earthquake..

  • 22 Replies
  • 3341 Views
earthquake..
« on: May 02, 2016, 01:59:50 PM »
first hello to all .. and im sorry for my bad english .
my question is how come we can not feel any movement even we move sooo fast according nasa lies some like 1000 km/h but we can feel a sooo small move on earth called earthquake. so my point is IF WE move like nasa say we need to feel that 24/7 but we dont. please when someone answer try to be with facts not theory . tnx

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2016, 02:12:08 PM »
The reason we do not feel the movement is because movement is only perceived when there is a change in velocity. Since the earth is moving at a constant velocity you do not feel the movement. It's the same with a car. If the car is going the same speed and not changing direction, you will not feel movement either. Have you ever flown in a plane? Ever noticed you don't feel like your moving when you get up to cruising speed? How about a train? You only ever feel the movement when these objects l, start moving, stop moving, or Chang direction.

 Now your second question. Earthquakes are not the result of the earth moving through space. Also the aren't "little" at all. Ask anyone who has been near the epicenter of a major quake. Garauntee they won't say it was "little". The leading theory as to why earthquakes happen is called, "Plate Tetonics". Essentially the crust, the ground you walk on, floats on top of an "ocean" of liquid rock. Or Magma. Now the crust is not homogenous, and is actually separate pieces of "plates" that constantly move and rub up against each other. When the pressure builds to the breaking point, one or both sides of the plate move. The earthquake is the result of the plates moving against eachother. This is the reason we have mountains. Two plate crash in to each other and one folds up on itself.

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2016, 02:35:04 PM »
now speed is same in whole earth? north pole and equator have the same speed?nope right that if ur r theory is right( but is not) . so if plane move south to north he go from high speed to low spinning speed and u clearly said .. U CANT FEEL ANY MOVE in plane . i know i cant feel coz earth is not spining .and point is if plane start in dubai (near equator) where speed is some like 800 km/h and goes north where spinspeed is low u need to feel some movement bcoz (gravity) but u dont, u know why coz no gravity no spin..

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2016, 03:14:21 PM »
now speed is same in whole earth? north pole and equator have the same speed?nope right that if ur r theory is right( but is not) . so if plane move south to north he go from high speed to low spinning speed and u clearly said .. U CANT FEEL ANY MOVE in plane . i know i cant feel coz earth is not spining .and point is if plane start in dubai (near equator) where speed is some like 800 km/h and goes north where spinspeed is low u need to feel some movement bcoz (gravity) but u dont, u know why coz no gravity no spin..

1) Try to get the 1,000 mph figure out of your head and think about rpm.  The Earth spins at 1 revolution per *day* or  ~0.000694rpm.  Now, consider watching a tennis ball spin at ~0.000694rpm.  You would get so bored because you would barely be able to see the motion.  The Earth is like that tennis ball, only way bigger.  Thinking of the Earth spinning at 1,000mph seems like a lot until you consider the scale involved. 

2) If you're in an airplane, you will feel far, far more from the turbulence than you will from variance in centrifugal force as you fly to lower latitudes.  You're not warping instantaneously from the poles to the equator.  You can coast in neutral in your car and barely feel the deceleration, and that's a much more rapid change in acceleration than the scenario you're describing.

3) Please educate yourself; a simple Google search can answer all of these simple questions.  And if English isn't your first language,  please type in your primary language and let us translate it. 

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2016, 03:32:20 PM »
1mate u are soo low brain what are u tryin to confuse ppl .. 40,075  km is the earth on equator so need 24 hours to make a full circle  . so let me explain u i see how stupid u are i bet u work in some nasa agency coz they are same brain lvl like u ..
The equatorial circumference of the earth is 40,075 kilometres.  As the earth rotates once in 24 hours, the rotational speed at the equator is 40,075/24 = 1670km/h .. no brain  moron .. stop insulting me .. or if u have prove do it but u dont .. MORON!

2! make a clear deal with ur mega stupid theory bout gravity ..then gime other explenation bcoz that u trashing is not double triple idk what standard is .. when u talk in plane u use other gravity when solar system other .. make it clear what is the gravity then talk . i know there is no gravity is just a some word to confuse low brain ppl like u . there is NO SUCH A GRAVITY .. only a mass and  density . if need u explanation for that ill give u facts not trash like u do

3 pls care bout ur education first then judge me and my facts.. when u get bigger lvl  find facts not some trash theory and confront me . till then USE UR BRAIN!!!!!

*

Stanton

  • 236
  • Pizza Earth with Extra Cheese
Re: earthquake..
« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2016, 05:02:39 PM »
^  Infinite monkey theorem

You shills REALLY need to watch your vocabulary.


?

Kami

  • 1158
Re: earthquake..
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2016, 12:51:31 AM »
^  Infinite monkey theorem
;D ;D ;D

To op: If you flew from the equator (moving at about 1.600km/h) to the poles (stationary), you would lose those 1.600km/h.. during a flight of, say, 10 hours. That is a deceleration of roughly 0.01m/s^2 or 0.001g. That is very slow. By the way, this effect is called coriolis effect (hope I spelled that correctly) and it is one of the main clues why the earth is spinning, because we can in fact observe this force.

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2016, 08:37:53 AM »
1mate u are soo low brain what are u tryin to confuse ppl .. 40,075  km is the earth on equator so need 24 hours to make a full circle  . so let me explain u i see how stupid u are i bet u work in some nasa agency coz they are same brain lvl like u ..
The equatorial circumference of the earth is 40,075 kilometres.  As the earth rotates once in 24 hours, the rotational speed at the equator is 40,075/24 = 1670km/h .. no brain  moron .. stop insulting me .. or if u have prove do it but u dont .. MORON!

2! make a clear deal with ur mega stupid theory bout gravity ..then gime other explenation bcoz that u trashing is not double triple idk what standard is .. when u talk in plane u use other gravity when solar system other .. make it clear what is the gravity then talk . i know there is no gravity is just a some word to confuse low brain ppl like u . there is NO SUCH A GRAVITY .. only a mass and  density . if need u explanation for that ill give u facts not trash like u do

3 pls care bout ur education first then judge me and my facts.. when u get bigger lvl  find facts not some trash theory and confront me . till then USE UR BRAIN!!!!!

1) The point is the earth rotates so slowly that its velocity is negligible insofar as the force you feel as a result of its spin is negligible.  Because math.

2)  No, it's not just density and mass.  Density and mass alone don't explain, for example, why a helium balloon doesn't rise in weightless environments.  Helium balloons rise in our atmosphere due to hydrostatic pressure which is a function of weight, where w=mg.  But, they don't rise in weightless environments because in such environments g=0, and therefore w=0.  Can you explain why helium balloons don't rise in weightless environments while referring only to mass and density?  No, no you can't.

3) Lol just shut up and learn something, yeah?

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2016, 10:14:44 AM »
cmon .. gravity pull down the whole oceans .. and cant pull a helium??? u kidding me.. its mass and density.. coz hellium have less density goes up coz i lighter then air.also stop to goes up coz hit the firmament no place to go up.. and all rest have bigger mass goes down.. fuck gravity .. gravity does not exist its only theory.i don't believe in theory .

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2016, 10:28:09 AM »
^  Infinite monkey theorem
;D ;D ;D

To op: If you flew from the equator (moving at about 1.600km/h) to the poles (stationary), you would lose those 1.600km/h.. during a flight of, say, 10 hours. That is a deceleration of roughly 0.01m/s^2 or 0.001g. That is very slow. By the way, this effect is called coriolis effect (hope I spelled that correctly) and it is one of the main clues why the earth is spinning, because we can in fact observe this force.
[/q

that man.. u talkin to me bout theory .. i told u i dont like to spend time with theory .Coriolis effect " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">  good explain..chek it spend 12 min

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2016, 11:19:04 AM »
cmon .. gravity pull down the whole oceans .. and cant pull a helium??? u kidding me.. its mass and density.. coz hellium have less density goes up coz i lighter then air.also stop to goes up coz hit the firmament no place to go up.. and all rest have bigger mass goes down.. fuck gravity .. gravity does not exist its only theory.i don't believe in theory .
It does pull helium. Helium stops rising when the upward force of its buoyancy is no longer enough to counter the downward force of gravity because the density of the air decreases as elevation increases. For a visual representation of how that works, put gravel, water, an oil, and maple syrup in one glass and watch as they balance out by density. That's a demonstration of both why helium rises and the existence of gravity. If one assumes that Universal Acceleration exists rather than gravity, then there's no force to discriminate between two different masses and densities. They should mix evenly.
Plus, implying it's ridiculous for gravity to hold the oceans to the surface but not the drastically lighter element of helium is ridiculous itself. Please try to understand at least the basics of RET before you mock it, you're only detracting from your arguments in favor of FET.
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2016, 11:36:16 AM »
cmon .. gravity pull down the whole oceans .. and cant pull a helium??? u kidding me.. its mass and density.. coz hellium have less density goes up coz i lighter then air.also stop to goes up coz hit the firmament no place to go up.. and all rest have bigger mass goes down.. fuck gravity .. gravity does not exist its only theory.i don't believe in theory .

1)  You didn't read a thing I said.  You like facts right?  Here's a fact:  fly in a "vomit comet," an airplane that simulates zero-gravity environments, and all of a sudden a helium balloon won't rise to the ceiling in the plane's cabin.  Note that neither the mass nor density of the balloon changes.  In other words, something else needs to explain why the baloon rises when the plane is at rest, and why it doesn't rise when the plane dips at a specific angle at a given velocity.

What changes is the balloon's weight.  According to laws of hydrostatic pressure, lighter liquids rise when immersed in heavier ones, which is why a helium balloon rises in our atmosphere.  But, in a zero-gravity airplane (vomit comet), everything inside becomes weightless, so the balloon doesn't rise or fall -- instead, it "floats" along with everything else in the cabin.

In short, because w=mg and g=0 in a "vomit comet," then the weight of the balloon is w=0, and so it doesn't rise in the cabin despite being less dense than the air in the cabin.

Basically, to disprove my point, you need to show another formula for weight that doesn't involve 'g.'  Unfortunately for you, you don't have one.

2) Gravity affects both oceans and helium balloons.  But, so does hydrostatic pressure.  If our atmosphere was lighter than helium, a helium balloon would also fall to Earth's surface.  But, it's not, so the balloon rises.  But, it won't rise forever.  Once the balloon rises high enough to a point where the atmosphere is so thin that the laws of hydrostatic pressure no longer apply, the balloon will stop rising because the force of lift will reach equilibrium with the force of weight due to gravity.

 3) Yes, you do deal with theory whether you like it or not.  Any interpretation of data (facts) is a theoretical one.  Facts alone don't tell us anything other than some data exists; theories tell us things.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 11:40:22 AM by uCantBeSerious »

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: earthquake..
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2016, 03:27:42 PM »
cmon .. gravity pull down the whole oceans .. and cant pull a helium??? u kidding me.. its mass and density.. coz hellium have less density goes up coz i lighter then air.also stop to goes up coz hit the firmament no place to go up.. and all rest have bigger mass goes down.. fuck gravity .. gravity does not exist its only theory.i don't believe in theory .
It does pull helium. Helium stops rising when the upward force of its buoyancy is no longer enough to counter the downward force of gravity because the density of the air decreases as elevation increases. For a visual representation of how that works, put gravel, water, an oil, and maple syrup in one glass and watch as they balance out by density. That's a demonstration of both why helium rises and the existence of gravity. If one assumes that Universal Acceleration exists rather than gravity, then there's no force to discriminate between two different masses and densities. They should mix evenly.
Plus, implying it's ridiculous for gravity to hold the oceans to the surface but not the drastically lighter element of helium is ridiculous itself. Please try to understand at least the basics of RET before you mock it, you're only detracting from your arguments in favor of FET.
(" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">)
BTW, I showed this density experiment to people and it is really cool. Theoretically, you should start with a layer of mercury (but because it is poisonous and relatively rare), you go with the corn syrup. Keep in mind the extra level you see but don't register is air, the least dense of these. You should probably have at least 1" and probably 2" for each layer if you want to add hard stuff.

When these layers are in place, you can toss a metal nut (would float on the mercury), plastic/rubber, wood that will float on different levels. If you had a small enough helium balloon, it would "float" at the top above the air!

Enjoy!
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2016, 06:07:06 PM »
It does pull helium. Helium stops rising when the upward force of its buoyancy is no longer enough to counter the downward force of gravity because the density of the air decreases as elevation increases. For a visual representation of how that works, put gravel, water, an oil, and maple syrup in one glass and watch as they balance out by density. That's a demonstration of both why helium rises and the existence of gravity. If one assumes that Universal Acceleration exists rather than gravity, then there's no force to discriminate between two different masses and densities. They should mix evenly.
Plus, implying it's ridiculous for gravity to hold the oceans to the surface but not the drastically lighter element of helium is ridiculous itself. Please try to understand at least the basics of RET before you mock it, you're only detracting from your arguments in favor of FET.
(" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">)
BTW, I showed this density experiment to people and it is really cool. Theoretically, you should start with a layer of mercury (but because it is poisonous and relatively rare), you go with the corn syrup. Keep in mind the extra level you see but don't register is air, the least dense of these. You should probably have at least 1" and probably 2" for each layer if you want to add hard stuff.

When these layers are in place, you can toss a metal nut (would float on the mercury), plastic/rubber, wood that will float on different levels. If you had a small enough helium balloon, it would "float" at the top above the air!

Enjoy!
Well, there it is. For anybody that claims this isn't true and won't bother to try it, tadaaa~. More mass per unit volume will in fact push other substances with less mass per unit volume and hold it there against diffusion. (As long as they're two materials that don't naturally diffuse into each other, like water and colored water.) Why? Because gravity is a thing. Universal Acceleration absolutely cannot explain sinking liquids. Thanks Jadyyn!
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: earthquake..
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2016, 12:54:54 AM »
first hello to all .. and im sorry for my bad english .
my question is how come we can not feel any movement even we move sooo fast according nasa lies some like 1000 km/h but we can feel a sooo small move on earth called earthquake. so my point is IF WE move like nasa say we need to feel that 24/7 but we dont. please when someone answer try to be with facts not theory . tnx
You prove you are completely biased simply by blaming NASA for facts known for centuries. Just accept that NASA did not invent the rotating Globe Earth. That has been well accepted for a long time.

When you can climb down from your "bash NASA soapbox" you might be prepared to listen to explanations.

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2016, 07:41:23 PM »
cmon .. gravity pull down the whole oceans .. and cant pull a helium??? u kidding me.. its mass and density.. coz hellium have less density goes up coz i lighter then air.also stop to goes up coz hit the firmament no place to go up.. and all rest have bigger mass goes down.. fuck gravity .. gravity does not exist its only theory.i don't believe in theory .
It does pull helium. Helium stops rising when the upward force of its buoyancy is no longer enough to counter the downward force of gravity because the density of the air decreases as elevation increases. For a visual representation of how that works, put gravel, water, an oil, and maple syrup in one glass and watch as they balance out by density. That's a demonstration of both why helium rises and the existence of gravity. If one assumes that Universal Acceleration exists rather than gravity, then there's no force to discriminate between two different masses and densities. They should mix evenly.
Plus, implying it's ridiculous for gravity to hold the oceans to the surface but not the drastically lighter element of helium is ridiculous itself. Please try to understand at least the basics of RET before you mock it, you're only detracting from your arguments in favor of FET.


Unfortunately you're experiment would would have the exact same results, with gravity, or universal acceleration. if you your take the Glass and put it in a centrifuge the results would be the same, this is not a proof or a disProof either way.
The question is what would the results be if earth was not a globe with gravity but earth was indeed flat and covered by a dome. A dome by definition a half sphere, having it highest point above the North Pole. (question why does it seem that the highest point is directly above your head, no matter where you are on earth?) The base of the dome has never been reached, in fact the South Pole was found, and has been occupied since 1959. How would the weather function the only thing is that I can think is by convection, the sun would heat the air, the air rising reach the dome would move northward  still moving up, or cool and condense on the dome running down the size ending up at the south edge and frizz the cooler air would have to come in from all four directions, and this can't be seen. The oceans would have the same problem; This is not working for me, I do not see how it can work.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2016, 08:00:10 PM »

Unfortunately you're experiment would would have the exact same results, with gravity, or universal acceleration. if you your take the Glass and put it in a centrifuge the results would be the same, this is not a proof or a disProof either way.
The question is what would the results be if earth was not a globe with gravity but earth was indeed flat and covered by a dome. A dome by definition a half sphere, having it highest point above the North Pole. (question why does it seem that the highest point is directly above your head, no matter where you are on earth?) The base of the dome has never been reached, in fact the South Pole was found, and has been occupied since 1959. How would the weather function the only thing is that I can think is by convection, the sun would heat the air, the air rising reach the dome would move northward  still moving up, or cool and condense on the dome running down the size ending up at the south edge and frizz the cooler air would have to come in from all four directions, and this can't be seen. The oceans would have the same problem; This is not working for me, I do not see how it can work.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying here. But for starters, I'll give you this: the downward force of gravity (RET of course), manifested as weight, explains why we observe separation in density tubes. Universal Acceleration can work as an ad hoc replacement for acceleration due to gravity, but absolutely cannot explain the difference in the forces applied to substances with different densities and absolutely cannot arrange a density tube.

As for the rest, I simply can't register what it is you're trying to get across. It seems irrelevant and structureless. Different phrasing might clear things up and help me understand your argument better.
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2016, 10:55:35 PM »

Unfortunately you're experiment would would have the exact same results, with gravity, or universal acceleration. if you your take the Glass and put it in a centrifuge the results would be the same, this is not a proof or a disProof either way.
The question is what would the results be if earth was not a globe with gravity but earth was indeed flat and covered by a dome. A dome by definition a half sphere, having it highest point above the North Pole. (question why does it seem that the highest point is directly above your head, no matter where you are on earth?) The base of the dome has never been reached, in fact the South Pole was found, and has been occupied since 1959. How would the weather function the only thing is that I can think is by convection, the sun would heat the air, the air rising reach the dome would move northward  still moving up, or cool and condense on the dome running down the size ending up at the south edge and frizz the cooler air would have to come in from all four directions, and this can't be seen. The oceans would have the same problem; This is not working for me, I do not see how it can work.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying here. But for starters, I'll give you this: the downward force of gravity (RET of course), manifested as weight, explains why we observe separation in density tubes. Universal Acceleration can work as an ad hoc replacement for acceleration due to gravity, but absolutely cannot explain the difference in the forces applied to substances with different densities and absolutely cannot arrange a density tube.

As for the rest, I simply can't register what it is you're trying to get across. It seems irrelevant and structureless. Different phrasing might clear things up and help me understand your argument better.

What I am trying to say is the density tube Proof is invalid, because the results will be the same.
Take the density tube, place it in a centrifuge spin it up to 1G and you will get the same separation.
If I were in a rocket ship traveling at 1G the density tube would have the same results.
And that is the problem of the density tube proof.

As for the rest of the post, I was speculating on the consequences of a non spinning earth.

The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2016, 05:54:42 AM »
What I am trying to say is the density tube Proof is invalid, because the results will be the same.
Take the density tube, place it in a centrifuge spin it up to 1G and you will get the same separation.
If I were in a rocket ship traveling at 1G the density tube would have the same results.
And that is the problem of the density tube proof.

As for the rest of the post, I was speculating on the consequences of a non spinning earth.
Alright, that's true. I overlooked that fact.

But UA still couldn't work. If the whole universe is accelerating upwards, why aren't we? Why aren't we accelerating upwards at the exact same pace? Everything should be accelerating at the same pace if it's universal. Then For the sake of another example, let's just assume we do have universal acceleration. We can walk about on the surface of the earth while it's constantly pressing upwards against us. How come if you get a shovel and start digging, you can throw earth upwards all you like but it'll still come down?

Sure, universal acceleration was a nifty theoretical replacement for gravity. But how in the world could it actually provide the experiences with it that we have in real life?
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2016, 07:47:09 AM »
What I am trying to say is the density tube Proof is invalid, because the results will be the same.
Take the density tube, place it in a centrifuge spin it up to 1G and you will get the same separation.
If I were in a rocket ship traveling at 1G the density tube would have the same results.
And that is the problem of the density tube proof.

As for the rest of the post, I was speculating on the consequences of a non spinning earth.
Alright, that's true. I overlooked that fact.

But UA still couldn't work. If the whole universe is accelerating upwards, why aren't we? Why aren't we accelerating upwards at the exact same pace? Everything should be accelerating at the same pace if it's universal. Then For the sake of another example, let's just assume we do have universal acceleration. We can walk about on the surface of the earth while it's constantly pressing upwards against us. How come if you get a shovel and start digging, you can throw earth upwards all you like but it'll still come down?

Sure, universal acceleration was a nifty theoretical replacement for gravity. But how in the world could it actually provide the experiences with it that we have in real life?

Once again you're digging would show no difference, we have to look for, things that would be different.
1. Step south of the equator and look to the south pole, the stars move clockwise not counterclockwise as they do in the north.
2. We have slight differences in gravity at sea level, on top of mountains, and at the equator, the North Pole, South Pole.
3. The Coriolis effect, North and south of the equator.
4. The tides caused by the sun and the orbiting moon. note the sun doe's not orbit the earth we orbit the sun, it is the spin of the earth that makes the day night cycle.
5. The observations of the planets, Galileo's moons, Saturn's rings.
6. We have artificial satellites; ISS, GPS, Whether, and list goes on.
7. sunsets, sunrise, the seasonal 24 hours sun at the north and south poles, as well as the darkness.
Universal acceleration cannot explain the above.
Because Mass has gravity it all works, the attraction of one body to the other.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2016, 11:04:12 AM »
What I am trying to say is the density tube Proof is invalid, because the results will be the same.
Take the density tube, place it in a centrifuge spin it up to 1G and you will get the same separation.
If I were in a rocket ship traveling at 1G the density tube would have the same results.
And that is the problem of the density tube proof.

As for the rest of the post, I was speculating on the consequences of a non spinning earth.
Alright, that's true. I overlooked that fact.

But UA still couldn't work. If the whole universe is accelerating upwards, why aren't we? Why aren't we accelerating upwards at the exact same pace? Everything should be accelerating at the same pace if it's universal. Then For the sake of another example, let's just assume we do have universal acceleration. We can walk about on the surface of the earth while it's constantly pressing upwards against us. How come if you get a shovel and start digging, you can throw earth upwards all you like but it'll still come down?

Sure, universal acceleration was a nifty theoretical replacement for gravity. But how in the world could it actually provide the experiences with it that we have in real life?

Once again you're digging would show no difference, we have to look for, things that would be different.
1. Step south of the equator and look to the south pole, the stars move clockwise not counterclockwise as they do in the north.
2. We have slight differences in gravity at sea level, on top of mountains, and at the equator, the North Pole, South Pole.
3. The Coriolis effect, North and south of the equator.
4. The tides caused by the sun and the orbiting moon. note the sun doe's not orbit the earth we orbit the sun, it is the spin of the earth that makes the day night cycle.
5. The observations of the planets, Galileo's moons, Saturn's rings.
6. We have artificial satellites; ISS, GPS, Whether, and list goes on.
7. sunsets, sunrise, the seasonal 24 hours sun at the north and south poles, as well as the darkness.
Universal acceleration cannot explain the above.
Because Mass has gravity it all works, the attraction of one body to the other.
1. This is a frame of reference issue though, the apparent direction changes by which hemisphere--but stars move in one direction across the sky at the equator. Further eats away at FET, because one can't just claim there's a counter-rotating set.
2. Yep. UA can't do that.
3. Can anyone from FET explain the Coriolis Effect? Simple momentum conservation for RET.
4. UA can't drive the tides.
5. FET claims the Earth is different though, "odd one out of the bunch". 
6. UA wouldn't allow for any such thing as "escape velocity", how come launches have been confirmed to reach escape velocity?
7. The only defense I've ever seen of FET in this regard is perspective and refraction, and that's not how perspective and refraction work whatsoever. Is there any other way FET could provide something as simple as the sun or moon's motion through the sky?
8. What I'm getting at with the digging is, How does UA discriminate between loose soil and Earth itself? How, flat earth theorists? How could that ever happen?

Stop just pretending not to notice these things people. It won't make the earth any flatter.
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2016, 11:31:47 AM »
What I am trying to say is the density tube Proof is invalid, because the results will be the same.
Take the density tube, place it in a centrifuge spin it up to 1G and you will get the same separation.
If I were in a rocket ship traveling at 1G the density tube would have the same results.
And that is the problem of the density tube proof.

As for the rest of the post, I was speculating on the consequences of a non spinning earth.
Alright, that's true. I overlooked that fact.

But UA still couldn't work. If the whole universe is accelerating upwards, why aren't we? Why aren't we accelerating upwards at the exact same pace? Everything should be accelerating at the same pace if it's universal. Then For the sake of another example, let's just assume we do have universal acceleration. We can walk about on the surface of the earth while it's constantly pressing upwards against us. How come if you get a shovel and start digging, you can throw earth upwards all you like but it'll still come down?

Sure, universal acceleration was a nifty theoretical replacement for gravity. But how in the world could it actually provide the experiences with it that we have in real life?

Once again you're digging would show no difference, we have to look for, things that would be different.
1. Step south of the equator and look to the south pole, the stars move clockwise not counterclockwise as they do in the north.
2. We have slight differences in gravity at sea level, on top of mountains, and at the equator, the North Pole, South Pole.
3. The Coriolis effect, North and south of the equator.
4. The tides caused by the sun and the orbiting moon. note the sun doe's not orbit the earth we orbit the sun, it is the spin of the earth that makes the day night cycle.
5. The observations of the planets, Galileo's moons, Saturn's rings.
6. We have artificial satellites; ISS, GPS, Whether, and list goes on.
7. sunsets, sunrise, the seasonal 24 hours sun at the north and south poles, as well as the darkness.
Universal acceleration cannot explain the above.
Because Mass has gravity it all works, the attraction of one body to the other.
1. This is a frame of reference issue though, the apparent direction changes by which hemisphere--but stars move in one direction across the sky at the equator. Further eats away at FET, because one can't just claim there's a counter-rotating set.
2. Yep. UA can't do that.
3. Can anyone from FET explain the Coriolis Effect? Simple momentum conservation for RET.
4. UA can't drive the tides.
5. FET claims the Earth is different though, "odd one out of the bunch". 
6. UA wouldn't allow for any such thing as "escape velocity", how come launches have been confirmed to reach escape velocity?
7. The only defense I've ever seen of FET in this regard is perspective and refraction, and that's not how perspective and refraction work whatsoever. Is there any other way FET could provide something as simple as the sun or moon's motion through the sky?
8. What I'm getting at with the digging is, How does UA discriminate between loose soil and Earth itself? How, flat earth theorists? How could that ever happen?

Stop just pretending not to notice these things people. It won't make the earth any flatter.

We find ourselves in agreement, it is only the way we say it, that we diverge.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: earthquake..
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2016, 04:49:23 PM »
We find ourselves in agreement, it is only the way we say it, that we diverge.
So what? The conventional FET model is clearly flawed. UA can't work because of elevation differences and mountains, forcing gravity or Aether into the mix, yet gravity as we know it is physically impossible on a flat plane. Can you explain away gravitational lensing without gravity?
The sun and moon cannot remain thousands of miles above a flat earth and still provide sun/moon sets/rises. The stars cannot orbit a flat earth with the conventional concept, with counterrotating celestial domes, or with the Dual Earth Theory. Man can visibly launch objects into space and you can see some in orbit. Tell me more about how the Conspirators are faking space travel after reading about lunar laser ranging. Is God in on it, too? Did he place geometrically regular reflectors on the moon so we would think we were capable of space travel once we developed lasers to keep the rich in power? And, regardless of how much people can claim refraction and perspective allow for objects to disappear behind a horizon in a flat world, it will always be fundamentally false. Now how many of your divergent theories rely on none of those?

People have been observing the universe for ages and have never found any of the things that supposedly support a flat earth. The Michelson-Morley experiment even proved light does not propagate through a mystical ether, the one thing that could support even the most theoretically sound Flat Earth models. Yet it seems almost on an annual basis we learn more and more about the universe around us and it all lines up with RET. The only major hole I can think of is the source of gravity, although since it's been discovered that gravitational energy can travel in waves like electromagnetic energy, I'm sure we're not too far off.

What alternate versions of FET are there that can actually exist? Only one can be right anyway and just because there's a variety of different ideas out there doesn't mean any of them are right. Take your "personal" theory. Count the holes in it. Now how have you actually gone out and proven that your theoretical framework of everything is the sole true explanation of existence? Does it actually fully fit the natural world as good and better than the Round Earth Theory? At this point it's honestly not even a theory anymore, regardless of whether you personally understand the scientific observations and proofs that support it.

If your hypotheses don't check out there is absolutely no excuse to believe our Earth is not spherical.
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.