61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 12, 2018, 12:25:38 AM »

In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.

Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?

everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.

That is not an answer.  Let me try again.  Is UA pushing the air up or is the ground pushing the air up?  "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

The earth and everything we observe is being accellerated upward, not too difficult to understand.  The ground, air, everything moving up at the same. Same mechanics involved wth air moving with a rotating globe.  If you think you have some gotcha question, go ahead and ask

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 11, 2018, 08:38:35 PM »

Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2  hold true.

of course

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 11, 2018, 08:37:53 PM »

In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.

Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?

everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Illusion of Gravity

« on: July 10, 2018, 03:30:34 PM »

It says in the FAQs something along the lines of "accelaration pulls objects down to the earth" cuz the earth is going upwards or whatever but i thought it was density that makes objects go down

i havent seen anyone here saying its density.  maybe the other website, not sure, im not on it.  the two models here are Universal Accelleration and Infinite Plane.  infinite plane uses traditional gravity model based on mass.

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 10, 2018, 03:28:21 PM »

In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 06, 2018, 06:33:37 PM »

Because Einstein’s work assumes that gravity is a real thing and is a property of mass, which is rejected by many FE.  In fact, the UA model is an attempt to explain how objects fall to earth explicitly without mass-attracts-mass gravity.  If UA is the true physics, its proponents cannot appeal to gravity for anything, and cannot use gravity-based science either.

wow, try again.  you literally have no idea what you are talking about.  Einstein would agree with the aspect of UA that you absolutely could not tell the difference between gravity on earth vs a gravity-less earth being accelerated at 1g

67

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: July 06, 2018, 01:25:04 AM »

... aircraft don't fly direct. They go via way points, beacons, they go round in circles in holding patterns, wind effects them, temp, pressure, number of passengers and fuel also effects cruising speed, as does the centre of gravity which is load dependant (Where the passengers sit).

(slightly off-topic, I know, but ...)

.... why don't you present this argument to anyone who claims the ISS is really a high-altitude plane? For all of this is sure proof that the ISS, with its regular flight path, absolutely-perfect orbit timing, etc. CANNOT be a plane.

You can't see the difference in high altitude planes with sole purpose to provide GPS data, and planes used to transport passengers.  You lost that debate fair and square, move on now

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: July 05, 2018, 07:46:44 PM »

Now what about the question of "Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation?"

what specifically are you asking? 

you have to remember that all laws/math that you are using to try and prove a round earth were all developed based on the same earth that we are claiming to be flat.  a lot of the math would be the same, but the fact the math was done based on an assumed "round" earth is where some errors can occur.

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 05, 2018, 07:44:10 PM »

Given how liberally FE theory attempts to co-opt the theories of Einstein I am imagining that there must be many on this forum familiar with how special relativity meshes with FE theory. Some questions need to be answered to clarify the FE position.

Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on the idea of observers and particularly which 'frame of reference' they are in.

Q1. How far away are the stars and galaxies in FE theory? The wiki makes absolutely no reference to galaxies. Do galaxies exist in FE theory or is the universe contained withing our own local galaxy, the milky way?

Q2. Which of the stars and galaxies are in our frame of reference, that is to say, accelerating with us? One assumes that the stars must be otherwise we would long ago have moved out of their sphere of influence.

Q3. Although no mass can ever reach the speed of light can we assume that the FE must now be travelling close to the speed of light and certainly beyond the 80% threshold where relativistic effects become measurable?

Q4. Q3 assumes that there is some outside 'observer' frame of reference. Does FE theory say such a frame exists? I am of course thinking of other galaxies.

Q5. Given that our speed on the FE should have long ago approached the speed of light does that not mean that our observations of any stellar object (galaxy etc) in an 'outside' frame of reference would be grossly affected by relativistic effects? That is to say, we would potentially look at all events outside our FE 'system' frozen in time due to the excessive time dilation effects.

These are just the first questions that occur to me.

1.  stars exist in FE obviously, but they are not how RE discusses.  as far as distance, i am not sure on that, not my specialty.  but they are much smaller/closer.
2.  all of them are relatively same distance away, all moving with us (same frame of reference)
3.  reasonable assumption although cannot measure directly, as per response to #2 above
4.  yes, there would be, but we wouldnt be able to see outside our observable universe.  anything outside of that would be speculation.
5.  based on response to #2, no.  but as you note due to extreme dilation to any observable outsider, i agree and perhaps explains why we cant see anything outside of the view we have.

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: But Why?

« on: June 29, 2018, 05:43:26 PM »

2. https://youtu.be/zhp-FTYSGe8
This video provides multiple citations that back up his claims. Sorry if you don't like the humor or if it offends you.

The main argument of that video is that the moon landing couldn't have been fake because the shadows are straight and don't diverge. However, that is not true. Diverging shadows was one of the first things people pointed out.

There may be explanations for some of those photos, but there are plenty of diverging shadows and whoever made that video apparently did not do any research at all.

But what about point #1?

the assumption is based on cold war history which many people debate.  i will try and find it, but there was a pretty sizable thread about the moon race and how/why the USA and USSR worked together on the hoax.   

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking to talk

« on: June 29, 2018, 01:44:49 PM »

I’m looking to have a discussion with a flat earther about their hypothesis. I believe I’ve come up with a few points that disprove the earth being flat and want to see what they have to say.
Just to be clear: I would like to talk to someone who will actually read my argument, respond with reasonable logic, and not turn this into a shouting match.

i will give it a go, i dont shout, and i consider both points of view.  shoot away

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: June 29, 2018, 12:58:23 PM »

I'm not agreeing with OP, but how can any of Einstein's work be correct/provable in a FE universe?

why wouldn't it??   who said FE doesnt follow many laws of physics?

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: June 29, 2018, 12:57:24 PM »

Fine, here is the map for iridium satellites and outages then :  http://downdetector.com/status/iridium/map/

Interesting they used a flat earth map with Antarctica shown as an ice wall.... 

But feel free to keep clutching for straws

I don’t know what map you’re looking at, but that link goes to the typical representation of Earth when a globe is inconvenient for 2D screens.

by typical representation of earth when a glob is inconvenient....yeah a flat earth map.  it shows antartica huge and going around the entire south part of the map.   interesting, google earth works fine on my 2D screen

74

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 26, 2018, 04:10:45 PM »

You'd just need to agree on a dataset. Something everyone knows to be true and can prove themselves. Then let the computer iterate away, extrapolate and turn into a defined shape.

should be possible to input all know flights into this system and it could then draw a true map based on all the triangulation based on the data set??

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: June 26, 2018, 12:16:30 PM »

If we are accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, then our speed is increasing by 9.8m/s every second. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s.

If you divide 299792458/9.8 you get 30,591,067.142857. That means that almost a year after the Earth started ‘accelerating’ (11.6404237513076865 months) it would have hit the speed of light.

I know the FAQ gives an explanation for it:
> ...v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1.

But you don’t have to bring random special relativity into this equation! Simple division is enough to tell that one of these statements is wrong:

• The earth accelerates at 9.8m/s^2
• The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s
• I am correct in my equations

first off, this only relates to the UA theory. 
second, dividing two numbers is not an "equation"
third, yes special relativity is essential here.

you are taking a second grader's approach to this and its not that simple.  Read thru some of einstein's theories and he very clearly states objects of mass can never reach C

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do my eyes deceive me

« on: June 25, 2018, 10:45:11 AM »

There's already thousands of video and photos showing a curved earth, I'd imagine the argument will progress like this: "You can't show me the photos therefore you're wrong"... "Oh you've sent photos, they're fake" or "it's a fisheye lens"

Actually, no.  Read his post, clearly says he can provide videos of the build, launch, etc.  Went out his way to say how he did all this stuff himself... Then doesn't provide.  Why say any of that and not provide, unless he's just a liar.

He also says in other posts that he teaches physics, but at the beginning of this thread says he launched a balloon when he was in school 3 years ago.  Based on his lack of understanding and constant errors, guessing he was a high school student.

The non-truth meter with this guy is off the charts

What he actually said was

Incidentally I recently put a balloon into near space orbit (>100 000ft) for a school club experiment. It took me a year, cost £1200 and 2 day school trip to a suitable launch site. We used a Go-pro (which has a fish eye lens so has artificial curvature) but also a Raspberry Pi to take photos. If any FE would like to see the results including launch day footage and other recorded data I would be glad to furnish this. I guarantee I am a real person and the geeky boys jumping around shrieking with delight are not actors but just normal (well, maybe 'normal' is a stretch!) pupils. you can see the Earth's horizon.....drum roll......AND IT AIN'T FLAT!!!
Now if you are going to call my boys liars and challenge their conclusion that the Earth ain't flat, be my guest. I'll put you in touch. They won't hold back. (they can be aggressive about their science when they are told they got it wrong!)

I don't know enough physics to know whether he is genuine, but his command of English and knowledge of the history of science (in which I am a specialist, with published work) seems strong.

You missed this post of his post, pretty clear and g never provided :

(p.s I can provide on board footage of the myself and the team receding from view underneath the balloon using a secondary go-pro camera to prove I have not downloaded the images off the internet. I can also provide full telemetry data as well as pressure, temperature, humidity and magnetometer data.)

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do my eyes deceive me

« on: June 25, 2018, 12:33:25 AM »

There's already thousands of video and photos showing a curved earth, I'd imagine the argument will progress like this: "You can't show me the photos therefore you're wrong"... "Oh you've sent photos, they're fake" or "it's a fisheye lens"

Actually, no.  Read his post, clearly says he can provide videos of the build, launch, etc.  Went out his way to say how he did all this stuff himself... Then doesn't provide.  Why say any of that and not provide, unless he's just a liar.

He also says in other posts that he teaches physics, but at the beginning of this thread says he launched a balloon when he was in school 3 years ago.  Based on his lack of understanding and constant errors, guessing he was a high school student.

The non-truth meter with this guy is off the charts

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do my eyes deceive me

« on: June 24, 2018, 11:31:46 PM »

are you going to provide the photos to review?  not sure why you would go thru all the effort to post this without photos? 

I'd love to see your footage too. I have no doubt of it, but I like watching those.

I already asked as well, and nothing.  Why start a post saying you have photos and then provide nothing....

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: June 23, 2018, 10:26:29 PM »

A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.

Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?

Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated"

Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth.  If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math.  Reasonable, try again

LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft?  Now that is funny!   Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?

Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly

i know enough about aviation ot not have to look anything up.  I stick by what I said.   The one who looks silly is the one that thinks solar-powered airplanes are the GPS platform.

So you know that sonic boom drastically decreases as altitude increases and the impact once you go past 1.3 Mach is neglible?  That kind of aviation knowledge?  Remind me to never get on an airplane with you, co-pilot

You round earthers will say anything without any knowledge or research

I was referring to the silly idea that a solar-powered aircraft that could achieve supersonic flight.  Remind me to never read your silly ideas again.   As for sonic booms, they are still very noticeable, it's why Concord was not allowed to fly supersonic over land.  Get your facts straight or stay out of debates.    GPS aircraft indeed... LOL

Right, of course.  You get schooled on facts so you decide to change what we were talking about.  OK, great debate tactic.  Everything I have said was based on facts and have provided backup as requested, you are the one guessing at things which I then correct you on.  Research what you say before posting to avoid these embarrassing exchanges.

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 23, 2018, 08:07:07 PM »

Please go do some basic research on your Ret gravity to at least know some basics, then make sure you actually understand the equivalence principal.  Then come back and we can discuss.  This is just a huge waste of time until you know what we are discussing.  You obviously have no general physics background, which is fine for a lot of things, but not here when discussing UA.