I bet I can prove the ISS is real.

look up on the internet, find any kind of data, try to see if you can prove the data to be wrong

Weather reports would fit that area nicely.  The 10 day forecast from 10 days ago is unlikely to be accurate.

@Thork - "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.
According to the theory of special relativity, earth accelerating at one standard gravity (9.80665 m/sē) will have the speeds shown below.
T (days), v/c

Nice ripoff of a Yahoo site. Maybe you should give credit where credit is due and not plagiarize someone else's work:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100513165723AA8VKcE

Seems fairly common practice here...

@Dudeman
To be honest, we have posted that so many times, I hadn't got a clue where it came from any more.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54597.msg1347181.html#msg1347181
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49529.msg1216046.html#msg1216046
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,44213.msg1096192.html#msg1096192
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,43405.msg1075981.html#msg1075981

Rather than me sitting with a pencil and excel spreadsheet every single time someone new comes to the site I think "mmmm, I've answered this before" and I just search my own posts, not the entire internet for an answer. I probably stole it off Tom Bishop who may have borrowed it off Wilmore who saw Roundy use it who stole it off me the first time before I forgot about it again. You never know, the yahoo person may have stolen it from this site without giving us credit.

Anyway, the fact that the same numbers are out there on the internet only proves us flat earthers to be gathering information on the subject. I mean, you aren't disputing that the earth can't reach lightspeed are you? So we made our point. And that's the point of the website. To show you the earth is flat and our theories aren't as mad as a box of frogs.

Now rather than go back and forth and back and forth with us saying "light speed isn't possible" and RErs shouting "it is possible and proves FET wrong", we all except the FErs are correct again and we can move the debate along a notch. Of course now you know I've had this conversation 25 times before, so the cards are stacked a little in my favour ... but I am arguing the earth is flat after all.

Thats fine, it does appear that this is in many places, however, many of these places are talking in general about an "object" that follows these principals, but I'm certainly not convinced that a flat earth is accelerating infinitely at this rate. It would have been doing the for over 7 billion years? ( if you buy into the universe and the big bang 14 billion years ago ). Odds seem overwelmingly against it as we are able to gaze into the galaxy and other star systems and we don't witness this anywhere except for objects near or entering a black hole.

What difference would it make if it has been accelerating for 5 years or 7 billion? Its going to be travelling at a whisker under light speed in either scenario. The time scale is actually a non-issue as it doesn't really have much of an effect on the outcome.

Also, the reason we don't observe it as we gaze into the universe is because its "universal acceleration". IE everything is accelerating that fast in the same direction and so Albert Einstein leaps to the flat-earth defence once again. Relativity makes the objects appear stationary to us as we travel with them through the universe.

No, I don't completely agree. I do agree that the 7 billion years is not relevant to the light speed idea, I do understand that it never reaches light speed regardless of how long, but our observance of other galaxies that you say are all traveling at roughly the same speed doesn't fit recent discoveries. We have found out that the Andromeda galaxy is due to collide with our galaxy in another few billion years ( I forget exactly how long ), if we were all traveling at the same near light speed, and in the same direction, this collision could never happen as it would never "catch up" with us. We know this is happening due to the red shift effect exhibited by Andromeda. So, I'm not sold on that part of the arguement. Also, the unidirectional acceleration of Earth doesn't match up with our presence in the galaxy. We know where we are in the spiral arm, and, we can't accelerate in one direction and maintain our ability to spiral around the black hole at the center of our galaxy. But then, that's only part of the problem, you also have to deal with the sun spinning in a circle over the Earth and it must be traveling at the same speed, as well as maintaining it's distance from the galactic center. You'd have to throw out the galactic presence to make this work, I don't think you want to do that.

Andromeda is coming towards us? Tell me, when the big bang happened and all matter was ejected outwards into a constantly expanding universe, what made Andromeda decide to turn around and come back our way?

As for we are in the spiral arm, whose word are you taking for that? The same people who erroneously told you earth was round?

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision

Or, is this all made up too? This isn't new information, you can find a lot posts about this along with proofs.

Oh, I'm aware of the theory. I'd like to know why you think a galaxy that was ejected from a cosmic explosion and travelling faster than our own hence ahead of it, suddenly decided to stop and come back our way?

Your answer is in my link. Essentially we've measured the relative distance of the galaxy over a period of 10 years and it is getting closer at a constant rate and will collide with us in about 4 billion years at it's current rate. It's easy to measure, I don't know why you would argue with measurements.

Your answer is in my link. Essentially we've measured the relative distance of the galaxy over a period of 10 years and it is getting closer at a constant rate and will collide with us in about 4 billion years at it's current rate. It's easy to measure, I don't know why you would argue with measurements.

You didn't answer his question.

What part don't you get? It's a distance measured using the red shift of light. Did I miss something? I had mentioned this previously. If you're talking about the "why did it turn around and go the other way part", the whole point of my response is that this is not the case because it can be proven that the galaxy is headed for us by using measurements, so this invalidates the notion that we are moving in the same direction as he states. So, it does answer the question.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on November 02, 2012, 12:24:43 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 02, 2012, 09:43:48 AM

Since it wont reach that point, acceleration would need to slow down, because it can't reach c.

Incorrect. You can approach an asymptote at a constant rate, but never reach it.

What you just said, is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point, in your, rambling, incoherent response were you even CLOSE to anything that could be considered a rational thought. LOLOLOLMFAO @ your theories of the sun being 32 miles in diameter or whatever you think. Now go play starcraft at a gaming convention.

Do you know what an asymptote is?

What part don't you get? It's a distance measured using the red shift of light. Did I miss something? I had mentioned this previously. If you're talking about the "why did it turn around and go the other way part", the whole point of my response is that this is not the case because it can be proven that the galaxy is headed for us by using measurements, so this invalidates the notion that we are moving in the same direction as he states. So, it does answer the question.

How did the Andromeda galaxy get in front of us and what caused it to surrender its lead and head back our way? They both started in the same place ... a singularity. Why has Andromeda turned around and decided to head back towards the centre of the explosion?
I'm not interested in your 'there's a red shift' claim. I want to know why or how that could happen. Because you'll appreciate that there aren't lots of people that can observe 'redshift'. Its disseminated down from sources that frankly I don't trust.

I think you're talking in circles here. Who said Andromeda was ever "ahead of us" as opposed to "behind us" or in any other "direction"? You're making assumptions here, now lets deal with a fact: red shift proves that Andromeda is closing in on our galaxy, regardless of where it started from or what speed you think it is going. Red shift has been around for a long time, easy to prove, look it up. But here's the funny part -  you use Einstein's theory of relativity to prove your points, but then you don't believe in or understand the concept of red shift? Um, no, you can't have it both ways. Red shift disproves your theory, its a like any unit of measure. Do you believe in a ruler, a tape measure, your odometer on your car, the ability of measuring great distances by timing a laser from point a to point b, or red shift which deals with light? Where do you draw the line of belief? No, you're trying to invalidate hard data to prove a failed theory.

I think you're talking in circles here. Who said Andromeda was ever "ahead of us" as opposed to "behind us" or in any other "direction"? You're making assumptions here, now lets deal with a fact: red shift proves that Andromeda is closing in on our galaxy, regardless of where it started from or what speed you think it is going. Red shift has been around for a long time, easy to prove, look it up. But here's the funny part -  you use Einstein's theory of relativity to prove your points, but then you don't believe in or understand the concept of red shift? Um, no, you can't have it both ways. Red shift disproves your theory, its a like any unit of measure. Do you believe in a ruler, a tape measure, your odometer on your car, the ability of measuring great distances by timing a laser from point a to point b, or red shift which deals with light? Where do you draw the line of belief? No, you're trying to invalidate hard data to prove a failed theory.

His problem isn't with the redshift.  His problem is what the redshift is being interpreted as while also saying the universe is expanding outward.

Its you going in circles. You don't want to answer? Its 2 am here so I won't be reading your reply tonight, but I won't be interested in it either if you can't tell me how a galaxy catches and collides with another galaxy. Explosions throw things outwards. Its the theory you follow and you are happy to pick holes in mine. So give me a straight answer. How or why does a galaxy change course and/or speed after billions of years?

I can agree with that in general, but I'm saying that objects are likely not moving at the same speed as one another. There is a lot of gravitational influences in the universe that cause objects to alter course and speed. This can be easily observes by asteroids and comets passing through the solar system. Whether or not all matter emanated from a single point flung things out like ripples in a pond is debatable at best.

The RErs crutch, gravity.

Gravity is supposedly inversely proportional to distance. If gravity pulls two galaxies together, it would pull a galaxy in on itself. Why would matter from a galaxy have more effect on a far away galaxy drawing stars in, than the stars in its own galaxy? It wouldn't. Its nonsense. Gravity cannot be strong enough to pull galaxies together. Extrapolating that, you wouldn't get an ever expanding universe with a gravity that could pull galaxies together. I'll bid you good evening.

Sorry, wrong again. Galaxies are not pulling each other together when they are far apart. They are traveling either in different directions and collide in the same way cars collide in opposite directions on a highway. If you don't believe this, it is again something that can be observed through a telescope. Do you mean you've never seen pictures of galaxies in a collision? Take your pick, there's a lot of them, it happens, its real. The problem you have is that real life experience and observations don't support the notion that everything is moving away from a singularity at the same rate and direction, sorry, it isn't that simple and we can see that it doesn't work that way.

Simple proof: remember the voyager 1 spacecraft, it just recently reached the edge of our solar system, you see the path it took to get there? It left Earth at one speed and direction, used the gravitational pull of Saturn and Jupiter to not only radically change course but increase speed by several magnitudes. Or, is this all part of the conspiracy too? Now that we've sufficiently drifted from the topic, the point made way back was that no, the earth can't be accelerating in a single direction, that can be demonstrated and proven false, unless you just can't accept the facts. Sorry, now go to bed.

Galaxies in local clusters are gravitationally bound.  The rate at which other galaxies are receding from us is a function of their distance from us.  Andromeda and the rest of the local cluster are close enough to us that the expansion rate of the universe is overcome by the force of gravity.  Gravity is pulling us together faster than the expansion of the universe is tearing us apart.  Imagine an expanding balloon with dots on its surface.  If the dots are very close together, they won't separate very much during the expansion.  If they are far apart, they'll separate rapidly.  If some force were pulling the two dots together on the balloon, then sufficiently close dots would collide despite the overall expansion rate.

Galaxies don't collapse because their constituents are in orbit around the center of the galaxy.  It's actually much more difficult to explain why they don't fly apart.

OK, I'll buy that, it makes sense...

They are traveling either in different directions and collide in the same way cars collide in opposite directions on a highway.

So there are multiple places where galaxies come from? How many singularities were there? And were there multiple big bangs, or did all singularities start to expand at the same time?

OK, I'll buy that, it makes sense...

No it doesn't. If gravity is strong enough to pull one galaxy into another, its strong enough to pull a galaxy in on itself. And it doesn't.
The fact you'd buy the first ludicrous round earth suggestion that came along just shows what a conspiracy puppet you are. You sir, are suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias.

I am still waiting to find out how a galaxy that has been ejected from a singularity (the same point) ahead of our own in an ever expanding cosmic explosion, slowed and changed direction to come back at us.

Quote from: Dudeman on November 05, 2012, 09:59:35 PM

OK, I'll buy that, it makes sense...

No it doesn't. If gravity is strong enough to pull one galaxy into another, its strong enough to pull a galaxy in on itself. And it doesn't.
The fact you'd buy the first ludicrous round earth suggestion that came along just shows what a conspiracy puppet you are. You sir, are suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias.

I am still waiting to find out how a galaxy that has been ejected from a singularity (the same point) ahead of our own in an ever expanding cosmic explosion, slowed and changed direction to come back at us.

If you gain enough tangential velocity to the center of gravity that you are trying to orbit, you simply freefall around it forever. That's why galaxies don't collapse, is because the objects in them (star systems) have enough tangential velocity to not fall into the center of gravity. It's different with large galaxies, they may not have enough tangential velocity relative to the center of the other galaxy. The gravity doesn't necessarily have to have a particularly "strong" pull, the speed has to be low enough relative to the other galaxy, and the velocity and trajectory will be altered.

Quote from: Dudeman on November 05, 2012, 06:27:46 PM

They are traveling either in different directions and collide in the same way cars collide in opposite directions on a highway.

So there are multiple places where galaxies come from? How many singularities were there? And were there multiple big bangs, or did all singularities start to expand at the same time?

You both seem to be under the impression that the galaxies were ejected as is from the center of a singularity. That's not what the theory says. It says that essentially the raw material of the universe, energy, basic bosons and mesons and the like, were ejected from the "singularity," or what ever it was. These then were spread to almost an equilibrium, but there were imperfections here and there which allowed the pieces to be attracted to one another through gravity. After mashing together and forming particles, then atoms (hydrogen, mostly), they then gravitated into enormous masses about the size of galaxies, and these were the first stars. They were so massive that they had very short lifetimes, and quickly wend supernova (hypernova?). The ejected material formed the next sets of stars, and I'm sure some of the smaller supernovas formed the first galactic central black holes. That's what I know about the theory. It wasn't just a poof, and galaxies were flying away from a common center at relativistic speeds.

Quote from: Dudeman on November 05, 2012, 09:59:35 PM

OK, I'll buy that, it makes sense...

No it doesn't. If gravity is strong enough to pull one galaxy into another, its strong enough to pull a galaxy in on itself. And it doesn't.
The fact you'd buy the first ludicrous round earth suggestion that came along just shows what a conspiracy puppet you are. You sir, are suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias.

I am still waiting to find out how a galaxy that has been ejected from a singularity (the same point) ahead of our own in an ever expanding cosmic explosion, slowed and changed direction to come back at us.

As opposed to your insulting comments, I'll respond with respect and not lower myself to your standards. The answer to your recurring question is that there IS NO DIFINITIVE, MUTUALLY AGREED UPON arguement for the begining of all things, i.e., big bang theory, that's why it is labled as a THEORY! You can no more convince anyone about the singularity than I can convince you that something else was the source. But, you constantly try to deviate from the observable and, more importantly, provable facts that exist today, right now. My red shift is one of them, you can't get over the fact that not only will we collide with another galaxy, regardless of the cause, but you can't admit that you can gaze into the sky and witness these collisions with a powerful commercial telescope and see it with your own eyes. By your theory, galaxies could NEVER collide, but, in fact they do, so there's something wrong with your theory, isn't there? How tough is it to understand this, but it's a lot tougher to admin it. Is it common practice for you to find ways to distract people from observable and demonstrable proofs???

Quote from: Thork on November 06, 2012, 02:39:51 AM

Quote from: Dudeman on November 05, 2012, 09:59:35 PM

OK, I'll buy that, it makes sense...

No it doesn't. If gravity is strong enough to pull one galaxy into another, its strong enough to pull a galaxy in on itself. And it doesn't.
The fact you'd buy the first ludicrous round earth suggestion that came along just shows what a conspiracy puppet you are. You sir, are suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias.

I am still waiting to find out how a galaxy that has been ejected from a singularity (the same point) ahead of our own in an ever expanding cosmic explosion, slowed and changed direction to come back at us.

As opposed to your insulting comments, I'll respond with respect and not lower myself to your standards. The answer to your recurring question is that there IS NO DIFINITIVE, MUTUALLY AGREED UPON arguement for the begining of all things, i.e., big bang theory, that's why it is labled as a THEORY! You can no more convince anyone about the singularity than I can convince you that something else was the source. But, you constantly try to deviate from the observable and, more importantly, provable facts that exist today, right now. My red shift is one of them, you can't get over the fact that not only will we collide with another galaxy, regardless of the cause, but you can't admit that you can gaze into the sky and witness these collisions with a powerful commercial telescope and see it with your own eyes. By your theory, galaxies could NEVER collide, but, in fact they do, so there's something wrong with your theory, isn't there? How tough is it to understand this, but it's a lot tougher to admin it. Is it common practice for you to find ways to distract people from observable and demonstrable proofs???

To answer your last question... Yes.

To answer your last question... Yes.
[/quote]

LOL, thanks, so glad to hear I'm not the only one that noticed...