Offline Conner

  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
The sun
« on: September 19, 2017, 01:49:26 PM »
I have a BURNING question
If gravity doesn't exist, and the sun's mass and distance from Earth is smaller, then what exactly makes is rotate? And on top of that, how does it even know when to come up and down. Another question... How do you explain pictures taken from the ISS and other satellites. Also, why would Earth be the ONLY flat thing in the universe. Why would everything else be round like the Sun, Moon, and the rest of the planets in our solar system. And don't subside this question.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: The sun
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2017, 01:58:09 PM »
I have a BURNING question
If gravity doesn't exist, and the sun's mass and distance from Earth is smaller, then what exactly makes is rotate? And on top of that, how does it even know when to come up and down. Another question... How do you explain pictures taken from the ISS and other satellites. Also, why would Earth be the ONLY flat thing in the universe. Why would everything else be round like the Sun, Moon, and the rest of the planets in our solar system. And don't subside this question.

I can tell you right now what the FE'ers will say next (and for once I agree with them):  PLEASE READ THE WIKI BEFORE POSTING HERE!!

Honestly - their explanations (hokey though they are) for all of your questions can be found there.

The arguments that effectively defeat Flat Earthism are quite a bit more subtle than the ones you posted here.  You might read some of them.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: The sun
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2017, 02:04:00 PM »
I have a BURNING question
1) If gravity doesn't exist, and the sun's mass and distance from Earth is smaller, then what exactly makes is rotate? 2) And on top of that, how does it even know when to come up and down. 3) Another question... How do you explain pictures taken from the ISS and other satellites. 4) Also, why would Earth be the ONLY flat thing in the universe. Why would everything else be round like the Sun, Moon, and the rest of the planets in our solar system. And don't subside this question.
Briefly:
1) Makes what rotate? Earth doesn't rotate the Sun rolls along a 'track' above it.
2) No one knows.
3) Fake/CGI/falsified
4) Because the Earth is unique. It's not a planet. Why? No one knows.

But all of these are answered in (somewhat) greater detail in the wiki. I also highly suggest starting your journey there.

Re: The sun
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2017, 03:56:18 PM »
I think everyone's tired of your bogus wiki at this point - it's always been nonsense, and it will remain nonsense until you start doing actual research.

"No one knows" -- umm not quite, it's more accurate to say "everyone knows, but the flatheads missed the memo (the class, the physics book chapter, etc.)".

"I don't know" -- that's the most accurate statement a flattie can make. If you really, actually think about it, you guys don't actually have a single explanation for any phenomenon, just a bunch of "why's" and "i don't understands".

If gravity doesn't exist

They're yet to prove it doesn't exist. They can't of course. But don't just give them that premise.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: The sun
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2017, 04:40:47 PM »
I think everyone's tired of your bogus wiki at this point - it's always been nonsense, and it will remain nonsense until you start doing actual research.
Coming from someone who doesn't seem to have read the wiki, this doesn't mean much. If you claim to have read it, I'd suggest doing it again, because you are lacking in the very basics. If you need help, I would suggest asking.


They're yet to prove it doesn't exist. They can't of course. But don't just give them that premise.
You really do not understand how burden of proof works, do you?

Re: The sun
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2017, 08:09:37 PM »
I think everyone's tired of your bogus wiki at this point - it's always been nonsense, and it will remain nonsense until you start doing actual research.
Coming from someone who doesn't seem to have read the wiki, this doesn't mean much. If you claim to have read it, I'd suggest doing it again, because you are lacking in the very basics. If you need help, I would suggest asking.


They're yet to prove it doesn't exist. They can't of course. But don't just give them that premise.
You really do not understand how burden of proof works, do you?

Unlike the majority of flerfers, my reading comprehension is just fine, and reading some nonsense once is enough for me.

In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: The sun
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2017, 08:19:45 PM »
I think everyone's tired of your bogus wiki at this point - it's always been nonsense, and it will remain nonsense until you start doing actual research.
Coming from someone who doesn't seem to have read the wiki, this doesn't mean much. If you claim to have read it, I'd suggest doing it again, because you are lacking in the very basics. If you need help, I would suggest asking.


They're yet to prove it doesn't exist. They can't of course. But don't just give them that premise.
You really do not understand how burden of proof works, do you?

No offense, but the Wiki is bad. It is a start, I guess, but if you try to use it in a debate or disprove it, it is "only for example" or "outdated". What is there is generally pretty lacking in detail. How is it that the Earth is continually accelerating? How does celestial gravity work/differ from real gravity?
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: The sun
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2017, 08:37:46 PM »
In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.

Ah, so not only do you not understand how the burden of proof works, you also don't understand acceleration or Special Relativity. Excellent to know, as it reinforces that you haven't read the wiki or FAQ (hint: we would not be moving faster than the speed of light). I'd suggest you look in the mirror before accusing people of inaptly picking at various basic science ideas they don't understand.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: The sun
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2017, 09:25:59 PM »
While our OP *really* needs to read the Wiki because it does indeed provide explanations for maybe 75% of the FE'ers claims...I would be remiss in pointing out that even by FE standards, it's HORRIBLY out of date.

Many of the discussions here have shown the the "official" position of TFES.org differs substantially from what the Wiki says it is.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline Conner

  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: The sun
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2017, 04:07:03 AM »
Alright,
I will admit that I didn't read the Wiki, but I just did, and my questions are still pending. I also don't consider "nobody knows" as an answer. You also have NO proof that all satellites have been "falsified". 1.) If EVERY single satellite that have been "launched" has been fake, then how has no company member leaked that information before? There are hundreds of companies that have satellites orbiting the Earth. I have another question to add to my previous ones as well though. 2.) How do you explain zero gravity flights if there is no such thing as gravity? I personally have been on a zero gravity flight and I can tell you that I FREAKING floated. I'm not saying freaking out of anger, but out of excitement. I mean it was such an amazing experience. Zero gravity planes fly up into the air, then travel at a parabolic trajectory, thus "falling" as fast as you are "moving forward". This is also represented in everything that orbits the Earth, like the ISS. It's falling as fast as it is moving forward, resulting in Expedition 52-53 crew members experiencing zero gravity. There is literally video evidence. 3.) If you say that the video was just taken on Earth, then how did they get that footage? Parabolic flight maybe?

Re: The sun
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2017, 03:13:29 PM »
Ah, so you figured that if you'd insert a complicated equation on your wiki page and sprinkle it with some blanket statements, that would be proof enough. If that's convincing enough for you, good luck with that! I am willing to bet money that the math there either doesn't work or doesn't apply, but I personally don't know enough about Lorentz transformations to tell. I doubt anyone here knows anything about that either though. The claim is still laughable though, and it requires proof and experimentation on your end... but you'll say no one wants to give you funding... boohoo, poor little flatties...

Nice job boxing yourself into the corner where you have no chance of learning anything new. So pathetic, and so typical of flatheads.

In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.

Ah, so not only do you not understand how the burden of proof works, you also don't understand acceleration or Special Relativity. Excellent to know, as it reinforces that you haven't read the wiki or FAQ (hint: we would not be moving faster than the speed of light). I'd suggest you look in the mirror before accusing people of inaptly picking at various basic science ideas they don't understand.

Offline Conner

  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: The sun
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2017, 04:21:27 PM »
Oh, and I would like a "Flat Earther" to answer this question thoroughly without changing the subject in any way, shape, or form.


Alright,
I will admit that I didn't read the Wiki, but I just did, and my questions are still pending. I also don't consider "nobody knows" as an answer. You also have NO proof that all satellites have been "falsified". 1.) If EVERY single satellite that have been "launched" has been fake, then how has no company member leaked that information before? There are hundreds of companies that have satellites orbiting the Earth. I have another question to add to my previous ones as well though. 2.) How do you explain zero gravity flights if there is no such thing as gravity? I personally have been on a zero gravity flight and I can tell you that I FREAKING floated. I'm not saying freaking out of anger, but out of excitement. I mean it was such an amazing experience. Zero gravity planes fly up into the air, then travel at a parabolic trajectory, thus "falling" as fast as you are "moving forward". This is also represented in everything that orbits the Earth, like the ISS. It's falling as fast as it is moving forward, resulting in Expedition 52-53 crew members experiencing zero gravity. There is literally video evidence. 3.) If you say that the video was just taken on Earth, then how did they get that footage? Parabolic flight maybe?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: The sun
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2017, 04:31:19 PM »
In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.

Ah, so not only do you not understand how the burden of proof works, you also don't understand acceleration or Special Relativity. Excellent to know, as it reinforces that you haven't read the wiki or FAQ (hint: we would not be moving faster than the speed of light). I'd suggest you look in the mirror before accusing people of inaptly picking at various basic science ideas they don't understand.

For once, I have to agree with the FE'ers here.

Einsteins' general relativity says that there is NO DIFFERENCE between a uniform acceleration and a uniform gravitational field.   No possible experiment can distinguish between them.

Since the gravitational field of the Round Earth is basically uniform (at least for day-to-day experiences) - it could indeed be replaced by a uniform acceleration - and you would not be able to tell the difference.

The issue of the Earth speeding up until it's going faster than lightspeed is also not a problem.   Einstein's special relativity tells us that you can't meaningfully measure speed except as speed RELATIVE to something else.   Since the FE'ers claim that the Earth, the sun, moon, stars, planets...EVERYTHING is accelerating at the same rate - there is nothing left in the universe to measure the Earth's speed relative to.   So even asking what it's speed is would be a meaningless question.

So - those two SIMPLE problems don't debunk the Flat Earths' "Universal acceleration" claim.

But - as usual with FEism, you can look a little deeper and find the flaws in it.

SO: I said before that Earth's gravitational field is only approximately uniform.   But gravity varies with altitude (less at mountain tops, more in deep valleys) - it varies at the poles (more) and equator (less) - and it even varies a tiny bit according to the types of rocks under your feet.

Universal Acceleration can only simulate a uniform gravitational field.   So if things worked the way they say, we wouldn't get all of these variations in gravity - it would have the same, exact value everywhere.

They try to 'fix' this problem (I'd prefer the word "botch") by claiming various things - such as that the sun and moon (and perhaps also the stars) do indeed have true, 'for real' gravity.    This is needed (for example) to explain how there can be tides caused by the Moon's gravity.

But why there would be changes in gravity at the poles and the equator is not well described.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: The sun
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2017, 05:46:08 PM »
Ah, so you figured that if you'd insert a complicated equation on your wiki page and sprinkle it with some blanket statements, that would be proof enough. If that's convincing enough for you, good luck with that! I am willing to bet money that the math there either doesn't work or doesn't apply, but I personally don't know enough about Lorentz transformations to tell. I doubt anyone here knows anything about that either though. The claim is still laughable though, and it requires proof and experimentation on your end... but you'll say no one wants to give you funding... boohoo, poor little flatties...

Nice job boxing yourself into the corner where you have no chance of learning anything new. So pathetic, and so typical of flatheads.

In regards to the burden of proof: it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times). Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible. All flerfers can do is inaptly pick at various basic science ideas they don't understand -- there is no actual evidence for your claims, and no experiments to prove them. So, nice try, but the burden of proof is still on you guys.

Ah, so not only do you not understand how the burden of proof works, you also don't understand acceleration or Special Relativity. Excellent to know, as it reinforces that you haven't read the wiki or FAQ (hint: we would not be moving faster than the speed of light). I'd suggest you look in the mirror before accusing people of inaptly picking at various basic science ideas they don't understand.

Maybe try to work on some humility. Instead of getting triggered and lashing out, try asking about the things you don't understand. You seem rather emotionally immature, which won't get you far if your goal is to have actual discussions. Again, if you just want to whine and complain, we have fora for that, too.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: The sun
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2017, 06:17:52 AM »
it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times).
Gravity is not a force.

 
Quote
Your universal acceleration idea is laughable - if it were true, the Earth would be moving many many times faster than light by now, which is obviously impossible.
To someone with even a basic grasp of relativity this notion is utter nonsense.

Forget about the basics of FET, if you don't even understand the basics of your own side's theories you will be completely lost here. Move along son and let the adults talk.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: The sun
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2017, 12:10:25 PM »
it's been a few hundred years now that the entire scientific community has known gravity to be an observable force, easily proven with countless experiments (as demonstrated on this very forum like a billion times).
Gravity is not a force.

Argh...please stop making me agree with the FE'ers!

Yes, gravity is a force.

In RET:

  F = m1 x m2 x G / (dxd)

The FORCE of gravity is equal to the product of the two masses (m1=the mass of some object, m2=the mass of some other object...such as the Earth) multiplied by 'G' (big-G) the 'universal gravitational constant' (basically a factor introduced because we want 'd' in meters and m1/m2 in kg) divided by the square of the distance between the two object.  We don't often use this force in common math because it's annoyingly dependent on the mass of the object (m1).

So we do talk about 'g' - which is "the acceleration due to gravity"...or to spell it out more carefully "the acceleration that is caused by the force of gravity".

However, since:

   F = m a

   a = F / m       (or... g = F / m1 )

...and m is 'm1' and 'F' is the FORCE of gravity on that object...'a' is the acceleration of that object - which is "the acceleration due to gravity" or 'g' (if m2 is the earth).  Substituting for F:

  g = ( m1 x m2 x G / (dxd) ) / m1

...the m1's cancel out:

  g = m2 x G / (dxd)

...which is why all objects accelerate towards Earth at the same rate, no matter their mass (cue apocryphal story about Leonardo Da Vinci dropping cannon balls and stuff off of the Tower of Piza to prove it - or actual video of Astronaut dropping hammer and eagle feather on the moon...er...which "didn't happen" according to the FE'ers).

In FET (with universal acceleration) the mysterious upward acceleration of the earth causes a force to be applied to an object according to:

   F = m a

...where 'm' is the mass of the object 'a' is it's acceleration (which is 'g' in this case) and F is the resulting force.

So hell yes - gravity is a force...both in RET and FET.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: The sun
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2017, 01:21:08 AM »
Well, if flatties admit that gravity exists, then they're basically done - gravity would've collapsed the flat earth into a ball a long time ago.

Re: The sun
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2017, 01:40:20 AM »
Well, if flatties admit that gravity exists, then they're basically done - gravity would've collapsed the flat earth into a ball a long time ago.
Gravity only exists with the infinite plane idea, which can't really collapse into a ball for obvious reasons. Universal Acceleration doesn't have 'gravity' at least from the Earth.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: The sun
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2017, 08:04:26 PM »
Well, if flatties admit that gravity exists, then they're basically done - gravity would've collapsed the flat earth into a ball a long time ago.

No...sadly, if they have an infinite plane of finite (but large) thickness - then the math says that all of the horizontal components of the gravitational attractions would cancel out and you'd be left with a single, vertical gravitational pull that would be acting downwards and perpendicular to the surface.

It's not even hard to prove - think about where it would collapse TOWARDS.   The "center"?  Well if the plane is infinite, then it has no center - all points on the plane are equivalent.  The only 'special' direction is up and down because the Earth isn't infinite in the vertical direction...there's sky and there's rocks.   So gravity can pull DOWNWARDS - but not sideways.

However, a FINITE flat earth with gravity would indeed collapse into a ball in a very short span of time (minutes - but not hours).

I *suspect* that the "Universal Accelerator" idea came from a time before the infinite flat earth became popular.   But these days, with an infinite flat earth, I don't know why the FE'ers still need UA.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: The sun
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2017, 08:27:32 PM »
Well, if flatties admit that gravity exists, then they're basically done - gravity would've collapsed the flat earth into a ball a long time ago.

No...sadly, if they have an infinite plane of finite (but large) thickness - then the math says that all of the horizontal components of the gravitational attractions would cancel out and you'd be left with a single, vertical gravitational pull that would be acting downwards and perpendicular to the surface.

It's not even hard to prove - think about where it would collapse TOWARDS.   The "center"?  Well if the plane is infinite, then it has no center - all points on the plane are equivalent.  The only 'special' direction is up and down because the Earth isn't infinite in the vertical direction...there's sky and there's rocks.   So gravity can pull DOWNWARDS - but not sideways.

However, a FINITE flat earth with gravity would indeed collapse into a ball in a very short span of time (minutes - but not hours).

I *suspect* that the "Universal Accelerator" idea came from a time before the infinite flat earth became popular.   But these days, with an infinite flat earth, I don't know why the FE'ers still need UA.
A fair idea of the origin of UA. I would suspect it's still in use by parts of the FE community simply because they like it better (crazy that). FYI Obviously, there's about as many 'flavors' of FE as there are flerfers. Just about every single person has their own idea of how everything all works. My two favorites on the other site include Jon Davis (sort of their Tom Bishop) who believes it's space that's curved rather than the infinite plane Earth, and not sure where this one came from but the idea 'gravity' is actually due to our displacement of the air. I'm still at a loss on just how the hell this one works (so is he from what I've seen) but it's an interesting hypothetical.