No gravity?

Ok, I love the no gravity argument.  This isn't the Einstein version involving space time, but a totally fabricated one with neither mathematical calculation nor evidence.  It does however reference "dark matter."  Now I personally am totally stumped how a belief which is supposed to be based solely on observed evidence (the earth looks flat, feels flat, so it must be flat...) can conjure up the idea of dark matter.  Surely dark matter is just another of the multitude of fabrications by the thousands of scientists from multiple countries, cultures and even religious backgrounds involved in this spherical earth conspiracy, right?  Or to put the sarcasm aside, how does a believer decide which scientific evidence to believe and which is just part of the conspiracy?

Here's something to chew on.  There are good historical records of humans going back at least 5000 years.  Even young earth believers acknowledge at least 5000 years.  Now if the earth was at 0 5000 years ago and just started accelerating at 32ft/second squared, how fast would it be going now?  Let's see 5000 years is 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared equals... 3,461,300,860,246 miles per hour.  Ok, the speed of light is about 670,616,629 miles per hour.  Around 5100 times the speed of light.  Hmm.

Ok, I love the no gravity argument.  This isn't the Einstein version involving space time, but a totally fabricated one with neither mathematical calculation nor evidence.  It does however reference "dark matter."  Now I personally am totally stumped how a belief which is supposed to be based solely on observed evidence (the earth looks flat, feels flat, so it must be flat...) can conjure up the idea of dark matter.  Surely dark matter is just another of the multitude of fabrications by the thousands of scientists from multiple countries, cultures and even religious backgrounds involved in this spherical earth conspiracy, right?  Or to put the sarcasm aside, how does a believer decide which scientific evidence to believe and which is just part of the conspiracy?

Here's something to chew on.  There are good historical records of humans going back at least 5000 years.  Even young earth believers acknowledge at least 5000 years.  Now if the earth was at 0 5000 years ago and just started accelerating at 32ft/second squared, how fast would it be going now?  Let's see 5000 years is 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared equals... 3,461,300,860,246 miles per hour.  Ok, the speed of light is about 670,616,629 miles per hour.  Around 5100 times the speed of light.  Hmm.

They have thought about all of that and choose to accept the bits of Einstein's SR and GR that fit their "narrative".

So you should read this. It's from the TFES Wiki which has rather more than this one: Universal Acceleration

  Let's see 5000 years is 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared equals... 3,461,300,860,246 miles per hour.  Ok, the speed of light is about 670,616,629 miles per hour.  Around 5100 times the speed of light.  Hmm.

1. Simple multiplication of acceleration and time is not how you  calculate velocity.

and even if so

2. Astronomers have no issue with space expanding faster than the speed of light.

and even if so

3. You rely on someone to tell you the speed of light unless you've measured it yourself. Have you? If someone is going to create as complex a lie about something as the shape of the Earth, lying about the speed of light ought to be much simpler.

and even so

4.  The earth resets and starts from zero every day at midnight when everyone is asleep. Jeez! Didn't you ever see Dark City?

I cleared out the spam and insulting posts, and gave one person a few days off for repeatedly spamming and insulting in the  upper forums. If you guys need to throw poop at each other do it in AR.

Also, this ancient thread has a great discussion of Universal Acceleration (sorry the images in the thread are broken, but you don't need them) https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14094.0

The "universal accelerator" thread is nonsense.  The concept of dark matter is a controversial theory proposed by scientists who, to a person, accept the spherical earth paradigm.  No flat earth believer has contributed any research to the theory of dark matter, so it is disingenuous to take it out of context and use it as an explanation. You are essentially nit picking other scientist's work out of context.

It also seems disingenuous that one of the least understood and most controversial theories (dark matter0 is the one that flat earth believers would accept as verified truth, while disputing the one which is universally accepted, without controversy, by thousands of scientists from all nations, political systems and religions for at least five hundred years. 

Quote from: ronbegon on December 27, 2019, 12:51:11 AM

  Let's see 5000 years is 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared equals... 3,461,300,860,246 miles per hour.  Ok, the speed of light is about 670,616,629 miles per hour.  Around 5100 times the speed of light.  Hmm.

1. Simple multiplication of acceleration and time is not how you  calculate velocity.

and even if so

2. Astronomers have no issue with space expanding faster than the speed of light.

and even if so

3. You rely on someone to tell you the speed of light unless you've measured it yourself. Have you? If someone is going to create as complex a lie about something as the shape of the Earth, lying about the speed of light ought to be much simpler.

and even so

4.  The earth resets and starts from zero every day at midnight when everyone is asleep. Jeez! Didn't you ever see Dark City?

Why is it you refer to the very scientists, you then ridicule?
You appear to accept space expanding faster than the speed of light. Have you yourself measured it?
If would be helpful if you were consistent, swinging radically within one post is not helpful.
You either believe in science or you don't, cherry-picking is not very helpful, neither is chastising someone for something you then do yourself.
Falling back on the old conspiracy chestnut is also not helpful. There is no evidence for it other than you and others happen to believe it.
The poster makes a very good argument that so far no flat earth believer has been able to answer factually backed by evidence.

Timeisup, I think you need to stop spamming, breathe for a bit, and engage your critical thinking apparatus. It appears to be malfunctioning.

It also seems disingenuous that one of the least understood and most controversial theories (dark matter0 is the one that flat earth believers would accept as verified truth, while disputing the one which is universally accepted, without controversy, by thousands of scientists from all nations, political systems and religions for at least five hundred years.

I don't know where you get the idea that any FE accepts dark matter as "verified truth".

Timeisup, I think you need to stop spamming, breathe for a bit, and engage your critical thinking apparatus. It appears to be malfunctioning.

I’m more than happy to be proved wrong or corrected. If you could be so kind as to point out the inaccuracies in my post that you were reffering to.
Most kind.

Quote from: boydster on December 28, 2019, 05:59:49 AM

Timeisup, I think you need to stop spamming, breathe for a bit, and engage your critical thinking apparatus. It appears to be malfunctioning.

I’m more than happy to be proved wrong or corrected. If you could be so kind as to point out the inaccuracies in my post that you were reffering to.
Most kind.

Most recently in this thread, right here you were wrong for the duration of your post. If you can't decide for yourself to take the time to understand why, I can help you with that.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 09:49:05 AM

Quote from: boydster on December 28, 2019, 05:59:49 AM

Timeisup, I think you need to stop spamming, breathe for a bit, and engage your critical thinking apparatus. It appears to be malfunctioning.

I’m more than happy to be proved wrong or corrected. If you could be so kind as to point out the inaccuracies in my post that you were reffering to.
Most kind.

Most recently in this thread, right here you were wrong for the duration of your post. If you can't decide for yourself to take the time to understand why, I can help you with that.

That’s pretty vague, and since when did you adopt the crown of right and wrong with no explanation required? Sounds rather facist if you ask me. Just telling someone they are wrong does not make it so. Be specific. Saying I was wrong is not enough please provide some specifics so that I may have a chance of some comeback.

You don't need a comeback. This isn't some weird competition and I suggest you lost that attitude. Your entire post was built on wrong assumptions. I'm going to do you a favor. For the next 3 days, you can have access to all you can read. No posting. This way, maybe you can try and understand who you are arguing with and what you are arguing about. Maybe you'll even decide to have a conversation, instead of an argument. Who knows?! This is very exciting.

Let's explore this "Universal Accelerator" idea some more.  Here is another dilemma.  If a person is seated in a jet and the jet accelerates for takeoff, the person feels the push against the seat back.  Why?  It is because the force causing the acceleration is operating on the structure of the jet, including the seat.  But it is not working upon the mass of the person, which wants to stay in place because of inertia.  The seat back then overcomes the person's inertia, which results in the push we feel.  But what happens in a zero gravity training flight or a falling elevator?  What happens when you free fall from a plane? 

If you are in an elevator that free falls, the "gravity" pulling the elevator down is also operating on you independently. Consequently, you float within the box of the elevator.  You don't experience any push from the elevator itself as you and it accelerate together.  The same effect is used in zero g training flights.  The aircraft dives (falls) at 32 feet per second squared, causing one to become weightless in the cabin.  You can watch videos to see this in action.

What does that have to do with a black matter universal accelerator?  Well, the effect would be the same.  Even if the earth were being pulled by some force at 32 feet per second squared, everything resting on the surface, including humans, would also be pulled at the exact same rate, making us, like the passengers in the zero g airplane, weightless with respect fo the surface of the earth and anything else being so pulled.  Another bad explanation.

The earth is being pushed, not pulled. That was quote a bit of typing you could have saved yourself with a 30 second perusal of the FAQ.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on December 27, 2019, 07:26:24 AM

Quote from: ronbegon on December 27, 2019, 12:51:11 AM

  Let's see 5000 years is 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared equals... 3,461,300,860,246 miles per hour.  Ok, the speed of light is about 670,616,629 miles per hour.  Around 5100 times the speed of light.  Hmm.

1. Simple multiplication of acceleration and time is not how you  calculate velocity.

and even if so

2. Astronomers have no issue with space expanding faster than the speed of light.

and even if so

3. You rely on someone to tell you the speed of light unless you've measured it yourself. Have you? If someone is going to create as complex a lie about something as the shape of the Earth, lying about the speed of light ought to be much simpler.

and even so

4.  The earth resets and starts from zero every day at midnight when everyone is asleep. Jeez! Didn't you ever see Dark City?

Why is it you refer to the very scientists, you then ridicule?

Who's ridiculing scientists?

You appear to accept space expanding faster than the speed of light. Have you yourself measured it?

Where do I appear to accept space expanding faster than the speed of light? I said that astronomers do.

My implication is that you likely believe what you are told by astronomers, astronomers accept space expanding faster than the speed of light, and pointing out the apparent hypocrisy that you are gobsmacked that your (incorrect) calculation results in something going faster than the speed of light.

If would be helpful if you were consistent, swinging radically within one post is not helpful.
You either believe in science or you don't,

You mean the science of multiplying 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared?

cherry-picking is not very helpful,

Is it cherry-picking to point out the deficiencies in your argument?

neither is chastising someone for something you then do yourself.

Didn't. (See above)

Falling back on the old conspiracy chestnut is also not helpful. There is no evidence for it other than you and others happen to believe it.

OK, I admit it. The Dark City reference was a joke.

The poster makes a very good argument that so far no flat earth believer has been able to answer factually backed by evidence.

Non sequitur.

The entire subject of gravity needs to be reworked. You literally know less than 1% about what's really going on with it. An apple falling on your head? Well its a start. Clearly it gave Newton 'acquired savant syndrome' which started off your knowledge base but then you guys stagnated. As if you believe you know all there is to know about gravity. WRONG

Maybe we should drop apples on everyone's heads. One of you is bound to get the acquired savant syndrome knocked into you so you can leap forward in understanding again

The earth is being pushed, not pulled. That was quote a bit of typing you could have saved yourself with a 30 second perusal of the FAQ.

And learned what? - this?

UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION
There are two Universal Acceleration models. The first model deals with the Universal Accelerator, which sits underneath the Earth and accelerates anything it touches.

The second model deals with Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.

All I see is two unsupported hypotheses.
The Universal Accelerator is just a name.
And modern Cosmology does postulate Dark Energy it's energy density is so incredibly low that it's effects would hardly be measurable, let alone enough to power your Universal Acceleration.

The energy density of dark energy is around 50% of the critical density of the Universe.

Critical Density
The critical density for the Universe is approximately 10^-26 kg/m³ (or 10 hydrogen atoms per cubic metre) and is given by:



where H is the Hubble constant and G is Newton’s gravitational constant.

In other words Dark Energy has the no effect except over Cosmological distances yet the Flat Earth Society postulates it as a critical part of its model.

That seems quite unjustified to me.

The energy density of dark energy is [hypothesized to be, in the model that I accept] around 50% of the critical density of the Universe [and no one else is allowed to use the term "dark energy" with any other interpretation because I say so and I'm the final arbiter of Truth].

I've interpreted your words above in a way that actually aligns with reality - see the important parts you left out in brackets.

I think it's more than fair to suggest that those suggesting dark energy is responsible for UA would also suggest the hypothesis as you understand it is incorrect. It's not the first time we've discussed that, either. Restating it does not make it more true.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 29, 2019, 01:38:58 AM

The energy density of dark energy is [hypothesized to be, in the model that I accept] around 50% of the critical density of the Universe [and no one else is allowed to use the term "dark energy" with any other interpretation because I say so and I'm the final arbiter of Truth].

I've interpreted your words above in a way that actually aligns with reality - see the important parts you left out in brackets.

I think it's more than fair to suggest that those suggesting dark energy is responsible for UA would also suggest the hypothesis as you understand it is incorrect. It's not the first time we've discussed that, either. Restating it does not make it more true.

I’m sure they would.  So why then use a recognized existing term for something completely unrelated?

Just to sound a bit sciencey?

The entire subject of gravity needs to be reworked. You literally know less than 1% about what's really going on with it. An apple falling on your head? Well its a start. Clearly it gave Newton 'acquired savant syndrome' which started off your knowledge base but then you guys stagnated. As if you believe you know all there is to know about gravity. WRONG

Maybe we should drop apples on everyone's heads. One of you is bound to get the acquired savant syndrome knocked into you so you can leap forward in understanding again

Whoa!  Hold on a moment.

I think you’ll find it’s many regular flat earth posters here who continually demand a full explanation for gravity.  Often in completely unrelated subjects, I might add.

Rab, along with various other  “round earthers”, has said countless times that there is currently no generally accepted theory for quantum gravity, and that that is OK.

Quote from: boydster on December 29, 2019, 05:59:52 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 29, 2019, 01:38:58 AM

The energy density of dark energy is [hypothesized to be, in the model that I accept] around 50% of the critical density of the Universe [and no one else is allowed to use the term "dark energy" with any other interpretation because I say so and I'm the final arbiter of Truth].

I've interpreted your words above in a way that actually aligns with reality - see the important parts you left out in brackets.

I think it's more than fair to suggest that those suggesting dark energy is responsible for UA would also suggest the hypothesis as you understand it is incorrect. It's not the first time we've discussed that, either. Restating it does not make it more true.

I’m sure they would.  So why then use a recognized existing term for something completely unrelated?

Just to sound a bit sciencey?

I believe it's because the two uses really only differ in their presumed magnitude.

The main problem with dark energy is that it acts on literally everything.
It can't accelerate Earth without also accelerating the people on it and thus would not produce an apparent downwards force on all objects.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 29, 2019, 01:38:58 AM

The energy density of dark energy is [hypothesized to be, in the model that I accept] around 50% of the critical density of the Universe [and no one else is allowed to use the term "dark energy" with any other interpretation because I say so and I'm the final arbiter of Truth].

I've interpreted your words above in a way that actually aligns with reality - see the important parts you left out in brackets.

I nowhere said or implied that "no one else is allowed to use the term "dark energy" with any other interpretation because I say so and I'm the final arbiter of Truth".

Read this again:

The second model deals with Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.

I read that as "The Flat Earth Society" attempting to justify its Dark Energy hypothesis by appealing to how Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.
And I am simply pointing out that such an appeal to authority is quite invalid.

I think it's more than fair to suggest that those suggesting dark energy is responsible for UA would also suggest the hypothesis as you understand it is incorrect. It's not the first time we've discussed that, either. Restating it does not make it more true.

Really? If you think that my understanding if UA is incorrect then could you explain it better than the Wiki entry:

Universal Acceleration
Rather than a downward pull due to the presence of mass, the theory of Universal Acceleration asserts that the roughly disk-shaped Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the effect commonly referred to as 'gravity'.

There are two Universal Acceleration models. The first model deals with the Universal Accelerator, which sits underneath the Earth and accelerates anything it touches.

The second model deals with Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.

I await your further elucidation.

But all I'm claiming is that the FES's appeal to authority is quite invalid.
The FES is free to hypothesis what it like but without evidence, it remains simply an unsupported hypothesis.

And restating your assertion does not make it more true either. What makes you the "the final arbiter of Truth"?

Ok, I see my mistake.  The universal accelerator that you imagine is sort of like a jet engine attached only to the earth, so it pushes the earth up.  So that's why we "feel" gravity.

How does the sun keep up?  The moon?  How do the fluids (water and atmosphere) stay in place? Have you ever watched water stream off the windshield of airplane?

How is the accelerator attached to the "bottom" of the earth?  What is giving it energy?  And by the way, what is the bottom of the earth?  How deep is the earth?  How far from sea level to the bottom?  What, besides the universal accelerator, is on the other side.
Why isn't the earth deformed by the acceleration? Boulders fall off mountains, rivers rush down, glaciers flow, trees topple all because of gravity, and all toward the center of the earth.  If the entire earth were actually being pushed from behind, what prevents it from also crumbling?  Instead of boulders falling toward the center of the sphere, why don't they fall off the edge.  Or from underneath?  And what about the fluid under the crust?  Acceleration of a flat earth would force the fluid to accumulate toward the bottom or even burst out of volcanos on the backside.

Explain all points.  They are easily explained by the spheroid earth model so let's hear a FE explanation.

Ok, I see my mistake.  The universal accelerator that you imagine is sort of like a jet engine attached only to the earth, so it pushes the earth up.  So that's why we "feel" gravity.

How does the sun keep up?  The moon?  How do the fluids (water and atmosphere) stay in place? Have you ever watched water stream off the windshield of airplane?

How is the accelerator attached to the "bottom" of the earth?  What is giving it energy?  And by the way, what is the bottom of the earth?  How deep is the earth?  How far from sea level to the bottom?  What, besides the universal accelerator, is on the other side.
Why isn't the earth deformed by the acceleration? Boulders fall off mountains, rivers rush down, glaciers flow, trees topple all because of gravity, and all toward the center of the earth.  If the entire earth were actually being pushed from behind, what prevents it from also crumbling?  Instead of boulders falling toward the center of the sphere, why don't they fall off the edge.  Or from underneath?  And what about the fluid under the crust?  Acceleration of a flat earth would force the fluid to accumulate toward the bottom or even burst out of volcanos on the backside.

Explain all points.  They are easily explained by the spheroid earth model so let's hear a FE explanation.

Hi. Welcome to the forum.

First off, firing off a barrage of questions never works.  At best it will be ignored, at worst regarded as openly hostile.  Trust me, it can be hard enough to get a straight answer to one question.

To be fair, if a flat earther did the same with a tonne of questions at once on the heliocentric model, I probably wouldn’t be arsed to answer either.

The pace of debate here is glacially slow, and will require your deepest reserves of patience.  The handful of (probably) real flat earthers here don’t feel any obligation to explain themselves to us, especially if it’s things that have been asked before (whether the previous threads really  answered the question doesn’t seem to matter for some reason). Complicated further by the fact there’s no one agreed flat earth model.

So don’t think of it like debating at a business meeting, school or university where everyone is expected to answer all incoming questions.  It’s more like trying to coax a woodland animal out of the bushes.  Approach slowly, make gentle sounds and no sudden movements.  When they feel you can be trusted, they’ll start to respond, then...   BAM!  Crack em on the head with the heliocentric stick.   

Sorry everyone, couldn’t resist with the last part.  I stand by the rest though.

Anyway, onto your questions, I’ll try a couple-

The most common (I think) reason given for sun and moon staying above us is that the universal accelerator acts on them as well.  On, or just above the surface, we are shielded from the universal accelerator by the Earth.  In it’s wake, kind of.  But the sun and moon are high enough to feel the full effect.  This probably leads you to more questions, but that’s about as far as I’ve got.

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone claim to know things like the depth of the earth.

Hope that helps a little bit anyway.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on December 27, 2019, 07:26:24 AM

Quote from: ronbegon on December 27, 2019, 12:51:11 AM

  Let's see 5000 years is 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared equals... 3,461,300,860,246 miles per hour.  Ok, the speed of light is about 670,616,629 miles per hour.  Around 5100 times the speed of light.  Hmm.

1. Simple multiplication of acceleration and time is not how you  calculate velocity.

and even if so

2. Astronomers have no issue with space expanding faster than the speed of light.

and even if so

3. You rely on someone to tell you the speed of light unless you've measured it yourself. Have you? If someone is going to create as complex a lie about something as the shape of the Earth, lying about the speed of light ought to be much simpler.

and even so

4.  The earth resets and starts from zero every day at midnight when everyone is asleep. Jeez! Didn't you ever see Dark City?

Why is it you refer to the very scientists, you then ridicule?

Who's ridiculing scientists?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

You appear to accept space expanding faster than the speed of light. Have you yourself measured it?

Where do I appear to accept space expanding faster than the speed of light? I said that astronomers do.

My implication is that you likely believe what you are told by astronomers, astronomers accept space expanding faster than the speed of light, and pointing out the apparent hypocrisy that you are gobsmacked that your (incorrect) calculation results in something going faster than the speed of light.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

If would be helpful if you were consistent, swinging radically within one post is not helpful.
You either believe in science or you don't,

You mean the science of multiplying 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

cherry-picking is not very helpful,

Is it cherry-picking to point out the deficiencies in your argument?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

neither is chastising someone for something you then do yourself.

Didn't. (See above)

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

Falling back on the old conspiracy chestnut is also not helpful. There is no evidence for it other than you and others happen to believe it.

OK, I admit it. The Dark City reference was a joke.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

The poster makes a very good argument that so far no flat earth believer has been able to answer factually backed by evidence.

Non sequitur.

Can we agree that space is very difficult to study, hence the fact that very little headway was made prior to the exploration of the Cosmos using various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum other than visible light. I have no means of probing the mysteries of the universe so take on board discoveries made and verified by scientists and astronomers who have access to an array of this specialised equipment.
You on the  other hand appear to have developed some other idea of the Cosmos based on who knows what, other than some vague Ideas contained in a book written in the 19th century when little  was known other than some very basic knowledge of the inner planets.
I find it odd that flat earthers can have any opinion at all of the Cosmos as they have no means of exploring its mysteries, though you are at liberty to correct me if you happen to have a radio telescope in your back yard.

The Newly Better Version of Universal Acceleration IS..... 👉 DOWNWARDS UNIVERSAL DECELERATION.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on December 28, 2019, 11:42:08 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on December 27, 2019, 07:26:24 AM

Quote from: ronbegon on December 27, 2019, 12:51:11 AM

  Let's see 5000 years is 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared equals... 3,461,300,860,246 miles per hour.  Ok, the speed of light is about 670,616,629 miles per hour.  Around 5100 times the speed of light.  Hmm.

1. Simple multiplication of acceleration and time is not how you  calculate velocity.

and even if so

2. Astronomers have no issue with space expanding faster than the speed of light.

and even if so

3. You rely on someone to tell you the speed of light unless you've measured it yourself. Have you? If someone is going to create as complex a lie about something as the shape of the Earth, lying about the speed of light ought to be much simpler.

and even so

4.  The earth resets and starts from zero every day at midnight when everyone is asleep. Jeez! Didn't you ever see Dark City?

Why is it you refer to the very scientists, you then ridicule?

Who's ridiculing scientists?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

You appear to accept space expanding faster than the speed of light. Have you yourself measured it?

Where do I appear to accept space expanding faster than the speed of light? I said that astronomers do.

My implication is that you likely believe what you are told by astronomers, astronomers accept space expanding faster than the speed of light, and pointing out the apparent hypocrisy that you are gobsmacked that your (incorrect) calculation results in something going faster than the speed of light.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

If would be helpful if you were consistent, swinging radically within one post is not helpful.
You either believe in science or you don't,

You mean the science of multiplying 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

cherry-picking is not very helpful,

Is it cherry-picking to point out the deficiencies in your argument?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

neither is chastising someone for something you then do yourself.

Didn't. (See above)

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

Falling back on the old conspiracy chestnut is also not helpful. There is no evidence for it other than you and others happen to believe it.

OK, I admit it. The Dark City reference was a joke.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

The poster makes a very good argument that so far no flat earth believer has been able to answer factually backed by evidence.

Non sequitur.

Can we agree that space is very difficult to study, hence the fact that very little headway was made prior to the exploration of the Cosmos using various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum other than visible light. I have no means of probing the mysteries of the universe so take on board discoveries made and verified by scientists and astronomers who have access to an array of this specialised equipment.
You on the  other hand appear to have developed some other idea of the Cosmos based on who knows what, other than some vague Ideas contained in a book written in the 19th century when little  was known other than some very basic knowledge of the inner planets.

I appear to have done no such thing. I have pointed out that the OP used Newtonian rather than relativistic calculations to come up with an incorrect ridiculous answer in a failed attempt at a "gotcha" proof; that the OP incorrectly expresses incredulity that something is able to go faster than the speed of light; and that since the OP has such a feeble understanding of physics, he is doing nothing but regurgitating others' data with no comprehension, and that given that, how is he sure of the numbers he's blindly quoting?

I also point out that you make wildly unrelated statements and assumptions.

I find it odd that flat earthers can have any opinion at all of the Cosmos as they have no means of exploring its mysteries, though you are at liberty to correct me if you happen to have a radio telescope in your back yard.

No, I don't have a radio telescope in my back yard, but I have sent spacecraft to other planets. Multiple times.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81384.msg2173876#msg2173876

I find it odd that zealous flat earth opponents often have a difficult time distinguishing between someone arguing in favor of flat earth, and someone pointing out when their argument against flat earth is poor, specious, illogical, and incorrect.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 05, 2020, 02:19:29 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on December 28, 2019, 11:42:08 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on December 27, 2019, 07:26:24 AM

Quote from: ronbegon on December 27, 2019, 12:51:11 AM

  Let's see 5000 years is 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared equals... 3,461,300,860,246 miles per hour.  Ok, the speed of light is about 670,616,629 miles per hour.  Around 5100 times the speed of light.  Hmm.

1. Simple multiplication of acceleration and time is not how you  calculate velocity.

and even if so

2. Astronomers have no issue with space expanding faster than the speed of light.

and even if so

3. You rely on someone to tell you the speed of light unless you've measured it yourself. Have you? If someone is going to create as complex a lie about something as the shape of the Earth, lying about the speed of light ought to be much simpler.

and even so

4.  The earth resets and starts from zero every day at midnight when everyone is asleep. Jeez! Didn't you ever see Dark City?

Why is it you refer to the very scientists, you then ridicule?

Who's ridiculing scientists?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

You appear to accept space expanding faster than the speed of light. Have you yourself measured it?

Where do I appear to accept space expanding faster than the speed of light? I said that astronomers do.

My implication is that you likely believe what you are told by astronomers, astronomers accept space expanding faster than the speed of light, and pointing out the apparent hypocrisy that you are gobsmacked that your (incorrect) calculation results in something going faster than the speed of light.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

If would be helpful if you were consistent, swinging radically within one post is not helpful.
You either believe in science or you don't,

You mean the science of multiplying 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

cherry-picking is not very helpful,

Is it cherry-picking to point out the deficiencies in your argument?

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

neither is chastising someone for something you then do yourself.

Didn't. (See above)

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

Falling back on the old conspiracy chestnut is also not helpful. There is no evidence for it other than you and others happen to believe it.

OK, I admit it. The Dark City reference was a joke.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:20:08 AM

The poster makes a very good argument that so far no flat earth believer has been able to answer factually backed by evidence.

Non sequitur.

Can we agree that space is very difficult to study, hence the fact that very little headway was made prior to the exploration of the Cosmos using various wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum other than visible light. I have no means of probing the mysteries of the universe so take on board discoveries made and verified by scientists and astronomers who have access to an array of this specialised equipment.
You on the  other hand appear to have developed some other idea of the Cosmos based on who knows what, other than some vague Ideas contained in a book written in the 19th century when little  was known other than some very basic knowledge of the inner planets.

I appear to have done no such thing. I have pointed out that the OP used Newtonian rather than relativistic calculations to come up with an incorrect ridiculous answer in a failed attempt at a "gotcha" proof; that the OP incorrectly expresses incredulity that something is able to go faster than the speed of light; and that since the OP has such a feeble understanding of physics, he is doing nothing but regurgitating others' data with no comprehension, and that given that, how is he sure of the numbers he's blindly quoting?

I also point out that you make wildly unrelated statements and assumptions.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 05, 2020, 02:19:29 AM

I find it odd that flat earthers can have any opinion at all of the Cosmos as they have no means of exploring its mysteries, though you are at liberty to correct me if you happen to have a radio telescope in your back yard.

No, I don't have a radio telescope in my back yard, but I have sent spacecraft to other planets. Multiple times.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81384.msg2173876#msg2173876

I find it odd that zealous flat earth opponents often have a difficult time distinguishing between someone arguing in favor of flat earth, and someone pointing out when their argument against flat earth is poor, specious, illogical, and incorrect.

Ah I get it, you’re  what we would call a smart arse .
Why do you assume or should I say decide that people are zealots when they don’t agree with much of the tomfoolery that passes as science of this site. Also remember you thinking an argument is poor is just your opinion, no more no less. I find it really interesting that you worked on so many high tech projects, OR at least you say you did ! Given that I can’t for the life of me work out what you are doing here. What point are you trying to make?
Have you told John Davis, Tom Bishop etc that they are all on a fools errand wasting their time? You would be doing them a massive favour by pointing out to them that all they believe in is codswallop rather than spending your time picking up people for using bad arguments.

Ah I get it, you’re  what we would call a smart arse .
Why do you assume or should I say decide that people are zealots when they don’t agree with much of the tomfoolery that passes as science of this site.

Because you're so eager to prove someone wrong that you don't actually read what is written, you just jump in with your preconceived ideas.

Also remember you thinking an argument is poor is just your opinion, no more no less.

You don't think that "Let's see 5000 years is 157,784,760,000 seconds times 32 feet per second squared equals... 3,461,300,860,246 miles per hour.  Ok, the speed of light is about 670,616,629 miles per hour.  Around 5100 times the speed of light.  Hmm." is a poor argument?

I find it really interesting that you worked on so many high tech projects, OR at least you say you did ! Given that I can’t for the life of me work out what you are doing here. What point are you trying to make?

Again, having a hard time reading and comprehending?

There's very little chance anything written on a site like this will change people's beliefs about the round vs flat debate. It's mostly entertainment. But I do call people out when they assume they can swoop in with a single smug one-topic "gotcha" proof and that's sufficient to convince someone.

Have you told John Davis, Tom Bishop etc that they are all on a fools errand wasting their time?

Of course not. What would be the point? As I said "There's very little chance anything written on a site like this will change people's beliefs about the round vs flat debate," much less those that have actual or posed entrenched positions.

You would be doing them a massive favour by pointing out to them that all they believe in is codswallop

You know very little about human behavior if you believe that.

rather than spending your time picking up people for using bad arguments.

It's entertainment. I find incompetent zealots who make fools of themselves amusing, in much the same way that other people find film and television comedies like "Dumb and Dumber" or "Veep" amusing. How I spend my time should be of no concern to you.

The earth is being pushed, not pulled.

Really?  Who determined it is being pushed instead of pulled?