The Flat-Earth Society

Quote:

---

well if your constantly accelerateing upward means your constantly going faster and faster and faster which means eventually you will reach the speed of light maybe in 3 billion more years but still eventually it will happen

---

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. As the object approaches c its inertia increases; consequently, the energy required to accelerate the object also increases. This means its velocity will approach c asymptotically but never reach it.

Of course, its acceleration only decreases from an inertial reference frame, one in which Earth is traveling near c.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

Now comes the really good part. If the earth really is a disk as FE states, the North-Pole could never be where it is.
On a planetary object with a magnetic field like Earth's, the Poles are the two spots on the object furthest away from the core.
Seeing as how the core would be in the middle, it's impossible for the North Pole to be in the middle.

---

OMG. You guys should learn how your own world works before you try and argue the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoGuy

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. As the object approaches c its inertia increases; consequently, the energy required to accelerate the object also increases. This means its velocity will approach c asymptotically but never reach it.

Of course, its acceleration only decreases from an inertial reference frame, one in which Earth is traveling near c.

---

Yeah thats true, but that also means that when we approach lightspeed, that we will slow down and we would be falling of the earth right? Now, if we are accelerating with 2,8^9m/s (i thought it was that speed) and the eart exists for millions of years, then it seems to me we should've falling of already. Another thing, Einstein's theories also state, that when an object is accelerating that time goes slower. And according to you, we are accelerating constantly. So time should go slower and slower. Which it isn't. There you have, you're theories are dissproven.

I was pondering, doesn't it seem that their reasoning is rather backwards, at least in eyes of anyone who bases their decisions and judgement on logic? First they seem to have created a theory, and then they bend and twist everything we extract from this world to support this theory, and when something doesn't immediately make sense according to their theory, instead of going into themselves and wondering in which they could be wrong, they rather ignore the evidence and classify it as unreliable or something not entirely solved. Because of this I would have to say the FE are even more small-minded than all the people judging them, and frankly, dumb.
Dumb like creating a product and only then trying to come up with a use, instead of first making the research and finding out what people need.

I mean, how did they come to the conclusion earth is flat and it has ice walls on the edge? I think they decided it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pieman

Yeah thats true, but that also means that when we approach lightspeed, that we will slow down and we would be falling of the earth right? Now, if we are accelerating with 2,8^9m/s (i thought it was that speed) and the eart exists for millions of years, then it seems to me we should've falling of already.

---

No it wouldn't. Our speed is not slowing down, our rate of acceleration (the rate at which our speeds changes) is. But only to an outside observer in an inertial reference frame. To us our rate of acceleration remains a constant 9.8m/s^2

Quote:

---

Another thing, Einstein's theories also state, that when an object is accelerating that time goes slower. And according to you, we are accelerating constantly. So time should go slower and slower. Which it isn't.

---

Remember, Earth isn't accelerating relative to us (unless we jump in the air or something, in which case we are in an inertial frame of reference and experience the effects of "gravity"), so we wouldn't experience any time dilation.

so he will believe one thing einstein says but not the other

why is einstien telling the truth and the other scientists lieing?

What did Einstein say that I do not believe?

Quote:

---

why is einstien telling the truth and other scientists lieing?

---

Because Einstein's theory of relativity matches my personal observations (i.e., the effects of gravitation, only explainable with Einstein's relativity), while many things said by other scientists, do not.

why do hot dogs come in packages of 10 but hotdog buns come in packages of 8

but seriously um cause einstein has so much credability for all his other theorys and is more popular then the others

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoGuy

No it wouldn't. Our speed is not slowing down, our rate of acceleration (the rate at which our speeds changes) is. But only to an outside observer in an inertial reference frame. To us our rate of acceleration remains a constant 9.8m/s^2

---

So the rate of acceleration is different from an outside observer then to us? Give me a break. Something does accelerate at the same rate or it doesn't. If the rate of acceleration 'to us' is a constant 9.8m/s^2, then it means we eventually have to surpass the speed of light, which is impossible (unless we're REALLY not as accelerating as fast, but that would mean we would fall off the earth or something similar -_-).

Other then that, people on your forum also mentioned I should read the 'Zetetic Astronomy' by this Rowbotham guy. I did and I found several inconsistencies. I posted one of them on your forums, but one of the members (who apparently believes in a flat earth) just responded with 'Maybe you just don't understand what point he was actually trying to make...'. I wouldn't really call it an answer, would you? Afterwards, he declined to give me a normal answer and just told me he wouldn't post in that topic anymore (cause it was a waste of his time or something). I still want an answer to my question though. I'll quote what I said on the flatearthsociety forums:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boko

I read a part of the Zetetic Astronomy by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, and it actually made me realise how rediculous it was. For this example I'll use the FAQ on your forums and DECLINATION OF THE POLE STAR from the Zetetic Astronomy.

- Earth diameter is 24,900 miles. The equator would then be about 6,225 miles from the north pole.
- Stars are 3100 miles from earth (which means the pole star is aswell).

According to this Rowbotham guy, the star declines because of it's angle. The only problem with that 'theory' (the funny thing about it being a theory and not an experiment, is that he says in his conclusion that he explains his theory with experiments (unlike the round earth theory, which he claims are only based on assumptions. Seriously, this guy has written the biggest pile of crap I've ever read), even though this chapter doesn't even have an experiment in it.

Just check this and then read what Rowbotham said about the pole star disappearing from view due to its angle. On a flat earth, this is simply not possible.

Quoted from this Rowbotham dude: 'This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth'

On picture:
eye-line of the observer = person on equator on a flat earth
the object observed = the pole star, which is exactly above the north pole

The pole star could only disappear from view if the pole star was closer to the earth (which in your theory, it isn't) or if it's because of an optical illusion (then why didn't Rowbotham explain it this way? And how is this illusion being created?)

If you want me to disprove more of his theories, feel free to ask (even though it's a waste of my time tbh).

---

Any chance you could answer me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boko

So the rate of acceleration is different from an outside observer then to us? Give me a break. Something does accelerate at the same rate or it doesn't.

---

Only in Newtonian mechanics. In relativity, different inertial observers will not necessarily measure the same acceleration for an object.

Quote:

---

If the rate of acceleration 'to us' is a constant 9.8m/s^2, then it means we eventually have to surpass the speed of light, which is impossible (unless we're REALLY not as accelerating as fast, but that would mean we would fall off the earth or something similar -_-).

---

No we wouldn't, as I explained earlier. Earth has no acceleration relative to us (until we jump in the air, and enter an inertial reference frame).

lol, just lol

yet again you avoid the main topic and answer only 25% of his post. what a jipe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoGuy

Only in Newtonian mechanics. In relativity, different inertial observers will not necessarily measure the same acceleration for an object.

No we wouldn't, as I explained earlier. Earth has no acceleration relative to us (until we jump in the air, and enter an inertial reference frame).

---

But it's not about observers from somewhere else.
It's about us. And since we constantly experience the same 'acceleration' (1G), the earth has to be accelerating at a constant interval. Otherwise the pressure (the G-force...) would be getting constantly smaller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoGuy

Only in Newtonian mechanics. In relativity, different inertial observers will not necessarily measure the same acceleration for an object.

---

Measuring a different acceleration doesn't mean the object itself isn't accelerating in a specific rate. Like I said, something IS or something ISN'T accelerating at a certain rate. Even if inertial observers measure it differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoGuy:1817349

Earth has no acceleration relative to us

---

Relative to us it doesn't. But it still has an acceleration which HAS to slow down (because it can't reach the speed of light). If the rate of acceleration diminishes, it also means it won't keep us on the earth anymore (unless you use gravity, but that would make this theory useless (which it is)).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

But it's not about observers from somewhere else.
It's about us. And since we constantly experience the same 'acceleration' (1G), the earth has to be accelerating at a constant interval. Otherwise the pressure (the G-force...) would be getting constantly smaller.

---

A better way to describe what I just said =P

Off-topic: Got MSN xeLJoYo? If so, PM me =P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boko

Off-topic: Got MSN xeLJoYo? If so, PM me =P

---

Just what do you think that little butterfly icon on the left is for :wink_3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

Just what do you think that little butterfly icon on the left is for :wink_3:

---

Thanks, didn't notice ^_^ Now lets wait for the next reply...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

But it's not about observers from somewhere else.
It's about us. And since we constantly experience the same 'acceleration' (1G), the earth has to be accelerating at a constant interval. Otherwise the pressure (the G-force...) would be getting constantly smaller.

---

Yes, from our frame of reference Earth'a acceleration will never change. It will always be a constant 9.8m/s^2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoGuy

Yes, from our frame of reference Earth'a acceleration will never change. It will always be a constant 9.8m/s^2.

---

Then how would it not reach the speed of light eventually? I fail to see your point (or you fail to see ours?)

Apologies, the servers messed up as I tried to post this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boko

Measuring a different acceleration doesn't mean the object itself isn't accelerating in a specific rate. Like I said, something IS or something ISN'T accelerating at a certain rate. Even if inertial observers measure it differently.

---

As I said before, you're applying Newtonian mechanics to a relativistic situation. Acceleration is not "absolute", and one person's frame of reference is not preferred over any other's.

Quote:

---

Relative to us it doesn't. But it still has an acceleration which HAS to slow down (because it can't reach the speed of light). If the rate of acceleration diminishes, it also means it won't keep us on the earth anymore (unless you use gravity, but that would make this theory useless (which it is)).

---

Here is the explanation written by one of the Admins from the FE forums, as it's a much clearer and more concise explanation than I could give you:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erasmus

If you measure the speed of the Earth, you will notice it to be always zero. That is, it's not getting any closer to you or farther from you, and it's not moving around in a circle. If you're standing on the Earth, the Earth appears to be quite stationary.

Similarly, if you are in an automobile that is driving around a sharp turn, you will feel yourself pressed to one wall (the wall opposite the turn). From your perspective, the automobile is stationary -- but, from your perspective, you can still tell that it is accelerating (or, equivalently, that it is generating a gravitational field).

On the other hand, as measured from somebody not in the car, the car is zipping around the turn -- i.e., moving and accelerating. Similarly, the Flat Earth can be observed by others not on the Earth to be accelerating and moving upwards. If you are worried that the Earth might eventually be going faster than the speed of light, you are only worried about it going faster than the speed of light as those observers measure it, not as we on the Earth measure it.

So, let's consider what happens from the perspective of one such observer -- call her Alice. In particular, let's suppose Alice jumps over the ice wall into empty space (or whatever's there). Since the Earth is no longer pushing her, she stops accelerating. From her perspective, she is now at rest, and at the instant she jumps, the Earth is also at rest. However, the Earth continues to accelerate upwards.

Let's say Bob stayed behind on Earth. He measures the Earth's acceleration to be g = 9.8 m/s^2 -- the same way you might measure the accleration of the automobile going around the curve. According to special relativity, Alice will measure a different acceleration -- in particular, she will measure it to be g/?^3, where ? = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). In other words, we have the following differential equation for the velocity v of the Earth: dv/dt = g/?^3.

The solution to this equation is v = gt / sqrt( 1 + g^2t^2 / c^2 ), or v = g / sqrt(1/t^2 + g^2/c^2). We are interested in the infinite time limit of v -- i.e. what happens to v as we wait an arbitrarily long time. As t --> ?, v --> g / sqrt(g^2/c^2) = c.

In other words, from Bob's perspective, the Earth is always stationary (we are Bob), but undergoing constant acceleration. From Alice's perspective, the Earth moves at an ever increasing rate, but the acceleration is not constant -- it decreases over time in such a way that the Earth never surpasses the speed of light.

---

Geo, why are you avoiding 90% of most of the questions/posts presented?

Your explanation on the acceleration of Earth is still wrong.

The effect of the 'acceleration' would be similarily measurable for both someone not on the earth and someone on it.

Let me explain this using an example.

Picture a fast car. This would be a nearly perfect metaphore for the accelerating earth.

If you're not in the car, you can see it accelerating, as it zips by ever faster.

If you're in the car, you will be pushed into your seat at the moment it starts accelerating. Now if the car accelerates at a constant rate, the pressure pushing you into the seat will remain constant as well.
However, the moment the car startsaccelerating at a slower rate, or even doesn't accelerate at all anymore, the pressure pushing you into your seat will decrease.
Or in the case of not accelerating anymore, will revert into a motion pushing you forward (relative to the car that is), for your body takes longer to slow down from the speed the car was at.


This is exactly how an accelerating earth would effect us. if it's acceleration would be decreasing, the pressure pushing us onto the surface would decrease too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordDemonMan

um..you sure you're in the right place, Unleashed?

---

I dunno, i'm quite unable to keep up updated with what's goin on in this thread because every minute there's a new post and i'm not reading it that much. every time i come back here there are another couple of pages here, and i don't wanna read all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoGuy

The unanswered questions in the FAQ do not remain that way because there is no answer, they remain that way because we haven't discovered the answer yet. There is nothing about them that suggest they are unanswerable within the parameters of the FE theory, so we have no reason to suspect they aren't.

---

look, what i'm saying is that as long as these questions don't have any answer, the theory has no basis. You see, what I'm saying is that as long as you didn't explain ALL of the aspects of this certain phenomenon in a logical and scientific way, you can't claim that this theory is correct.

its me or they came here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaoii

Geo, why are you avoiding 90% of most of the questions/posts presented?

---

Because he simply cannot answer. :frown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khadia

its me or they came here?

---

not sure, it could be that they came here in response to Vendaku's coming to their forum, of vendaku came there in response to them coming here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

Your explanation on the acceleration of Earth is still wrong.

The effect of the 'acceleration' would be similarily measurable for both someone not on the earth and someone on it.

Let me explain this using an example.

Picture a fast car. This would be a nearly perfect metaphore for the accelerating earth.

If you're not in the car, you can see it accelerating, as it zips by ever faster.

If you're in the car, you will be pushed into your seat at the moment it starts accelerating. Now if the car accelerates at a constant rate, the pressure pushing you into the seat will remain constant as well.
However, the moment the car startsaccelerating at a slower rate, or even doesn't accelerate at all anymore, the pressure pushing you into your seat will decrease.
Or in the case of not accelerating anymore, will revert into a motion pushing you forward (relative to the car that is), for your body takes longer to slow down from the speed the car was at.


This is exactly how an accelerating earth would effect us. if it's acceleration would be decreasing, the pressure pushing us onto the surface would decrease too.

---

Let's look at this another way.

You are in the car. It starts to accelerate. Relative to you, the car is not moving. To you, the car's acceleration is zero. Next, someone outside the car decides to measure the acceleration by timing the car and using the stripes on the road. This person will measure a different acceleration than you did in the car. Someone else on the moon, decides to measure the acceleration by bouncing a laser off the car. Do to the moon orbiting the earth, the acceleration measured by this person is different from the other two. Yet these all describe the same event. Relativity states that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendaku~Metal

Because he simply cannot answer. :frown:

---

lol that's exacly what i'm saying. here can't base his theory properly, but still claims that the theory is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unleashed Hell

lol that's exacly what i'm saying. here can't base his theory properly, but still claims that the theory is correct.

---

Hum, retarded fanboy syndrome ? Or another know-it-all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

Let's look at this another way.

You are in the car. It starts to accelerate. Relative to you, the car is not moving. To you, the car's acceleration is zero. Next, someone outside the car decides to measure the acceleration by timing the car and using the stripes on the road. This person will measure a different acceleration than you did in the car. Someone else on the moon, decides to measure the acceleration by bouncing a laser off the car. Do to the moon orbiting the earth, the acceleration measured by this person is different from the other two. Yet these all describe the same event. Relativity states that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent.

---

Are all you FE guys just ignorant or is it just me who thinks that?

We are trying to prove here that constant acceleration of this magnitude (the acceleration rate necessary to keep us on earth) is simply not possible.

Let's continue with our example: Even though relative to the car the acceleration is zero, that doesn't mean the car isn't going as fast as it is (or that it isn't accelerating at the rate it's accelerating). If the car is going 100 mph and you're in it, relatively to you the car is stationary. But that doesn't mean the car isn't going 100 mph! The same is with the rate of acceleration. If the car is going 1 mph faster every 2 seconds, you (the guy in the car) still thinks the car is what you call stationary (because you are being dragged along), but that doesn't stop the car from accelerating! And this acceleration is certainly not stopped by some outside observer (observers don't affect anything).

This is the same with the planet earth with your flat-earth theory. If the Earth is accelerating at a constant rate, it WILL eventually reach the speed of light UNLESS the rate of acceleration changes (in this case, lowers). We'll take out the car example again. If you're in a car accelerating at a fast rate, and suddenly the acceleration rate changes (in this case, lowers (just like with the earth)) you WILL feel it. You will be pushed MUCH less into your seat (and if the rate lowers alot, you will be pushed OUT of your seat unless you wear a seatbelt).

The problem with the flat-earth theory is that the acceleration rate is a little more extreme then that of a car. If the acceleration rate lowers, which it has to if it approaches the speed of light, you won't feel it just a tiny bit, you will feel it IMMENSELY. First you wont fall so easily to the ground anymore (just like on the moon pictures where the guys jump and it takes ages to get back on the moon again <--- just an example) and later on you wont come back at all --> you fall off the earth. This all depends on how fast the acceleration rate changes of course, it could be that you immediately fall off the earth because of the immense rate change which could occur all of a sudden. The fact remains that with this theory, you WILL fall off the earth (unless you can go faster then the speed of light, which you can't or if something else keeps you from falling off the earth, which is also known as gravity. The problem with that is that your theory is based on the fact that gravity does not exist, which is probably one of the major problems in your theory).

Now, if you still don't understand what the hell I'm talking about, then I suggest you read it again before posting. Your theory is a piece of crap, and this is not the only example that proves it (I still haven't seen you guys answer my other problem in this forum or you own).

I find it funny that you keep arguing the same thing yet you still have yet to look up relativity.

Let's go back to the car.

I am in it and we are accelerating. To me, the car is stationary, thus it's acceleration to me, is zero. To the person outside the car, it is accelerating. To the person on the moon it is accelerating. However, the rate of acceleration will not be aggreed upon by the three. I say it is zero. You say I am accelerating at 3m/s^2. The person on the moon says I am accelerating at 10m/s^2. All are describing the same thing, yet they don't agree.

Now, using Newtonian mechanics, an object accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 will reach the speed of light in just under one year. However, Newtonian mechanics is wrong, and the error only shows itself as we approach relativistic velocities.

Under relativity, velocity does not add linearly, but does so in a logrithmic fashion. One could accelerate at a constant rate, yet they would approach the speed of light asymptotically.
http://physics.nmt.edu/%7Eraymond/cl...ook/img845.png (7.16) Plug in the numbers and let me know when we reach the speed of light.

Or you can actually look it up:
Acceleration in Special Relativity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

I find it funny that you keep arguing the same thing yet you still have yet to look up relativity.

Let's go back to the car.

I am in it and we are accelerating. To me, the car is stationary, thus it's acceleration to me, is zero. To the person outside the car, it is accelerating. To the person on the moon it is accelerating. However, the rate of acceleration will not be aggreed upon by the three. I say it is zero. You say I am accelerating at 3m/s^2. The person on the moon says I am accelerating at 10m/s^2. All are describing the same thing, yet they don't agree.

Now, using Newtonian mechanics, an object accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 will reach the speed of light in just under one year. However, Newtonian mechanics is wrong, and the error only shows itself as we approach relativistic velocities.

Under relativity, velocity does not add linearly, but does so in a logrithmic fashion. One could accelerate at a constant rate, yet they would approach the speed of light asymptotically.
http://physics.nmt.edu/%7Eraymond/cl...ook/img845.png (7.16) Plug in the numbers and let me know when we reach the speed of light.

Or you can actually look it up:
Acceleration in Special Relativity

---

Thank you for finally posting something relevant which we havent already heard. Now, I will look into this tomorrow as it's past midnight here. Maybe you can reply to my earlier post about the pole star? Thank you...

Let's back up for a second and take a look at what we're talking about here. The important thing to remember is that Earth's mass only increases from a reference frame in which Earth is approaching c.

As an example, imagine two observers, Bob and Jim, who are floating in space, watching Earth accelerate away from them.
Bob is moving forward at 10m/s, Jim at 20m/s*. If Earth is accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 for three seconds, its velocity relative to both of them has increased by 29.4m/s. This means that to Bob, Earth is now traveling at 19.4m/s, and relative to Jim it is now traveling at 9.4m/s. If things continue on like this, Earth will near c sooner for Bob than it will for Jim, which means its acceleration will start to decrease sooner for Bob than it will for Jim.
From this it is fairly obvious that in a frame of reference accelerating along with Earth (us), Earth will never approach c, and its acceleration will never slow.


If this isn't enough to convince you, here's a link to "PhysicsForums" where one of our members asked the exact same question.
From the linked thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parlyne

In special relativity, an object's acceleration will not be agreed upon by all observers. Imagine that at the beginning of the acceleration, there is another observer, moving at the same speed as earth; but, this observer never accelerates. According to this observer, earth's acceleration will continually decrease, and earth will never reach the speed of light. However, at any time, an unaccelerated observer moving at the same speed the earth is at that moment will see earth's acceleration as g.

---

And here's a link to the thread on the FE forums discussing this exact question.

*Since velocity is relative, we'll say that both are moving with respect to the point where Earth began accelerating.

Why are you avoiding 90&#37; of the questions presented? I'll keep asking until you give an answer. I've noticed you do it all the time on your forum too.

How could I have missed this thread :D We have talked about this in school and it's a really great discussion subject! I love theoretical solutions that just doesn't work in practics but noone can explain why.

You know, all you have to do is go on a 1 day flight....get in the air, set your GPS and just fly...keep on the same set path, and guess what, YOU'LL END UP IN THE SAME F*CKEN SPOT...you sir, are a retard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaCheat

You know, all you have to do is go on a 1 day flight....get in the air, set your GPS and just fly...keep on the same set path, and guess what, YOU'LL END UP IN THE SAME F*CKEN SPOT...you sir, are a retard.

---

Well, you'd probably have to pick a flight path that doesn't involve flying through other countries airspace without permission. But, yeah that's the whole idea. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaCheat

You know, all you have to do is go on a 1 day flight....get in the air, set your GPS and just fly...keep on the same set path, and guess what, YOU'LL END UP IN THE SAME F*CKEN SPOT...you sir, are a retard.

---

Now that's a theory. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaCheat

You know, all you have to do is go on a 1 day flight....get in the air, set your GPS and just fly...keep on the same set path, and guess what, YOU'LL END UP IN THE SAME F*CKEN SPOT...you sir, are a retard.

---

You are obviously not a pilot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boko

Thank you for finally posting something relevant which we havent already heard. Now, I will look into this tomorrow as it's past midnight here.

---

So, Boko, I see you are posting again. Did you have a chance to educate yourself on the finer points of Relativity? How does it feel to know you were wrong the entire time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

You are obviously not a pilot...

---

A good thing for me is that I might actually become a pilot within the next 3-4 years. Good thing to know I might actually have proof (for myself) what the truth is, even though I have no doubt in my mind that the earth is round.

I now know that the acceleration thing about your theory COULD be true (I now see no flaws in it, unless you're using the theory of relativity wrong but I doubt it). I mean, why else would you guys ACTUALLY respond to a question we're asking. However, to my other question in this topic or in the topic on your own forum you still have to reply. Other then the pole star flaw post, I have a SERIOUS problem with the conspiracy theory that HAS to have taken place in order for your theory to be correct.

If there was a conspiracy, you guys say the world's governments would have to be working together. This also means that the history as we know it is NOT true.

Why would governments who work together to keep up a conspiracy, wage war against each other? The answer on your forum to that was: 'They only appear to be disorganised to make the conspiracy seem implausible'. Don't you see what you guys are doing here? Not only do you say the earth is flat with this message, you're also telling us that all the wars which have happened over the last hundreds of years happened because the governments of the world didn't want to make the theory seem plausible.

Hello?! Don't you guys realise how retarded that is? You guys would then have to believe that the current war in Iraq is only happening because of your conspiracy. Not only Iraq, but EVERYTHING which has to have happened since the world's governments decided to work together. The Cold War, World War 1 & 2 and every other war that happened in the last century would then be a big LIE. All those people that died in those wars would have been to keep up a stupid conspiracy. All that just for money? We could have had WORLD PEACE, but NO! The governments would rather make it SEEM the governments to be disorganised. They don't mind all those people dying, it's not the government that dies. Tbh, the world's governments seriously cant be THAT stupid to throw away an oppurtunity to world peace to get some easy cash or anything else. If there was a chance at world peace, they would have taken it.

The real truth is that the world's governments have NOT been working together (not all of them anyways). This is simple logic. The morals and values of the people and the governments in the world are just too far apart to be able to create a joint-venture of this magnitude.

Some parts of your theory might be 'plausible', but that doesn't make the conspiracy part any more retarded. And I have yet to get an answer to my pole star problem. I suggest you guys look into that first...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

So, Boko, I see you are posting again. Did you have a chance to educate yourself on the finer points of Relativity? How does it feel to know you were wrong the entire time?

---

Just because the acceleration thing could actually work, only makes your theory a little bit more plausible. And as I said before, I still have to get an answer to my previous question about the pole star.

earth is flat as moon is a painting of god or a bulb in satans ceiling
XD

Well... lets put it this way... if you throw a hunk of flat cheese at a wall... something happens... what?

Someone set up a paypal so people can donate to send them out into space.

Nooo... give me the money!!! I already believe the world is round!

You guys can talk all you want about relativity, but 'Bob', or whoever u say is NOT on earth, simply has nothing to do with this.

It's rather simple really.
You say that if you're in a car, the car doesn't accelerate relative to you.
Well in fact that's wrong. It does accelerate relative to you, it's just that your seat is stopping you from falling behind.
If something doesn't accelerate relative to you, you wouldn't be effected.
But in a car, or on the earth, you are.
There's just something which counter-acts the acceleration.

The car DOES accelerate relative to you, for you have no speed of your own, and the ONLY thing making you go along with it is a seat, which acts to counter the effects of the acceleration.

But What Happens With The Cheese????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

You guys can talk all you want about relativity, but 'Bob', or whoever u say is NOT on earth, simply has nothing to do with this.

It's rather simple really.
You say that if you're in a car, the car doesn't accelerate relative to you.
Well in fact that's wrong. It does accelerate relative to you, it's just that your seat is stopping you from falling behind.
If something doesn't accelerate relative to you, you wouldn't be effected.
But in a car, or on the earth, you are.
There's just something which counter-acts the acceleration.

The car DOES accelerate relative to you, for you have no speed of your own, and the ONLY thing making you go along with it is a seat, which acts to counter the effects of the acceleration.

---

Good explenation. Everything is relative ^^

obviously they have proven the relativity of cheese acceleration in space/time creating a time machine... so when einstein actually prove the relativity a cheese was not enough so he threw 2 hunks the second one travelling at such a speed that it went back in time and hit the monkey at the center of the earth that is running at lightspeed and generating gravity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linklink88

Good explenation. Everything is relative ^^

---

Only problem is the theory of relativity which was proven by Einstein. According to Einstein, you can continuously accelerate (even at the speed they are talking about with the flat-earth theory) without reaching the speed of light. The acceleration could actually be true (in theory), just check out the theory of relativity if you don't believe it.

Problem with these guys is that they aren't responding to questions that they cannot answer. We should now realise that when they actually try to explain something, it could actually be true (in theory). Problem is, Newton acknowledged gravity and Einstein did aswell. These guys are using Einstein's theory even though they do not believe in gravity. I think this could cause a problem, don't you guys? Still have to find out what this problem is though.

But like I said, the problem with these guys is that they don't reply to problems they cannot answer (like my pole star problem). I still as of yet have to get a reply to that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

You guys can talk all you want about relativity, but 'Bob', or whoever u say is NOT on earth, simply has nothing to do with this.

It's rather simple really.
You say that if you're in a car, the car doesn't accelerate relative to you.
Well in fact that's wrong. It does accelerate relative to you, it's just that your seat is stopping you from falling behind.
If something doesn't accelerate relative to you, you wouldn't be effected.
But in a car, or on the earth, you are.
There's just something which counter-acts the acceleration.

The car DOES accelerate relative to you, for you have no speed of your own, and the ONLY thing making you go along with it is a seat, which acts to counter the effects of the acceleration.

---

I'm sorry, but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Relative to me in the driver's seat, the car is not accelerating. Do you know what an acceleration is? It is the rate of change over time of velocity, which is the rate of change over time of position. If I am the same distance from the steering wheel for the entire acceleration, my rate of change in position is zero. Therefore, my velocity is zero, which means my rate of change of velocity is zero, which means that my acceleration is zero.

The seat is what allows me to accelerate at the same rate as the car, therefore, relative to me, the car is not moving.

this is the kind of website that makes me want to punch a baby in the face, its funny as hell but for the people who take it seriously they need to have a serious reality check

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparx

this is the kind of website that makes me want to punch a baby in the face, its funny as hell but for the people who take it seriously they need to have a serious reality check

---

No we learnt from another post that punching babies in the face is bad especially when they pull the cord on the xbox 360 apparently.

Here's a question: to a FE, what about the common view (RE) does not make sense? What findings by man and science make the possibility of round earth ridiculous and impossible? Why could someone not accept the world may be round?

I can see that if we're accelerating then on a round earth the people on the "bottom" side would drop, but this requires the assumption world is flat and hence won't contribute.

As someone who (obviously) thinks the world is round, nothing discovered fights against this image, but a lot of things say the world can't be flat. As explained so far, apparently physics (for the part discussed) allow for a flat earth to exist, but the way the FE see it, couldn't the round one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

I'm sorry, but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Relative to me in the driver's seat, the car is not accelerating. Do you know what an acceleration is? It is the rate of change over time of velocity, which is the rate of change over time of position. If I am the same distance from the steering wheel for the entire acceleration, my rate of change in position is zero. Therefore, my velocity is zero, which means my rate of change of velocity is zero, which means that my acceleration is zero.

The seat is what allows me to accelerate at the same rate as the car, therefore, relative to me, the car is not moving.

---

You seem to not understand basic physics.

You are not moving relative to the car, indeed. But that does not mean that the car does not accelerate relative to you.
The fact that you are pushed into your seat is proof that the car actually DOES accelerate relative to you.
Originally you have no speed at all; when the car accelerates and takes you along with it, it's not you who's accelerating at exactly the same pace.

You are pushed into your seat. You however, remain in position, because the seat exercises normal force to counter that pushing, to prevent you from going through.

Therefore, it is the seat that keeps you in your position; if the seat were not there, but rather an open end behind you, you would probably fall out of the car, if it's acceleration were enough. (Only with lower acceleration could you stay in the car because you would still keep contact with the floor; friction)

It is not so that you accelerate along with the car out of nowhere; u need the normal force of the seat to make you do that.
Therefore, the acceleration of the car IS relative to you, it's just that there's another force helping you stay into position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

You seem to not understand basic physics.

You are not moving relative to the car, indeed. But that does not mean that the car does not accelerate relative to you.

---

In oder for the car to accelerate relative to me, it's distance from me must be increasing. However, I can still reach the steering wheel. How does that happen?

If I am the one who doesn't understand basic physics, please, by all means, show me with some math or equations how it is possible that the distance between me and the steering wheel doesn't increase yet it is accelerating relative to me.

Quote:

---

You are pushed into your seat. You however, remain in position, because the seat exercises normal force to counter that pushing, to prevent you from going through.

---

That is true. The seat is what allows you to accelerate at the same rate as the car. Therefore, your acceleration relative to the car is zero. However, your acceleration relative to the ground is the same as the car's.

Quote:

---

It is not so that you accelerate along with the car out of nowhere; u need the normal force of the seat to make you do that.
Therefore, the acceleration of the car IS relative to you, it's just that there's another force helping you stay into position

---

Exactly, you stay in position. Show me with the equations of motion how an object that maintains position accelerates with respect to that stationary position.

Because I can show you with the equations that the acceleration is zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

In oder for the car to accelerate relative to me, it's distance from me must be increasing. However, I can still reach the steering wheel. How does that happen?

If I am the one who doesn't understand basic physics, please, by all means, show me with some math or equations how it is possible that the distance between me and the steering wheel doesn't increase yet it is accelerating relative to me.

That is true. The seat is what allows you to accelerate at the same rate as the car. Therefore, your acceleration relative to the car is zero. However, your acceleration relative to the ground is the same as the car's.
Exactly, you stay in position. Show me with the equations of motion how an object that maintains position accelerates with respect to that stationary position.

Because I can show you with the equations that the acceleration is zero.

---

*sigh*

Truly you do not understand. Try to see things apart from each other for once.
As I said above, picture yourself in a car with nothing behind you. What happens if the car accelerates quickly? You fall out. Tell me that is not accelerating relative to yourself.

Then, put the seat in place. It stops you from falling out. Does that make the car accelerate any less relative to you? NO.
It means that ANOTHER FORCE is stopping you from MOVING relative to the car.

Truly, if you cannot understand this, there is no hope for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

*sigh*

Truly you do not understand. Try to see things apart from each other for once.
As I said above, picture yourself in a car with nothing behind you. What happens if the car accelerates quickly? You fall out. Tell me that is not accelerating relative to yourself.

Then, put the seat in place. It stops you from falling out. Does that make the car accelerate any less relative to you? NO.
It means that ANOTHER FORCE is stopping you from MOVING relative to the car.

Truly, if you cannot understand this, there is no hope for you.

---

You can't truely be this dumb.

If you stand on a platform with nothing to hold on to and it starts to accelerate, due to your inertia, you will not accelerate with it. You will fall off the back of it as its distance from you increases. Relative to the ground, you have no acceleration, but relative to the platform, it is accelerating from you.
Now, immagine you are strapped to it. It then begins to accelerate. The straps prevent you from moving away from the platform. Your distance from the platform is not increasing, therefore, your acceleration relative to the platform is zero. Relative to the ground, your acceleration is the same as the platform.

I still want to see those equations, because I have mine ready.

xel you must be thinking of something else. Perhaps force?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

You can't truely be this dumb.

If you stand on a platform with nothing to hold on to and it starts to accelerate, due to your inertia, you will not accelerate with it. You will fall off the back of it as its distance from you increases. Relative to the ground, you have no acceleration, but relative to the platform, it is accelerating from you.
Now, immagine you are strapped to it. It then begins to accelerate. The straps prevent you from moving away from the platform. Your distance from the platform is not increasing, therefore, your acceleration relative to the platform is zero. Relative to the ground, your acceleration is the same as the platform.

I still want to see those equations, because I have mine ready.

---

I think your problem lies with the definition of acceleration.
If you consider acceleration as actually MOVING relative to another object, instead of just applying force to (which I consider appropriate in this case),
then I think the problem of our disagreement lies there.
I tried to make it clear I consider those verbs different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

I think your problem lies with the definition of acceleration.
If you consider acceleration as actually MOVING relative to another object, instead of just applying force to (which I consider appropriate in this case),
then I think the problem of our disagreement lies there.
I tried to make it clear I consider those verbs different.

---

TBH I think your problem lies with misunderstanding the definition of acceleration. Besides - if you're talking about a different thing, what relevance would it have to the topic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

I think your problem lies with the definition of acceleration.
If you consider acceleration as actually MOVING relative to another object, instead of just applying force to (which I consider appropriate in this case),
then I think the problem of our disagreement lies there.
I tried to make it clear I consider those verbs different.

---

There is only one definintion of acceleration. It is the rate of change in velocity over time, which is the rate of change in position over time.
Applying a force causes an acceleration, but in a car, the car itself is providing the force to accelerate your body. If your change in position does not change in the car, how can you possibly be accelerating with respect to the car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

There is only one definintion of acceleration. It is the rate of change in velocity over time, which is the rate of change in position over time.
Applying a force causes an acceleration, but in a car, the car itself is providing the force to accelerate your body. If your change in position does not change in the car, how can you possibly be accelerating with respect to the car?

---

the definition of acceleration is not necessarily a change in position; it is merely a rate of change over time. It doesn't have to be used to define position, merely change. What change is arbitrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

the definition of acceleration is not necessarily a change in position; it is merely a rate of change over time. It doesn't have to be used to define position, merely change. What change is arbitrary.

---

Ok, maybe you are that stupid.

Answer this:
I have a ice maker in my fridge, which produces 16 cubes an hour. What is the acceleration of my fridge with respect to the moon?

The change in what is not arbitraty. There is only one definition of acceleration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

Ok, maybe you are that stupid.

Answer this:
I have a ice maker in my fridge, which produces 16 cubes an hour. What is the acceleration of my fridge with respect to the moon?

The change in what is not arbitraty. There is only one definition of acceleration.

---

There's more than one definition, and most are quite general too.
Though it could ofcourse differ per dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

In oder for the car to accelerate relative to me, it's distance from me must be increasing. However, I can still reach the steering wheel. How does that happen?

If I am the one who doesn't understand basic physics, please, by all means, show me with some math or equations how it is possible that the distance between me and the steering wheel doesn't increase yet it is accelerating relative to me.

That is true. The seat is what allows you to accelerate at the same rate as the car. Therefore, your acceleration relative to the car is zero. However, your acceleration relative to the ground is the same as the car's.
Exactly, you stay in position. Show me with the equations of motion how an object that maintains position accelerates with respect to that stationary position.

Because I can show you with the equations that the acceleration is zero.

---

Funny how you just completely ignored what Negata asked, but then again you're calling people stupid at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaoii

Funny how you just completely ignored what Negata asked, but then again you're calling people stupid at the same time.

---

Exactly what I thought, you all seek for farfetched explanations why the earth is flat. While it is much easier and plausible to believe the earth is round. I'm yet to hear a logic explanation why the earth isn't round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

You are obviously not a pilot...

---

Actually you dumb shit I am... YOU obviously are a fucking retard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pieman

Exactly what I thought, you all seek for farfetched explanations why the earth is flat. While it is much easier and plausible to believe the earth is round. I'm yet to hear a logic explanation why the earth isn't round.

---

as once said by a chinese prophet, the world is full of dicks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaoii

Funny how you just completely ignored what Negata asked, but then again you're calling people stupid at the same time.

---

Uh, Negata was asking xeLJoYo, not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaoii

Funny how you just completely ignored what Negata asked.

---

Oh, and I started thinking I'm the only one who would've liked a reply to that. Now that it seems I'm not, could you please explain what I was curious about above? Some spice into this dead-end relativity and acceleration discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

Uh, Negata was asking xeLJoYo, not me.

---

I was asking anyone speaking in behalf of the FE on this forum. That being most likely you or GeoGuy.
my post

so question...they say the US Government changed all the photos to make it look round...

What about all of the other countries that have satellites up in space...

And you're telling me that about 6BILLION people on this earth are wrong and only the few members on your forum know the facts that the earth is flat...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaCheat

so question...they say the US Government changed all the photos to make it look round...

What about all of the other countries that have satellites up in space...

And you're telling me that about 6BILLION people on this earth are wrong and only the few members on your forum know the facts that the earth is flat...

---

Lets also not forget that every astronomer in the entire world gets paid not to tell that the world is flat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaCheat

...only the few members on your forum know the facts that the earth is flat...

---

Of course, they're gifted after all, gifted with brain damage.

Since there has been this obvious change in topic, I assume you guys concede the point Geo and I were making, and you guys were...just misinformed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

Since there has been this obvious change in topic, I assume you guys concede the point Geo and I were making, and you guys were...just misinformed.

---

You really think we are going to believe that about 50.000.000 people are involved in a conspiracy, and not one has told us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

Since there has been this obvious change in topic, I assume you guys concede the point Geo and I were making, and you guys were...just misinformed.

---

yeah....6billion people misinformed... and your 6000 are right.... Sure I can see that....


So tell me, how many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeLJoYo

There's more than one definition, and most are quite general too.

---

Really xeLJoYo? Let's see, shall we?
Acceleration:
The rate at which an object's velocity changes with time (from Science@NASA)

ACCELERATION, n. The act of increasing velocity or progress; the state of being quickened in motion or action. (from American Dictionary of the English Language.)

Acceleration:
the rate of change of velocity over time (average acceleration = AV/At) (from Science by Jones)

Acceleration:
The rate of change of velocity. (from Discover Hover?)

Acceleration:
The rate at which the speed of an object is changing. (from a source with a copyright violation :biggrinth )

Accel'erate (aks-) v.t. and i increase speed -Acceleration a. (from Webster's New Dictionary)

Hmm, these all seem pretty much in agreement, wouldn't you say?
I did find this one though, I just took the liberty of assuming this is not the definition you're using here.

Acceleration. The shortening of the time for the vesting in possession of an expectant. Hastening of the enjoyment of an estate which was otherwise postponed to a later period. (from Black's Law Dictionary)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pieman

You really think we are going to believe that about 50.000.000 people are involved in a conspiracy, and not one has told us?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaCheat

yeah....6billion people misinformed... and your 6000 are right.... Sure I can see that....


So tell me, how many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

---

He's obviously not talking about your belief in the RE theory, he's talking about the issue of Earth's acceleration.

Go ahead, just ignore another post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

Since there has been this obvious change in topic, I assume you guys concede the point Geo and I were making, and you guys were...just misinformed.

---

If we were misinformed I doubt this thread has changed the state of that, that many gaps the FE have in both information and ability to answer questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaCheat

so question...they say the US Government changed all the photos to make it look round...

What about all of the other countries that have satellites up in space...

---

No one has ever said, nor implied, that the US government is the only one with knowledge of the conspiracy.

Quote:

---

And you're telling me that about 6BILLION people on this earth are wrong and only the few members on your forum know the facts that the earth is flat...

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoGuy

No one has ever said, nor implied, that the US government is the only one with knowledge of the conspiracy.

---

Haha then if every government is behind this...my other question is...why?

why would you want to "make something up" like the earth is round, or in your case, flat... you don't benefit from it, so what's the point?

bit of a stupid question but does each government own a piece ot this ice wall to patrol or do they just mingle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaCheat

Haha then if every government is behind this...my other question is...why?

why would you want to "make something up" like the earth is round, or in your case, flat... you don't benefit from it, so what's the point?

---

exactly wat i was going to ask.. i mean.. when did people really started to belive the earth is round ? and you are telling us that all these years it has been flat ? and noone knows about it ? whata nugget of horseshit

who would you have to piss off to get the "patrol the ice wall" job


plus if the damned thing surrounds the earth there has to be a spot somewhere where people could get over into smurfland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaCheat

who would you have to piss off to get the "patrol the ice wall" job


plus if the damned thing surrounds the earth there has to be a spot somewhere where people could get over into smurfland

---

omg i loled so hard on this

As you guys are so fond of saying:

I still want an answer to my question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

As you guys are so fond of saying:

I still want an answer to my question.

---

You're the all-knowing person, so why ask questions then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaCheat

Actually you dumb shit I am... YOU obviously are a fucking retard.

---

I am a pilot. You are obviously not, as any real pilot would not have said what you did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordDemonMan

You're the all-knowing person, so why ask questions then?

---

I just think it's funny that you guys were all, "Let's go over to their forums and PWN them!" because you thought knew how the world worked, and thought you were smarter than us. Yet you come over saying:
"Acceleration is not relative. There are many different definitions of acceleration. You are thinking of a different acceleration."
"The poles are where they are because the radius of the earth is greater there. What? It's not? Oh, I meant that they are there because of gravity."
"You can't accelerate forever and not pass the speed of light."
All I can say is wow. You should spend less time on this forum and more time in school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

I am a pilot. You are obviously not, as any real pilot would not have said what you did.

---

ok Mr. Pilot 3149793

If you in fact are a pilot, you'll know what that is, and how to look it up...

Unlike you people, I have proof when I make a statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me that's who

I just think it's funny that you guys were all, "Let's go over to their forums and PWN them!" because you thought knew how the world worked, and thought you were smarter than us. Yet you come over saying:
"Acceleration is not relative. There are many different definitions of acceleration. You are thinking of a different acceleration."
"The poles are where they are because the radius of the earth is greater there. What? It's not? Oh, I meant that they are there because of gravity."
"You can't accelerate forever and not pass the speed of light."
All I can say is wow. You should spend less time on this forum and more time in school.

---

Oh. so you tell us that we are full of bull. Let me tell you something, before checking for tiny tree splinters stuck in the eyes of other people, check your own eyes for trees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaCheat

ok Mr. Pilot 3149793

If you in fact are a pilot, you'll know what that is, and how to look it up...

Unlike you people, I have proof when I make a statement.

---

So if you are a pilot, why did you make such an ignorant statement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeoGuy

So if you are a pilot, why did you make such an ignorant statement?

---

Because I'm not an idiot.

So not being an idiot is somehow an excuse for making ignorant statements?

I make statements when I have proof to back it up,

I said, set your GPS and just fly, and see what happens...

You guys say "oh but you're not a pilot, you have no clue, ba ba ba"

So I give proof that I indeed am a pilot. (still waiting on Me That's Who's response...)

So until you guys go out, Set a GPS and just fly for a good day. (or more depending on the type of plane) I can make all the ignorant statements I want.

And further more, I'm reading the FAQs on your site, and all of your answers have no proof what so ever to back it up...they're just statements.

just ignore them, posting here make them feel important. everyone can think whatever they want to think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mara

just ignore them, posting here make them feel important. everyone can think whatever they want to think.

---

But its fun. :D It's like playing with a kid with Downs syndrome.