read the FAQ. It was like reading comedy. The Antimoon sounds like somrthing my kids would come up with, much like the term bendy light LOL. It's hard to believe it's all based on 1800s literature. I can understand people having 'faith' in something but the whole 'conspiracy' debate and talk of ice wall guards is hilarious. Now let's have some FE people back up the FAQ 100%. RE theories exist and are proven by millions, let see some FE proven theories, come on now don't be shy. I promoted this website to my Facebook friends, we have a good chuckle, now prove us wrong.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • +0/-0
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Please explain
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2012, 03:41:32 AM »
You're not going to get satisfying answers.  FET mostly exists as wild conjecturing about how this and that could, possibly, work on a flat earth.  It's all been created on the fly in various threads in response to arguments, and as a result it doesn't fit together very well into a cohesive whole.

FEers try to pass it off as some high-brow intellectual exercise.  If you get anything, it'll be smug replies about how you just believe everything you're told and that scientific models are lies built on lies, blah blah blah.

I'd suggest reading the Flat Earth Believers section if you'd like to see posts by users who actually take the idea of a flat earth seriously and have put some thought into how it could all possibly work.  There's a lot of crazy there, but you might find it more satisfying than what you'll get in the open discussion forums.

Unfortunately you can't post there to ask questions, though, because it's for certified flat earth believers only.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 03:44:32 AM by Cat Earth Theory »
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

Battery72

  • 140
  • +0/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2012, 04:25:25 PM »
Figures. There is now answer that's why they cant back it up. I would also love to know how they explain centrifugal force if there's no gravity. The lack of 100% backed up responses validate the Earth is round.

?

Battery72

  • 140
  • +0/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2012, 08:21:33 PM »
I understand you may have answered some things a few times, therefore you can't be bothered answering anymore, but I have read the FAQ and a lot of Rowbotham's literature. None of it really answers my questions. You also have to understand that any explanations are new to me as a new person here but I guess you can't.  ;D

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Please explain
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2012, 01:19:41 PM »
Figures. There is now answer that's why they cant back it up. I would also love to know how they explain centrifugal force if there's no gravity. The lack of 100% backed up responses validate the Earth is round.

What the hell does centrifugal force have to do with gravity?
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Pongo

  • 6752
  • +1/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2012, 10:04:51 PM »
Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

In the model I support, the phases of the moon are attributed to biolumenecent lunar-life migrating across the surface of the moon. This accounts for why you can still see parts of the lunar surface even when the moon's phase is too far waned -- something for which round earth theory has no satisfying answer. In addition, this biolumenecent light accounts for why moonlight is harmful to animals and plants alike. Another problem that round-earth theories simply deny rather than confront.

As for eclipses, it's when the sun passes behind the moon.


Also, I'm moving this to Q&A.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • +0/-0
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Please explain
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2012, 10:09:38 PM »
Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

In the model I support, the phases of the moon are attributed to biolumenecent lunar-life migrating across the surface of the moon. This accounts for why you can still see parts of the lunar surface even when the moon's phase is too far waned -- something for which round earth theory has no satisfying answer. In addition, this biolumenecent light accounts for why moonlight is harmful to animals and plants alike. Another problem that round-earth theories simply deny rather than confront.

As for eclipses, it's when the sun passes behind the moon.


Also, I'm moving this to Q&A.

Please explain to me how we are able to predict the migration patterns for these so called bio-luminescent life living on the moon? 

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • +0/-0
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Please explain
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2012, 10:27:35 PM »
How odd that the shadows of moon craters move throughout the phases as if lit at different angles.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

Battery72

  • 140
  • +0/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2012, 10:30:33 PM »
Figures. There is now answer that's why they cant back it up. I would also love to know how they explain centrifugal force if there's no gravity. The lack of 100% backed up responses validate the Earth is round.

What the hell does centrifugal force have to do with gravity?

The Power of Gravity

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

The most critical obstacle standing in the way of traveling in space is the gravitation of the Earth. Because a vehicle that is supposed to travel in outer space must be able not only to move; it must primarily and first of all move away from the Earth--i.e., against the force of gravity. It must be able to lift itself and its payload up many thousands, even hundreds of thousands of kilometers!

Because the force of gravity is an inertial force, we must first of all understand the other inertial forces existing in nature and, moreover, briefly examine what causes these forces, namely the two mechanical fundamental properties of mass; because the entire problem of space travel is based on these issues.

The first of these properties lies in the fact that all masses mutually attract (Law of Gravitation). The consequence of this phenomenon is that every mass exerts a so-called "force of mutual attraction" on every other mass. The attractive force that the celestial bodies exert on other masses by virtue of their total mass is called the force of gravity. The "force of gravity" exerted by the Earth is the reason that all objects on the Earth are "heavy", that is, they have more or less "weight" depending on whether they themselves have a larger or smaller mass. The force of mutual attraction (force of gravity) is then that much more significant, the greater the mass of the objects between which it acts. On the other hand, its strength decreases with increasing distance (more specifically, with the square of the latter), nevertheless without its effective range having a distinct boundary (Figure 1). Theoretically, the force becomes zero only at an infinite distance. Similar to the Earth, the sun, Moon and, for that matter, every celestial body exerts a force of gravity corresponding to its size.

Figure 1. The curve of the Earth's force of mutual attraction (force of gravity). The strength of the attraction, which decreases with the square of increasing distance is represented by the distance of the curve of the force of gravity from the horizontal axis.

Key: 1. Amount of the Earth's force of gravity at various distances; 2. Curve of the force of gravity; 3. Magnitude of the force of gravity on the Earth's surface; 4. Earth; 5. Radius of the Earth=6,380 km.

The second fundamental property of mass lies in the fact that every mass is always striving to continue to remain in its current state of motion (Law of Inertia). Consequently, any mass whose motion is accelerated, decelerated or has its direction changed will resist this tendency by developing counteracting, so-called "forces of inertial mass" (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Key: 1. Object; 2. Driving force; 3. Center of mass; 4. Inertia

In general, these are designated as inertia, or in a special case also as centrifugal force. The latter is the case when those forces occur due to the fact that mass is forced to move along a curved path. As is well known, the centrifugal force is always directed vertically outward from the curve of motion (Figure 3). All of these forces: force of gravity, inertia and the centrifugal force are inertial forces.

Figure 3.

Key: 1. Path of motion of the object; 2. Centrifugal force; 3. Object; 4. Center of gravity.

As mentioned previously, the effect of the Earth's force of gravity extends for an infinite distance, becoming weaker and weaker. We can consequently never completely escape the attractive range (the gravitational field) of the Earth, never reaching the actual gravitational boundary of the Earth. It can, nevertheless, be calculated what amount of work would theoretically be required in order to overcome the Earth's total gravitational field. To this end, an energy not less than 6,380 meter-tons would have to be used for every kilogram of load. Furthermore, it can be determined at what velocity an object would have to be launched from the Earth, so that it no longer returns to Earth. The velocity is 11,180 meters per second. This is the same velocity at which an object would strike the Earth's surface if it fell freely from an infinite distance onto the Earth. In order to impart this velocity to a kilogram of mass, the same amount of work of 6,380 meter-tons is required that would have to be expended to overcome the total Earth's gravitational field per kilogram of load.

If the Earth's attractive range could never actually be escaped, possibilities would nevertheless exist for an object to escape from the gravitational effect of the Earth, and more specifically, by the fact that it is also subjected to the effect of other inertial forces counterbalancing the Earth's force of gravity. According to our previous consideration about the fundamental properties of mass, only the following forces are possible: either the forces of mutual attraction of neighboring heavenly bodies or forces of inertial mass self-activated in the body in question




*

Pongo

  • 6752
  • +1/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2012, 10:31:44 PM »
Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

In the model I support, the phases of the moon are attributed to biolumenecent lunar-life migrating across the surface of the moon. This accounts for why you can still see parts of the lunar surface even when the moon's phase is too far waned -- something for which round earth theory has no satisfying answer. In addition, this biolumenecent light accounts for why moonlight is harmful to animals and plants alike. Another problem that round-earth theories simply deny rather than confront.

As for eclipses, it's when the sun passes behind the moon.


Also, I'm moving this to Q&A.

Please explain to me how we are able to predict the migration patterns for these so called bio-luminescent life living on the moon?

The migration patterns are mostly a result of the moons proximity to the sun.


?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • +0/-0
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Please explain
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2012, 10:36:37 PM »
Not just the shadows of moon craters, either, but mountains. http://astrobob.areavoices.com/astrobob/images/T_MoonShadowsEvolution2005.jpg

Here's some experiment done with models to see what sort of shadows we'd observe from moon features with different angles of the sun:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~jayem4646/shadow-new.htm

If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Please explain
« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2012, 06:09:54 AM »
Figures. There is now answer that's why they cant back it up. I would also love to know how they explain centrifugal force if there's no gravity. The lack of 100% backed up responses validate the Earth is round.

What the hell does centrifugal force have to do with gravity?

The Power of Gravity

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

The most critical obstacle standing in the way of traveling in space is the gravitation of the Earth. Because a vehicle that is supposed to travel in outer space must be able not only to move; it must primarily and first of all move away from the Earth--i.e., against the force of gravity. It must be able to lift itself and its payload up many thousands, even hundreds of thousands of kilometers!

Because the force of gravity is an inertial force, we must first of all understand the other inertial forces existing in nature and, moreover, briefly examine what causes these forces, namely the two mechanical fundamental properties of mass; because the entire problem of space travel is based on these issues.

The first of these properties lies in the fact that all masses mutually attract (Law of Gravitation). The consequence of this phenomenon is that every mass exerts a so-called "force of mutual attraction" on every other mass. The attractive force that the celestial bodies exert on other masses by virtue of their total mass is called the force of gravity. The "force of gravity" exerted by the Earth is the reason that all objects on the Earth are "heavy", that is, they have more or less "weight" depending on whether they themselves have a larger or smaller mass. The force of mutual attraction (force of gravity) is then that much more significant, the greater the mass of the objects between which it acts. On the other hand, its strength decreases with increasing distance (more specifically, with the square of the latter), nevertheless without its effective range having a distinct boundary (Figure 1). Theoretically, the force becomes zero only at an infinite distance. Similar to the Earth, the sun, Moon and, for that matter, every celestial body exerts a force of gravity corresponding to its size.

Figure 1. The curve of the Earth's force of mutual attraction (force of gravity). The strength of the attraction, which decreases with the square of increasing distance is represented by the distance of the curve of the force of gravity from the horizontal axis.

Key: 1. Amount of the Earth's force of gravity at various distances; 2. Curve of the force of gravity; 3. Magnitude of the force of gravity on the Earth's surface; 4. Earth; 5. Radius of the Earth=6,380 km.

The second fundamental property of mass lies in the fact that every mass is always striving to continue to remain in its current state of motion (Law of Inertia). Consequently, any mass whose motion is accelerated, decelerated or has its direction changed will resist this tendency by developing counteracting, so-called "forces of inertial mass" (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Key: 1. Object; 2. Driving force; 3. Center of mass; 4. Inertia

In general, these are designated as inertia, or in a special case also as centrifugal force. The latter is the case when those forces occur due to the fact that mass is forced to move along a curved path. As is well known, the centrifugal force is always directed vertically outward from the curve of motion (Figure 3). All of these forces: force of gravity, inertia and the centrifugal force are inertial forces.

Figure 3.

Key: 1. Path of motion of the object; 2. Centrifugal force; 3. Object; 4. Center of gravity.

As mentioned previously, the effect of the Earth's force of gravity extends for an infinite distance, becoming weaker and weaker. We can consequently never completely escape the attractive range (the gravitational field) of the Earth, never reaching the actual gravitational boundary of the Earth. It can, nevertheless, be calculated what amount of work would theoretically be required in order to overcome the Earth's total gravitational field. To this end, an energy not less than 6,380 meter-tons would have to be used for every kilogram of load. Furthermore, it can be determined at what velocity an object would have to be launched from the Earth, so that it no longer returns to Earth. The velocity is 11,180 meters per second. This is the same velocity at which an object would strike the Earth's surface if it fell freely from an infinite distance onto the Earth. In order to impart this velocity to a kilogram of mass, the same amount of work of 6,380 meter-tons is required that would have to be expended to overcome the total Earth's gravitational field per kilogram of load.

If the Earth's attractive range could never actually be escaped, possibilities would nevertheless exist for an object to escape from the gravitational effect of the Earth, and more specifically, by the fact that it is also subjected to the effect of other inertial forces counterbalancing the Earth's force of gravity. According to our previous consideration about the fundamental properties of mass, only the following forces are possible: either the forces of mutual attraction of neighboring heavenly bodies or forces of inertial mass self-activated in the body in question

Centrifugal force is a a force that comes from a spinning object. That's where the term "centrifuge" comes from. it's the "middle" of the spin. It has nothing to do with gravity.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 07:59:36 AM by ThinkingMan »
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45142
  • +93/-136
Re: Please explain
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2012, 07:48:27 AM »
Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

In the model I support, the phases of the moon are attributed to biolumenecent lunar-life migrating across the surface of the moon. This accounts for why you can still see parts of the lunar surface even when the moon's phase is too far waned -- something for which round earth theory has no satisfying answer.

Actually, RET has a very simple explanation for this phenomenon.  Earthshine.  Sunlight reflects off of the earth and onto the moon.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/earthshine/
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.

?

mtarlo11

  • 58
  • +0/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2012, 08:26:04 AM »
Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

In the model I support, the phases of the moon are attributed to biolumenecent lunar-life migrating across the surface of the moon. This accounts for why you can still see parts of the lunar surface even when the moon's phase is too far waned -- something for which round earth theory has no satisfying answer. In addition, this biolumenecent light accounts for why moonlight is harmful to animals and plants alike. Another problem that round-earth theories simply deny rather than confront.

As for eclipses, it's when the sun passes behind the moon.


Also, I'm moving this to Q&A.

This is hilarious

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Please explain
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2012, 10:32:25 AM »
Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

In the model I support, the phases of the moon are attributed to biolumenecent lunar-life migrating across the surface of the moon. This accounts for why you can still see parts of the lunar surface even when the moon's phase is too far waned -- something for which round earth theory has no satisfying answer. In addition, this biolumenecent light accounts for why moonlight is harmful to animals and plants alike. Another problem that round-earth theories simply deny rather than confront.

As for eclipses, it's when the sun passes behind the moon.


Also, I'm moving this to Q&A.

This is hilarious

Your post had absolutely no content in it. I'm not even a moderator, and that was annoying. Don't laugh at people for their religious beliefs.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Pongo

  • 6752
  • +1/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2012, 02:21:27 PM »
Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

In the model I support, the phases of the moon are attributed to biolumenecent lunar-life migrating across the surface of the moon. This accounts for why you can still see parts of the lunar surface even when the moon's phase is too far waned -- something for which round earth theory has no satisfying answer.

Actually, RET has a very simple explanation for this phenomenon.  Earthshine.  Sunlight reflects off of the earth and onto the moon.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/earthshine/


How can round-earthers insist in one thread that light from the sun CANNOT reflect off the earth and light the bottom of a plane, and turn around and attribute it for lighting the moon. Get it together.

@ThinkingMan: I am not religious.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • +0/-0
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Please explain
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2012, 02:36:41 PM »
How can round-earthers insist in one thread that light from the sun CANNOT reflect off the earth and light the bottom of a plane, and turn around and attribute it for lighting the moon. Get it together.

@ThinkingMan: I am not religious.

You're so predictable, I could see this response coming as soon as I read Markjo's post.

First, nobody's saying light literally can't bounce off the ground.  What we've been trying to get into your head is that the light that's reflected isn't intense enough to create an orange glare.

Secondly, most of the earth is water, and we have clouds and stuff up in the sky, so most of the light being reflected onto the moon isn't from the ground itself as you propose with the airplane.  You'll notice that despite light from the entire half of the earth bouncing back onto the moon during the new moon phase it still looks quite dark, and there's no orange glare, either.

Now go be disingenuous somewhere else.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45142
  • +93/-136
Re: Please explain
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2012, 03:04:44 PM »
How can round-earthers insist in one thread that light from the sun CANNOT reflect off the earth and light the bottom of a plane, and turn around and attribute it for lighting the moon. Get it together.

Simple, I never made or supported that first claim.
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.

?

Battery72

  • 140
  • +0/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2012, 04:03:28 PM »
Figures. There is now answer that's why they cant back it up. I would also love to know how they explain centrifugal force if there's no gravity. The lack of 100% backed up responses validate the Earth is round.

What the hell does centrifugal force have to do with gravity?

The Power of Gravity

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

The most critical obstacle standing in the way of traveling in space is the gravitation of the Earth. Because a vehicle that is supposed to travel in outer space must be able not only to move; it must primarily and first of all move away from the Earth--i.e., against the force of gravity. It must be able to lift itself and its payload up many thousands, even hundreds of thousands of kilometers!

Because the force of gravity is an inertial force, we must first of all understand the other inertial forces existing in nature and, moreover, briefly examine what causes these forces, namely the two mechanical fundamental properties of mass; because the entire problem of space travel is based on these issues.

The first of these properties lies in the fact that all masses mutually attract (Law of Gravitation). The consequence of this phenomenon is that every mass exerts a so-called "force of mutual attraction" on every other mass. The attractive force that the celestial bodies exert on other masses by virtue of their total mass is called the force of gravity. The "force of gravity" exerted by the Earth is the reason that all objects on the Earth are "heavy", that is, they have more or less "weight" depending on whether they themselves have a larger or smaller mass. The force of mutual attraction (force of gravity) is then that much more significant, the greater the mass of the objects between which it acts. On the other hand, its strength decreases with increasing distance (more specifically, with the square of the latter), nevertheless without its effective range having a distinct boundary (Figure 1). Theoretically, the force becomes zero only at an infinite distance. Similar to the Earth, the sun, Moon and, for that matter, every celestial body exerts a force of gravity corresponding to its size.

Figure 1. The curve of the Earth's force of mutual attraction (force of gravity). The strength of the attraction, which decreases with the square of increasing distance is represented by the distance of the curve of the force of gravity from the horizontal axis.

Key: 1. Amount of the Earth's force of gravity at various distances; 2. Curve of the force of gravity; 3. Magnitude of the force of gravity on the Earth's surface; 4. Earth; 5. Radius of the Earth=6,380 km.

The second fundamental property of mass lies in the fact that every mass is always striving to continue to remain in its current state of motion (Law of Inertia). Consequently, any mass whose motion is accelerated, decelerated or has its direction changed will resist this tendency by developing counteracting, so-called "forces of inertial mass" (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Key: 1. Object; 2. Driving force; 3. Center of mass; 4. Inertia

In general, these are designated as inertia, or in a special case also as centrifugal force. The latter is the case when those forces occur due to the fact that mass is forced to move along a curved path. As is well known, the centrifugal force is always directed vertically outward from the curve of motion (Figure 3). All of these forces: force of gravity, inertia and the centrifugal force are inertial forces.

Figure 3.

Key: 1. Path of motion of the object; 2. Centrifugal force; 3. Object; 4. Center of gravity.

As mentioned previously, the effect of the Earth's force of gravity extends for an infinite distance, becoming weaker and weaker. We can consequently never completely escape the attractive range (the gravitational field) of the Earth, never reaching the actual gravitational boundary of the Earth. It can, nevertheless, be calculated what amount of work would theoretically be required in order to overcome the Earth's total gravitational field. To this end, an energy not less than 6,380 meter-tons would have to be used for every kilogram of load. Furthermore, it can be determined at what velocity an object would have to be launched from the Earth, so that it no longer returns to Earth. The velocity is 11,180 meters per second. This is the same velocity at which an object would strike the Earth's surface if it fell freely from an infinite distance onto the Earth. In order to impart this velocity to a kilogram of mass, the same amount of work of 6,380 meter-tons is required that would have to be expended to overcome the total Earth's gravitational field per kilogram of load.

If the Earth's attractive range could never actually be escaped, possibilities would nevertheless exist for an object to escape from the gravitational effect of the Earth, and more specifically, by the fact that it is also subjected to the effect of other inertial forces counterbalancing the Earth's force of gravity. According to our previous consideration about the fundamental properties of mass, only the following forces are possible: either the forces of mutual attraction of neighboring heavenly bodies or forces of inertial mass self-activated in the body in question

Centrifugal force is a a force that comes from a spinning object. That's where the term "centrifuge" comes from. it's the "middle" of the spin. It has nothing to do with gravity.

They are all forces of inertia, how can they not be related? Centrifugal force would not exist without gravity.  For a "Thinking Man" you havn't put much thought into that.

?

mtarlo11

  • 58
  • +0/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2012, 05:52:40 PM »
Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

In the model I support, the phases of the moon are attributed to biolumenecent lunar-life migrating across the surface of the moon. This accounts for why you can still see parts of the lunar surface even when the moon's phase is too far waned -- something for which round earth theory has no satisfying answer. In addition, this biolumenecent light accounts for why moonlight is harmful to animals and plants alike. Another problem that round-earth theories simply deny rather than confront.

As for eclipses, it's when the sun passes behind the moon.


Also, I'm moving this to Q&A.

This is hilarious

Your post had absolutely no content in it. I'm not even a moderator, and that was annoying. Don't laugh at people for their religious beliefs.

This thread asked for an explanation with something you can back up.  Your religious theory has zero supporting evidence.


*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Please explain
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2012, 06:49:23 PM »
Do any FES'ers have an explanation for Soler/Lunar elipses or the phases of the Moon? Please explain with something you can backup 100%. Thanks.

In the model I support, the phases of the moon are attributed to biolumenecent lunar-life migrating across the surface of the moon. This accounts for why you can still see parts of the lunar surface even when the moon's phase is too far waned -- something for which round earth theory has no satisfying answer. In addition, this biolumenecent light accounts for why moonlight is harmful to animals and plants alike. Another problem that round-earth theories simply deny rather than confront.

As for eclipses, it's when the sun passes behind the moon.


Also, I'm moving this to Q&A.

This is hilarious

Your post had absolutely no content in it. I'm not even a moderator, and that was annoying. Don't laugh at people for their religious beliefs.

This thread asked for an explanation with something you can back up.  Your religious theory has zero supporting evidence.

As long as you include some thoughtful content in your post, you can feel free to express this kind of thing.  Just saying "This is hilarious" is considered low-content and is against the forum rules, with which I suggest you familiarize yourself before you post again.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Pongo

  • 6752
  • +1/-0
Re: Please explain
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2012, 11:09:33 PM »
How can round-earthers insist in one thread that light from the sun CANNOT reflect off the earth and light the bottom of a plane, and turn around and attribute it for lighting the moon. Get it together.

Simple, I never made or supported that first claim.

My appologies then. However, earthshine sounds like a huge case of special pleading. 

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • +0/-0
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Please explain
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2012, 01:03:27 AM »
Maybe if you don't know what special pleading is.  That shadows aren't perfectly dark when there are surrounding objects can be observed all the time in your normal everyday life.

But once again you're being massively disingenuous.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Please explain
« Reply #25 on: August 06, 2012, 06:21:00 AM »
Figures. There is now answer that's why they cant back it up. I would also love to know how they explain centrifugal force if there's no gravity. The lack of 100% backed up responses validate the Earth is round.

What the hell does centrifugal force have to do with gravity?

The Power of Gravity

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

The most critical obstacle standing in the way of traveling in space is the gravitation of the Earth. Because a vehicle that is supposed to travel in outer space must be able not only to move; it must primarily and first of all move away from the Earth--i.e., against the force of gravity. It must be able to lift itself and its payload up many thousands, even hundreds of thousands of kilometers!

Because the force of gravity is an inertial force, we must first of all understand the other inertial forces existing in nature and, moreover, briefly examine what causes these forces, namely the two mechanical fundamental properties of mass; because the entire problem of space travel is based on these issues.

The first of these properties lies in the fact that all masses mutually attract (Law of Gravitation). The consequence of this phenomenon is that every mass exerts a so-called "force of mutual attraction" on every other mass. The attractive force that the celestial bodies exert on other masses by virtue of their total mass is called the force of gravity. The "force of gravity" exerted by the Earth is the reason that all objects on the Earth are "heavy", that is, they have more or less "weight" depending on whether they themselves have a larger or smaller mass. The force of mutual attraction (force of gravity) is then that much more significant, the greater the mass of the objects between which it acts. On the other hand, its strength decreases with increasing distance (more specifically, with the square of the latter), nevertheless without its effective range having a distinct boundary (Figure 1). Theoretically, the force becomes zero only at an infinite distance. Similar to the Earth, the sun, Moon and, for that matter, every celestial body exerts a force of gravity corresponding to its size.

Figure 1. The curve of the Earth's force of mutual attraction (force of gravity). The strength of the attraction, which decreases with the square of increasing distance is represented by the distance of the curve of the force of gravity from the horizontal axis.

Key: 1. Amount of the Earth's force of gravity at various distances; 2. Curve of the force of gravity; 3. Magnitude of the force of gravity on the Earth's surface; 4. Earth; 5. Radius of the Earth=6,380 km.

The second fundamental property of mass lies in the fact that every mass is always striving to continue to remain in its current state of motion (Law of Inertia). Consequently, any mass whose motion is accelerated, decelerated or has its direction changed will resist this tendency by developing counteracting, so-called "forces of inertial mass" (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Key: 1. Object; 2. Driving force; 3. Center of mass; 4. Inertia

In general, these are designated as inertia, or in a special case also as centrifugal force. The latter is the case when those forces occur due to the fact that mass is forced to move along a curved path. As is well known, the centrifugal force is always directed vertically outward from the curve of motion (Figure 3). All of these forces: force of gravity, inertia and the centrifugal force are inertial forces.

Figure 3.

Key: 1. Path of motion of the object; 2. Centrifugal force; 3. Object; 4. Center of gravity.

As mentioned previously, the effect of the Earth's force of gravity extends for an infinite distance, becoming weaker and weaker. We can consequently never completely escape the attractive range (the gravitational field) of the Earth, never reaching the actual gravitational boundary of the Earth. It can, nevertheless, be calculated what amount of work would theoretically be required in order to overcome the Earth's total gravitational field. To this end, an energy not less than 6,380 meter-tons would have to be used for every kilogram of load. Furthermore, it can be determined at what velocity an object would have to be launched from the Earth, so that it no longer returns to Earth. The velocity is 11,180 meters per second. This is the same velocity at which an object would strike the Earth's surface if it fell freely from an infinite distance onto the Earth. In order to impart this velocity to a kilogram of mass, the same amount of work of 6,380 meter-tons is required that would have to be expended to overcome the total Earth's gravitational field per kilogram of load.

If the Earth's attractive range could never actually be escaped, possibilities would nevertheless exist for an object to escape from the gravitational effect of the Earth, and more specifically, by the fact that it is also subjected to the effect of other inertial forces counterbalancing the Earth's force of gravity. According to our previous consideration about the fundamental properties of mass, only the following forces are possible: either the forces of mutual attraction of neighboring heavenly bodies or forces of inertial mass self-activated in the body in question

Centrifugal force is a a force that comes from a spinning object. That's where the term "centrifuge" comes from. it's the "middle" of the spin. It has nothing to do with gravity.

They are all forces of inertia, how can they not be related? Centrifugal force would not exist without gravity.  For a "Thinking Man" you havn't put much thought into that.

You're right, nothing would exist without gravity. You would not exist in this universe to think about this without gravity. But lets look past silly things like that. Centrifugal force will work just fine without gravity.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.