Do I have this right?

  • 16 Replies
  • 4690 Views
Do I have this right?
« on: August 07, 2018, 02:23:00 PM »
As I understand, gravity is caused by upward velocity of the earth. Is this right? Is there more to it? Is velocity constant or accelerating?

Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2018, 02:51:51 PM »
Acceleration.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 50706
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2018, 03:08:39 PM »
In the UA model, "gravity" is upwards acceleration.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2018, 03:39:24 PM »
As I understand, gravity is caused by upward velocity of the earth. Is this right? Is there more to it? Is velocity constant or accelerating?

Universal Acceleration is an explanation of gravity that you are referencing.

Yes, but that is the gist.

It is constantly accelerating.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2018, 04:43:58 PM »
As I understand, gravity is caused by upward velocity of the earth. Is this right? Is there more to it? Is velocity constant or accelerating?

Universal Acceleration is an explanation of gravity that you are referencing.

Yes, but that is the gist.

It is constantly accelerating.

Cool, thanks. I only asked because at 9.81 meters per second squared the earth would accelerate from rest to light speed in 353 days, which seems weird. Can you or anyone correct whatever misconception I have on this?

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 50706
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2018, 05:01:09 PM »
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2018, 05:12:18 PM »
Please read this https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458  It's a good explanation of UA.

Wow, that is a good explanation. Do you know where I can find out more about that non-Newtonian velocity expression? Specifically how it relates back to mathematical axioms to become established fact.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 50706
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2018, 05:19:51 PM »
Please read this https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458  It's a good explanation of UA.

Wow, that is a good explanation. Do you know where I can find out more about that non-Newtonian velocity expression? Specifically how it relates back to mathematical axioms to become established fact.

If you want to have a real discussion about it, start a thread in FE Debate. Jane can probably explain it. Of course you will have lots of round earthers butting in, but there are people who can help with the math.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2018, 05:37:25 PM »
Please read this https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458  It's a good explanation of UA.

Wow, that is a good explanation. Do you know where I can find out more about that non-Newtonian velocity expression? Specifically how it relates back to mathematical axioms to become established fact.

If you want to have a real discussion about it, start a thread in FE Debate. Jane can probably explain it. Of course you will have lots of round earthers butting in, but there are people who can help with the math.

Will do, thanks for all of your help. If you don't mind me asking, what is it that you find most appealing, and gives you the most faith in the Flat Earth, despite being unable to do the mathematics for yourself?

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 50706
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2018, 05:38:48 PM »
That's not a question about FET, you can read one of the hundreds of topics that already exist on that subject.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17769
Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2018, 05:39:57 PM »
Please read this https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458  It's a good explanation of UA.

Wow, that is a good explanation. Do you know where I can find out more about that non-Newtonian velocity expression? Specifically how it relates back to mathematical axioms to become established fact.

The equation referenced in the previously linked post is from Relativity.

Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2018, 05:51:20 PM »
That's not a question about FET, you can read one of the hundreds of topics that already exist on that subject.

Actually it is, sorry. I should have made it more clear why I was asking. I have regular debates with this coworker of mine, and as a new member, I just wanted that one piece of evidence from a die-hard believer that would really deliver the "whammy" I'm looking for. Sorry to bother you, but anyone else can feel free to respond.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2018, 07:51:54 AM »
Please read this https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921458#msg1921458  It's a good explanation of UA.

Wow, that is a good explanation. Do you know where I can find out more about that non-Newtonian velocity expression? Specifically how it relates back to mathematical axioms to become established fact.
I'd start with Lorentz transformations. Basically they transform (t,x) where t is the time, x the spatial coordinate, to a different reference frame using the fact that the speed of light is an absolute limit. I learned it with matrix transformations.


That diagram might help. Gamma's just a constant. Usually this is done with respect to moving reference frames; an object moves at speed u from one perspective (reference frame S), how do you determine how fast it moves from another perspective S'? It could be that S' is just the speed of the object, for example. If S' is moving with velocity v from the perspective of S, you get the above. The Lorentz transformations, turning (t,x) to (t',x'), are given, then you basically just plug those values in to find dx' and dt':



From there it's just fixing notation. u=dx/dt, u'=dx'/dt'. If you want something of the form given in the post SCG linked, you just rearrange.

Hardest part's honestly finding a way to write it down in a forum post given that matrices and vectors aren't the easiest things to add. Still, hope this helps, only thing that's really omitted is the origins of Lorentz transformations, but you can probably google that.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2018, 01:39:05 AM »
Wow, really? You absolutely had to delete my question about Lorentz contraction?

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16878
  • Djinn
Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2018, 04:40:21 AM »
Wow, really? You absolutely had to delete my question about Lorentz contraction?

I see you're new here. Friendly warning. We're kind of strict about Q&A. You're free to debate it in the debate section though.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18008
Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2018, 05:06:57 AM »
That's not a question about FET, you can read one of the hundreds of topics that already exist on that subject.

Actually it is, sorry. I should have made it more clear why I was asking. I have regular debates with this coworker of mine, and as a new member, I just wanted that one piece of evidence from a die-hard believer that would really deliver the "whammy" I'm looking for. Sorry to bother you, but anyone else can feel free to respond.

One easy one to observe is that when the moon and sun are in the sky together, the light of the moon does not point at the sun. It's called the Moon Terminator "Illusion".



RE'ers spam out perspective effects as an explanation, and link to close range examples where angles change at close range as bodies change distance radically, but they are unable actually show how such perspective changes are possible with Round Earth Geometry, where the earth and sun are far from the observer and equal distances away from the observer at all times.

It is possible to hold a pencil out horizontally and look at it from different angles close up to get the pencil to point upwards and downwards with close range perspective effects; but doing is harder to do so when the horizontal pencil is at a distance far from the observer. Those same motions would not cause the pencil to change. When the pencil is far from the observer it would require an equivalent change of ratio, which the Round Earth System cannot provide. In RET the sun and moon are far from the observer and equal distance from the observer at all times.

We are spammed with hallway examples where, when standing in the middle of a hallway, the angles of the ends of ceiling corners of the hallways are tilted upwards or downwards, but the concept of the sun and moon are "going down a hallway" and changing distance radically from the observer is actually the Flat Earth example, not a Round Earth example. Under RET the sun and moon are far away and maintain the same distance from the observer at all times. They do not change position in relation to the observer radically.

We are spammed with demands to hold a small ball up against the sky with the moon in the background and position yourself in a manner where the ball shows a similar scene to the moon. "Proof!" Yet, this is another dumb close range perspective effect, and is no different than the pencil explanation. It is possible to get a ball that is close to you into many orientations with slight movements, and, like the pencil, not so possible when the object is far away.

At some point astronomers did provided a mathematical equation to predict the changes, but unfortunately the distance to the Sun or Moon do not matter in the equations for the result; and so the predictive model is entirely frivolous as a Round Earth model.

It is a clear win for the Flat Earth model, and one that is easily observable to anyone. Look past the lies and excuses. The evidence is right there in the sky!
« Last Edit: August 15, 2018, 06:34:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: Do I have this right?
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2018, 05:08:50 AM »
Wow, really? You absolutely had to delete my question about Lorentz contraction?
It doesn't enter into it anyway. Equivalence principle, or if you want the explanation, all frames of reference are equal. From our moving reference frame, what we should expect to see is the same as if we were at rest a second before, or if we were a hair's breadth from the speed of light. The contraction is negligible.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!