That's why a 'debate' with him would be pointless.

Need to know if OP still argues on youtube comments?

If just quit recently then good chance I was working alongside him today.

Rothchilds, aliens, anti muslim, flat earth, holocaust denial and war between good and evil/god v devil. This guy had it all today.

Are there a subsection of flat earthers that also believe in aliens?

That doesn't make sense.

Though I guess neither does a flat earth.

Conspiracy theories never make sense.

I liked the Diana murder theory one.

I guess the Illuminati got to Moo

How does he feel about the moon? Really there or just a figment of everyone's imagination? Got it explained to me that the moon is only there when you look at it.

How do tides work if there is no gravity?

Has that been explained yet?

Why is a constantly accelerating Earth ridiculous? Is it any less ridiculous than a constantly expanding universe, in which the acceleration is accelerating, by magic? Scientists have no explanation why or how that is happening.

Like i've said before, if you want to use an accelerating earth as an explanation for the gravitational constant g, then you run into problems because g isn't the same everywhere on earth which means the earth would be torn apart if g is caused by an accelerating earth.

To answer the question about the expanding universe: this theory is less ridiculous than that of an accelerating earth because it's proven by experiment while the latter is disproven by experiment

When I drive in a car, different parts of me are accelerated differently at times. I don't get torn apart by the tiny sub-g differentials. Why would the Earth??

Isn't it a more likely explanation that the accelerorometers measuring tiny tiny differences in g are mistaken? Or the electronics slightly affected by the iron in the mountains (after all, g is said to be lower on high mountains - coincidence)? It wouldn't be the first time small measurements are difficult to do correctly. Measuring equipment is extremely unreliable at low levels of difference, particularly the handheld stuff they'd haul up mountains and then report the g level as being slightly lower.

If earth was accelerating at the 9.8ms2, it would have reached the speed of light in less than a year. Travelling -through- space at the speed of light is impossible for anything with mass. Let alone being millions of times faster.

I have answered your points seriously with the assumption you are genuine in you questions. Time will tell I guess.

Are you claiming that when 2 points have a different acceleration that the distance between them won't increase?


So when scientists measure g around the world and take into account the measurement error and conclude that there is a significant difference that that means they are lying about the measurement error and this is some sort of conspiracy?

Also the concept of an upward accelerating earth only makes sense for a flat earth, so your original claim becomes. Flat earth isn't more ridiculous than an expanding universe. Which is a pretty ridiculous statement.

This is a false statement. Even if it accelerates at 9.8 ms2 for 1000 years, it will never reach the speed of light.
Yes, but see above.
You have answered my points incorrectly. I suggest opening a book on relativity.
Weirder things are proposed right now in "mainstream" science. See: dark energy, this mysterious stuff they invented to explain why the acceleration of the universe is accelerating, that no one can feel, touch, see or measure, and has never been proven to exist. Our theories of acceleration fall apart without this mystical ether-like beast that scientists invented to wave away how what they see doesn't match with established theory.

Anyway, I propose an alternate theory: anti-gravity. Mass has a weak anti-gravity which acceleration is countering. Thus when you go up a mountain (a lot of mass), the slight buoyancy that anti-gravity gives reduces the apparent measured acceleration.

Or another: dark force (in honor of "dark energy" and "dark matter" - if mainstream scientists get to make up bull**** to wave things away, well, what's for the goose is good for the gander). Dark force varies with height from the surface of the Earth, and affects measuring equipment.

Point being, there are lots of plausible reasons why this "proof" is nothing of the sort.
Humans are notoriously bad at measuring things. The history of science is one of prolonged and repeated errors. Cold fusion is a classic example. More generally, scientists tend to see and publish what they want to and what fits with their existing preconceptions.

Where is the body of data showing g force varying? Who put it out? How many people were involved? Was it replicated multiple times?

You simply assume it is valid, but science has a terrible track record at accurate measurement, and publishing bias. It's only after many decades, sometimes centuries, of research and critique that we can start to call scientific knowledge reliable.

The speed of light isn't asymptotic, it's the amount of energy required to continue accelerating to the speed of light.

If you could hold acceleration constant you would def reach the speed of light.

Another false statement. People itt claiming to a certainty that the Earth is round don't even know basic physics. Just incredible.

1. The speed of light is indeed asymptotic in the observer frame
2. If you could hold constant acceleration for 1000 years you will still not reach the speed of light.

Guys, seriously, learn a bit of basic relativity, it will blow your mind. You might become a little less certain of the round Earth dogma if you do.

Toothsayer, what would you say the speed is of something that started from 0 and has been traveling with an acceleration of 10m/s^2 for 10,000 years?

Lol speed of light is relative

This thread is GOAT troll

A less patronising tone would be advised when you are laughably wrong.

I guarantee one of the following are true:

a) your understanding of physics is very limited
or
b) you have a good understanding of physics but are intentionally acting dumb for troll purposes.

The speed of light is roughly 300million m/s.

Could you please explain how you can accelerate at 1m/s since the beginning of time and never reach that speed?

I have it at ~ 350 days.

If you understand physics you will know that the closer to the speed of light you get, the more energy is required to accelerate you. At the SOL the energy becomes infinite.

Toothsayer is always condescending and loves being that way. It's sort of his thing.

Around 99.99999% of the speed of light.

Let's make it simpler to cut through the bull****.

If you accelerate at a rate of half the speed of light per second for 1000 years, you will never reach the speed of light.
I guarantee you they are both false.
You want me to explain relativity and frames of reference to you? Apart from writing pure math, I don't think *anyone* can do that - at best you can use imperfect analogies.

This statement is only true in one observer frame vs another relative entty.

From the perspective of the spaceship, it will be forever accelerating at g. The people in the craft will experience 9.8ms2 of acceleration forever, without ever reaching the speed of light.

Thus the objections brought up to a constantly accelerating earth on this basis are invalid.

They're being condescending to me, and wrong with it. This objection is a false objection:
The passengers in the spacecraft accelerating at 9.8 ms2 will experience that acceleration for eternity, and the spacecraft will never reach the speed of light. This is an absolute fact.

Bring back Moo

If you could hold acceleration constant, yes you could reach the speed of light.

However you CAN'T hold acceleration constant, because the amount of energy required to hold that acceleration eventually becomes infinite.

If you accelerate at c/2 per second your speed will increase with c/2 each second, this is the definition of acceleration. So after 1 second you will travel at a speed of c/2, after 2 seconds you will travel at a speed of c and after 3 seconds you will travel at a speed of 3c/2.

If you don't agree with this you don't understand the definition of acceleration.