6401

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: June 02, 2014, 02:09:00 AM »

Your admission that you won't be doing (or can't do) these calculation is what I expected.

But the calculation has already been done. What about this confuses you?

6402

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: June 02, 2014, 01:02:38 AM »

I'm not too bothered about going through that again.

I'll look forward to your attempt.

I apologise, I should have taken your reading comprehension into account when formulating my answer. What I said was that I won't be repeating these calculations. Looking forward to the result would be a waste of your time.

6403

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: June 01, 2014, 11:40:52 PM »

How is that irrelevant? I never said you had to choose one of mine. Since when do you choose to answer questions about only models that you subscribe to anyway? Are you just dodging difficult questions again?

I didn't say I only answer questions about models I subscribe to. I said that models you had me choose from in your blog post are not subscribed to.

I do agree, BTW, now that you've made you criticism clearer, I should have chosen "affect".

I'm glad.

Let's try the OP another way: Given GR and its supporting theories and that the FE uses the UA to provide g in many cases, how much energy would the UA need to have accelerated the FE at approximately 9.8 m/s/s for a billion years? Then for the following day? How does that compare the the observed energy (excluding any inferred from the UA) in the FE? At your option you may round to one significant digit. Please show all your reasoning, math, references, and anything else that might help us understand the result. Thanks.

I'm fairly sure we've done this in the past. The numbers were astronomically large and suggested that this energy would be completely unprecedented anywhere else. I'm not too bothered about going through that again.

6404

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: June 01, 2014, 06:17:03 PM »

Thank you for the reply. Let's start with our pedantic concern about my use of "effect" as a verb. [...]

I didn't criticise you for using it as a verb, I criticised you for using the wrong verb. The definition you referenced makes it rather quite clear why:

verb (used with object)
10. to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring.

Now, let's take your sentence:

Please verify: Do you claim that in your model the heavens interact with terrestrial objects and effect at least one terrestrial object in such a way as to explain some of the variation of g (in magnitude, direction, or both) it experiences near the FE's surface.

And apply the definition you yourself kindly provided. You asked me if the interaction between the heavens and terrestrial objects produces, brings about, accomplishes or makes happen other terrestrial objects.

What you mean was affect. Oh, and let's use a dictionary that actually has some credibility to it and doesn't list words that don't exist. Anyway, here you go:

[...]
af·fect
verb \ə-ˈfekt, a-\
Definition of AFFECT
transitive verb
:  to produce an effect upon: as
a :  to produce a material influence upon or alteration in <paralysis affected his limbs>
b :  to act upon (as a person or a person's mind or feelings) so as to produce a response :  influence

Now, let's see: were you asking me if gravitation creates (effects) objects as a result or if it affects them? I maintain the illusion that you're a vaguely sane person, and thus it's easier for me to assume that you got the word wrong than that you were wondering if I believe that gravitation produces objects.

For more information, please visit: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/03/affect-versus-effect/

Unfortunately, none of your models are accurate representations of FET models actually subscribed to, so I cannot pick one from those.

6405

Flat Earth Media / Rory Cooper: Interesting Flat Earth animations

« on: June 01, 2014, 07:43:00 AM »

It would appear that Rory Cooper has been illustrating evidence of FET for quite a while now. His videos are well worth checking out.

6406

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: June 01, 2014, 07:03:46 AM »

Please clarify for us. Did you ask all people who might have at one time attempted the Cavendish experiment with bananas whether he (or she) ever once attempted it? Is there some other rationale for making the claim highlighted above?

You promised to try and keep your pedantry in check! Of course, "everyone" in this context was referring to the small group of RE'er regulars this challenge was presented to on the old forum. "Everyone" is still very welcome to pick it up and change the current outcome, but as of now, it stands.

Please verify: Do you claim that in your model the heavens interact with terrestrial objects and affect at least one terrestrial object in such a way as to explain some of the variation of g (in magnitude, direction, or both) it experiences near the FE's surface. All terrestrial objects? At all times? Bananas?

No, that is not what I claim.

Would you please publish, or point us to such a publication, that specifically measured the effect of your model's heavens on bananas. I would expect that the publication, if comprehensive, will include observations at various altitudes, latitudes, times of day, times of lunar month, days of solar year, and more.

Whoah there, buddy. I'm not the one here who claims there's a magical force out there affecting (or effecting, aka resulting in) all matter. You'll have to ask Pleaseexplain for this kind of analysis.

6407

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: June 01, 2014, 04:08:52 AM »

Pizaa Planet: When you say Dark Energy, do you mean that there is obviously some energy causing UA, but you do not know what it is or how to detect it?

That's a gross oversimplification, but it'll do.

In regards to your banana story, I am not sure what you are getting at. The Cavendish experiment is performed by university students regularly, with consistent results. Do bananas hold a particular interest for you?

If all matter exerts gravitation, then this should be verifiable for any matter. I picked bananas because they're readily available and reasonably cheap.

Ah, but if the heavens do not influence r then why would they influence g?

Well, yes, the existence of the heavens does not intrinsically influence your distance from the heavens. What about this is confusing?

6408

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 06:04:13 PM »

But I have never heard anybody claim the heavens can influence r. I am curious, please explain

No one claimed the heavens can influence the distance between two objects, that's likely why you never heard such a claim being made.

6409

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism vs. religion

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:46:42 PM »

It doesn't matter whether the deity IS a deity, actually exists or not.

So if I proclaim myself a deity right now, regardless of the fact that I'm not one, insulting me would be blasphemous?

6410

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:40:32 PM »

Well I'm glad you accept the ISS orbits the earth in a circular path, and as it has a centripetal acceleration of about 8.7ms^2, that would point towards a non UA. Now back to another point.

Yes, the Round Earth model does not have UA. I'm glad we can agree on that. It's a bit worrisome that you try to extrapolate from that to the Flat Earth model, but oh well.

Of course, it's worth noting that under the RE model, the ISS's path is not circular at all.

You claim that the variations seen in measured values of g are due to the "heavens". Can you explain where in g=-GM/r^2 the mass of stars, planets, moons, comets and general mass varies depending on the specific location where the measurements are taken?

Sorry, I've asked you to do this already, since you're the one who claims this equation would prove or disprove anything in FET. Also, it doesn't have to be mass. It could be the distance, which varies with location pretty much by default. Please don't arbitrarily pick one variable out of two, especially if you're going to pick the wrong one.

6411

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:28:49 PM »

You seem to think that the ISS is not accelerating towards the earth?

No. Have you tried actually reading the thread I linked you to? And I already told you you got your r wrong, but I suppose that didn't come through, so I'll try again:

It's not 370km, you numpty. It's about 420km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS

6412

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:24:08 PM »

And just to clarify as it seems that centripetal acceleration is poorly understood. The calculated value of g for the ISS using g = -GM/r^2.

r = radius from the centre of the earth to the ISS. The radius of the earth is about 6,371,000 m and the ISS orbits at about 370,000 m hence r = 6,741,000
M = mass of the earth, approx 5.97219 × 10^24 kg
G = 6.67 x 10^-11

Hence g (Of the ISS) = 8.77ms^2 or Nkg^-1

Yes, I've already explained this to Gulliver in the appropriate thread (although your r is slightly too low, causing an inflated result, but you're still closer than Gulliver's 9.8m/s², so all is forgiven). If you have anything to add to that thread, please post it there, not here.

6413

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:17:35 PM »

g = -GM/r^2
It's really as simple as a single equation. The inverse square law tells us that the gravitational force due to stars are completely negligible. Indeed the objects in the heavens as you describe it, have no impact on the calculated value of g.

It's interesting how you separate FE physics from RE physics. One of the principal rules of physics is that the laws of physics are the same regardless of location, yet on earth there's an exception?

Yes, some parts of physics are fundamentally different between models. You'd think that would be obvious, given that FET introduces a whole new concept of dark energy accelerating the Universe.

Please specify M and r for the heavens. Your equation is rather useless without those.

Now, you say that physics applies equally regardless of location. Unfortunately, this is not true for the mainstream theories of gravitation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

6414

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:07:29 PM »

Also, I find your accusation of us banning people we disagree with quite inflammatory. We have public ban log, you know? There have only been 2 bans issued in the past half-year, both for excessive derailment and harassment. You posting a couple paragraphs on how you don't understand Round Earth physics and how you forgot to read the FAQ won't warrant a ban. The fact that you're talking to Gulliver (who thought the ISS accelerates towards the Earth at 9.8m/s²) should be the best proof of this.

6415

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 05:02:08 PM »

Quite simply, everything with mass experiences a gravitational force.

I have in the past asked people to show to me that bananas exert a gravitational force (I even suggested the Cavendish experiment when people started getting confused). Unfortunately, no one even attempted it. It is claimed that all bodies exert a gravitational force, and we quite simply disagree.

I think this can be summarised with
1. The earth has zero mass and is hence unaffected by gravity (Which would pull the earth into a sphere). With UA providing the acceleration of free fall.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

2. The acceleration of free fall is affected by the gravitational force of stars.

Almost. I'm not sure why you'd restrict yourself to just the stars. We're talking about the heavens.

How are both true

They're not.

6416

Technology & Information / Re: Battle for Wesnoth...

« on: May 31, 2014, 04:56:18 PM »

I'm so confused.

sirTheMore is a Victorian industrial revolutionary gentleman (think Isambard Kindom Brunel, but with a moustache) who somehow ended up travelling to the 21st century. He also happens to hate Linux and free/open-source software, and sometimes gets very upset about it.

6417

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 04:49:33 PM »

I'm going to skip any and all pointless snide remarks you've made. Try to avoid them in the future - they don't encourage people to respond.

I'm sorry but the explanation for the UA is dark energy?

Correct.

The heavens have a slight and uneven gravitational pull?

Indeed.

But sticking with UA, you're saying the "heavens" have a gravitational pull. So you're saying gravity is true.

Yes and no. Let's hope you don't jump into any rash conclu-

And therefore a flat earth contradicts everything we could know about gravity. What

...sions. Right, you did jump to rash conclusions. Just because gravitation (not to be confused with gravity) is exerted by some bodies does not mean all bodies necessarily have to exert it.

6418

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Maths

« on: May 31, 2014, 04:35:11 PM »

Welcome! I can't help but notice that your first question is addressed in our FAQ (and a link to a more in-depth explanation is provided there).

As for the second one, the common response provided is that the heavens have a slight and uneven gravitational pull, causing the discrepancies in local perceived g.

Oh, and for the records, since these questions are exact copies of the ones you asked in "Ask a FE theorist anything", I removed them from that thread.

6419

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Weirdo of the Week

« on: May 31, 2014, 08:04:27 AM »

m8, there's no need to call your own views incorrect. They're not that bad.

6420

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Weirdo of the Week

« on: May 31, 2014, 07:56:07 AM »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27584237

*snicker*