The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: OrigamiBoy on December 06, 2017, 03:16:10 PM
-
The flat-earthers seem to have some nice theories about how the sun in the moon floating in the sky, and the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s.
Their theory looks like this :
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/SunAnimation.gif/120px-SunAnimation.gif)
One problem, how do they stay in the sky... why don't the fall back down to earth if they are so close...
And, what is causing the earth to accelerate upwards, it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.
Please debunk me with known facts :)
-
Generally: The celestial bodies are also affected by UA, which is why they continue to accelerate with the Earth. There was one rather interesting posit that they are actually upon two poles coming up out of the North Pole, but that's not an idea held by most of the community.
As for what is accelerating the Earth, I don't believe they claim to know. Just as RE isn't 100% positive what causes gravity.
-
And, what is causing the earth to accelerate upwards
Please see the wiki and FAQ.
it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.
-
And, what is causing the earth to accelerate upwards
Please see the wiki and FAQ.
it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.
Please leave a link to where it specifically says what is causing the earth to accelerate instead of just saying "check wiki"
Please also explain why we can see the moon during the day, but can never see the sun during the night, on the flat earth model does not show anything that would obstruct our vision or the light from the sun.
Also, I suggest YOU do some research on acceleration and ACTUALLY debunk me.
-
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.
Please don't tell me that FE requires me to dismantle both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Or are you contemplating a non-gravity induced centripetal acceleration toward some anchoring Center Object?
-
Please leave a link to where it specifically says what is causing the earth to accelerate instead of just saying "check wiki"
It is a few clicks. If you are that lazy, I am not going to indulge you.
Also, I suggest YOU do some research on acceleration and ACTUALLY debunk me.
Why would I when it is you that is clearly struggling with the concept?
Please don't tell me that FE requires me to dismantle both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Or are you contemplating a non-gravity induced centripetal acceleration toward some anchoring Center Object?
I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration. I am not making any claims as to some new phenomenon.
-
I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration. I am not making any claims as to some new phenomenon.
Well, you taught an old engineer something (proper and coordinate acceleration) today. Interesting.
-
And, what is causing the earth to accelerate upwards
Please see the wiki and FAQ.
it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.
if the question is about the acceleration and the hole in the theory is that it would require a lot of energy, and you are saying 'possibly, but not necessarily', would you not want to back up that statement with evidence for why its possible and yet not necessary? That statement alone doesn't really answer the question, and in a for-and-against discussion the point of responding is to answer the opposing question! I'm curious to see the scientific reason you think its possible but not necessary! Thanks!
-
Please leave a link to where it specifically says what is causing the earth to accelerate instead of just saying "check wiki"
It is a few clicks. If you are that lazy, I am not going to indulge you.
Also, I suggest YOU do some research on acceleration and ACTUALLY debunk me.
Why would I when it is you that is clearly struggling with the concept?
Please don't tell me that FE requires me to dismantle both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Or are you contemplating a non-gravity induced centripetal acceleration toward some anchoring Center Object?
I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration. I am not making any claims as to some new phenomenon.
Been reading the wiki and FAQ for a while now, haven't seen anything about how the earth is acceleration itself :/ a simple link would be nice.
"Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration."
Also, PLEASE back up your claims with SOME information, cite your sources, it would help people like me understand your theories more.
-
I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration. I am not making any claims as to some new phenomenon.
Then why didn't you explicit say so instead of being wishywashy? I mean really, how can you talk to others of laziness when you can't even be bothered to at least mention proper and coordinate acceleration in your original post?
An object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by some other force.
Clearly the hypothesis that the Earth is constantly accelerating implies that there is some driving force. Analogously, I might exert energy to slide an object across the floor, but the object doesn't continue to accelerate long after I let go. Acceleration stops as soon as I let go, and friction brings the object to a halt. If you believe any of this to not be the case, please enlighten us.
-
Please leave a link to where it specifically says what is causing the earth to accelerate instead of just saying "check wiki"
It is a few clicks. If you are that lazy, I am not going to indulge you.
Also, I suggest YOU do some research on acceleration and ACTUALLY debunk me.
Why would I when it is you that is clearly struggling with the concept?
Please don't tell me that FE requires me to dismantle both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Or are you contemplating a non-gravity induced centripetal acceleration toward some anchoring Center Object?
I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration. I am not making any claims as to some new phenomenon.
Been reading the wiki and FAQ for a while now, haven't seen anything about how the earth is acceleration itself :/ a simple link would be nice.
"Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration."
Also, PLEASE back up your claims with SOME information, cite your sources, it would help people like me understand your theories more.
Actually I found it from the wiki.
Dark Energy
This model proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globularist physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is unknown.
The only problem with this is that it does not make sense. Flat Earthers dismiss GPS and other distance calculating means saying it had originated based on Round Earth theory, but somehow they accept the concept of Dark Energy...
Also junker, constant acceleration require CONSTANT energy input. How can something accelerate without any additional energy?
-
Dark energy... that is the vaguest answer ever I would barely even consider it prof
-
Also junker, constant acceleration require CONSTANT energy input. How can something accelerate without any additional energy?
It can't. Constant acceleration increases kinetic energy. If this constant acceleration is given "for free", then it cannot be that energy is conserved, and that's a huge contradiction with everything that we've ever observed.
Dark energy... that is the vaguest answer ever I would barely even consider it prof
To be fair, dark energy is a thing that scientists are talking about. Dark energy could be a potential explanation, but only because we don't know anything about it. We don't know what we don't know.
-
Dark energy... that is the vaguest answer ever I would barely even consider it prof
To be fair, dark energy is a thing that scientists are talking about. Dark energy could be a potential explanation, but only because we don't know anything about it. We don't know what we don't know.
What I intended to say is that FE'ers are cherry-picking. They reject any idea from science that contradicts with Flat Earth saying it does not work because it is based on Round Earth model. But when they find some idea that matches with their theory they just use it as proof.
-
I see most of you have a minimal grasp of acceleration.
It isn’t up to me to teach you various models of acceleration that would apply in either RET or FET. For those of you still having trouble, I’d suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.
I also have no desire to get into conversations I’ve had dozens or hundreds of times over the years. I’ll point you in a direction to try to help you, but I’m not going to bother trying to convince you of something since no one so far has shown the capacity to think beyond what they think they already know.
-
junker, you have not given any examples of how you believe acceleration should work, you've just told people to look at the FAQ. The only thing I could find there was the the Earth is accelerating and "dark energy is involved." This is obviously a very skimpy explanation and we're asking you for elaboration. But if you've couldn't explain it to all those people over the years, I couldn't expect you to do it now.
-
junker, explain, do some research, cite some sources, AND DEBUNK US
STOP telling us to do some research, do some your self and ACTUALLY DEBUNK US
don't just say "check wiki/FAQ"
-
I see most of you have a minimal grasp of acceleration.
It isn’t up to me to teach you various models of acceleration that would apply in either RET or FET. For those of you still having trouble, I’d suggest going back and reading the thread again to clear up your apparent misunderstanding.
I also have no desire to get into conversations I’ve had dozens or hundreds of times over the years. I’ll point you in a direction to try to help you, but I’m not going to bother trying to convince you of something since no one so far has shown the capacity to think beyond what they think they already know.
I'm sorry, but 'you're ignorant, and I'm not," is not a valid argument. If we all sincerely are so desperately ignorant, proving us wrong should be trivial, especially for a master of the universe, such as yourself. Surely my BS Applied Mathematics degree with a focus on Physics is no match for your holier-than-thou physical intuition. If you fail to adress my points, I'll be forced to conclude that It's because you've got nothing.
If you truly have no desire to repeat the same conversations, then how is it that you manage to continually get tangled up in them? If you don't wish to discuss a subject, simply don't post? But look who I'm talking to. If this discussion really has happened countless times as you have said (of which I have no doubt), perhaps you could link to a post where you soundly defended your assertion. Then you have an effortless reply ready everytime new members join with the same question. Or better yet, why not merge all of these threads into one single UA Discussion Thread, giving new members no reason to post the same question over and over again? As moderator, you have the power to do this and the responsibility to aid in discussion, not hinder it.
-
junker, you have not given any examples of how you believe acceleration should work, you've just told people to look at the FAQ. The only thing I could find there was the the Earth is accelerating and "dark energy is involved." This is obviously a very skimpy explanation and we're asking you for elaboration. But if you've couldn't explain it to all those people over the years, I couldn't expect you to do it now.
The mechanism is unknown. What is hard to understand about that?
-
Please explain why we can see the moon during the day, but can never see the sun during the night, on the flat earth model does not show anything that would obstruct our vision or the light from the sun.
-
In responding again to all you angsty round earth logicians at once, please go back and read the thread. If you’re still struggling with that, I don’t think there’s much I can do to help. Maybe check out rif.org and their resources to help you overcome the inability to understand what I’ve already said.
-
junker, have YOU read the thread? Our issue is literally that you are saying exactly what you are saying now. If you can make four useless comments, you can make one in-depth one. I have to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Maybe check out rif.org and their resources to help you overcome the inability to understand what I’ve already said.
You have not given us anything to TRY to understand. Please, we just want information, not more referrals.
Tom Bishop, can you help?
-
junker, have YOU read the thread? Our issue is literally that you are saying exactly what you are saying now. If you can make four useless comments, you can make one in-depth one. I have to assume that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Maybe check out rif.org and their resources to help you overcome the inability to understand what I’ve already said.
You have not given us anything to TRY to understand. Please, we just want information, not more referrals.
Tom Bishop, can you help?
Of course I’ve read it. I pointed you all in a direction to try to help your very obvious deficiency when it comes to acceleration. All but one of you have ignored it and keep harping on me to hold your hand through everything. Not going to happen. If you have a specific question, I’ll do my best to answer, but I won’t entertain “hurr durr teach me about all things acceleration.”
-
junker, the least you can do is leave a link to some sources you used to learn about acceleration instead of just saying " I pointed you all in a direction to try to help your very obvious deficiency when it comes to acceleration." Please acually point us in the right direction instead of saying "read FAQ and wiki"... we all have... we all have.
-
junker, at this point, you're just posting aggressive comments towards everybody else here. You clearly can't help us with our question, so please leave (as this is supposed to be Q&A, not RE bashing).
Do you have an answer, Tom Bishop?
-
Yes, I personally would love to see what Tom Bishop has to say because he seems to at least do a little research before replying. I would much rather have a debate with him then junker.
-
Yes, I personally would love to see what Tom Bishop has to say because he seems to at least do a little research before replying. I would much rather have a debate with him then junker.
I’ll admit Tom has infinitely more patience than me. I assume people that take the time to post on a topic have some clue about that topic. When they show otherwise (see: frequently), I run out of patience quickly and I don’t entertain demands that I teach them things they should have learned at university (or could get a basic understanding with a simple internet search).
-
junker, please. This thread is on gravity, the sun and the moon and your posts are getting increasingly off topic.
-
junker we already knew that
-
junker, please. This thread is on gravity, the sun and the moon and your posts are getting increasingly off topic.
Ah, well, gravity doesn’t exist in FET, so I’m not sure what you’re asking then since you clearly don’t understand acceleration even though I’ve tried to help.
If you ever decide to obtain a basic understanding of the topics you’re attempting to discuss, then I’ll be happy to assist. I imagine it’ll take you a long time, so best of luck, and I’ll see you around.
-
no please don't go, i love a good laugh
-
Ah, well, gravity doesn’t exist in FET, so I’m not sure what you’re asking then since you clearly don’t understand acceleration even though I’ve tried to help.
junker.
I am referring to the title of this thread. I am not suggesting anything about gravity. And I'm not asking anything. Please make basic sense before you storm off.
-
I am not suggesting anything about gravity.
This thread is on gravity... and your posts are getting increasingly off topic.
Nice meme.
-
Thanks for the meme rating, man, but since I didn't make the thread I still haven't suggested anything about gravity.
-
Thanks for the meme rating, man, but since I didn't make the thread I still haven't suggested anything about gravity.
Clearly, as it is obvious you lack even a basic understanding of most of the fundamentals. I’d suggest not posting if you’re not going to contribute, especially if your post is going to simply be about how you didn’t contribute. Thanks!
-
Have you forgotten our previous comments on how you aren't adding to this conversation? Well, you still aren't. You have helped nobody on this thread and nobody appreciates you being here. Please leave so a more helpful FE can answer our questions instead of reducing it to pointless aggression like you have.
-
junker, you have not given any examples of how you believe acceleration should work, you've just told people to look at the FAQ. The only thing I could find there was the the Earth is accelerating and "dark energy is involved." This is obviously a very skimpy explanation and we're asking you for elaboration. But if you've couldn't explain it to all those people over the years, I couldn't expect you to do it now.
The mechanism is unknown. What is hard to understand about that?
If the mechanism is unknown, I'm curious as to why that is thought to be the explanation for gravity? If I said that the Sun is a flat circle because a flat circle is what we see in the sky, and said the reasons for that are unknown, would you accept that as a valid argument?
Again, I don't mean to be rude. I myself have some opinions that differ from the majority (not in terms of the earth's shape but in other aspects) and so I respect the importance of questioning why we believe in things, and discussing them. But the basis of discussing something that is against popular belief is to try to explain to other people why you believe what you do, because at the end of the day that is the reason this forum has been made, and this site has been made- to propagate your belief of what is correct science, isn't it? So if there is a question that so many people have, be it acceleration or whatever, providing an explanation for why your opinion differs from everyone should be something you are happy to do! And if it's getting repetitive, maybe adding it to the FAQ might be a good idea? Rather than questioning the competence of those who are interested enough in your theories and science to register on here and comment without being rude!
We learn the basics of physics and why the earth is round in high school. Surely there can be simple explanations for atleast the basis of the evidence for your theory?
I am new here and I feel like I have been asking the same questions again and again with no answer, so I would appreciate some respect to my curiosity rather than being assumed as stupid.
-
Junker, you are you saying acceleration does not require energy? Because we had been arguing that for constant acceleration, constant energy is required. However, you just said that we don't understand the acceleration. Which part are we not understanding correctly?
junker, you have not given any examples of how you believe acceleration should work, you've just told people to look at the FAQ. The only thing I could find there was the the Earth is accelerating and "dark energy is involved." This is obviously a very skimpy explanation and we're asking you for elaboration. But if you've couldn't explain it to all those people over the years, I couldn't expect you to do it now.
The mechanism is unknown. What is hard to understand about that?
If the mechanism of dark matter accelerating the Earth is not known, than how do you know that it is dark energy that is accelerating the Earth? As Mora said earlier, it can be a potential explanation, but the wiki states it as if it is a fact. If this is the case, can you change the wiki?
-
Have you forgotten our previous comments on how you aren't adding to this conversation? Well, you still aren't. You have helped nobody on this thread and nobody appreciates you being here. Please leave so a more helpful FE can answer our questions instead of reducing it to pointless aggression like you have.
Turns out round earth logicians get upset when someone points out their ignorance.
I think I’ve helped plenty of people by pointing out you’re attempting to discuss a topic you have no idea about. Also, I’ll gladly post in any topic I see fit, so I’ll ask you not to attempt being a moderator, given that you aren’t a moderator. Next one will be a warning and we can take it from there. If you decide you want to actually discuss the topic, that would be great.
-
The only time I get frustrated is when moderators think they have ultimate power, especially on a website like this. I have literally no concern for anything you could do, as I'm just going to leave this site anyway. I'll be happy if I can get you to leave this thread and let the nice people continue talking.
Man, you haven't even pointed out our ignorance. We've been asking you questions and all you've been doing is talking about how stupid we are that we aren't Flat Earthers and don't know your point of view. You're so stubborn about everything that I'm starting to think that you're a parody Flat Earther... which actually makes me respect you a lot if that's true. It makes everything you've done really amazing, and that's probably how I'll think about you from now on so I don't get sad thinking about a middle-aged man sitting at a computer 24/7 proud of the fact that he moderates the Flat Earth forum.
-
junker, you have not given any examples of how you believe acceleration should work, you've just told people to look at the FAQ. The only thing I could find there was the the Earth is accelerating and "dark energy is involved." This is obviously a very skimpy explanation and we're asking you for elaboration. But if you've couldn't explain it to all those people over the years, I couldn't expect you to do it now.
The mechanism is unknown. What is hard to understand about that?
If the mechanism is unknown, I'm curious as to why that is thought to be the explanation for gravity? If I said that the Sun is a flat circle because a flat circle is what we see in the sky, and said the reasons for that are unknown, would you accept that as a valid argument?
Again, I don't mean to be rude. I myself have some opinions that differ from the majority (not in terms of the earth's shape but in other aspects) and so I respect the importance of questioning why we believe in things, and discussing them. But the basis of discussing something that is against popular belief is to try to explain to other people why you believe what you do, because at the end of the day that is the reason this forum has been made, and this site has been made- to propagate your belief of what is correct science, isn't it? So if there is a question that so many people have, be it acceleration or whatever, providing an explanation for why your opinion differs from everyone should be something you are happy to do! And if it's getting repetitive, maybe adding it to the FAQ might be a good idea? Rather than questioning the competence of those who are interested enough in your theories and science to register on here and comment without being rude!
We learn the basics of physics and why the earth is round in high school. Surely there can be simple explanations for atleast the basis of the evidence for your theory?
I am new here and I feel like I have been asking the same questions again and again with no answer, so I would appreciate some respect to my curiosity rather than being assumed as stupid.
Tom's empirical evidence for UA: When I step off a chair, the Earth rises up to me.
Thus they need a mechanism for how the Earth is accelerating upwards, so they throw in Dark matter/energy because it works about as well here as it does in RE. Which is to say it fills in holes that otherwise can't be filled. It should also be noted that a lack of funding has been noted/sourced as the reason much of this has been left with so little working experiments/testing. Which is fine, and valid honestly. Perhaps the wiki should reflect the uncertainty a bit more, but I thought it had in some of the opening pages.
-
The long and short of it is, FEH has no explanation for this hypothetical acceleration. Where it comes from, how it interacts with matter, how it must continually increase in strength. It is all just made up because gravity destroys a flat Earth. They needed some method to explain the pull of gravity, so someone came up with UA. That is how things seem to go with FEH. You should ask them about celestial gravity. It's gravity, but it isn't.
Tom is good to debate with, but he is the only one that seems to try. Junker is only good at banning people and saying look at the wiki. The wiki is a useless mess of statements with no backing. They can't seem to figure out that it is inadequate.
-
The long and short of it is, FEH has no explanation for this hypothetical acceleration...
So FE is on par with gravity in that regard, good to know. The funny thing is you can recreate acceleration and observe it literally whenever you’d like. Not the same for gravity. I’m sorry if that bothers you.
-
The long and short of it is, FEH has no explanation for this hypothetical acceleration...
So FE is on par with gravity in that regard, good to know. The funny thing is you can recreate acceleration and observe it literally whenever you’d like. Not the same for gravity. I’m sorry if that bothers you.
A) the theory you cherry picked explains gravity and how the force is formed. It has been proven accurate numerous times.
B) We live in a gravitational field our entire lives. I can throw a ball and see gravity pull it to the ground. (sorry, UA is fake) And even if I couldn't observe it, it wouldn't make it false. I can't observe a virus, but I don't doubt their existence.
You should stick to moderation.
-
I can throw a ball and see gravity pull it to the ground.
I can't wait to see your empirical evidence for this one. I have a feeling a Nobel prize is waiting for you.
You should stick to moderation.
I would love to, but you morons can't stop being wrong about everything, so I end up having to interject. I am truly sorry that you all have such minimal understanding of your own model. You should stick to pretending you know what that is, instead of trying to get into conversations on topics you are absolutely ignorant of. But, knowing round earth logicians, being wrong doesn't bother you one bit.
-
Junker, I tried to figure out where my misunderstanding was stemming from by googling, but the answer I receive from it says for acceleration, you need energy input. So I figured that for constant acceleration to happen, there need to be constant energy supply. There an I wrong Junker? You said we do not understand the concept of acceleration, so which part is wrong?
-
I can throw a ball and see gravity pull it to the ground.
I can't wait to see your empirical evidence for this one. I have a feeling a Nobel prize is waiting for you.
You should stick to moderation.
I would love to, but you morons can't stop being wrong about everything, so I end up having to interject. I am truly sorry that you all have such minimal understanding of your own model. You should stick to pretending you know what that is, instead of trying to get into conversations on topics you are absolutely ignorant of. But, knowing round earth logicians, being wrong doesn't bother you one bit.
I'm sorry you're stuck defending a model that people 3000 years ago figured out was wrong. I'd love to know what I am ignorant of, but I'm doubting you have much of a clue and are just tossing out the usual "you don't know what you're talking about" defense. Maybe try some content next time?
-
The "constant input force" they have is dark energy... the lousiest explanation ever
-
The "constant input force" they have is dark energy... the lousiest explanation ever
I guess that works... The problem I have with it is that in the wiki it is stated as if it is true and says it is from the Round Earth theory. Flat Earthers should clarify that this is a possible hypothesis for the energy source. Also remove the dark energy being based on Round Earth theory because you had rejected almost all evidences we throw at you saying it is not true because it is based on Round Earth theory How come you accept this concept. STOP CHERRY-PICKING!
Also Junker had been mentioning that we Round Earthers do not understand the mechanism of acceleration. I wanted to see which part he considers wrong.
-
I'm sorry you're stuck defending a model that people 3000 years ago figured out was wrong. I'd love to know what I am ignorant of, but I'm doubting you have much of a clue and are just tossing out the usual "you don't know what you're talking about" defense. Maybe try some content next time?
Nice deflection. Also, what model am I defending? I am just pointing out your ignorance, which is independent of the shape of the earth. If you are still struggling with that, I'd suggest you go back and read the thread again.
Also Junker had been mentioning that we Round Earthers do not understand the mechanism of acceleration. I wanted to see which part he considers wrong.
I never said anything about the mechanism of acceleration. I said that roundies (at least most of them) don't understand acceleration at all (or at least not beyond a high school physics class). I also said I am not going to be the one to teach them, because most of them are entitled, arrogant douches who seem to think I owe them something.
However, several round earth proponents have been polite, and I will tend to help them where I can.
-
Nice deflection. Also, what model am I defending? I am just pointing out your ignorance, which is independent of the shape of the earth. If you are still struggling with that, I'd suggest you go back and read the thread again.
There was nothing to deflect. This is your sole contribution to this whole thread: "I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration." Beyond that you've resorted to the same type of name calling that you would warn people about. Personally, I couldn't care less, but it is pretty hypocritical.
I know you guys want to dance around the edges of relativity because you think it lends an air of legitimacy to your claims. I've read the wiki, I'm familiar with the Lorentz transformations(you haven't seen me say "why haven't we hit the speed of light yet??"), still waiting for some contribution. If you just going to be a jerk and call me a moron again, you can save yourself some time. Your opinion of me means nothing.
-
There was nothing to deflect. This is your sole contribution to this whole thread: "I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration."
Fantastic! You finally took a little advice and went back to read the thread. You are making progress, and that is good. Now you have a little more work to do and maybe you will actually be able to post on this topic without showcasing your ignorance for everyone to see. I am looking forward to it.
If you just going to be a jerk and call me a moron again, you can save yourself some time. Your opinion of me means nothing.
You keep replying, so my opinion seems to mean something to you.
-
I'm sorry you're stuck defending a model that people 3000 years ago figured out was wrong. I'd love to know what I am ignorant of, but I'm doubting you have much of a clue and are just tossing out the usual "you don't know what you're talking about" defense. Maybe try some content next time?
Nice deflection. Also, what model am I defending? I am just pointing out your ignorance, which is independent of the shape of the earth. If you are still struggling with that, I'd suggest you go back and read the thread again.
Also Junker had been mentioning that we Round Earthers do not understand the mechanism of acceleration. I wanted to see which part he considers wrong.
I never said anything about the mechanism of acceleration. I said that roundies (at least most of them) don't understand acceleration at all (or at least not beyond a high school physics class). I also said I am not going to be the one to teach them, because most of them are entitled, arrogant douches who seem to think I owe them something.
However, several round earth proponents have been polite, and I will tend to help them where I can.
Ive been polite and am waiting for a reply! Thanks!
-
There was nothing to deflect. This is your sole contribution to this whole thread: "I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration."
Fantastic! You finally took a little advice and went back to read the thread. You are making progress, and that is good. Now you have a little more work to do and maybe you will actually be able to post on this topic without showcasing your ignorance for everyone to see. I am looking forward to it.
If you just going to be a jerk and call me a moron again, you can save yourself some time. Your opinion of me means nothing.
You keep replying, so my opinion seems to mean something to you.
Nope, I love pointing out your bald-faced hypocrisy. Everyone is ignorant and yet you have nothing to offer. We know, you're so far advanced on the topic of acceleration. lol, Ok... Later
-
There was nothing to deflect. This is your sole contribution to this whole thread: "I was merely trying to encourage the other user to consider the differences between proper and coordinate acceleration."
Fantastic! You finally took a little advice and went back to read the thread. You are making progress, and that is good. Now you have a little more work to do and maybe you will actually be able to post on this topic without showcasing your ignorance for everyone to see. I am looking forward to it.
If you just going to be a jerk and call me a moron again, you can save yourself some time. Your opinion of me means nothing.
You keep replying, so my opinion seems to mean something to you.
Nope, I love pointing out your bald-faced hypocrisy. Everyone is ignorant and yet you have nothing to offer. We know, you're so far advanced on the topic of acceleration. lol, Ok... Later
What you’re doing now is called projection. Maybe try getting back on the topic, friend.
-
One problem I've always had with the Flat Earth Theory is the Earth Plane... is it finite or infinite... Obviously there is a wall which is the cut off point of how far we can explore.
But I always pictured the Flat Earth as a phonograph record, with a bubble (like a bubble wrap bubble) in the middle which would be us... Too me, such a small bubble surrounded by an infinity wide record is wasteful to say the least.
Because I'm not a fan of "Only One"
I found it much easier to imagine this phonograph record with multiple bubbles all over it (like bubble wrap) each being their own earthly existence. I think this makes more sense from a religious standpoint as well. An all powerful God/Creator watching over multiple realities, like a scientist over his lab full of bacteria cultures... A scientist wouldn't only have one, and I don't think a Creator would only have one either. It makes more sense for the wall as well, because then we as creatures of this bubble, would be contained from the others. Who knows, obviously it is just a thought. Getting to the wall and traveling to a point where we could absolutely confirm an edge or not is always going to be difficult.
-
The Moon and Sun are opposite in magnetic polarity to the earth. That is how they stay afloat. The round earth deep state flies large balloons to to block out the Sun or Moon as needed. It is not a perfect system as sometimes you DO see the moon during daylight hours. Satellites are just solar powered air craft that provide for cell/GPS, etc. Easy.
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/live/624_351/images/live/p0/1s/25/p01s25cd.jpg)
Becuase this satellite is super aerodynamic...
Also, If the sun and the moon were held in the air with essentially magnets, the magnetic field produced by the earth would have to be extremely strong. A field that stong would be essentially a permanent EMP and continuously knock out electronics
-
it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.
Let's not forget this jewel as evidence of junker's extensive knowledge on acceleration, where he claims that constant acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy. If this was somehow a misstatement of what he was intending to say, then the window to provide clarification has long since passed. First let us consider that the property of requiring energy is binary. It either does or it does not require energy. The answer is not neither. It is not in a superposition of both needing and not needing energy. So automatically, a response of "possibly, but not necessarily" demonstrates he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not that acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy, it is that he doesn't know which.
In response to being called out on this, he offers as an explanation but fails to explain it adequately, proper vs coordinate acceleration. I can only assume from the thoroughness of his post that he means that the requirement of energy for constant acceleration is dependent upon your frame of reference, which is ridiculous because changing between reference frames does not in any way alter the fundamental laws of physics, hence why the concept of reference frames in physics is so vital to begin with. Our choice of coordinate systems is completely arbitrary and has absolutely no bearing on physical reality. If it did, then that implies that the laws of physics are not constant, and a law not held constant is the epitome of an oxy-moron. But what do I know, I'm completely ignorant and not fit to share the (flat) earth upon which junker walks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.
Let's not forget this jewel as evidence of junker's extensive knowledge on acceleration, where he claims that constant acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy. If this was somehow a misstatement of what he was intending to say, then the window to provide clarification has long since passed. First let us consider that the property of requiring energy is binary. It either does or it does not require energy. The answer is not neither. It is not in a superposition of both needing and not needing energy. So automatically, a response of "possibly, but not necessarily" demonstrates he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not that acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy, it is that he doesn't know which.
In response to being called out on this, he offers as an explanation but fails to explain it adequately, proper vs coordinate acceleration. I can only assume from the thoroughness of his post that he means that the requirement of energy for constant acceleration is dependent upon your frame of reference, which is ridiculous because changing between reference frames does not in any way alter the fundamental laws of physics, hence why the concept of reference frames in physics is so vital to begin with. Our choice of coordinate systems is completely arbitrary and has absolutely no bearing on physical reality. If it did, then that implies that the laws of physics are not constant, and a law not held constant is the epitome of an oxy-moron. But what do I know, I'm completely ignorant and not fit to share the (flat) earth upon which junker walks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That was a long-winded post for you just to confirm your ignorance. Also good to see you’re the arbiter of how long I’m allowed to have to engage or disengage in a topic.
I’d suggest spending more time brushing up on your own knowledge, and less time displaying your ignorance to the world. Best of luck!
-
I’ll point you in a direction to try to help you, but I’m not going to bother trying to convince you of something since no one so far has shown the capacity to think beyond what they think they already know.
Science is not where we think beyond what we already know. It is where we use what we already know to think beyond what we already know! We can't confirm the Flat Earth, as it does not use any current proof or any proof of their own.
-
it would take a ton of energy for us to be constantly accelerating.
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd suggest doing some more research on acceleration.
Let's not forget this jewel as evidence of junker's extensive knowledge on acceleration, where he claims that constant acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy. If this was somehow a misstatement of what he was intending to say, then the window to provide clarification has long since passed. First let us consider that the property of requiring energy is binary. It either does or it does not require energy. The answer is not neither. It is not in a superposition of both needing and not needing energy. So automatically, a response of "possibly, but not necessarily" demonstrates he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not that acceleration "possibly, but not necessarily" requires energy, it is that he doesn't know which.
In response to being called out on this, he offers as an explanation but fails to explain it adequately, proper vs coordinate acceleration. I can only assume from the thoroughness of his post that he means that the requirement of energy for constant acceleration is dependent upon your frame of reference, which is ridiculous because changing between reference frames does not in any way alter the fundamental laws of physics, hence why the concept of reference frames in physics is so vital to begin with. Our choice of coordinate systems is completely arbitrary and has absolutely no bearing on physical reality. If it did, then that implies that the laws of physics are not constant, and a law not held constant is the epitome of an oxy-moron. But what do I know, I'm completely ignorant and not fit to share the (flat) earth upon which junker walks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That was a long-winded post for you just to confirm your ignorance. Also good to see you’re the arbiter of how long I’m allowed to have to engage or disengage in a topic.
I’d suggest spending more time brushing up on your own knowledge, and less time displaying your ignorance to the world. Best of luck!
Why not just explain yourself so he knows what you're talking about? Mora is correct in his comments concerning frames of reference and you FEers tend to play pretty loose with your misappropriation of scientific principles. It isn't exactly easy to guess what you're on about. If you spent as much time explaining your position as you did telling people they are ignorant/calling them morons (which is against the forum rules, if I remember), you might actually convince someone.
-
I may be more willing to believe in your conspiracy if you actually debated with us instead of saying "research it yourself". This is a debate forum, please debate. Saying "research it yourself" is implying that you don't know the information your self. If you have information on concepts that prove the earth is flat, I'm happy to hear you explain them! :)
-
I’ll point you in a direction to try to help you, but I’m not going to bother trying to convince you of something since no one so far has shown the capacity to think beyond what they think they already know.
Science is not where we think beyond what we already know. It is where we use what we already know to think beyond what we already know! We can't confirm the Flat Earth, as it does not use any current proof or any proof of their own.
Excellent point, and a point that round earth proponents should heed.
-
How does the sun only light up a circle from poll to almost south pole then cover half the earth half a qourte of a year later then cover most of the earth including all after Antarctica a quarter of a year later then cover half of the earth finally finishing that year with only covering it's circle?
-
How does the sun only light up a circle from poll to almost south pole then cover half the earth half a qourte of a year later then cover most of the earth including all after Antarctica a quarter of a year later then cover half of the earth finally finishing that year with only covering it's circle?
Answered in the FAQ (https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F)