[Round fact]

How convenient.

If you would read the linked material, you will see it was anything but.  There were only three lunar missions with rovers: Apollo 15-17.  On 15 the motor to tilt the camera burned out, so no footage.  On 16 the crew parked the rover in the wrong spot, so Fendell's pre-calculated camera angles were useless with was no time for new calculations, so no footage.  17 was the last chance, and they got it.

Again, how convenient.

Just as inane as when "Little Truth Found Here" said it and not even original.

And he has no idea even what keeps his feet on the ground! Oh, the GRAVITY of the situation!

I may not have my own original theory but I certainly know it isn't some magic force described as an inherent property of mass capable of exerting forces through a vacuum, that sometimes pulls objects towards each other and sometimes makes them rotate each other perpetually.

I don't care what you think about me or my beliefs, and quite honestly, I feel no desire to even debate or discuss anything with you any longer. It's a never ending loop that is about pleasurable as a root canal.

In other words  I don't believe in math and science, so don't try and educate me

[BCGreenwood]

I think most flat earthers accept their theory falls apart if they admit gravity is the force holding us on to the Earth.

The problem is if they don't believe in gravity they generally believe it's the Earth constantly accelerating upwards. They don't realise this is an even bigger problem because in less than a year we would be travelling faster than the speed of light.

They've tried to rectify this with Einstein's special relativity but have run in to an even bigger problem that they simply don't address.
Believing that the Earth is experiencing length contraction (so it won't pass the speed of light) they would have to accept that the mass of every object on Earth is approaching infinity.
Unless of course they believe that the palm of their hand has greater mass than a super massive black hole.

[Round fact]

I think most flat earthers accept their theory falls apart if they admit gravity is the force holding us on to the Earth.

The problem is if they don't believe in gravity they generally believe it's the Earth constantly accelerating upwards. They don't realise this is an even bigger problem because in less than a year we would be travelling faster than the speed of light.

They've tried to rectify this with Einstein's special relativity but have run in to an even bigger problem that they simply don't address.
Believing that the Earth is experiencing length contraction (so it won't pass the speed of light) they would have to accept that the mass of every object on Earth is approaching infinity.
Unless of course they believe that the palm of their hand has greater mass than a super massive black hole.

In general they shy away from math like a rabid dog does water. Mathematically FE doesn't hold up and they know it.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I think most flat earthers accept their theory falls apart if they admit gravity is the force holding us on to the Earth.

The problem is if they don't believe in gravity they generally believe it's the Earth constantly accelerating upwards. They don't realise this is an even bigger problem because in less than a year we would be travelling faster than the speed of light.

They've tried to rectify this with Einstein's special relativity but have run in to an even bigger problem that they simply don't address.
Believing that the Earth is experiencing length contraction (so it won't pass the speed of light) they would have to accept that the mass of every object on Earth is approaching infinity.
Unless of course they believe that the palm of their hand has greater mass than a super massive black hole.

In general they shy away from math like a rabid dog does water. Mathematically FE doesn't hold up and they know it.

Please elaborate which math doesn't work on the flat earth.

[Round fact]

I think most flat earthers accept their theory falls apart if they admit gravity is the force holding us on to the Earth.

The problem is if they don't believe in gravity they generally believe it's the Earth constantly accelerating upwards. They don't realise this is an even bigger problem because in less than a year we would be travelling faster than the speed of light.

They've tried to rectify this with Einstein's special relativity but have run in to an even bigger problem that they simply don't address.
Believing that the Earth is experiencing length contraction (so it won't pass the speed of light) they would have to accept that the mass of every object on Earth is approaching infinity.
Unless of course they believe that the palm of their hand has greater mass than a super massive black hole.

In general they shy away from math like a rabid dog does water. Mathematically FE doesn't hold up and they know it.

Please elaborate which math doesn't work on the flat earth.

Geometry and Trigonometry for starters. Both branches of math prove beyond all doubt that the Earth is a sphere, yet it is ignored here out of hand.

You were shown in detail what the math proves and your response was along the lines of "what are you saying." My grade school grandchildren got the point.

Now of course you are going to dismiss this math and a thousand years and more of its proof because, 1. You really don't understand, nor do you want to. Or 2. You just like to think you are causing problems.

If it is point 2. you are an abject failure. I have taken each opportunity  presented to do more research on math, science, experimentation, and history. Learning is fun and helpful to my writing.

Have a nice evening, I must go, as I have a lot yet to do.

[BCGreenwood]

I think most flat earthers accept their theory falls apart if they admit gravity is the force holding us on to the Earth.

The problem is if they don't believe in gravity they generally believe it's the Earth constantly accelerating upwards. They don't realise this is an even bigger problem because in less than a year we would be travelling faster than the speed of light.

They've tried to rectify this with Einstein's special relativity but have run in to an even bigger problem that they simply don't address.
Believing that the Earth is experiencing length contraction (so it won't pass the speed of light) they would have to accept that the mass of every object on Earth is approaching infinity.
Unless of course they believe that the palm of their hand has greater mass than a super massive black hole.

In general they shy away from math like a rabid dog does water. Mathematically FE doesn't hold up and they know it.

Please elaborate which math doesn't work on the flat earth.

The part where you seem to think that the palm of your hand has more mass than a black hole.

[rabinoz]

Warning, warning, warning this will be considered tl;dr for most so bail out here and go directly to gaol[1]!

Impossibility of UA

To me there seems to be another big problem with UA. We are told that because of Special Relativity the Flat Earth can never exceed the velocity of light. OK, no problem, but we also have "time dilation", meaning time would now be passing on earth much (very much!) slower than on an inertial frame of reference.

Now, presumably there IS some inertial frame of reference and is has been there since the earth started accelerating. We are told that there is the Aether we are "pushing through" creating a bow-wave etc (that may theflatearthsociety.org's idea? - whatever) and the "Dark Energy" that is doing all this accelerating. Presumably this Aether and Dark Energy are in this "Inertial Frame of Reference" and was there at the "Creation Date" or whenever everything started.

So I thought I would try (try being the operative word, as you might see later!) to find the elapsed time in this "Inertial Frame of Reference". To keep the time as short as possible (you see I did forsee a problem or two) I tried with Bishop Ussher's "Creation Date", which everyone here knows was on October 23, 4004 BC, so roughly 6020 years ago (earth time). Well that did not work!

Now on the site Relativistic Star Ship Calculator there is a neat calculator. It is meant to calculate the time on a near light-speed starship travelling away from a relatively stationary earth.
But, if we turn it around and use "Earth" in the calculator as our "Inertial Frame of Reference" and the "Starship" as the acceleration earth we can use it for our calculations.

So, if the earth were to start accelerating at 9.8 m/s² 13.8 billion years ago^[2] (I don't know that I agree with the age!) by now, due to time slowing down on the accelerating earth (that is Time Dilation) only 45.3 years would have elapsed on our earth according to the "Relativistic Star Ship Calculator".

Now, since to the best of my memory I am rather older than 45.3 years, this all gets a bit hard to explain (of course, I cannot prove that the earth was not created in its then state  "Last Thursday"! - don't laugh Last Thursdayism  ).

Actually, I disagree[3] a little with the "Relativistic Star Ship Calculator" and using the equations on the right ----> would claim that for only 23.33 years Earth time the Aether, Dark Energy and whatever else must have been around for at least 13.8 billion years. The difference between my figures and the "Relativistic Star Ship Calculator" figures makes no real difference to the conclusion.

Spacer

Unless there is "absolutely nothing" outside the "earth and firmament" then there is no way the earth could have been accelerating for any reasonably long period - even Bishop Ussher's 6020 years! If there is "absolutely nothing" outside, what does the "Dark Energy" act on? And where is the Aether for these "Bow Waves"?

I would love some "expert" to peruse these figures! Any experts on relativity in the house?

[1] Gaol - you did not pass go and did not collect any Brownie Points!

[2] This "maximum time" is chosen to extend the "time since creation" as long as possible!

[3] I chased this up not to prove the "Relativistic Star Ship Calculator" wrong, but to get around some of the "NaNs", but didn't get far - Excel can only calculate years up to 10³⁰⁸! Mind you even that is a mind bogglingly massively outlandish length of time!


<< Edit: Increased equation size, added title, then fixed a footnote >>

[rabinoz]

I guess we can scrap the whole idea of UA then, as no-one seems keen to refute my tl;dr on the utter impossibility of it in Impossibility of UA.

I was hoping some expert of SR or GR might come along and tell me how I simply did not understand Relativity!

They could very well be right, but it would be nice to know just where!