Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - WaterBell

Pages: [1]
1
2) The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s because of...magic pixie dust...whatever.   This would indeed reproduce all the effects of gravity.  Albert Einstein was kind enough to prove that equivalence in his General theory of relativity.   The first complaint of most RE'ers about this is that after a billion years of this acceleration, the world would be going faster than light and that's not possible...but enter Albert Einstein again - and because time/length and mass change for the people inside the moving Earth - any outside observer would see the earth's acceleration being slowed by the slowing passage of time as it goes faster - so it never exceeds light speed...and for people on the accelerating earth, there is no problem whatever.   The reason this theory cannot be true is that gravity is measurably different at the equator compared to the poles - and the earth can only accelerate at one rate without tearing itself apart.   So although this is by far the most popular FE theory on this forum, it's also BUSTED.

Well, since you used all capital letters, you must be right. It is clear you have done no research into UA, otherwise you would know that your points have literally been addressed. I would suggest you maybe do some research before you post again so you don't come off so ignorant. It would also probably be good if you refreshed yourself on acceleration and Special Relativity as well. It would help the conversation move forward.

Well do you actually have a reply to him?

I couldn't find any explanation about gravity being lower at poles in the UA article of the wiki, can you please link me the explanation you were talking about ?
Thank you

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Intelectual curiosity
« on: July 13, 2017, 08:57:53 AM »
Can't say better than CuriousSquirel.

Any answers ?

3
Flat Earth Theory / Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 13, 2017, 08:55:59 AM »
Hi,

I was reading the wiki when I came accross the motives for the conspiracy. I have a hard time understanding it, I hope someone can explain it to me.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space

It is most often associated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), its constituents and fellow so-called "space agencies" as well as those who are informed by them (including government).

So NASA fakes the possibility of space travel to further America's dominance of space but what about the other space agencies ?
Are all of these government and space agencies working together to maintain the conspiracy ?
They are each competing for space dominance and then still collaborating to fake space travel ?

Am I reading it wrong ?


I'm a bit dissapointed by the forum, i've been reading many topics and very often legitimate and correctly formulated questions are left unanswerd. You can't ignore things that question your theory and expect people to believe you without proof. Most FE answers are more about disproving RE than giving valid proofs of FE's viability.

Thank you for your answers  :)

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?
« on: July 11, 2017, 11:08:31 AM »
Plus there are plenty of moon pictures that are from amateurs. No way ALL of them have been created by a conspiracy to maintain the lie about the moon not being a sphere.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Intelectual curiosity
« on: July 11, 2017, 11:05:44 AM »
FIRSTLY,--When a pendulum, constructed according to plan of M. Foucault is allowed to vibrate, its plane of the vibration is often stationary and often variable. The variation is not uniform--is not always the same in the same place; nor the same in its rate, or velocity, or in its direction. This great variability in its behaviour is not compatible with the assumption of an earth or world globular in form and moving with uniform velocity. It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant is inadmissible, and not to be relied on. Hence it is not evidence, and nothing is proved or decided by its consideration.

Some variability between theory and reality is always there, when this variability is small enought then the theory matches the reality of the experiment. The existence of variability does not make a theory false, the amount of variability does. Here it's only stated that it exist (which is 100% true) but no other numbers or statistical analysis to back it up. "Often" isn't acceptable as far as scientific reviews go. This point is merely a statement with no proof.


SECONDLY.--Admitting the plane of vibration as changeable, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the earth which moves underneath the pendulum; and not the pendulum which moves over the earth? What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other?

Both statements are true, movement is only defined relative to another object (principle of relativity). So if we assume that there is variation of the pendulum's movement, then it is true that the earth moves relative to the pendulum and the pendulum moves  relative to the earth.
This second point shows a lack of understanding of the principle of relativity which is one of the two postulates that Special relativity is based on. And I read in the wiki that Special relativity is accepted as true by FE.


THIRDLY.--Why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered in regard to its possible influence on the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored--thought unworthy of consideration--that a "ball-and-socket" joint, or a globular point of suspension on a plane surface, is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other, and that a pendulum so suspended (as M. Foucault's) could not, after passing over one arc of vibration, return through the same arc without many chances to one that its globular point of suspension would slightly turn or twist on its bed, and therefore give to the return or backward oscillation a slight change of direction? Changes in the electric and magnetic conditions of the atmosphere, as well as alterations in its density, temperature, and hygrometric state may all tend in addition to the peculiar mode of suspension, to make the pendulum oscillate in irregular directions. So far, then, as we have been able to trace the subject, we are compelled by the evidence obtained to deny that the variations observed in the oscillations of a freely vibrating pendulum have any connection whatever with

This point shows the same problems than the first point, no data, no experimental process, only statements that other thing than earth supposed rotation can affect the variation in the pendulum'movement. "Changes in the electric and magnetic conditions of the atmosphere, as well as alterations in its density, temperature, and hygrometric state may all tend in addition to the peculiar mode of suspension, to make the pendulum oscillate in irregular directions." this statement is true. However it is not sufficient to prove that the earth rotation theory is false.
To understand what causes this variation you have to take into account every possible cause. And then study how much each cause (temp, pressure, earth's rotation ...) creates this variation.

The fact is that there are plenty of studies about how earth's rotation explains this variation. However there is none that show temperature or pressure or the pendulum's particular build as a cause for the variation. A book that only "states" possible other causes without giving proper data to back it up isn't worth much in disproving the fact that the variation is caused mainly by earth rotation.

These experiments are quite easy to realise. It would be a great evidence of FE if you could build such an experiment to prove that Rowbowtham's explanation is right.


6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Intelectual curiosity
« on: July 10, 2017, 02:58:50 PM »
Okay, so if I was to put a pendulum in a controlled environment (temp and pressure do not change) and make the same experiment I would refute Rowbowtham's explanation right ?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Intelectual curiosity
« on: July 10, 2017, 02:21:47 PM »
Hello,

I'm a young engineer, due to my education I'm fairly well versed in sciences and the "traditional" theories. To be honest I'm a RE believer. Note that I said "believer", I recognize that even if I have a good understanding of the theories I think are true there is still a part of belief.

To make my point clearer :
Usually in math proofs you agree that your starting statement is true and then go on to prove your conclusion. Example : I agree that 1+1 = 2 and 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 then I conclude that 1 + 2 = 3.
I believed that 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 was true and assuming that I proved that 1 + 2 = 3.

What's nice about it is that you can use non-true/imaginary starting assumptions and create a new "math theory" still using perfectly logical thinking. Your conclusions are true assuming that your starting statement is true. Example : If we assume parallels can cross we can create elliptical and hyperbolic geometry where new theorems are true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate

As Tesla would say modern science is more about theory than experimenting.

I think that that's where FE and RE differ. FE believe the earth to be flat because of experimental evidence whereas RE base their belief on theory crafted evidence.


So rather than pushing my beliefs on you I'm more interested in understanding how FE is proven. I tried to find an example that wasn't too much theory (still a bit of math and physics involved) and as experimental as possible.

So here is an experimental proof of earth's rotation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
How does it fit in FE theory ?




On a side note I truly respect the ingenuity of certain FE models that are very smart but I have to say thinking that NASA is lying to us to steal our money is just ridiculous.
1 year of USA defense budget is more than ALL the money spent on NASA since it's creation. I doubt that they would put so much effort in maintaining a lie on a planetary scale for so little return on investment.
Also the earth being Flat or Round doesn't change the fact that great scientific discoveries have been made thanks to NASA : http://list25.com/25-coolest-nasa-discoveries-that-changed-your-life/

So please stop the complot theory and focus on the science behind FE and RE.

Thank you for you participation =)

PS: not a native speaker so please excuse my mistakes

Pages: [1]