Flawed at the very core

cute, but those are not scientific theorys, there standard theorys, there is only one question there anwsering, thats why they can be proved, RE cant be proved, we dont know 100% that there is a spinning ball of iron at the earths core, just like we dont know if theres a can of mustard gas burried in the desert. but both of these can be tested, there individual parts of the whole theory that can be proved somehow. FE has parts of the theory that cant be proved somehow, there for it is not a theory.

FE has parts of the theory that cant be proved somehow, there for it is not a theory.

You know you're right. It isn't.

FE has parts of the theory that cant be proved somehow, there for it is not a theory.

The RE has parts of the theory that can't be proved somehow, therefore, it is not a theory.

Quote from: "B"

FE has parts of the theory that cant be proved somehow, there for it is not a theory.

The RE has parts of the theory that can't be proved somehow, therefore, it is not a theory.

All parts of RE have been proven, as far as proof can go. It is a Theorem. FE isn't even a scientific theory. String theory isn't either.

All parts of RE have been proven

Do I really have to say the 'g' word?

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

All parts of RE have been proven

Do I really have to say the 'g' word?

Gravity exists, definitely. I've tested it myself.  :wink:

The 'g' word is graviton.

The 'g' word is graviton.

Did it no occur to you that if there was a conspiracy then scientists would say that gravitons definatly exist?

But they can't prove it.

tell me, how is the graviton part of the round earth theory? it may or may not exist on the round earth but what does it have to with it being round? I dont think the hypothisis of the graviton is part of the theory. but even if it is, the graviton is a scientific hypothisis, meaning it can be tested, even if we dont have the means to do it right now. so it wouldent mess with it being a theory.

But they can't prove it.

But by FE logic, they also shouldn't be able to prove that the Earth is round, yet they do claim that as fact quite openly.

tell me, how is the graviton part of the round earth theory?

Well without it, gravity is a magical force.  The RE relies on gravity, so therefore, you need the graviton.

still, as I said before, it doesnt matter if it isnt proved, it just that it can be proved, even if we dont have the facilitys as of yet.

still, as I said before, it doesnt matter if it isnt proved, it just that it can be proved, even if we dont have the facilitys as of yet.

Exact same goes for the FE.

incorrect, flat earth requires something that can never be proven. which is infinant space. there is the rub, you can never have infinant space and thats what you would need for the acceleration hypothisis. it would also require infinant energy, and energy = matter, therefore the entire universe would have to be filled with matter thick as physicaly possible. if you can find a spot with less energy then some other spot then its not infinant because something else is taking that space up.

or am I wrong  :twisted:

I think it's ironic that you criticise people's understanding of the term theory by saying "Come on, this is science 101 stuff", and then say that energy and matter are the same thing.  Energy is the ability of matter to apply force either to itself or its surroundings.  Energy and matter are not the same things.

And, infinite energy is not required for the continual acceleration hypothesis to work.  The planet would need a force applied to it to start the acceleration (assuming that there was a starting point), but after that point no further force would be required because empty space would have no friction to slow the planet down.  And what do you mean by saying that you could never have infinite space?  That the universe extends infinitely and rather uniformly in all directions is accepted by the vast majority of physicists.  In addition to this, infinite space would not be required for the acceleration hypothesis to work.  Curved spacetime could also explain it.

And what do you mean by saying that you could never have infinite space?  That the universe extends infinitely and rather uniformly in all directions is accepted by the vast majority of physicists.

Actually, that is not the case- it is accepted that the universe has a cosmological limit, which is why recent astronomical work apparantly shows the universe to be expanding. Though it is accepted to be cosmologically finite, to the best of my knowledge there is no definite and widely held theory on whether or not it is spatially finite. In essence, nobody knows.

Quote from: "jeremy.troy"

And what do you mean by saying that you could never have infinite space?  That the universe extends infinitely and rather uniformly in all directions is accepted by the vast majority of physicists.

Actually, that is not the case- it is accepted that the universe has a cosmological limit, which is why recent astronomical work apparantly shows the universe to be expanding. Though it is accepted to be cosmologically finite, to the best of my knowledge there is no definite and widely held theory on whether or not it is spatially finite. In essence, nobody knows.

I was refering to spacial infinity.

Also, I dislike the term "universe" because it makes it sound like there's only one of them.  Our universe is currently expanding.  However, it's possible that ours is not the only one.  I think multiversal cosmological theories make a lot of sense, although I certainly don't know whether they're correct or not.

if space is finite, then the entire universe will stop accelerating pretty damn soon.

Matter is just highly concentratied energy you dumbass.

havent you ever heard the joke,
Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass


curved space time comes from the gravity which you scorn saying we accelerate, for space time to be curved there would have to be a massive gravity in the center of the acclerating spiral of our universe causing forces to be pressed apon it causing its eventual slow down or infinant energy.

so, I ask you again, am I wrong? :twisted:

They make sense in a completely imaginary way, but as of yet we have neither the mathematics to make a practical theory nor observable evidence to indicate it is so. They are simply well educated guesses.

And I was just saying that spatially, we don't know- no physicist is in a position to say either way.

incorrect, flat earth requires something that can never be proven. which is infinant space. there is the rub, you can never have infinant space and thats what you would need for the acceleration hypothisis.

Why would you need infinate space?

it would also require infinant energy, and energy = matter, therefore the entire universe would have to be filled with matter thick as physicaly possible.

No it would not, because the earth is not in danger of passing the speed of light.

The planet would need a force applied to it to start the acceleration (assuming that there was a starting point), but after that point no further force would be required because empty space would have no friction to slow the planet down.

In order to accelerate, a force must be applied the the object.  In space, as soon as the force applied to an object falls to zero, it ceases to accelerate and continues on at the velocity it had when the force stopped.

if space is finite, then the entire universe will stop accelerating pretty damn soon.

Matter is just highly concentratied energy you dumbass.

havent you ever heard the joke,
Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass


curved space time comes from the gravity which you scorn saying we accelerate, for space time to be curved there would have to be a massive gravity in the center of the acclerating spiral of our universe causing forces to be pressed apon it causing its eventual slow down or infinant energy.

so, I ask you again, am I wrong? :twisted:

First of all, I don't believe the Earth is flat and never claimed to.  Secondly, I do believe in gravity and never claimed not to.  Thirdly, the fact that you've fallen back to personal attacks and name calling forces me to cease my involvement with this debate.

you need infinant energy, not to pass the speed of light, but to keep up the acclereation.

and in order to keep up the idea of gravity acceleration must be constant, if it stops to accelerate we could float.

you would need infinant space for it to keep moving, no matter how slow eventualy it would reach the end and then it would keep going, into the god knows what.

also another thing that is wrong with this is that all other elements are acclerating, except humans, we are made of carbon, like much of the earth, we shouldent be immune.

if space is finite, then the entire universe will stop accelerating pretty damn soon.

How do you know?  What is pretty damn soon?

curved space time comes from the gravity which you scorn saying we accelerate

Just because the FE does not emit a gravitational field doesn't mean everything else doesn't.  By the way, gravity=acceleration.

eventual slow down or infinant energy.

You are correct.  The acceleration of the FE is decreasing as we near the speed of light, as seen from someone not accelerated by the earth.  On the earth, we would never see it change, as it would stay constant.

so, as we near the speed of light we can defy gravity? didnt someone do the math that it would be the speed of light in 300 some days? wouldent that mean that by now we would be experincing a difrent gravity, by now I should be able to hover. Now I dont mean to argue againt the flat earth, I am arguing againt the fact its a scientific theory, which by now is pretty well established. or how bout this, how the hell did the walls of ice form? with the accleration and phaux gravity, it wouldent be an ice wall, it would be a waterfall, it could never freeze that way on its own.

Energy and matter are not the same things

All matter in the Universe is energy from the big bang, cooled over 200 million years.

I think it's ironic that you criticise people's understanding of the term theory by saying "Come on, this is science 101 stuff", and then say that energy and matter are the same thing.  Energy is the ability of matter to apply force either to itself or its surroundings.  Energy and matter are not the same things.

Actually you're wrong - or at least based on current science you're wrong.  Einstein showed that e = mc^2.  If that is the case then you can easily see that we have two variables; energy and mass and that c^2 is a constant.  With that in mind it is obvious that energy is directly proportional to the mass of an object.  You can even very easily calculate how much energy a particular mass has.  So essentially what this says is that "matter" is another form of energy - like heat energy and kinetic energy etc.  This is really a very simplified explanation, but if you study more science you'll see that it is the case.

And, infinite energy is not required for the continual acceleration hypothesis to work.  The planet would need a force applied to it to start the acceleration (assuming that there was a starting point), but after that point no further force would be required because empty space would have no friction to slow the planet down.

This is false.  Newtonian physics is your friend.  Force=mass x acceleration.  Therefore acceleration=force x mass - acceleration can only have a value if force has a value.  So if you are not applying force you do not get any acceleration.

Quote from: "jeremy.troy"

I think it's ironic that you criticise people's understanding of the term theory by saying "Come on, this is science 101 stuff", and then say that energy and matter are the same thing.  Energy is the ability of matter to apply force either to itself or its surroundings.  Energy and matter are not the same things.

Actually you're wrong - or at least based on current science you're wrong.  Einstein showed that e = mc^2.  If that is the case then you can easily see that we have two variables; energy and mass and that c^2 is a constant.  With that in mind it is obvious that energy is directly proportional to the mass of an object.  You can even very easily calculate how much energy a particular mass has.  So essentially what this says is that "matter" is another form of energy - like heat energy and kinetic energy etc.  This is really a very simplified explanation, but if you study more science you'll see that it is the case.

You're correct here, I agree.  The problem was that B was using the two terms as though they were exact synonyms, which is not correct.

Quote

And, infinite energy is not required for the continual acceleration hypothesis to work.  The planet would need a force applied to it to start the acceleration (assuming that there was a starting point), but after that point no further force would be required because empty space would have no friction to slow the planet down.

This is false.  Newtonian physics is your friend.  Force=mass x acceleration.  Therefore acceleration=force x mass - acceleration can only have a value if force has a value.  So if you are not applying force you do not get any acceleration.

Yeah, you've got me there.  I had misunderstood the constant accleration hypothesis.

so, as we near the speed of light we can defy gravity?

B, you forget, FE people don't believe in gravity.

I think that pretty much means I win doesnt it? its not actualy a scientific theory because some of it cant be proven true or false, making this a religion. I have sucessfuly proven the Flat earth socity is a cult, and can be safely ignored.

-does a victory dance-