How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?

  • 37 Replies
  • 4335 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2013, 04:30:19 PM »
So in a way, it's kind of like gravity but with the added bonus of consuming huge amounts of energy from some source that travels with the Earth.

And entire galaxies allegedly many times more massive than the earth are being accelerated in your religion from an equally unknowable source. Odd bit, that.


Your entire post is a straw man. As I have already mentioned, we cannot all be experts in all disciplines of science. So in our ignorance we have to look to what the experts are saying, those who have spent 20 years of their life researching and reading information from their field.

There's nothing like an appeal to the priesthood to communicate the ineffable to the masses...
"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: How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?
« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2013, 08:16:59 PM »
Some of these comments are super heavy. I don't even know how to reply to them. Maybe it's just because it's late.

Simple questions. If the Earth is accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, then is its velocity increasing?

I accept that as an object moves faster, there is time dilation. If I was a stationary person watching a near light speed rocket go by with a man in it, the rate of time the man is experiencing is slower than my rate of time. In other words, he's aging slower than me. Now he can keep accelerating. It may be that he's just adding on 9's to 0.9999c every few minutes/hours/days so far as I measure the rate of time and not the man in the rocket - but he's accelerating regardless of the time dilation.

Back to the Earth. How many years has it been around? How long has it been accelerating at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2?

It can't be that it's simultaneously accelerating AND yet unable to reach the speed of light. If it's unable to reach 1.0c, then it must be that acceleration stops somewhere along the way.

I guess you can use Star Trek logic that scientists have actually considered. I guess you could say that space is constantly warping above us tighter and tighter in order to pull us. So the Earth isn't actually moving. The space around the earth is moving and we're caught in bubble of space. However, that would have to go for the rest of the visible universe since it's all "above" us.

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

Oh and I ran into the ice dome idea that surrounds us. how does the whole thing not shatter when space rocks crash through?

I can't live in a mindset that millions of conspiracists have convinced Earth that it's spherical. My mind doesn't work upon cynicism and paranoia. The idea that every bit of evidence of science that supports spherical planets, moons and stars and whatever FET doesn't accept is damning.  We've seen and read of revolutions. Empires collapsed,  armies defeated. Previous science denounced in the wake of corrections such as the atom not being indivisible. It's impossible to believe that the sphere earth illuminati can damn the minds of 7 billion humans to date. Granted a lot of them are too young to understand higher science yet.

I do not think there is any God that would allow the minds of such a large number of his children to be blinded like that for ever. All science and truth comes from him, and he imparts it to us as we study and strive in our tests and observation. No way he'd keep them from making observations that would defeat a sphere earth conspiracy.

How could you believe in such an existence?

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2013, 09:28:29 PM »
It can't be that it's simultaneously accelerating AND yet unable to reach the speed of light. If it's unable to reach 1.0c, then it must be that acceleration stops somewhere along the way.
It can continue to accelerate within its frame of reference, but to an outside observer it isn't going to look like it's accelerating at that rate. Its velocity will increase ever more slowly and the Earth's mass will too increase. Also, the Earth will look even less deep - look up length contraction.

As for the rest of your post, yes, it's impossible for something of this magnitude to be kept under wraps. It's not like other conspiracy theories that are only detectable every once in a blue moon, this is the Earth, and the validity of the round Earth model is tested every single day and has been for hundreds of years.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 12:57:51 PM by Puttah »
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2013, 02:41:34 AM »

There's nothing like an appeal to the priesthood to communicate the ineffable to the masses...

As bluntly as you made that statement, I agree. Why should we teach children that climate change is not caused by humans when only 3% of climate scientists advocate that position and there is a roughly 90% certainty that climate change is being caused by humans?

Scientific consensus is a meer side-effect of available empirical evidence. Evidence points in one direction, the consensus follows. That is what I am trying to get across here. There is no scientific consensus where the evidence points in the complete opposite direction and scientists are purposely being contrarians.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2013, 11:04:55 AM »
Right. The Priesthood is completely immune to cultural and financial pressure. We see that in religions across the world...
"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.."

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?
« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2013, 01:23:01 PM »
Right. The Priesthood is completely immune to cultural and financial pressure. We see that in religions across the world...

Irrelevant for this discussion.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 01:29:16 PM by RyanTG »

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?
« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2013, 01:54:15 PM »
It's highly relevant when you're telling me that such a priesthood is the arbiter of truth.
"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.."

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: How did the accepted speed of 9.8 m/s^2 become accepted?
« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2013, 03:01:33 PM »
It's highly relevant when you're telling me that such a priesthood is the arbiter of truth.

It isn't the arbiter of truth, it is the best method (scientific method) available to humans in our endeavour for truth. The scientific method is fallible because humans are fallible, through peer review and repetition of studies, our knowledge converges on the truth.

I don't really think you have an argument to be honest, what is your actual argument? That you hate mainstream science? You hate the scientific method? Or that you hate the politics of science?

It seems to me the only reason you are attacking the discipline of science itself, is because it disagrees with the dogma you have surrounding the contour of the earth which has subsequently led you to deny many other verifiable observations such as the expansion of the universe.