Does the acceleration of Earth solve the star problem?

If we're accelerating through space, shouldn't there be some sort of linear alteration in the relative position of us to the stars, as we measure in angles? Why currently do stars move in a fashion that is measured to be circular?

:?

Because the earth rotates. On an axis. Take an exposure of the night sky over a few hours, and then determine the point of which they rotate. Then take a regular compass, and determine the general direction in which the north pole is. You will see that they correlate.

And why don't we just twat into random stars.[/b]

And why don't we just twat into random stars.

Because stars are being pushed up on the UA as well. They're not just floating in space.

Proof?

Proof?

Dude, thats something you'll never get from a FE'er...

That's something you never get from RE's as well.

The problem isn't that RE's don't provide proof.  The problem is that flat-Earthers either ignore the evidence given, or say it was achieved as the result of a conspiracy.

So let me ask you this:  What level of precision would be necessary before you would remit?  How much evidence do you need before you'll finally realize how wrong your beliefs actually are?

The problem isn't that RE's don't provide proof.  The problem is that flat-Earthers either ignore the evidence given, or say it was achieved as the result of a conspiracy.

No we don't.

So let me ask you this:  What level of precision would be necessary before you would remit?  How much evidence do you need before you'll finally realize how wrong your beliefs actually are?

It would require something I could verify myself. Without relying on any previous assumptions made by other people.

It would require something I could verify myself. Without relying on any previous assumptions made by other people

GeoGuy Could you give us the equivalent of that to prove a flat earth?

You could go test the gravity of a large (or even a small one but you need more sensitive equipment the smaller and thus weaker gravity) object. You wouldn’t be able to quantify gravity by using something like a mountain because you wouldn’t know the mass of the mountain but it’s probably the biggest object you could find but even then you would have to have incredibly sensitive tools because even something as big as a mountain is tiny compared to the mass of Earth.

If you can prove Gravity (which it has been many, many times but you FE’ers deny the legitimacy of the evidence) then it will prove the Acceleration theory wrong and prove that a sphere is the natural shape of any large object (star, planet etc.) because gravity attracts objects together.

OR you could reenact the Cavendish experiment.

To be honest if you did go out and try to test gravity I think you would just look at the figures and say they are inconclusive because the gravity from small objects is so minuscule you’d just push to the side and say it is too small to be of any significance but you'd be horribly wrong.

still waiting for proof...

Because the earth rotates. On an axis. Take an exposure of the night sky over a few hours, and then determine the point of which they rotate. Then take a regular compass, and determine the general direction in which the north pole is. You will see that they correlate.

I just proved the FE model's flaw.

Since the FE isn't said to rotate, and they say that it is absolute, then this methodology disproves it.

Unless someone wants to verify that the FE model rotates. And it it did, then explain the apparent misplacement and direction of the southern night sky's stars.

So tell me why I can see Polaris in the northern hemisphere, but when I go south of the equator, I can no longer see it at night? If the earth was flat, surely I would still be able to see it. Or hell, any star of the northern hemisphere at that.

The FE model does not rotate.

The misplacement of stars can attributed to the theory that space is curved.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=curved+space

No no no... You didn't answer the critical question. It's reading comprehension time, kiddies.

So tell me why I can see Polaris in the northern hemisphere, but when I go south of the equator, I can no longer see it at night? If the earth was flat, surely I would still be able to see it. Or hell, any star of the northern hemisphere at that.

So tell me why I can see Polaris in the northern hemisphere, but when I go south of the equator, I can no longer see it at night? If the earth was flat, surely I would still be able to see it. Or hell, any star of the northern hemisphere at that.

So tell me why I can see Polaris in the northern hemisphere, but when I go south of the equator, I can no longer see it at night? If the earth was flat, surely I would still be able to see it. Or hell, any star of the northern hemisphere at that.

So tell me why I can see Polaris in the northern hemisphere, but when I go south of the equator, I can no longer see it at night? If the earth was flat, surely I would still be able to see it. Or hell, any star of the northern hemisphere at that.

So tell me why I can see Polaris in the northern hemisphere, but when I go south of the equator, I can no longer see it at night? If the earth was flat, surely I would still be able to see it. Or hell, any star of the northern hemisphere at that.

So tell me why I can see Polaris in the northern hemisphere, but when I go south of the equator, I can no longer see it at night? If the earth was flat, surely I would still be able to see it. Or hell, any star of the northern hemisphere at that.

still waiting for proof...

Well since anything I say you make a comeback of its a conspiracy or bullshit the only way I can persuade you is to tell you how to find the evidence yourself but your just acting like a arrogant little c**t.

Fucking FE'ers

Grundy, you need a) to read my post and b) therapy.

Proof?

The post I responded to wasn't demanding proof, just an explanation according to my model.


I suppose the proof is almost in his original question - if they were just floating around in space, we would indeed crash into them!

Or they could be really far away.

Also, would you accept the doppler-effect as a way of measuring the distance of luminous objects from earth?

The FE model does not rotate.

then how do you explain the corelois effect we see with the forcoult pendulum, penguinrag?

The misplacement of stars can attributed to the theory that space is curved.

that doesnt work you have no idea what youa re talking about

curved space means the universe itself is curved - we could not see it

i hate this place

penguinrag

lol

how do you explain the corelois effect

if you look inside the coriolis machine thingy there is a small laser that shoots its beam of electricity into the sun, causing a gamma ray fluctuation to shoot directly at the coriolis thingy and it changes direction. Lasers shoot electricity inside a coriolis machine.

no it doesnt

you can see the effect by taking a low friction thing and hanging a mass off it and waiting a day

you can see it apparrently turn, but no force was acted upon it: the earth spun under it

god you all are so dumb

It's called sarcasm, fucknut. :?

i know nutfuck

The Round Eathers always ironically yell about how stupid the "FE's" are... :lol:

GeoGuy Could you give us the equivalent of that to prove a flat earth?

Look out your window.  Based on observation of the ground, it is flat.

The Round Eathers always ironically yell about how stupid the "FE's" are... :lol:

I know, I find it hilarious that a difference in opinion automatically disqualifies you from being able to think properly.