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 - pbrah

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question
« on: December 20, 2016, 12:43:19 AM »
Okay,
It was my understanding that Gauss' Law is used to find out if large objects like the earth had a different shape (in this case flat). Which would show that spheres and point masses have 1/r^2 behavior, cylinders have 1/r behavior, and flat objects would have a uniform, constant force of gravity.
Which would validate Gauss' Law on the flat earth.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question
« on: December 19, 2016, 08:01:39 PM »
Actually, if you look at the FAQs on this very website, you will find that the FES believes that the earth is stationary...And that the "gravity" illusion can be attributed to pressure and density formulas and simple mechanics

The earth is stationary?

Surely that and that fact that it's accelerating all the time can't be possible, or have I misunderstood?

Could you shoot me a link to the formulas as well, couldn't find them myself.

Thanks

Check your inbox

3
Flat Earth Theory / Gauss' Law
« on: December 19, 2016, 07:55:57 PM »
http://www.if.ufrj.br/~pef/producao_academica/artigos/2014_preprint_tort_1.pdf

I found this paper on Gauss' Law of gravitational pulll on a flat earth very interesting. Although the author doesn't promote the FET, he explains how Gauss' Law would work well on a flat earth.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question
« on: December 19, 2016, 07:45:08 PM »
Here is my problem with the UA position.
So much of the flat earth theory and narrative is that we are given these advanced "scientific" calculations that contradict logic and what we see and feel. According to scientists and NASA we are supposed to believe these theories (whether it be gravity, evolution, relativity, Coriolis Effect etc.) without questioning them even though no can definitively prove them or experience them.  So by promoting the UA theory, it contradicts the fundamental basis of the flat earth theory. We can't feel it, we can't prove it anymore than we can prove gravity, so UA promoters are essentially doing exactly what NASA does when they tell us we are on a spinning ball hurdling through space at 1000s of mph.

But that is just my opinion on the subject

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question
« on: December 19, 2016, 04:53:03 PM »
Here are two direct passages from the Flat Earth Society's website:

What Is Gravity?

Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.

In the flat earth community there are several theories as to why this happens. Some attempt to explain this with use of mechanics like electromagnetism, density, or pressure. Others make use of traditional mathematics, such as the infinite plane model, and others a new look at the problem - such as the non-euclidean model.

What is certain is sphere earth gravity is not tenable in any way shape or form.

Is the Earth is accelerating upwards?

No. This is popular theory among some small groups to explain gravity, but it is problematic at best. The Earth Is Stationary. We are not whizzing about in space at 67,000 miles/hour or at speeds accelerating towards the speed of light.

Source:https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/faq

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question
« on: December 19, 2016, 03:40:29 AM »
Actually, if you look at the FAQs on this very website, you will find that the FES believes that the earth is stationary...And that the "gravity" illusion can be attributed to pressure and density formulas and simple mechanics

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Interesting Video, Gyroscopes and more!
« on: December 19, 2016, 03:37:25 AM »
Interesting video for sure!
I have to admit i did kind of jump around, but i feel like I got the gist of it.
So here is my response:
I think the guy in this video is what Flat Earthers are saying is what's wrong with the whole system. From what I could, most of the points he made were things that your average person cannot see, feel or experience. For example, with the gyroscope he says: "If we could spin a gyroscope long enough, we would eventually see the curve of the earth" is something that he has no proof of being true other than some experiment done once in the mid 1800s. And when he says that that's how gyroscopes got there name is just a lie. Gyroscopes got there name because the "gyrate", or "spin in a circle."
As far as the Coriolis Effect, there are many unanswered questions about this in itself. For example: According to scientists, the Coriolis Effect is what causes weather patterns move the way that they do in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. However, this is not consistent among all weather patterns. Which raises the question how come some weather systems are unaffected by the coriolis effect? And again with coriolis effect, how are we supposed to believe something that neither you or I can see or feel, something that our senses and logic tell us can't be possible?
I encourage you to look up the Sagnac Experiment and the Michealson-Morley Experiment, both of these have been repeated over and over again and famously show proof of a flat and stationary earth along with contradicting Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
And Lastly,
If the earth is a sphere and Antarctica is a continent, then why did James Cook and other explorers circumnavigate the "continent" and record distances between 50,000 and 60,000 miles? 

Pages: [1]