1
Flat Earth Community / Re: If they wanna say the earth is a ball...
« on: September 30, 2015, 10:10:37 PM »
You don't understand spheres or how to apply factual scientific data to back up your claims. We get it. Give it a rest.
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.
2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mystery of south pointing compasses
« on: September 30, 2015, 10:09:12 PM »
The iron core is not a magnet. It's just molten iron, which is conductive. The magnetic FIELD is created by convection currents due to heat escaping from the core.
3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why ship masts appear to sink over the horizon
« on: September 14, 2015, 06:09:06 AM »
This doesn't address why ship masts appear to sink over the horizon. You just drew a picture with some boats and swells.
To answer the question: boat masts (and boats themselves) appear to sink over the horizon because the Earth is a sphere. This is obvious if you grab binoculars (or a telescope) and watch a ship go to the horizon on a clear day. Yes there will be some haze but the event is still perfectly observable. Ideally you would pick a place with little swell and pick a viewing point maybe 10-20 feet above the water. If there are tsunamis (as evidenced in your illustration) you can pick a higher viewpoint. Of course you would then be able to see further (as shown in my thrid link), so you would need to wait longer for the ship to "sink".
To answer the question: boat masts (and boats themselves) appear to sink over the horizon because the Earth is a sphere. This is obvious if you grab binoculars (or a telescope) and watch a ship go to the horizon on a clear day. Yes there will be some haze but the event is still perfectly observable. Ideally you would pick a place with little swell and pick a viewing point maybe 10-20 feet above the water. If there are tsunamis (as evidenced in your illustration) you can pick a higher viewpoint. Of course you would then be able to see further (as shown in my thrid link), so you would need to wait longer for the ship to "sink".
4
Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth as a Center Of Universe
« on: June 21, 2015, 07:49:56 AM »Well , what is current ? It is a moving charge . If two charges moving in one direction ,
they must attracted . You can see this , if you suspended two charges on a ceiling of
you car . When a car stands , two particles repulsed . And when a car moved -
two particles attracted .
Nope. If 2 charges are moving in one direction it is usually because of an electric potential difference (Voltage) or because it is in a magnetic field. Simply being in motion does not cause "two particles attracted".
I do not describe planet as a charge . I describe planet only as a system , in which
two charges interacted . And if Earth is moving - than moving a system . And charges
in moving system MUST attracted . But they don't attracted . Ergo - system not moving .
You can't use electric/magnetic laws to describe planetary motion the way you have done.
5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory
« on: June 19, 2015, 09:15:01 PM »
Crepuscular rays. It's a perspective effect.
6
Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth as a Center Of Universe
« on: June 19, 2015, 09:10:27 PM »
1. Ampere's Law describes the creating of magnetic fields by moving currents, not "an ATTRACTION between the particles".
2. You can't use electric/magnetic laws to describe planetary motion the way you have done.
2. You can't use electric/magnetic laws to describe planetary motion the way you have done.
7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: curvature of the earth
« on: June 01, 2015, 08:58:43 PM »
Yeah no. It would appear flat. The Earth is huge. You probably need to be at least 60k feet in the sky to see slight curvature.
8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you see
« on: May 26, 2015, 07:19:37 PM »Please contribute when you post. That way, I will not have to split your posts or move them. Thanks. Consider this a warning.But the image was flat until you proved that it was round.
The people who proved the earth was round are proven liars. There are many inexplicable things in the photos and footage from space. Therefore, those sources cannot be trusted and the earth is flat until proven otherwise.
Citation needed.
We're not allowed to ask for citations on questionable statements? How can we trust any answers in this forum then?
9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity,Weight and Altitude?
« on: May 26, 2015, 07:17:33 PM »Hm, I wonder if you can make a complete post.
Asking questions related to the thread topic in an attempt to spark scientific discussion is not complete?
Ok.
10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you see
« on: May 26, 2015, 06:15:55 AM »But the image was flat until you proved that it was round.
The people who proved the earth was round are proven liars. There are many inexplicable things in the photos and footage from space. Therefore, those sources cannot be trusted and the earth is flat until proven otherwise.
Citation needed.
11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity,Weight and Altitude?
« on: May 26, 2015, 01:55:10 AM »there is no gravity...our weight keeps us stuck to the earth.
Hm I wonder what causes weight...
12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Basic physics laws
« on: May 24, 2015, 04:04:26 AM »Magnetic force? No particle needed.
Particle needed to generate electric field = electron.
This is wrong. The electromagnetic force has a gauge boson which exchanges the force. It is called the photon. An electromagnetic field can be generated by any charged particle; electrons are the easiest to harness.QuoteGravitational force? No particle needed.Incorrect. This is an unanswered question in physics.QuoteParticle needed to generate gravitational field = any atom.
Or energy, or momentum.
It was pretty late when I wrote that, thank you for clarifying.
13
Flat Earth Community / Re: Multiple questions
« on: May 24, 2015, 03:55:08 AM »therefore it should be slowing down as time progresses(I'm going to assume that by that you mean the acceleration would decrease, not that it would actually start slowing down. Please correct me if that's wrong)
It is indeed "slowing down" if we assume an external frame of reference. That, however, does not affect the Earth's acceleration relative to the Earth itself, or objects located on it.
Yes that's what I meant. A decrease in acceleration. This would make gravity seem like it's getting weaker over time.
14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Basic physics laws
« on: May 23, 2015, 08:53:54 AM »alex wrote:
It states the attractive, gravitational force between two masses 'M' and 'm' given a distance 'd' between them.
But it is not attractive, not now, not in the past, not ever in the future.
Stopped reading right there.
Jump............ what happens?
15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Basic physics laws
« on: May 23, 2015, 07:23:27 AM »Please give me an example of an invisible force that doesn't use a particle. Magnetic fields don't need magnetrons but they are pretty darn dependant on electrons.
Magnetic force? No particle needed.
Particle needed to generate electric field = electron.
Gravitational force? No particle needed.
Particle needed to generate gravitational field = any atom.
Einstein already provided an alternative ... he called it the equivalence principle.
That's an alternative way to simulate the same force. That is not an alternative to the Theory of Gravity, which is a very solid theory that has proven to be correct in many many calculations/experiments throughout the centuries.
Even mainstream scientists are questioning gravity and how it works. http://phys.org/news/2006-12-alternative-theory-gravity-large-formation.html
I am at a loss as to why you may be shocked that I might also have doubts. It's just not a theory I am happy with. I think there are better explanations.
The alternative theories for gravity are not ground breaking. They do not support FEF in any way.
If one of the alternatives (MOND or TeVeS) get accepted by the scientific community, they would tweak our understanding of the universe at a large scale or at high accelerations, not the Earth as we know it. The Earth will continue to be a sphere and there will always be a force that attracts you to it, no matter what you call it or how you tweak the theory.
16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Basic physics laws
« on: May 23, 2015, 07:08:56 AM »Is that why scientist need to make things up when their tests do not match their calculation, like for dark matter and dark energy?
Do you want to shift the topic to dark matter? We can do that. I'm also very skeptical about dark matter. It's not really something we're sure about, but it fits the bill for now. I think it's temporary until we gain better understanding of some advanced physics in our universe. It's probably close though, and it makes sense, kind of the "anti"-gravity.
But if you want to continue talking about gravity though, we can do that too. Gravity is about 100x more concrete than dark matter theory, its effects are easily observable throughout our universe, and calculations done with it are always spot on.
Why should we trust any of this when your own "top" scientists have to resort to making things up to explain gravity?
Nobody is making things up to explain gravity.
Scientists did have to 'create' dark matter/energy to explain missing mass in our universe though, if that's what you're referring to. And skepticism on it is natural, considering it's still a heavily researched area.
Where is the evidence for dark matter? What even is that?
Read up. Over 100 references at the bottom too if you want to get into some dense scientific papers too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Perhaps when your theory is COMPLETELY verifiably, then we might be able to agree with it. I just can't take a theory seriously when it has made up god particles with no evidence present.
No god particles here, you're thinking of the Higgs Boson.
Gravitational theory? Gravity doesn't need particles.
Dark matter theory? Dark matter evidence is observational from our universe. Definitely less established theory than gravity though if that's what you're getting at.
In any case, if you think it's possible for a theory to be 'COMPLETELY verifiably' then you've been misled. Anything can be disproved. Even the most fundamental building blocks of physics. As long as you have the evidence to back it up.
Welcome to science.
17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.
« on: May 23, 2015, 06:30:29 AM »What is 'observable evidence'? It's not scientific, though...?I believe evidence that can be observed is a major part of science.
It is a part of the experiment portion of the scientific method. Another equally large part of the scientific method is repetition. If you perform an experiment and use a simple observation to conclude your results yes that is valid, but get ready to feel the heat as more rigorous experiments are done on the same subject.
18
Flat Earth Community / Re: Multiple questions
« on: May 23, 2015, 06:22:02 AM »Here you go.
v = c tanh(r/c)
As you can see, v will never be more than c.
Ah, don't remember what train of thought I was on but yes this is correct. To reach c you would need infinite energy.
Anyways this poses a different problem: the Earth should get harder and harder to accelerate as time goes on (since we're reaching c), therefore it should be slowing down as time progresses. I don't think there is any archaeological or experimental evidence that gravity is getting weaker...
19
Flat Earth Community / Re: Multiple questions
« on: May 22, 2015, 07:39:06 AM »First of all, you make assumptions about the age of the Earth. No big deal, but they are still assumptions. Next, you assume the speed of light. Again, not a big deal. However, next you assume that Newtonian physics can work for something more than you driving to the store. Newtonian physics has been known for more than a century to be incorrect, yet, you preach it like a cult member. Special Relativity will show you that you can accelerate indefinitely and never reach the speed of light. Therefore, incorrect.
The age of the Earth and the speed of light have been verified by many scientists and researchers all over. Special relativity is a little more complicated area of physics, where things get complicated very fast. I find it funny you accept S.R. but not the age of the Earth or c
Anyways, can you be a little more specific on the part of S.R. that specifies what you are claiming?
20
Flat Earth Community / Re: International Space Station Disproves Flat Earth Theory?
« on: May 22, 2015, 07:29:02 AM »I'm pretty sure we could give you a ton of videos back showing how stupid the whole ISS filming is.
Or a couple of videos showing how ridiculous people sound when they try to discredit mankind's achievements?
I didn't have time for the first video but I watched the first 5 minutes of the second video and that's all I needed to dismiss anything the creator of the vid has to say.
First, they were confused why the astronaut was floating around randomly. Is it really hard to believe she gave herself a little boost with her leg muscles? Or is that too easy of an explanation?
Second, the periods of weightlessness in the video were obviously too long for a zero-G airplane. A plane can't sustain 45 seconds of plunging, at least not without abruptly pulling up to avoid crashing, which there is no indication of happening in the vid.
Third, there are consistent comments like "You're not really in space" or "Because you're in a zero-G plane" without a shred of evidence to back them up.
This video didn't help your cause...