Great discussion guys! Have we considered the possibility that the Earth is shaped like a heart?



Love you!

Where do they come from?



You didn't answer my question.

And yes, the moon does have an effect on me. I weigh a little less.

How did they get inside the firmament?

Size. The Great Lakes do have tides.

BTW this thread was a lot more fun to read before we had trolls trolling the trolls that are trolling the trolls.

Lets not kid ourselves, this thread was never fun to read.

The reason gravity is changed higher up is not because the pull is less but because there is less atmospheric pressure pressing down on the object.

Salt water is conductive of electricity and responds to magnetism. Fresh water doesn't. Just a hunch for the tides.

Aliens perhaps set the dome up. Or used their alien technology to get in. Asking where they are residing or what they're doing pretty pointless - how can I answer that? Realizing that FE makes aliens way more plausible is all that matters.

So you think the fact that earth is the only planet that actually exists and it is covered with a concrete dome is a more likely scenario for other life than a model where there are literally trillions of planets?

Are you saying that we can experience a g-force due to the expansion of space?

Are you saying that 2 objects that are accelerating away from each other due to the expansion of the universe will never reach a speed larger than c relative to each other?

What are your thoughts on this article?

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/abo...t-intermediate

What formula would you use to determine the speed of the object after 1, 2 and 3 seconds. I can guarantee you that it isn't compatible with the definition of acceleration.

How do you define "up"?

"There are about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe."

http://www.phy*********m/Education/AskExperts/ae384.cfm

well that was p h y s l i n k . c o m

So both you guys believe that when the speed of an object increases by say 10m/s every second that there exists a speed which it will never reach?

I'm not pretending to be great at physics (I know a little). But math becomes quite difficult as you approach the speed of light. Relativity space/time and such.

Like falling in a black hole. To an observer it looks like they are falling forever, but if you are actually doing it, it seems normal.

But obviously a lot of it is all theoretical.

I could be way off though. I'm only going off stuff I remember reading years ago.

None of this matters, if you accelerate at 10m/s^2 your speed increases by 10m/s every second, it really is that simple. They don't use a different definition in special relativity.

The thing that changes is the equation for your energy as a function of speed, as your speed approaches the speed of light the energy (mass) goes to infinity, which means maintaining a constant acceleration becomes impossible as you get close to the speed of light.

Toothsayer believes we are currently moving at a speed very close to the speed of light but still gaining 9.8 m/s of speed every second and somehow not going passed the speed of light. That really is as ridiculous as it sounds

As I wrote in my post I'm not a physics expert. Are you claiming to be? I don't believe it's that simple.

I also don't believe toothsayer believes we are currently moving close to the speed of light. He's not a flatearther. He's looking at the theory of it.

This is where he said that we are currently travelling close to the speed of light

I hope he agrees that the earth is older than 1000 years. Us being close to the speed of light right now is another ridiculous part of his theory because then we would be observing all sorts of weird relativistic effects.

Acceleration is defined as the second derivative of the position which means it's the first derivative of the velocity, which implies that if it is constant every speed will eventually be reached. For this not to be true acceleration would have to be defined differently in special relativity and I haven't seen a convincing argument for that. And yes I might've followed a course on special relativity in my time.

The theory of an accelerating earth on a sphere instead of a plane might be even more ridiculous because in that case the earth would be torn apart in every direction and we would basically be living on an exploding sphere.

His answer is about a theory of something accelerating. Your question doesn't talk about the earth. He doesn't believe the earth is flat.

Physics isn't that easy as far as I know (and I admit that I'm foggy on a lot of it. Even experts in the field don't know how a lot of stuff works when you approach the speed of light).

I missed the part of the conversation about a sphere.

This is a better answer, by someone who knows more than me...

You can keep accelerating as long as you have the means.

If you were accelerating constantly at one g, then you would be approaching the speed of light in about a year. In two years you'd be quite close to the speed of light. In twenty years (as you feel them) you would be very very close to the speed of light, you would also have traversed most of the known universe and billions of years would have passed for the outside observer. Due to the distorting effects of the theory of relativity on space and time, you can keep accelerating at a constant acceleration forever, and yet never hit the speed of light.

Of course finding the means to sustain one g acceleration, even for five minutes, is not at all easy.

--Kasper Emil Feld, PhD Physics & Nanotechnology, University of Copenhagen (2012)

So according to you he believes that an object traveling at a constant acceleration of 10m/s^2 for 1000 years will get close to the speed of light but the earth traveling upward at an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 for a lot longer than 1000 years won't?

Source? Special relativity describes exactly what happens near the speed of light and someone who doesn't understand those equations shouldn't call himself an expert.


I started about the sphere because according to you he doesn't believe in a flat earth. Which means he must believe in a spherical earth accelerating 9.8m/s^2 in every direction which according to me is even more ridiculous. I actually agree that the observed gravitational constant can be explained by an upward acceleration, until you reach the speed of light, than you can't accelerate anymore and Toothsayer's theory breaks down

Look at my next post for a better explanation.

Looks like I was wrong about the acceleration but do you agree that this means we are travelling close to the speed of light right now in the case of an accelerating earht, and that this doesn't make sense for a spherical earth?

It doesn't make sense period. Flat or round. It's stupid. For many many reasons. It would be easier for the aliens to make a whole universe than do what the flatearthers are proposing.

But theoretically acceleration can happen forever.

That's not correct, acceleration requires force which increases exponentially as you approach the speed of light. The speed of light on a speed versus force XY graph is an asymptote and the required force to reach it being infinity.

Ffs you can literally prove the earth is round. Get a long ****ing stick, pick a time, go outside measure the shadow, then drive several hundred miles in any direction. The next day go outside at the same time, measure the distance of the shadow and think about what are the possible causes of difference between the two measurements.

11t,

I see you're part of the conspiracy.