Flawed at the very core

its not actualy a scientific theory because some of it cant be proven true or false

Which would, I assume, apply to gravity, the cause of which is unknown and the existence of which is simply assumed.
"Where there is mass, there is gravity. The end."

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-

-dances with B-

Quote from: "B"

its not actualy a scientific theory because some of it cant be proven true or false

Which would, I assume, apply to gravity, the cause of which is unknown and the existence of which is simply assumed.
"Where there is mass, there is gravity. The end."

The existence is not assumed, it is observed.

 Not knowing the cause of a phenomenon does not prevent it from existing.

No, movement is observed, and gravity is an assumed explanation for it. If it's existence cannot be explained, then it is assumed. It is an invisible force the cause of which is unknown- therefore all we can do is asume that it is the cause of the motion we observe.

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

'Gravity'? No.

didnt someone do the math that it would be the speed of light in 300 some days?

Yes, and they were wrong.  Velocity does not add lineraly in relativity.

wouldent that mean that by now we would be experincing a difrent gravity, by now I should be able to hover.

No it wouldn't.  No two observers traveling at different velocities will ever measure acceleration to be the same in relativity..  To someone not accelerating with the earth, the acceleration would be decreasing, but to those on the earth, it would stay the same.

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.

The ice wall is on land.

I think that pretty much means I win doesnt it?

Seeing as you were wrong about everything, no you don't.

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

200 million?  That's it?

Sweet as.  So I live in a country older than the universe  More evidence of just what an awesome country Australia is.

Sweet as.  So I live in a country older than the universe  More evidence of just what an awesome country Australia is.

Uhh... the Universe is 15 billion years old.

oh you sad sad little man, if the ice wall was on land it still wouldent make a wall. it would just make a very slipery edge.

your right there, it adds exponentialy, which is even worse.

you have your understanding of relitivity all wrong, because, you see, the flaw is that you reguard humans as special and imune to this acceleration, if we were accelerating with it then you would be right but there still wouldent be gravity. you cant have it both ways and both ways defy physics.

-strikes a victory pose-

oh you sad sad little man, if the ice wall was on land it still wouldent make a wall.

Hmm, so a mountain range somehow doesn't constitute a wall-ish structure?

your right there, it adds exponentialy, which is even worse.

No, they add logrithmically, with c as the asymptote.

you have your understanding of relitivity all wrong,

Based on what you have said, you are in no position to tell someone they are wrong about relativity.

because, you see, the flaw is that you reguard humans as special and imune to this acceleration

We are not immune to the acceleration, we are being pushed up with the earth.

, if we were accelerating with it then you would be right but there still wouldent be gravity.

We are accelerating with it, so I don't see your point.

-strikes a victory pose-

You take victory in being wrong?

You seem incapable of understanding that what we're arguing essentially means that what you're taught about physics is wrong.  You can't claim that we're wrong and the science is true without putting forward an arguement as to why that is.

Ubuntu - sorry I was assuming that since you think it only took 200 million years for the Universe to cool from the big bang that it must be that old.  This was a bad assumption on my behalf because I was basing it on the widely accepted theory that the universe is still cooling.

no, we are not accelerating with it, were being forced to acclerate by it, creating our gravity. we are the only form of matter, hell only thing, real or not, not effected by this acceleration of yours. even light. otherwise we could see no stars.

as for beast, your just sitting there dittoing people, if you dont have something to add then just dont post.

as for the mountains, they are caused by plate tectonics, something your theory also fails to explain, how can a flat earth explain the valcanic activity of plate tectonics. a wall of ice, is impossible without aid of a thinking being.

You honestly think that what you're saying hasn't been said before?

nope, just using it to prove a point, everything everywhere has been said before. except "I want a pie and then a rabid wolf" and I just said it so thats out. I am just proving that anyone can defeat the idea, even without claiming the earth is round. this is more just for myself really, so I dont have to think about politics, because if I think anymore about that I might have to kill something.

B, As an REer who already discussed the lightspeed issue at length, I am going to tell you right now that you are flat-out wrong.

no, we are not accelerating with it, were being forced to acclerate by it, creating our gravity. we are the only form of matter, hell only thing, real or not, not effected by this acceleration of yours.

We are affected by it-it's accelerating us.

as for the mountains, they are caused by plate tectonics, something your theory also fails to explain,

Why would plate tectonics be any different on a flat earth?

how can a flat earth explain the valcanic activity of plate tectonics

Magma, pressure, boom!

a wall of ice, is impossible without aid of a thinking being.

How about a mountain range covered in snow?

I am just proving that anyone can defeat the idea

What idea is that?  You certainly have not defeated the FE idea. :?

Quote

how can a flat earth explain the valcanic activity of plate tectonics

Magma, pressure, boom!

Where does the Magma come from? According to you, the earth is too thin.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote

how can a flat earth explain the valcanic activity of plate tectonics

Magma, pressure, boom!

Where does the Magma come from? According to you, the earth is too thin.

According to me?  When did I say the earth was thin?

nope, just using it to prove a point, everything everywhere has been said before. except "I want a pie and then a rabid wolf" and I just said it so thats out. I am just proving that anyone can defeat the idea, even without claiming the earth is round. this is more just for myself really, so I dont have to think about politics, because if I think anymore about that I might have to kill something.

Starting with the FEs

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote

how can a flat earth explain the valcanic activity of plate tectonics

Magma, pressure, boom!

Where does the Magma come from? According to you, the earth is too thin.

wow, youre a slow one, the thoery is more cylindrical, in fact, there could be even more magma in the FE model that would be in the RE model.

In the flat earth model, how the fsck would that even work? With the system accelerating upwards, magma would come out the bottom, not the top. With the RE model involving gravity, there's no more "down" for it to go! When plates shift, shit comes out. Holes open, and stuff is forced out from the pressure beneath the crust.

With a flat earth, all the magma would force itself out the bottom of the planet, and would have drained out completely within the first few centuries of the earth's existence.

Draining out the bottom?  Why?  The earth is being pushed up from the bottom, creating the pressure inside.

Exactly.  The magma is essentially squished in between the upward force accelerating the Earth, and the inertia of the Earth's crust.  It's like when you make a sandwich of pepper turkey and alpine lacy swiss cheese on rye with that spicy deli mustard and then you put it all together and take a bite and some of the mustard gets sqlooshed out through the pores in the bread and even so the sandwich is oh so tasty mmmm.

Wow, I am hungry.

Exactly what is the earth being pushed up by anyways?

The force has been given the place holder name of 'dark energy' but has been refered to as the Universal Accelerator and Shmavity at times.

Ubuntu - sorry I was assuming that since you think it only took 200 million years for the Universe to cool from the big bang that it must be that old.  This was a bad assumption on my behalf because I was basing it on the widely accepted theory that the universe is still cooling.

The matter cooled after 200 million years, but that doesn't mean it automatically turned into the present day Universe.

Exactly.  The magma is essentially squished in between the upward force accelerating the Earth, and the inertia of the Earth's crust.  It's like when you make a sandwich of pepper turkey and alpine lacy swiss cheese on rye with that spicy deli mustard and then you put it all together and take a bite and some of the mustard gets sqlooshed out through the pores in the bread and even so the sandwich is oh so tasty mmmm.

Wow, I am hungry.

if it was being forced out through the top, how do you explain earthquakes from plate tectonics, also another thing, the earth would be covered in magma if it was continualy being forced upward.

Forced out the top through volcanoes and other such magma emitting formations.  Earthquakes happen when plates move.

then why the heck am I not burried in magma, I live next to a volcano, ergo, it should be purpetualy being forced out, and I should be covered in magma.