A Flat Earth, NASA? A hoax.

[Xenohumanity]

TROLL LINE
Everyone above is trolled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro tip: this is a debating exercise.

^This.

Awhile back, I approached this forum firmly beleiving I could convince the community that our dear Earth was indeed flat. I'm back.

Here is a basic explanation of how the Flat Earth works:

Basically the Flat Earth has Gravitation but not Gravity. This Gravitation is what keeps the atmosphere on the Flat Earth.

As we know, the Flat Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2. According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle an accelerating frame of reference is exactly mathematically equivalent to a gravitational field at all points around an accelerating mass. This produces the same effect of Gravity, but without the need for a hypothetical undiscovered particle with zero energy and zero mass called the Graviton. This point is confusing to most people, but the act of being pushed into an accelerating object and being drawn into an object with a gravitational field is EXACTLY the same thing. There is no difference. What you know as acceleration is really the bending of space-time around the accelerating object.

The Flat Earth does not only exert a gravitational field on the top of its surface, but it also exerts a gravitational field on it's sides and underside. In essence, it does not matter in which direction the Flat Earth is accelerating because it will create a uniform gravitational field as long as it is uniformly accelerating. Th e Flat Earth could be accelerating downwards and we would still be held to her surface by a gravitational pull. Einstein's "acceleration = gravitation" conclusion may be hard to believe, but it a main tenant of General Relativity. Without the Equivalence Principle Einstein's theory on General Relativity falls apart.

Now, The Flat Earth is walled up by an Ice Wall to keep the contents in. This wall is guarded by an organization formed by a majority of nations on our planet. The Ice Wall does not melt for it also contains rock. and one more thing. BENDY LIGHT, look it up before bothering.

Getting off topic, cocaine was founded at Kennedy space center. If NASA were a real space agency they would be hiring straight and narrow engineers and scientists instead of these lowlife cocaine addicts who sit around building fake space ships out of cardboard paper, scotch tape, and assorted junk yard parts.

So you're one of the nut-cakes that think space is fake, moon lading was a fraud and the moon is made out of cheese? Then explain why did the Columbia and Challenger explosions seem so real and found the what was left of the shuttles, explain why is the ISS(international Space Station) so real, why do we have voyager which was lunched in th 70s still flying in space, one incident of a drug found makes you think that every one at NASA always do drugs. Stop living in your fantasy world and start living in the real world.

[Divair]

You guys realize the guy is just trolling you?

[OuroborosCobra]

This has a number of very bad problems with it, some of them because your model would not fit observed physical actions and behaviors, and some because you have misrepresented claims on what existing science says or depends upon

First, the observed mechanics of the universe. In your model for a flat Earth, with an accelerating flat plane accelerating upwards (direction) with a rate of 9.8m/s^2 (magnitude), would result in all objects at rest with respect to the same reference that the acceleration vector has been measured against will indeed "fall" towards the accelerating plane, and from the reference of those objects that falling acceleration would be downwards (direction) with a magnitude of 9.8m/s^2. The problem is that your model would make force of gravity dependent only on the vector of the accelerating plane, as opposed to the observed reality that it is dependent on the mass of both objects within the system, and the distance of the centers of mass of these objects from each other.
Just walking outside on Earth this does not become readily apparent as a problem. The force I exert pulling the Earth towards me is equal to force the Earth is pulling on me towards it, but because of the enormity of the Earth's mass, its acceleration vector towards me is so small as to not be observable. The difference in gravitational force, and therefore acceleration, from objects of different height observable around is also not readily observable, as the fractional difference between the height of an aircraft and myself is so small as to be almost a non existent difference in terms of effect on the force, this is because the altitude difference is measured from the center of the Earth, several thousand kilometers away. The difference between me and an aircraft is at most only an additional of a few dozen kilometers.
So outside of my window, your description works. Our observable universe is not limited to outside of your window. The moon, for example is at a far greater distance than I am from the Earth's center of mass, about 60 times further away. The result of this is that the gravitational force is not simply a proportional difference between my mass and the moons mass, as it is for say a me and a car, and therefore the acceleration that must be used in figuring out the Moon's orbit isn't the same either. An object the size and mass of the moon released at the Moon's orbital distance from the Earth, but not in orbital motion, would have a downward acceleration of an observed acceleration towards the surface of the Earth of roughly 0.002698m/s^2, far far less than 9.8m/s^2. Now the numbers I calculated will be a little off, I used the average distance between the Earth and the Moon (in fact this varies periodically over its orbit). The equations were:
F= G*(m₁*m₂)/r², where F is force, G is the gravitational constant, m₁ is Earth's mass, m₂ is the moons mass, and r is the semimajor axis of the moons orbit, or essentially its average distance from the Earth.
A = m₂/F, where A is acceleration.
We can directly observe that the average velocity of the moon is 1022m/s. In a model of the universe where the Earth is round and the moon orbits it, this results in a calculated centripetal acceleration of 0.002717m/s^2. Well would you look at that! The centripetal acceleration is basically equal to that of the downward acceleration of gravity! Meaning that the round Earth model, with the moon orbiting the round Earth, and the force of gravity being dependent on both the mass both objects and the distance between them, this model accurately predicts the behavior of the moon! Your model does not, it does not allow for the force or acceleration to vary depending on either the mass of the objects involved, or their distance from each other. You have a plane traveling with a constant acceleration, and you're model depends on everything else in the system feeling an effect matching that acceleration.
The Centripetal Acceleration was calculated with the formula A = v²/r, where v is the observed average velocity of the moon.
Again, there's a tiny bit of fudging with these numbers that creates a small amount of error, but as you will see it predicts our observations with a great deal of precision, where your constant acceleration model independent of mass of the respective objects or their distance from each other does not.
We can further observe the dependency of the force of gravity on the mass of BOTH objects in the system by looking at systems where the masses are not so unbalanced, such as the Pluto/Charon system. There we can directly observe both the acceleration resulting from Pluto's pull on Charon's mass, but also Charon's pull on Pluto.
Now let me be clear, I did not use the above equations in such a way as to suggest "your model doesn't work because these equations are in my physics book." I used them because they are the equations for a model of the universe that's round, has gravity, has orbits, etc., and they accurately predict our observations. Your model does not.

You have misrepresented what a graviton is predicted to be in order to make it sound illogical to exist. You claim it as a particle with zero mass and zero energy, but this simply isn't the case. A graviton, like a photon, would indeed be massless. This is because both photons and the effects of gravity travel or propagate at the speed of light, and special relativity does not allow anything with mass to travel at that speed. A photon gets away with this by having zero mass, and so would a graviton. A photon DOES have energy, and so would a graviton. This is how either of them are doing the work that is their defined existence. A graviton will have an extremely low energy when compared to a photon, but this again makes sense as gravity is a far far FAR weaker force than the electromagnetic force. See http://www.physics.louisville.edu/wkomp/teaching/spring2006/589/final/schumann.pdf, where an estimation of that energy is calculated, and a velocity is calculated roughly matching that of light. The differences can be accounted again because of estimations and a low number of significant figures for many of the values. So gravitons do, in fact, have energy.

[Chinese Regions]

Trololololo

[Farnhamia]

You guys realize the guy is just trolling you?

Sure, Tom's been here before. Trolls can be fun, to an extent, though the novelty does wear off after a while.

[Brauzillia]

I don't really care if it's flat, If i can eat, breathe, talk, live and have a life, then Good

[Oceanic Vakiadia]

Explain the Coriolis Effect.

[Calixs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnhF1QAEZjU

[Banold]

You'd have an easier time convincing me the Earth was hollow...

[Hassett]

I agree, the Earth is flat because it looks flat.

I'm only joking guys

[Caecili]

Trollin', trollin', trollin', keep them dawgies trollin'

In case you're serious, we've known the earth was round since 6th Century B.C.
This gave me a good laugh.

Trollin', trollin', trollin'...

[Czardas]

Flat earth? That's the second biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard.

If the earth is flat, how do you explain hills?

[OuroborosCobra]

f the earth is flat, how do you explain hills?

That, sir, is win.

It reminds me of how the Church had a doctrine of believing the moon to be a perfectly smooth surface, and really not liking it when Galileo said otherwise. It doesn't even look perfect with the naked eye.

[Peddieville]

Flat earth? That's the second biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard.

I'll bite. What's the biggest?

[Aglrinia]

Awhile back, I approached this forum firmly beleiving I could convince the community that our dear Earth was indeed flat. I'm back.

Here is a basic explanation of how the Flat Earth works:

Basically the Flat Earth has Gravitation but not Gravity. This Gravitation is what keeps the atmosphere on the Flat Earth.

As we know, the Flat Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2. According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle an accelerating frame of reference is exactly mathematically equivalent to a gravitational field at all points around an accelerating mass. This produces the same effect of Gravity, but without the need for a hypothetical undiscovered particle with zero energy and zero mass called the Graviton. This point is confusing to most people, but the act of being pushed into an accelerating object and being drawn into an object with a gravitational field is EXACTLY the same thing. There is no difference. What you know as acceleration is really the bending of space-time around the accelerating object.

The Flat Earth does not only exert a gravitational field on the top of its surface, but it also exerts a gravitational field on it's sides and underside. In essence, it does not matter in which direction the Flat Earth is accelerating because it will create a uniform gravitational field as long as it is uniformly accelerating. Th e Flat Earth could be accelerating downwards and we would still be held to her surface by a gravitational pull. Einstein's "acceleration = gravitation" conclusion may be hard to believe, but it a main tenant of General Relativity. Without the Equivalence Principle Einstein's theory on General Relativity falls apart.

Now, The Flat Earth is walled up by an Ice Wall to keep the contents in. This wall is guarded by an organization formed by a majority of nations on our planet. The Ice Wall does not melt for it also contains rock. and one more thing. BENDY LIGHT, look it up before bothering.

Getting off topic, cocaine was founded at Kennedy space center. If NASA were a real space agency they would be hiring straight and narrow engineers and scientists instead of these lowlife cocaine addicts who sit around building fake space ships out of cardboard paper, scotch tape, and assorted junk yard parts.

You be trolling

[Markevia]

Awhile back, I approached this forum firmly beleiving I could convince the community that our dear Earth was indeed flat. I'm back.

Here is a basic explanation of how the Flat Earth works:

Basically the Flat Earth has Gravitation but not Gravity. This Gravitation is what keeps the atmosphere on the Flat Earth.

As we know, the Flat Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2. According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle an accelerating frame of reference is exactly mathematically equivalent to a gravitational field at all points around an accelerating mass. This produces the same effect of Gravity, but without the need for a hypothetical undiscovered particle with zero energy and zero mass called the Graviton. This point is confusing to most people, but the act of being pushed into an accelerating object and being drawn into an object with a gravitational field is EXACTLY the same thing. There is no difference. What you know as acceleration is really the bending of space-time around the accelerating object.

The Flat Earth does not only exert a gravitational field on the top of its surface, but it also exerts a gravitational field on it's sides and underside. In essence, it does not matter in which direction the Flat Earth is accelerating because it will create a uniform gravitational field as long as it is uniformly accelerating. Th e Flat Earth could be accelerating downwards and we would still be held to her surface by a gravitational pull. Einstein's "acceleration = gravitation" conclusion may be hard to believe, but it a main tenant of General Relativity. Without the Equivalence Principle Einstein's theory on General Relativity falls apart.

Now, The Flat Earth is walled up by an Ice Wall to keep the contents in. This wall is guarded by an organization formed by a majority of nations on our planet. The Ice Wall does not melt for it also contains rock. and one more thing. BENDY LIGHT, look it up before bothering.

Getting off topic, cocaine was founded at Kennedy space center. If NASA were a real space agency they would be hiring straight and narrow engineers and scientists instead of these lowlife cocaine addicts who sit around building fake space ships out of cardboard paper, scotch tape, and assorted junk yard parts.

You be trolling

No, its a cleverly disguised unsourced, uncited debate.

[Latin Hispania]

I'll bite.

What happens when you climb a mountain, why do you see a rounded edge to Earth? and what is the purpose of making people believe that the Earth is flat, what does this so-called organization win?

[Greater Tezdrian]

Ye Gods OP, I never thought you'd rear your ugly head again. Wasn't your last thread a beating enough?

[Orlkjestad]

Where are your sources? Your citations? I can't even bother with this until there is hardcore proof. For now, you're so-called "fact" is only opinion. In conclusion,

[Ultaron]

Folks there's really only 3 options.

1. Tom is a Troll
(then we ignore him and this goes away)
2. Tom believes the earth is flat
(then we shake our heads and refer him back to school)
3. Tom is using something so outlandish to illustrate a point
(In most countries information is spoon fed to people and instead of arguing or figuring out the validity of things on our own we except it as fact.)

[Nazis in Space]

I have a map of the Earth hanging on the wall, right next to me.

This map is flat.

So of course the Earth is flat. Why else would maps be flat?

Seriously folks, use some logic.

[The Mighty Islands]

The funniest thing is that this guy has made 2 posts and now everyone is trolling each other.

[Nazis in Space]

Also, I note that the term 'Troll' is used entirely too often, when satire, sarcasm, cynism, or even a simple sense of humour all apply rather better than 'Troll'.

Ninety percent of the time, 'OMG an Troll' is the idiot's answer to 'Humour I don't understand'. It's typically the same kind of person that thinks (Thought) Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal was totally serious, and resorts to 'Satire doesn't work in text-based media!' in a brilliant admission of illiteracy that sweeps aside the achievements of a Tucholsky or Kishon in favour of celebrating ignorance.

[Miss Defied]

I don't think he's a troll because he apparently really believes this and is trying to convince others. He just refuses to be bent by these so-called "laws of physics" that everyone refutes his claims with.
I, for one, am sold.
Tom? Tom? Wherefore art thou? It's rather bad manners to bail on your converts.

[Bradforsonia]

I thought he was being serious until he mentioned the "Ice Walls"