The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: eratosthenes the second on January 03, 2016, 03:54:04 AM
-
Argument 1:
SOME Flat Earthers suggest that gravity as we know it does not exist. Instead, the flat shaped Earth is accelerating at 9.8 meters per second squared in order for us to "feel" gravity as we are pushed to the ground by Newton's Third Law. How do you explain the enormous speed the Earth must have achieved over the course of 4.543 billion years? Let's put in numbers:
Let's start with the Creationist's idea of a 6000 year old Earth. 6000 years is 1.8922E11 seconds. The Earth's speed, after 6000 years (assuming it started at rest when "God" created it) is:
v = at
v = 9.8*1.8922E11
v = 1.854356E12 m/s
This is 6181.18667 times the speed of light!
What if we use the true age of our planet, around 4.5 billion years? This is around 1.42E17 seconds. Thus the speed of Earth must be:
v = at
v = 9.8*1.42E17
v = 1.3916E18 m/s
That is 4,638,666,666.67 times the speed of light!
Einstein showed that nothing can exceed the speed of light as the mass of an object increases with speed. Exceeding the speed of light would infinitely increase the mass! How can Earth's speed be over 4.5 billion times the speed of light?!
Argument 2:
Most of us have noticed how a ship disappears over the horizon because of Earth's curvature, or how an island appears top first when we sail toward it. How do Flat Earthers explain how objects disappear bottom first the farther we move away from them, or how they appear top first as we get closer and closer?
Argument 3:
Most of us have traveled to different parts around the world, we have experienced jet lag and different time zones. If the Sun rose over a flat Earth, it would be day EVERYWHERE! When the Sun would set, it would be night EVERYWHERE! We would not need any time zones, because 12PM would be day for everybody and 8PM would be night for everybody at the same time. How do you explain this?
*PLEASE REFER TO THE ATTACHMENTS, THEY TOOK ME SOME TIME TO SKETCH AND I THINK THEY ARE VERY "CUTE" :D*
I patiently await your responses!
-Eratosthenes The Second
-
1) You are using the wrong equation.
2) Perspective effect.
3) The sun acts as a spotlight.
-
1) You are using the wrong equation.
2) Perspective effect.
3) The sun acts as a spotlight.
2. How does perspective does that.
3. The sun is a ball. Also why doesn't it fall down to earth? Not only that everyone should see the sun no matter where you are or what time it is.
-
Argument 1:
SOME Flat Earthers suggest that gravity as we know it does not exist. Instead, the flat shaped Earth is accelerating at 9.8 meters per second squared in order for us to "feel" gravity as we are pushed to the ground by Newton's Third Law. How do you explain the enormous speed the Earth must have achieved over the course of 4.543 billion years? Let's put in numbers:
Let's start with the Creationist's idea of a 6000 year old Earth. 6000 years is 1.8922E11 seconds. The Earth's speed, after 6000 years (assuming it started at rest when "God" created it) is:
v = at
v = 9.8*1.8922E11
v = 1.854356E12 m/s
This is 6181.18667 times the speed of light!
What if we use the true age of our planet, around 4.5 billion years? This is around 1.42E17 seconds. Thus the speed of Earth must be:
v = at
v = 9.8*1.42E17
v = 1.3916E18 m/s
That is 4,638,666,666.67 times the speed of light!
Einstein showed that nothing can exceed the speed of light as the mass of an object increases with speed. Exceeding the speed of light would infinitely increase the mass! How can Earth's speed be over 4.5 billion times the speed of light?!
You made the mistake of ignoring Special Relativity. That's a very bad idea, especially if you're going to throw Einstein's name around in your posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light
-
Argument 1:
SOME Flat Earthers suggest that gravity as we know it does not exist. Instead, the flat shaped Earth is accelerating at 9.8 meters per second squared in order for us to "feel" gravity as we are pushed to the ground by Newton's Third Law. How do you explain the enormous speed the Earth must have achieved over the course of 4.543 billion years? Let's put in numbers:
Let's start with the Creationist's idea of a 6000 year old Earth. 6000 years is 1.8922E11 seconds. The Earth's speed, after 6000 years (assuming it started at rest when "God" created it) is:
v = at
v = 9.8*1.8922E11
v = 1.854356E12 m/s
This is 6181.18667 times the speed of light!
What if we use the true age of our planet, around 4.5 billion years? This is around 1.42E17 seconds. Thus the speed of Earth must be:
v = at
v = 9.8*1.42E17
v = 1.3916E18 m/s
That is 4,638,666,666.67 times the speed of light!
Einstein showed that nothing can exceed the speed of light as the mass of an object increases with speed. Exceeding the speed of light would infinitely increase the mass! How can Earth's speed be over 4.5 billion times the speed of light?!
You made the mistake of ignoring Special Relativity. That's a very bad idea, especially if you're going to throw Einstein's name around in your posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light
And you zoomed right past my questions.
-
And you zoomed right past my questions.
Yes, I responded to one question. I even quoted it in its entirety so that it's clear what I'm responding to.
Are you so entitled that you think we're obliged to respond to your posts? You've been around here for a while, you know how to search on the Wiki.
-
If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.
-
If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.
There is evidence for it. It's what's commonly referred to using the placeholder called "gravity."
-
If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.
There is evidence for it. It's what's commonly referred to using the placeholder called "gravity."
This is so entertaining :)
-
If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.
There is evidence for it. It's what's commonly referred to using the placeholder called "gravity."
This is so entertaining :)
I agree. It's always fun educating the indoctrinated.
-
If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.
There is evidence for it. It's what's commonly referred to using the placeholder called "gravity."
This is so entertaining :)
I agree. It's always fun educating the indoctrinated.
No no, the entertaining part is that even though we are entitled to believe whatever we want, you're actually serious about this.
Me being "indoctrinated" has no value in itself since it's complete nonsense, it's the fact that you go about your every day actually believing this, possibly even sharing this with those next to you.
THAT'S entertaining.
-
Oh, while packing no valid claims or evidence to disprove the fact that the earth is a globe and avoiding every valid question like it was Teflon, refusing to swallow your pride and admit you're wrong.
Entertainment for the masses indeed.
-
Oh, while packing no valid claims or evidence to disprove the fact that the earth is a globe and avoiding every valid question like it was Teflon, refusing to swallow your pride and admit you're wrong.
Entertainment for the masses indeed.
I'm not sure where you are getting your perceptions from, but feel free to continue as it isn't up to me to stop you from believing whatever you want.
If you have anything to add relative to the OP, then I'd suggest you do that.
-
Done that a million times on this forum but as per standard with you people you deny even the most substantial piece of evidence, hence my message two replies ago.
-
Done that a million times on this forum but as per standard with you people you deny even the most substantial piece of evidence, hence my message two replies ago.
My apologies, I'm not aware of your posting habits. I haven't denied any evidence, as I haven't been presented with any.
-
1) You are using the wrong equation.
2) Perspective effect.
3) The sun acts as a spotlight.
Perspective effect? The backbone of the flat earthers is that "I can see the earth is flat, therefor it's flat!" .. But when you can see that the earth is curved, then it's 'perspective effect'!?
PS: My compliments to the nice drawings :-D
-
1) You are using the wrong equation.
2) Perspective effect.
3) The sun acts as a spotlight.
Perspective effect? The backbone of the flat earthers is that "I can see the earth is flat, therefor it's flat!" .. But when you can see that the earth is curved, then it's 'perspective effect'!?
PS: My compliments to the nice drawings :-D
May I ask when you saw the curvature of the earth?
-
Did you read 'argument 2' in the initial post? You probably did, because you replied on it :-)
-
Did you read 'argument 2' in the initial post? You probably did, because you replied on it :-)
I did read it. I'm not sure how that pertains to the question I asked you specifically.
-
I see the curvatures of the earth when I see objects from far away. Like in argument 2.
Will you answer or just derail the debate?
-
I see the curvatures of the earth when I see objects from far away. Like in argument 2.
Will you answer or just derail the debate?
I'm going to ignore how nonsensical your first sentence is, as those are two completely unrelated events. Even if earth were an oblate spheroid as claimed by RErs, you would not be able to directly observe it's curvature from sea level. I'll assume you mean that you're inferring the earth has curvature based on the claim you're supporting. If that's what you're claiming to infer, then please see my reply earlier in the thread.
-
Never mind, junker. One of the intelligent Flat Earthers (Roundy) came with a good answer in another thread. I don't agree with him, but it was a good answer. Maybe you can learn too?
-
Never mind, junker. One of the intelligent Flat Earthers (Roundy) came with a good answer in another thread. I don't agree with him, but it was a good answer. Maybe you can learn too?
Wonderful, I'm glad you admit you are wrong. Another victory for FE!
-
Your sense of judgement is so wrong. In every possible way. I just said I was happy to finally meet an intelligent (Roundy) flat earther.
Sorry ... :-)
-
Also :
Stand up. Drop a ball. Shouldn't the earth accellarate up and meet the ball ?
-
Also :
Stand up. Drop a ball. Shouldn't the earth accellarate up and meet the ball ?
Of course. It does. What's your point? ???
-
I think it was a good and qualified question in the original post of this thread, but nobody really took the time and effort to produce a good and qualified answer. Could we mentally delete the 'one liners' and unproductive 'mouth wrestling' and go back to the original post? Anyone?
-
I think it was a good and qualified question in the original post of this thread, but nobody really took the time and effort to produce a good and qualified answer. Could we mentally delete the 'one liners' and unproductive 'mouth wrestling' and go back to the original post? Anyone?
Welcome to TFES in a nutshell.
-
1. Most scientists don't know exactly how gravity works. Gravity is a theory, regardless of one's view of earth and its shape. If the earth isn't a spinning ball in "outer space," then it stands to reason that objects don't simply drift away, provided they have enough buoyancy.
2. The "objects disappearing over the horizon" has been addressed by numerous YouTubers. If one has a telescope, it will manifest a boat or other object that has sailed past the "curvature." Such would not be possible if the earth were round because the curve would always obsure the view once something was far enough away. Moreover, not all objects descend from view as we move farther away; some actually ascend, depending upon topography. Remember, even a flat earth has mountains, valleys, and uneven terrain.
3. I agree with other posters that the sun is possibly a spotlight rather than a glowing orb. Again, if our world isn't what we were taught, it stands to reason that the sun, moon, and stars operate differently. Anyone who has visited a planetarium has seen that the sky can be projected differently depending on where one is viewing. The larger the scale, the easier it is to show different parts of our world different images of the sky.
-
If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.
There is evidence for it. It's what's commonly referred to using the placeholder called "gravity."
You are still not giving me evidence for this infact you make claims and I have never seen them backed up? Like how does this illusion effect work? (example) but there are many more. If its so obvious and easy to debunk our claims go ahead and do it.
-
If we were truly moving up at a very fast rate then we would have evidence for it. How about you give me some evidence. How could I go and find out for myself that the Earth is just flying up at this huge rate.
There is evidence for it. It's what's commonly referred to using the placeholder called "gravity."
You are still not giving me evidence for this infact you make claims and I have never seen them backed up? Like how does this illusion effect work? (example) but there are many more. If its so obvious and easy to debunk our claims go ahead and do it.
What illusion effect? If you want to know more about universal acceleration, it is in the FAQ/wiki. If you've got a specific question, I'll do my best to answer. Again, not everyone subscribes to this theory.
-
1. Most scientists don't know exactly how gravity works. Gravity is a theory, regardless of one's view of earth and its shape. If the earth isn't a spinning ball in "outer space," then it stands to reason that objects don't simply drift away, provided they have enough buoyancy.
2. The "objects disappearing over the horizon" has been addressed by numerous YouTubers. If one has a telescope, it will manifest a boat or other object that has sailed past the "curvature." Such would not be possible if the earth were round because the curve would always obsure the view once something was far enough away. Moreover, not all objects descend from view as we move farther away; some actually ascend, depending upon topography. Remember, even a flat earth has mountains, valleys, and uneven terrain.
3. I agree with other posters that the sun is possibly a spotlight rather than a glowing orb. Again, if our world isn't what we were taught, it stands to reason that the sun, moon, and stars operate differently. Anyone who has visited a planetarium has seen that the sky can be projected differently depending on where one is viewing. The larger the scale, the easier it is to show different parts of our world different images of the sky.
Re. 1. (for a start):
I think this is a poor answer on a fair question. According to the FE theory the Earth should have a constant acceleration of 9,82 m/s2. No matter how you put it, we would by now have exceeded the speed of light many times. Is this what the FES insist on this?
-
1. Most scientists don't know exactly how gravity works. Gravity is a theory, regardless of one's view of earth and its shape. If the earth isn't a spinning ball in "outer space," then it stands to reason that objects don't simply drift away, provided they have enough buoyancy.
2. The "objects disappearing over the horizon" has been addressed by numerous YouTubers. If one has a telescope, it will manifest a boat or other object that has sailed past the "curvature." Such would not be possible if the earth were round because the curve would always obsure the view once something was far enough away. Moreover, not all objects descend from view as we move farther away; some actually ascend, depending upon topography. Remember, even a flat earth has mountains, valleys, and uneven terrain.
3. I agree with other posters that the sun is possibly a spotlight rather than a glowing orb. Again, if our world isn't what we were taught, it stands to reason that the sun, moon, and stars operate differently. Anyone who has visited a planetarium has seen that the sky can be projected differently depending on where one is viewing. The larger the scale, the easier it is to show different parts of our world different images of the sky.
Re. 1. (for a start):
I think this is a poor answer on a fair question. According to the FE theory the Earth should have a constant acceleration of 9,82 m/s2. No matter how you put it, we would by now have exceeded the speed of light many times. Is this what the FES insist on this?
No, we would not have exceeded the speed of light.
-
Yeah, to think so just shows a poor understanding of relativity.
-
1. Most scientists don't know exactly how gravity works. Gravity is a theory, regardless of one's view of earth and its shape. If the earth isn't a spinning ball in "outer space," then it stands to reason that objects don't simply drift away, provided they have enough buoyancy.
2. The "objects disappearing over the horizon" has been addressed by numerous YouTubers. If one has a telescope, it will manifest a boat or other object that has sailed past the "curvature." Such would not be possible if the earth were round because the curve would always obsure the view once something was far enough away. Moreover, not all objects descend from view as we move farther away; some actually ascend, depending upon topography. Remember, even a flat earth has mountains, valleys, and uneven terrain.
3. I agree with other posters that the sun is possibly a spotlight rather than a glowing orb. Again, if our world isn't what we were taught, it stands to reason that the sun, moon, and stars operate differently. Anyone who has visited a planetarium has seen that the sky can be projected differently depending on where one is viewing. The larger the scale, the easier it is to show different parts of our world different images of the sky.
Re. 1. (for a start):
I think this is a poor answer on a fair question. According to the FE theory the Earth should have a constant acceleration of 9,82 m/s2. No matter how you put it, we would by now have exceeded the speed of light many times. Is this what the FES insist on this?
No, we would not have exceeded the speed of light.
Obviously not. But why not, and when will we? Please enlighten me. It should be a matter of time with this constant acceleration.
-
Obviously not. But why not, and when will we? Please enlighten me. It should be a matter of time with this constant acceleration.
No, it shouldn't. You are operating under the assumptions of classical mechanics, which break down when the speeds involved get close to c.
You also need to read the FAQ. It's just lazy to try and argue points that have already been answered in the "you should read this before arguing points" document.
So, just because I'm so nice:
https://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ#Objects_cannot_exceed_the_speed_of_light._Doesn.27t_this_mean_that_the_Earth_can.27t_accelerate_forever.3F
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
-
Obviously not. But why not, and when will we? Please enlighten me. It should be a matter of time with this constant acceleration.
We won't. Ever. Under special relativity, acceleration will asymptotically approach the speed of light but never reach it.
EDIT - What SexWarrior said.