Acceleration is not constant on Earth

  • 453 Replies
  • 11797 Views
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #420 on: August 17, 2019, 05:12:02 PM »
Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Care to supply an example of valid deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion that the earth is flat?
John Davis: Still waiting for your example.

While you're thinking it over, here's my example of valid deductive reasoning that proves the earth is not flat:

Fact 1:  A flat surface can be accurately mapped with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Fact 2:  Mappers and cartographers over the years have measured distances on the earth by various means.

Fact 3:  The results of those measurements cannot be accurately displayed with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Given those three facts, deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion the earth is not flat.

Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

The RE rebuttal to this is to claim that those systems must be inaccurate since the maps are flat. A rediculous and discrediting argument considering that the original claim was that the systems are accurate.

Pay attention. 

Fact 1 one refers to a fixed scale on a flat piece of paper -- not just a "map on a flat sheet of paper". You have not addressed any error in my deductive reasoning by referring to flat maps not having a constant scale throughout.

I await your showing any error in my deductive reasoning.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17266
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #421 on: August 17, 2019, 05:20:38 PM »
Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Care to supply an example of valid deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion that the earth is flat?
John Davis: Still waiting for your example.

While you're thinking it over, here's my example of valid deductive reasoning that proves the earth is not flat:

Fact 1:  A flat surface can be accurately mapped with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Fact 2:  Mappers and cartographers over the years have measured distances on the earth by various means.

Fact 3:  The results of those measurements cannot be accurately displayed with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Given those three facts, deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion the earth is not flat.

Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

The RE rebuttal to this is to claim that those systems must be inaccurate since the maps are flat. A rediculous and discrediting argument considering that the original claim was that the systems are accurate.

Pay attention. 

Fact 1 one refers to a fixed scale on a flat piece of paper -- not just a "map on a flat sheet of paper". You have not addressed any error in my deductive reasoning by referring to flat maps not having a constant scale throughout.

I await your showing any error in my deductive reasoning.

The reasoning is fine. The error is the maps in the popular WGS84 system, which is claimed to be accurate to a high precision, are indeed using flat maps as its basis.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #422 on: August 17, 2019, 05:29:07 PM »
there are about two key points in here
Then why not just present them without all the insults?

So your objection about components subject to magnetism still creating a field is irrelevant.
It was the counterargument you were trying to present.
If it is irrelevant, then your argument was irrelevant and thus you are yet to address the issue.
But as you have now dismissed it as irrelevant, I will ignore anything else about magnetism as it is irrelevant.

And dipoles, well most matter in this analogy would be the equivalent of metal. The mass that does exert gravity, all you're doing is positing a kind of repulsive gravity that acts solely on other sources of gravity which, well, why not?
Already addressed.
Dipoles with other fields work because opposites attract.
Dipoles with gravity would blow themselves apart because like attracts.


But all of that is conceding the premise that 'any field like this must behave exactly like magnetism!'
No, it is using the premise of Newton's third law, which I already explained and justified, and you then skipped over.

Making it about Newton's Third Law is just deeply, deeply silly and I'm pretty sure you have to know that. If you put an object in a wind tunnel, does it exert a reactive force on the fan, or on the air?
So are you trying to claim the field is a physical object with mass which can then be accelerated?
That is just deeply, deeply silly and I'm pretty sure you have to know that.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #423 on: August 17, 2019, 05:32:53 PM »
You think that the mainstream sources in the wiki are publishing falsehoods? Interesting. I can only read this as "I lose this argument".
You should try reading it as I have already seen just how dishonest your wiki is with blatant falsehood and quote mining to try and pretend valid sources back it up.

If you were actually backed up by valid source you could present them.

Now you think that they do use grid coordinates as their basis, but that the flat maps were made under the assumption that the earth is globular?
No. They know Earth is round and they determine the coordinates of a location based upon a round Earth and any map of it will follow a particular transformation to produce a flat map.
For example, the common Mercator projection or the azimuthal equidistant projection.

The reasoning is fine. The error is the maps in the popular WGS84 system, which is claimed to be accurate to a high precision, are indeed using flat maps as its basis.
Can you provide a single example of such a map, which covers the globe, which is meant to be accurate with a single scale rather than distortion throughout the map?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #424 on: August 17, 2019, 05:44:18 PM »
So are you trying to claim the field is a physical object with mass which can then be accelerated?
That is just deeply, deeply silly and I'm pretty sure you have to know that.
I concede everything and you still need to use trickery. Really don't know why I bother.
If we take your reasoning, there's no way for spacetime to impart an acceleration. Do you disbelieve in gravity?

Trying to insist Newton's laws have to hold in non-Newtonian circumstances is a stretch as it is. Claiming that an object can identify the ultimate origin of a force rather than deal solely with that which affected it on top of that is just straight-up ridiculous. Again, why is the only possible reactive force an identical gravitational field?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17266
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #425 on: August 17, 2019, 05:44:37 PM »
Jack,

Which ones are the invalid sources in the link? Is it the surveying companies, the government mapping organizations, or the educational institutions? Let us know so that we can take it out.

As far as a whole map and piecing together many maps, that sounds like project with your name on it.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #426 on: August 17, 2019, 06:31:27 PM »
Care to supply an example where valid deductive reasoning leads to an incorrect result?
Care to supply an example of valid deductive reasoning leading to a conclusion that the earth is flat?
John Davis: Still waiting for your example.

While you're thinking it over, here's my example of valid deductive reasoning that proves the earth is not flat:

Fact 1:  A flat surface can be accurately mapped with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Fact 2:  Mappers and cartographers over the years have measured distances on the earth by various means.

Fact 3:  The results of those measurements cannot be accurately displayed with a fixed scale on a flat sheet of paper.

Given those three facts, deductive reasoning leads to the conclusion the earth is not flat.

Actually, the maps are flat in systems such as WGS84. See https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

The RE rebuttal to this is to claim that those systems must be inaccurate since the maps are flat. A rediculous and discrediting argument considering that the original claim was that the systems are accurate.

Pay attention. 

Fact 1 one refers to a fixed scale on a flat piece of paper -- not just a "map on a flat sheet of paper". You have not addressed any error in my deductive reasoning by referring to flat maps not having a constant scale throughout.

I await your showing any error in my deductive reasoning.

The reasoning is fine. The error is the maps in the popular WGS84 system, which is claimed to be accurate to a high precision, are indeed using flat maps as its basis.
Are you kidding?  You are using the WGS84 "System" (not to be confused with a single flat-sheet of paper map), which is acknowledged to be a method of trying to best show data from a round earth on a map as evidence for my conclusion that the earth is not flat??

Talk about a failure of deductive reasoning!!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17266
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #427 on: August 17, 2019, 06:36:53 PM »
It's not acknowledged. The Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center published an article titled "The Earth is Not Round!" and describes that flat maps are used, while also describing that latitude and longitude spherical coordinate system is inaccurate and unusable for measuring distances.

*

rabinoz

  • 22633
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #428 on: August 17, 2019, 06:54:42 PM »
Now you think that they do use grid coordinates as their basis, but that the flat maps were made under the assumption that the earth is globular? Interesting.  Seems to support the idea that the earth is flat and that the globe is an assumption.
Read the following and see if you still think the same way. World Geodetic System (WGS84).

Until the Global Navigation Satellite System there each region on earth had its separate Geodetic Datum from which local places were referenced.

Over connected land-masses these could be connected by terrestrial surveying. In distant locations, even India and Japan, these had to located by celestial navigation.
Celestial navigation had unavoidable errors due to timing and accuracy of fixes. In Australia's case that Geodetic Datum was off bh a few hundred metres.

Back then it was adequate to "fix" the coordinates, whether lat, long or UTM coordinates, to the earth's surface.
With the Global Navigation Satellite System, however,  locations can fixed to within centimeters but continents drift this amount is as little as a year.

Hence the WGS-84, etc, reference grid defines a coordinate system with its origin at the earth's centre a rotating with the earth but not fixed to the earth's surface.

The GISGeography reference ends with:
Quote
Conclusion
Never before have weve been able to estimate the ellipsoid with such precision.
This is primarily because of the global set of measurements provided by GPS.
WGS84 comprises of a reference ellipsoid, a standard coordinate system, altitude data and a geoid.
The error of WGS84 is believed to be less than 2 centimeters to the center mass.

Many local maps (even our Brisbane Street Directory) are now based on the Universal Transverse Mercator system with details in:
How Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Works. This splits the earth into 6 wide N-S strips along the meridians of longitude.
With such narrow strips the scaling error within each strip in very small.

*

Stash

  • 3136
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #429 on: August 17, 2019, 07:00:42 PM »
It's not acknowledged. The Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center published an article titled "The Earth is Not Round!" and describes that flat maps are used, while also describing that latitude and longitude spherical coordinate system is inaccurate and unusable for measuring distances.

State Plane Coordinate System:

"The State Plane Coordinate System (SPS or SPCS) is a set of 124 geographic zones or coordinate systems designed for specific regions of the United States. Each state contains one or more state plane zones, the boundaries of which usually follow county lines. There are 110 zones in the contiguous US, with 10 more in Alaska, 5 in Hawaii, and one for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. The system is widely used for geographic data by state and local governments. Its popularity is due to at least two factors. First, it uses a simple Cartesian coordinate system to specify locations rather than a more complex spherical coordinate system (the geographic coordinate system of latitude and longitude). By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations. Second, the system is highly accurate within each zone (error less than 1:10,000). Outside a specific state plane zone accuracy rapidly declines, thus the system is not useful for regional or national mapping. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System

1) Simpler to use rather than Lat/Long for a given State or portion thereof
2) Inaccurate for larger areas

*

rabinoz

  • 22633
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #430 on: August 17, 2019, 07:16:01 PM »
It's not acknowledged. The Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center published an article titled "The Earth is Not Round!" and describes that flat maps are used, while also describing that latitude and longitude spherical coordinate system is inaccurate and unusable for measuring distances.
Sure, "flat maps" but with not the slightest hint of a flat earth!
Quote
The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections
GIS users working on statewide projects in Utah need to know the specifics of three primary coordinate systems: Geographic (latitude/longitude), UTM NAD83, and WebMercator.
       
Geographic coordinates use latitude and longitude values to define positions on the 3D surface of the earth, which is of course, best modeled as an ellipsoid, not a sphere. The ellipsoid and its accompanying anchor point that ties it in to the real world, are known collectively as the WGS84 datum. The WGS84 datum is what the constellations of GPS satellites use natively.

UTM NAD83 is a projected coordinate system that represents physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system. The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum, both of which are slightly different than the WGS datum. The advantage of the NAD83 datum is more accuracy for modeling and analyzing locational data in North America. As almost all of Utah fits conveniently within one UTNAD83 zone (12 North), its the best projection system for measuring distance and area when working with statewide GIS data.

Web Mercator is the projected coordinate system of Utah's latest statewide high-res imagery, licensed from Google. It's also the native display coordinate system for Google Earth, Bing maps, ArcGIS Online, and AGRC's new cloud-hosted web mercator base maps. Web mercator is a recent addition to projected coordinate systems, introduced specifically to support worldwide map applications on the web. In short, it uses the same WGS84 datum as the GPS system. It attempts to preserve the shape of features in the areas where people are most interested, while making the behind the scenes coordinate conversion math run faster. The latter is important for thin clients like browsers and mobile apps.

Latitude and Longitude are useless for measuring distance and area because the unit of length, degrees, is not held constant for longitude, 
Does that image look like a Flat Earth to anybody?

And please note that Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center is aiming at sub-metre accuracy - far more precise than any road map or navigation chart need be.

Latitude and Longitude might useless for measuring distance and area directly from a map but distances can be calculated from Latitude and Longitude for either a spherical earth or an ellipsoidal earth.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #431 on: August 17, 2019, 07:17:33 PM »
It's not acknowledged. The Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center published an article titled "The Earth is Not Round!" and describes that flat maps are used, while also describing that latitude and longitude spherical coordinate system is inaccurate and unusable for measuring distances.

Yeah. Of course flat maps are used. They are used everywhere, I have them in my car glove box.  But they are not accurate. So stop with the flat maps are used  thing as proof of anything. Or implying that flat maps are used refutes the logic I presented.

Show me where I can find a flat map of the world, or even of a major continent that has a fixed scale and is accurate. Absent that, my logical deduction stands.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38466
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #432 on: August 17, 2019, 08:09:06 PM »
The spherical coordinate system of latitude and longitude are not used for measuring distances, in preference of the Flat Map coordinate system, as stated in the "Earth Not Round!" article.
That's because it's easier to calculate distances using a rectangular coordinate system in relatively small, roughly flat area.  That doesn't make spherical latitude and longitude any less valid for positioning on the same small, relatively flat map.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 22633
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #433 on: August 17, 2019, 08:10:55 PM »
It's not acknowledged. The Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center published an article titled "The Earth is Not Round!" and describes that flat maps are used, while also describing that latitude and longitude spherical coordinate system is inaccurate and unusable for measuring distances.

Yeah. Of course flat maps are used. They are used everywhere, I have them in my car glove box.  But they are not accurate. So stop with the flat maps are used  thing as proof of anything. Or implying that flat maps are used refutes the logic I presented.

Show me where I can find a flat map of the world, or even of a major continent that has a fixed scale and is accurate. Absent that, my logical deduction stands.
Here are two flat maps of the world that have fixed scales and are NOT accurate ;D! But I've seen

The standard monopole Flat Earth map
commonly used by the modern
Flat Earth Society
         

The Bi-polar Model reflects the work of many Zeteticists
who diverged from Rowbotham's work
such as Tom Bishop

Besides all flat earth "continental layouts" share this problem:

Though not with cats pushing things off, but with people flying, sailing, driving, walking or even cycling off the edge.

In other words the Globe has no "edges" that cannot be crossed but any flat earth continental layout must have an edge that cannot be crossed.

In particular, there have been many trans-polar circumnavigations and many circumnavigations near the equator, including one within 2.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #434 on: August 17, 2019, 08:53:22 PM »
If we take your reasoning, there's no way for spacetime to impart an acceleration.
Not in the slightest.
All it means is that for an object to be able to be accelerated by space time it must be capable of changing space time in a manner to accelerate other objects.

Trying to insist Newton's laws have to hold in non-Newtonian circumstances
The only non-Newtonian aspect is that the exchange is not instantaneous.

Claiming that an object can identify the ultimate origin of a force
Good thing I am not doing that.

Again, why is the only possible reactive force an identical gravitational field?
Where did I say it would be identical?
The most rational conclusion based upon all the evidence is that if a substance can be affected by a field, the property of it which does interact with the field will also create a field of the same type.

Again, rejecting this leads to significant issues with Newton's third law.
This is because the reactionary force from the different field can then be of a different magnitude based upon whatever property the other field interacts with.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #435 on: August 17, 2019, 08:56:38 PM »
Which ones are the invalid sources in the link?
It isn't necessary just invalid sources, but misused/quote mined sources.
I had already pointed that out with another article and you just ignored it.
I have no interest in going through your wiki of lies to try and see just what argument you want to try and present.

As far as a whole map and piecing together many maps, that sounds like project with your name on it.
No thanks. It has already been done to produce a globe.
I don't see the appeal in trying to do that, especially with all the surface not being flat.
Someone did so previously with just the US, trying to have it on a flat surface, and ended up with lots of gaps.

Now, do you have a map of all of Earth, which is flat and has a consistent scale throughout and is accurate?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #436 on: August 18, 2019, 04:33:51 AM »
Again, rejecting this leads to significant issues with Newton's third law.
This is because the reactionary force from the different field can then be of a different magnitude based upon whatever property the other field interacts with.
Do you not see how that bears no resemblance to what we actually observe with respect to mass exerting gravity? This isn't even an argument you believe, but you expect FEers to account for it.
Seriously. You are arguing that an intrinsic property of mass only exists in reaction to other masses exerting it, that's what you get when you try to bring in Newton's Third Law. Leave FET aside for a moment, what you're arguing for is just silly.

Again, what is your argument here? The only conclusion is 'All mass exerts some effect on spacetime.' Nothing makes that have to be gravity, saying it has to be so isn't an argument. It's just not. You're using Newton's Third Law as little more than a sound bite, something that makes you look smart but it just... doesn't work, at all. Reactive forces don't have to cause movement, reactive forces should be instantaneous, all manner of little things that get right in the way of you even beginning to approach a conclusion.
And again, even then, even if you had a point the conclusion is 'Huh. Newton's Laws don't apply when you start getting to what is basically the borders of General Relativity.'
Jack. You do not have a case here. You're still stuck on showing that a magnetic-type field can't function, but anyone can concede every unreasonable step you've made to get to that point and your argument still does not work. Oh no, relativity has 'significant issues with Newton's Third Law.' Call the papers.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #437 on: August 18, 2019, 05:03:12 AM »
Do you not see how that bears no resemblance to what we actually observe with respect to mass exerting gravity?
No, that sure seems to match what is observed.
All mass is both subject to and exerts gravity.

Again, what is your argument here?
That what Rab says is actually correct.
Under the equivalence principle inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent, or at the least, proportional.
That is because they will experience a force based upon their gravitational mass and the strength of the gravitational field.
And like all fields, if something can be subject to it it also generates it.


You're still stuck on showing that a magnetic-type field can't function
Not in the slightest.
That is just your straw-man which you have already dismissed as irrelevant.

What part of Newton's third law states that the exchange must be instantaneous?
Just what is the problem with Newton's third law with relativity?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #438 on: August 18, 2019, 06:37:07 AM »
And like all fields, if something can be subject to it it also generates it.
Saying something doesn't make it true. Give me more than a sound bite.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #439 on: August 18, 2019, 08:48:31 AM »
And like all fields, if something can be subject to it it also generates it.
Saying something doesn't make it true. Give me more than a sound bite.

You are for once totally correct, saying something either verbally or in writing does not make the content true. Case in point, your Repository.
What would be interesting to consider for one moment, are the constituents that would make either a verbal or written statement true?
You say peoples minds can't be changed by debate, which I agree with. People tend to believe in things that confirm their own beliefs regardless of the truth or any supporting evidence

Take something we are all free to witness, the setting sun. Like many, I've waited till the golden hour as the sun gets low in the sky to take photographs, and then wait that bit longer for the moment when the sun goes down beneath the horizon and illuminates any clouds that may be around, giving at times spectacular results if it's combined with a landscape of note.

While I and others can clearly witness the sun dipping below the horizon or rising above at sunrise. Flat earther regardless of what is in front of their eyes will believe in an explanation that is totally at odds with reality but confirms their own beliefs.

The same is true of the moon, and other free to see natural phenomena, like a ship sailing over the horizon. What hope is there in convincing the other side if they are unable to believe the truth of what they can see. Even when confronted with images of the moon or of the stars taken in both the northern and southern hemispheres, flat earth believers will deny the evidence of their own eyes preferring to hold on to their beliefs regardless of the truth.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #440 on: August 18, 2019, 02:15:50 PM »
Saying something doesn't make it true. Give me more than a sound bite.
I did, and you then ignored it.
If you would like it again, go back and read what I have said and try to respond to it.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #441 on: August 18, 2019, 02:30:36 PM »
I did, and you then ignored it.
If you would like it again, go back and read what I have said and try to respond to it.
Give me something to actually respond to. You seem to be missing the fact that you aren't justifying anything.
Your claim is that Newton's Third Law does indeed apply to fields, and that by doing so if a mass is affected by a gravitational field, it must itself exert a gravitational field. You are just saying that. You brush off the idea that the reactive effect on spacetime might manifest different with no real justification, ignore the fact that you've already seen fields like magnetism where they can indeed be a straightforward reactive effect that would in no way prevent a FE from forming and thus be nothing for FEers to worry about so there could well be a field that manifests more like that, and all that is ignoring the fact you've yet to do even the slightest thing to show we even need to listen to Newton when we are well out of the realms of Newtonian physics.
You do not get to act so smug when you have provided precisely nothing. Ignoring this won't make it go away, neither will insistence or soundbites.

And that's leaving aside the fact you somehow think this has anything to do with Einstein's Equivalence Principle and thus Rab's argument... This is an objection to the basic concept of celestial gravitation, EEP be damned. Don't go defending Rab's soundbite tactics too.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #442 on: August 18, 2019, 03:12:45 PM »
Give me something to actually respond to.
I have, and you ignored it.
Don't tell me to give you something which I already have.

magnetism
You claimed magnetism was irrelevant.
Why bring it back up?
Make up your mind, is it irrelevant or is it not?

You do not get to act so smug when you have provided precisely nothing. Ignoring this won't make it go away, neither will insistence or soundbites.
Follow your own advice.

And that's leaving aside the fact you somehow think this has anything to do with Einstein's Equivalence Principle and thus Rab's argument.
And I also explained why that was the case and you just ignored that as well.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #443 on: August 18, 2019, 03:22:31 PM »
I have, and you ignored it.
Don't tell me to give you something which I already have.
Nah, you just thinking insistence is something that apparently merits a response. Saying what you want to be the case is not something that anyone needs to bother replying to.

Quote
You claimed magnetism was irrelevant.
Why bring it back up?
Ah, good old fashioned lying, good on you! Reminder: this whole debate started with me conceding literally every unjustified premise of yours, and you still failed to actually show what you needed to show. Magnetism is only relevant when you've taken several steps in your argument that you've yet to take. It is irrelevant, but that's purely because you've yet to actually start making an argument.

So, here's a to-do list for you, as I notice you ignored it the last time:

1. Show we should give a damn about Newton's laws in a non-Newtonian setting.
2. Show that the reactive force caused by a field would necessarily be similar to the field that caused it.
3. Show that the only fields that can exist are like those that we already observe (this is where magnetism would become relevant, if you're keeping track).
4. Show that the field in question, if it does end up being exerted as a reactive force, would actually pose a problem for FET.

You're claiming 4. You haven't even done the first step yet. Are you planning to, y'know, actually make an argument at any stage?

Quote
And I also explained why that was the case and you just ignored that as well.
Saying that is just hilarious when you purposefully clip out the following line that points out how your 'explanation' was a non-entity.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #444 on: August 18, 2019, 04:12:39 PM »
Nah, you just thinking insistence is something that apparently merits a response.
And this is the problem with you. Whenever I post something that actually shows you are wrong, you just ignore it or dismiss it.
But then when I don't include it you complaign.

Quote
You claimed magnetism was irrelevant.
Why bring it back up?
Ah, good old fashioned lying ... It is irrelevant
Projecting again I see.
Make up your mind. Is it relevant or not?
You stated it was irrelevant, because I showed how you were misrepresenting it to pretend that an object can be subject to a field while not creating one itself.

If it is relevant then my points regarding it are relevant and it does not support your claims.
If it isn't then stop bringing it up.

Here is a to do list for you:
Go back and read what I have actually said and address the arguments made rather than simply dismissing them, and stop strawmanning my position.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #445 on: August 18, 2019, 04:42:59 PM »
Here is a to do list for you:
Go back and read what I have actually said and address the arguments made rather than simply dismissing them, and stop strawmanning my position.
Says the person who isn't even being subtle any more when it comes to outright cutting out the parts of my posts that deal with him, especially immediately after being called out for doing just that.

Yeah, good riddance.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #446 on: August 19, 2019, 01:19:25 AM »
Says the person who isn't even being subtle any more when it comes to outright cutting out the parts of my posts that deal with him
Yes, cutting out the repeated avoidance of my argument, and the repeated strawmanning and insults.

I have established how the equivalence principles is related here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2194360#msg2194360
Which you then completely ignored.
I did so again here (as well as bring up Newton's third law and explain why it requires what I suggested):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2195532#msg2195532
Where you then ignored it yet again and just insulted me and then just posted links, which didn't address what I said at all. One wasn't even a post by you. The post by you was just an assertion.

When I then called you out on that, you just went straight into insult mode coupled with a bunch of assertions.

It seems you have no interest in any actual debate and just want to complain.
Now can you actually provide a problem with what I have said?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 05:19:42 AM by JackBlack »

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #447 on: August 19, 2019, 05:09:09 AM »
I have established how the equivalence principles is related here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2194360#msg2194360
Which you then completely ignored.
Soooo. I 'then completely ignored' something a page before I was even talking to you? Yeah, sure. Jack. You're blocked. I don't even see your posts unless I'm very bored because you act like that. Get over yourself.
And that... just... that has nothing to do with the discussion we're actually having beyond 'both mention gravity and fields.'

Quote
I did so again here (as well as bring up Newton's third law and explain why it requires what I suggested):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2194360#msg2194360
If you're going to try to be smug and dramatic, it helps if you don't just link the same post twice.

Quote
Where you then ignored it yet again and just insulted me and then just posted links, which didn't address what I said at all. One wasn't even a post by you. The post by you was just an assertion.
'Where I then...' That was the first time I bothered talking to you, and did so by pointing out that I'd had the discussion before, and that judging by how you were quoted by Rab, you were butting into that discussion then so you were well aware of it. Calling you out for being wilfully ignorant is not an insult when it's just objectively how you always act. But if it is? Eh, sure, don't expect me to feel bad about it, consider it a taster of how everyone else feels trying to put up with your pompous ridiculousness. And sure, go ahead, play poor put-upon victim after this post, I cannot express to you how little I care.
I'm not asserting because it is logically impossible for me to assert anything here. I'm not making claims, I'm waiting for you to actually make one. You're insisting on impossibility, I'm pointing out what you actually need to do if you want any of those steps to work. Me pointing out the things you actually need to demonstrate isn't an assertion. That's how how anything words. Do I need to repeat that to-do list again? You have yet to provide anything for it to be even worth ignoring. As I've pointed out time and time again, I can concede every single premise you're asserting, and you still won't have a case.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #448 on: August 19, 2019, 05:27:27 AM »
Soooo. I 'then completely ignored' something a page before I was even talking to you?
Yes, you just completely ignored something in a public forum, posted directly after your post, and not that long before your next post.

If you're going to try to be smug and dramatic, it helps if you don't just link the same post twice.
My bad.
Correct link:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82385.msg2195532#msg2195532

Calling you out for being wilfully ignorant is not an insult
You weren't.
You were just insulting me, like you are doing now.
I was not being wilfully ignorant at all.

Yes, I was "involved" in that discussion before, including pointing out why magnetism was an invalid comparison.
But of course, you ignored that as well.

The one being wilfully ignorant here is you.
You are choosing to ignore posts and remain wilfully ignorant of their content.
You then go and demand that I go and do things I have already done, all because you are choosing to be wilfully ignorant of the fact that I have already done so.

Follow your own advice and get over yourself.

Go back and read what I have said, rather than remaining wilfully ignorant of it.
If you aren't going to bother doing that, then have the decency to not comment at all.

Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« Reply #449 on: August 19, 2019, 06:14:17 AM »
Any chance of getting back on topic here guys?

So far, it would seem that no consensus has yet been made on how acceleration should be measured. Without that step, the rest of the debate is pointless.
Is there a method that both FE and RE can agree on?
I dont agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.