Fatal Flaws

  • 131 Replies
  • 21096 Views
?

MMMM

  • 121
Fatal Flaws
« on: January 07, 2007, 02:11:17 AM »
A few fatal flaws in the FE theories.

The explanation that the sunset is an optical illusion caused by the sun getting further away until it disappears is so flawed I don't know where to start. Firstly, why doesn't the sun gradually appear smaller as it sets? How is it explained that you can physically observe the sun
(& the moon for that matter) rising from & lowering over the horizon and the same size? In the FE world where the sun is on a plane parallel with the earth's surface, you would never lose sight of it.

How is it that if the earth is flat, that other countries, not to mention the ice wall, aren't visible on the what REs call the horizon?


If what REs call gravity is only produced by the constant upwards acceleration of the earth, why do objects on earth have different weights?
The weight of an object is acheived through the affect of RE gravity upon it's mass. In the FE model everything would weigh the same.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Fatal Flaws
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2007, 07:51:43 AM »
Quote from: "MMMM"

If what REs call gravity is only produced by the constant upwards acceleration of the earth, why do objects on earth have different weights?
The weight of an object is acheived through the affect of RE gravity upon it's mass. In the FE model everything would weigh the same.

You said it yourself: it depends on it's mass.  How do you figure a golf ball would weigh the same as a car on the FE?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Fatal Flaws
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2007, 02:18:17 PM »
Quote from: "MMMM"
The explanation that the sunset is an optical illusion caused by the sun getting further away until it disappears is so flawed I don't know where to start. Firstly, why doesn't the sun gradually appear smaller as it sets? How is it explained that you can physically observe the sun
(& the moon for that matter) rising from & lowering over the horizon and the same size? In the FE world where the sun is on a plane parallel with the earth's surface, you would never lose sight of it.

How is it that if the earth is flat, that other countries, not to mention the ice wall, aren't visible on the what REs call the horizon?

Sun: It’s a spotlight, and the spread of the light makes it look larger even though it’s going away. And again, we lose sight of it because the sun is a spotlight.

Under FE, we cannot see beyond the hypothetical horizon because the air is dirty and you can’t see through it. Also, we could give a mirage/optical illusion explanation, that the light is actually bent. It’s also because it’s so far away and so small that it looks infinitesimally thin, therefore rendering it invisible. The ice wall cannot be seen for the same reason. Also, you can’t get close enough to the ice wall to see it without government approval, and even then, there is probably a contract of some sort.

Fatal Flaws
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2007, 02:24:38 PM »
For a minute there I thought maybe the Earth orbitted the sun and was held in oribt by its gravitational pull, and day and night are the result of the Earth spinning on its axis. But then I was reminded the sunset was just an optical illusion cuased through the sun travelling further and further away. Yeah, this has to be it.

Fatal Flaws
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2007, 02:37:37 PM »
the earth is floating on a pool of subatomiclacitronaticated water.
he kinds of equations that they have now are the kinds of equations you would get in an approximation scheme to some underlying theory, but nobody knows what the underlying theory is.

discover magazine

?

MMMM

  • 121
Re: Fatal Flaws
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2007, 04:33:16 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "MMMM"

If what REs call gravity is only produced by the constant upwards acceleration of the earth, why do objects on earth have different weights?
The weight of an object is acheived through the affect of RE gravity upon it's mass. In the FE model everything would weigh the same.

You said it yourself: it depends on it's mass.  How do you figure a golf ball would weigh the same as a car on the FE?

Nice little omission there. In case it wasn't intentional, read verrry slowly!
"The weight of an object is acheived through the affect of RE gravity upon it's mass." As RE gravity does not exist in the FE world, you have no attraction between two bodies based upon their mass, all you have is a bunch of weightless objects being pushed through space with equal force which would result in equal weight.

?

GeoGuy

Re: Fatal Flaws
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2007, 04:35:52 PM »
Quote from: "MMMM"

Nice little omission there. In case it wasn't intentional, read verrry slowly!
"The weight of an object is acheived through the affect of RE gravity upon it's mass." As RE gravity does not exist in the FE world, you have no attraction between two bodies based upon their mass, all you have is a bunch of weightless objects being pushed through space with equal force which would result in equal weight.

No you wouldn't. You would have a bunch of inertial objects being acted upon by Earth's acceleration.

?

MMMM

  • 121
Re: Fatal Flaws
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2007, 04:37:03 PM »
Quote from: zaudragon
Quote from: "MMMM"
The explanation that the sunset is an optical illusion caused by the sun getting further away until it disappears is so flawed I don't know where to start. Firstly, why doesn't the sun gradually appear smaller as it sets? How is it explained that you can physically observe the sun
(& the moon for that matter) rising from & lowering over the horizon and the same size? In the FE world where the sun is on a plane parallel with the earth's surface, you would never lose sight of it.

How is it that if the earth is flat, that other countries, not to mention the ice wall, aren't visible on the what REs call the horizon?

Sun: It’s a spotlight, and the spread of the light makes it look larger even though it’s going away. And again, we lose sight of it because the sun is a spotlight.
Give me another example where you have witnessed this amazing phenomen.

Fatal Flaws
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2007, 04:46:39 PM »
Quote
Sun: It’s a spotlight, and the spread of the light makes it look larger even though it’s going away


hold up a flash light a few feet from you. set it on a table and walk away. the light looks smaller! wow!
he kinds of equations that they have now are the kinds of equations you would get in an approximation scheme to some underlying theory, but nobody knows what the underlying theory is.

discover magazine

Re: Fatal Flaws
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2007, 05:52:07 PM »
Quote from: "MMMM"
Quote from: "zaudragon"
Quote from: "MMMM"
The explanation that the sunset is an optical illusion caused by the sun getting further away until it disappears is so flawed I don't know where to start. Firstly, why doesn't the sun gradually appear smaller as it sets? How is it explained that you can physically observe the sun
(& the moon for that matter) rising from & lowering over the horizon and the same size? In the FE world where the sun is on a plane parallel with the earth's surface, you would never lose sight of it.

How is it that if the earth is flat, that other countries, not to mention the ice wall, aren't visible on the what REs call the horizon?

Sun: It’s a spotlight, and the spread of the light makes it look larger even though it’s going away. And again, we lose sight of it because the sun is a spotlight.

Give me another example where you have witnessed this amazing phenomen.

Sure. The Moon.

?

MMMM

  • 121
Re: Fatal Flaws
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2007, 06:04:23 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "MMMM"

Nice little omission there. In case it wasn't intentional, read verrry slowly!
"The weight of an object is acheived through the affect of RE gravity upon it's mass." As RE gravity does not exist in the FE world, you have no attraction between two bodies based upon their mass, all you have is a bunch of weightless objects being pushed through space with equal force which would result in equal weight.

No you wouldn't. You would have a bunch of inertial objects being acted upon by Earth's acceleration.

"No you wouldn't." Yes you would!
 "You would have a bunch of inertial objects being acted upon by Earth's acceleration." So? Whats that got to do anything? You saying an inert object can't be weightless?

?

MMMM

  • 121
Re: Fatal Flaws
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2007, 06:10:29 PM »
Quote from: "zaudragon"
Quote from: "MMMM"
Quote from: "zaudragon"
Quote from: "MMMM"
The explanation that the sunset is an optical illusion caused by the sun getting further away until it disappears is so flawed I don't know where to start. Firstly, why doesn't the sun gradually appear smaller as it sets? How is it explained that you can physically observe the sun
(& the moon for that matter) rising from & lowering over the horizon and the same size? In the FE world where the sun is on a plane parallel with the earth's surface, you would never lose sight of it.

How is it that if the earth is flat, that other countries, not to mention the ice wall, aren't visible on the what REs call the horizon?

Sun: It’s a spotlight, and the spread of the light makes it look larger even though it’s going away. And again, we lose sight of it because the sun is a spotlight.

Give me another example where you have witnessed this amazing phenomen.

Sure. The Moon.

You have witnessed the moon get larger as it gets further away? You can't you use an FE example to explain an FE phenomen.
Additionally, in the FE world the moon is not a spotlight, so how can this be?

Fatal Flaws
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2007, 06:13:33 PM »
Quote
Sure. The Moon.




i have also witnessed this


just kidding you are dumb
he kinds of equations that they have now are the kinds of equations you would get in an approximation scheme to some underlying theory, but nobody knows what the underlying theory is.

discover magazine

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Re: Fatal Flaws
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2007, 06:20:02 PM »
Quote from: "MMMM"

"The weight of an object is acheived through the affect of RE gravity upon it's mass." As RE gravity does not exist in the FE world, you have no attraction between two bodies based upon their mass, all you have is a bunch of weightless objects being pushed through space with equal force which would result in equal weight.


An object doesn't have weight unless there's support force. When there is a support force, the objects weight will be the force required to accelerate the object at 1g.
For example, let's say you wanted to pick up a large stone. In the RE model, gravity is pulling on the stone with the force required to accelerate the object at 9.8m/s^2 (its weight). To accelerate the stone in the opposite direction (pick it up), you need to apply a force greater than than its weight.
In the FE model, the stone is being acclerated at 9.8m/s^2. To "pick up" the stone, you need to apply enough force to accelerate it faster than this.

In either model, to pick up the stone all you do is accelerate the object at a rate greater thn 9.8m/s^2. The force required to do this is the same in both models, and depends on the objects mass.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

?

MMMM

  • 121
Re: Fatal Flaws
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2007, 07:25:43 PM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "MMMM"

"The weight of an object is acheived through the affect of RE gravity upon it's mass." As RE gravity does not exist in the FE world, you have no attraction between two bodies based upon their mass, all you have is a bunch of weightless objects being pushed through space with equal force which would result in equal weight.


An object doesn't have weight unless there's support force. When there is a support force, the objects weight will be the force required to accelerate the object at 1g.
For example, let's say you wanted to pick up a large stone. In the RE model, gravity is pulling on the stone with the force required to accelerate the object at 9.8m/s^2 (its weight). To accelerate the stone in the opposite direction (pick it up), you need to apply a force greater than than its weight.
In the FE model, the stone is being acclerated at 9.8m/s^2. To "pick up" the stone, you need to apply enough force to accelerate it faster than this.

In either model, to pick up the stone all you do is accelerate the object at a rate greater thn 9.8m/s^2. The force required to do this is the same in both models, and depends on the objects mass.


Nice little theory but quite flawed. You confuse mass with weight. With a continual acceletory force of 9.8m/s/s and the absence of any other force all things would weigh the same regardless of mass.
With your theory of objects having different weights the reactionary force of  these different objects would slow down the acceleration, not to mention all of the other counter forces upon the earth's surface.

?

GeoGuy

Fatal Flaws
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2007, 07:31:52 PM »
Earth in the RE model accelerates objects toward its surface at 9.8m/s^2 MMM. Explain why everything doesn't have the same weight.

?

MMMM

  • 121
Fatal Flaws
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2007, 07:41:22 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Earth in the RE model accelerates objects toward its surface at 9.8m/s^2 MMM. Explain why everything doesn't have the same weight.

I've just set up a macro for responding to you Geoguy.

So?

Fatal Flaws
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2007, 07:45:36 PM »
Lol, nice one.
 prefer not to have a signature as it just has nothing to do with anything at all.

?

GeoGuy

Fatal Flaws
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2007, 07:56:18 PM »
Quote from: "MMMM"
So?

So I am simply curious as to why objects of different masses have different weights in the RE model.
 Even though they undergo constant acceleration, which, according to you, should give them all the same weight.

?

MMMM

  • 121
Fatal Flaws
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2007, 08:52:58 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "MMMM"
So?

So I am simply curious as to why objects of different masses have different weights in the RE model.
 Even though they undergo constant acceleration, which, according to you, should give them all the same weight.


I've already answered this.
I like how all you FE guys think and argue using RE laws & logic.

?

GeoGuy

Fatal Flaws
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2007, 08:56:52 PM »
This is the only mention of it I could find:

Quote
The weight of an object is achieved through the affect of RE gravity upon its mass. In the FE model everything would weigh the same.

And it says nothing about why this might be.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Fatal Flaws
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2007, 09:11:36 PM »
GeoGuy is absolutely right.  Objects of different masses have different weights despite being accelerated at the same rate in a gravitational field -- this is exactly the same as the fact that a rocket, undergoing constant upward acceleration, applies different forces to passengers of different masses, despite the fact that all the passenegers accelerate at the same rate.

"Weight" is the force a gravitational field applies to an object in order to overcome its inertia; this force is proportional to the mass of the object.  The rocket applies a force to each passenger to overcome his or her inertia; this force is again proportional to the mass of the passenger.

It's exactly the same scenario, except only one involves a mysterious magical "force" that is currently unexplained by science, whereas the other relies only upon the well-understood concepts of chemistry and rocket engineering.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

MMMM

  • 121
Fatal Flaws
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2007, 03:34:07 PM »
It's exactly the same scenario, except only one involves a mysterious magical "force" that is currently unexplained by science, whereas the other relies only upon the well-understood concepts of chemistry and rocket engineering.[/quote]

How can you say the FE scenario be based on well understood concepts of rocket engineering when you reject that rockets go into space?

I'd say your argument has just imploded on itself.

Also, I'm still waiting for someone to explain the sun & moon setting.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Fatal Flaws
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2007, 04:17:09 PM »
Quote from: "MMMM"

How can you say the FE scenario be based on well understood concepts of rocket engineering when you reject that rockets go into space?

I'd say your argument has just imploded on itself.


You do realize that rockets do other things besides go into space, right?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

MMMM

  • 121
Fatal Flaws
« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2007, 04:33:52 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "MMMM"

How can you say the FE scenario be based on well understood concepts of rocket engineering when you reject that rockets go into space?

I'd say your argument has just imploded on itself.


You do realize that rockets do other things besides go into space, right?


Like what?

?

MMMM

  • 121
Fatal Flaws
« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2007, 07:17:16 PM »
As the FEers are shying away from the truth, I will answer this for Engineer. Yes rocket engines, not rockets, are used in missiles and various other forms however the reference to rocket engineering being proof of FE gravity can only be obtained from a rocket in a weightless environment. Now where would that be? Yes you are right. Space. However rockets do not travel into space in the FE world therefore the argument has no basis and is thus incorrect.

?

GeoGuy

Fatal Flaws
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2007, 07:18:40 PM »
Why would rockets operate any differently on a FE? Besides the fact that they can't actually go into space, I mean.

?

MMMM

  • 121
Fatal Flaws
« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2007, 07:21:16 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Why would rockets operate any differently on a FE? Besides the fact that they can't actually go into space, I mean.


I didn't say they did.

Fatal Flaws
« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2007, 07:42:06 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "MMMM"
So?

So I am simply curious as to why objects of different masses have different weights in the RE model.
 Even though they undergo constant acceleration, which, according to you, should give them all the same weight.


One word. Density. Same reason a neutron star is very small, yet has way larger gravity than a sun sized star.

?

GeoGuy

Fatal Flaws
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2007, 07:49:58 PM »
Not true at all. Objects of varying densities can share the same weight.