phart Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, thplinth said: Good luck with that. When the answer can be ‘there is no gravity only falling’ or words to that effect I am betting you not going to achieve that eureka breakthrough conversion moment here. By the way have you not being paying attention gravity is actually explained by the flat earth rising. So jump off a cliff and the earth flies up and smashes you to a pulp. No gravity required. yeah but it isn't rising at a flat rate it accelerates. However if it was really accelerating each time we drop something it would take less and less time to hit the earth, not withstanding it would be accelerating way past the speed of light by now as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Just now, phart said: yeah but it isn't rising at a flat rate it accelerates. However if it was really accelerating each time we drop something it would take less and less time to hit the earth, not withstanding it would be accelerating way past the speed of light by now as well. Yep the flatearth is accelerating at 9.81 m per second per second or whatever that shite they taught us at school was upwards. So clearly there is no limit to the speed of light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eisegerwind Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Huddersfield said: Yes that was precisely my question. And phart has articulated precisely & articulately why I asked it...you either accept scientific principles or you don't. You've never been to Antarctica; indeed actually claim it doesn't exist in the form most people think it does, so you can't select a bit of Science to prove a particular point that you have no other evidence for, when your worldview is based upon a perspective that scientists by & large lie to us. You can, he just did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, phart said: yeah but it isn't rising at a flat rate it accelerates. However if it was really accelerating each time we drop something it would take less and less time to hit the earth, not withstanding it would be accelerating way past the speed of light by now as well. Whoah have you calculated that assuming a 5000 year old earth? So if you do rework it and assume a standing start 5000 years ago and the FE has not yet reached light speed can you work out what year we will coz I am thinking that will be the day the world ends. Edited January 17, 2019 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eisegerwind Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, thplinth said: Whoah have you calculated that assuming a 5000 year old earth? We're currently going at 5000 times the speed of light based on that, fag packet calculation. Edited January 17, 2019 by Eisegerwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 353,7 days at 9.81 m/s/s to reach the speed of light. So above fag packet is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Hang on. 5000 years old and 5000 times the speed of light. That cant be a coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Since we're back onto science and thinking for ourselves, can anyone answer this one then? On 1/12/2019 at 3:41 PM, exile said: Suppose you're in a ship positioned just north of the northernmost point on Antarctica. You sail on a straight course due east. Where do you end up? (a) Where you started from. (b) You crash into Antarctica (whose frigid shore is on your right.) (c) You go off at a tangent (and eventually hit another continent, not Antarctica). (We have one answer so far) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 I'd say a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted January 17, 2019 Author Share Posted January 17, 2019 Definitely a) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted January 17, 2019 Author Share Posted January 17, 2019 On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 12:24 PM, Toepoke said: Cotton plants growing in the lunar daylight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-46873526 However the lunar night seems to have done for them... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/16/china-first-cotton-plant-on-moon-dies-change-4-lander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 20 minutes ago, Toepoke said: However the lunar night seems to have done for them... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/16/china-first-cotton-plant-on-moon-dies-change-4-lander No idea how that worked but the harshness of the lunar day and night mean I don't see the plants being in some mini eco glass ball self sustaining environment that they release and leave on the lunar environment and let get on with it. It must have been well embedded within the lander in an artificial zone with a sustained heat and false light source. Given those resources scaled up I could probably grow tomatoes on the moon. It is a fair experiment but it would have been far more rewarding to try using martian soil added to human stuff and then grow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Jim Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 hour ago, exile said: Since we're back onto science and thinking for ourselves, can anyone answer this one then? (We have one answer so far) I assumed this was a trap for someone so stayed away. From the south-polar-viewed map, answer (a), you go round in a circle 60(?) degrees south back where you started. But, (x) [ sorry 😋 ] how far north of Antartica do you start and (y) do you mean only mainland Antartica? If (x) not far and (y) yes, then you may bump into the Joinville Islands. And, if in winter, will you not start in, or (b) bump into an ice sheet? I do not know how far the frigid shore extends. I don't see how this is a trap for flat OR ball earthers though, so am either paranoid or an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Grim Jim said: I assumed this was a trap for someone so stayed away. No I said it was for everyone 18 minutes ago, Grim Jim said: From the south-polar-viewed map, answer (a), you go round in a circle 60(?) degrees south back where you started. But, (x) [ sorry 😋 ] how far north of Antartica do you start and (y) do you mean only mainland Antartica? If (x) not far and (y) yes, then you may bump into the Joinville Islands. And, if in winter, will you not start in, or (b) bump into an ice sheet? I do not know how far the frigid shore extends. All very good questions. Let's assume we mean roughly 60 degrees for simplicity, and as long as there are no small islands that can't be seen at this scale, or ice sheets. I mean, assume the premise of the question is based on the map shown (which doesn't sho any islands smaller than New Zealand), and you are far enough north to avoid any ice, but south of South America. Does that make sense? (Or assume the ship is an icebreaker 😉 ) 18 minutes ago, Grim Jim said: I don't see how this is a trap for flat OR ball earthers though, so am either paranoid or an idiot. Well let's see... we need a sample of flat earthers and ball earthers to see if there's a difference in the answer (but so far we already have answers a, b and c!) Edited January 17, 2019 by exile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 To clarify, yes I mean you need to imagine being far enough north of any/all small islands like Joinville Island. Something new I just learned: Google Maps, when you scroll east or west, brings you round in a circle! And: I just discovered that the South Georgia/South Sandwich Islands has a postcode, SIQQ 1ZZ ! Just as space travel can trigger discoveries not just about space, so can flat earth research trigger discoveries not about flat earths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Jim Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Fuggsake (a) then. Sorry for being a pedantballearther 🎈 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Grim Jim said: Fuggsake (a) then. Sorry for being a pedantballearther 🎈 No probs, yours were good questions. And it stirred me to get hold of a proper map now, and it turns out the South Orkney Islands lie at 60 degrees south. So, we should assume the ship is sailing just to the north or south of 60 degrees. Or, the question could be changed to: imagine a ship sets sail due east from South Orkney, where does it end up? I also just discovered there's a Scotia Sea down thereabouts... "the sea was named about 1932 after the Scotia, the expedition ship used in these waters by the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition (1902–04) under William S. Bruce." Edited January 17, 2019 by exile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Jim Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 16 minutes ago, exile said: No probs, yours were good questions. And it stirred me to get hold of a proper map now, and it turns out the South Orkney Islands lie at 60 degrees south. So, we should assume the ship is sailing just to the north or south of 60 degrees. Or, the question could be changed to: imagine a ship sets sail due east from South Orkney, where does it end up? I also just discovered there's a Scotia Sea down thereabouts... "the sea was named about 1932 after the Scotia, the expedition ship used in these waters by the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition (1902–04) under William S. Bruce." Excellent picture or a tectonic plate boundary there. Or feck knows if it's only 4 or 5k years old Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Grim Jim said: Excellent picture or a tectonic plate boundary there. Or feck knows if it's only 4 or 5k years old It's called the Scotia Plate (Placa Scotia) ! Seems there's also a Shetland Plate and a (South) Sandwich Plate! And maybe somewhere there must be a Tunnocks Teacake Plate... Edited January 17, 2019 by exile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLAS Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) On 1/13/2019 at 7:12 PM, Scotty CTA said: The first one is the worst one. Don't settle, though. Keep searching and inquiring. I'm with you Scotty. if Nikola Tesla can't spell environment that means it doesn't exist and we're all fecked. Elon Musk has a lot to answer for. Edited January 18, 2019 by OLAS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 11 hours ago, Grim Jim said: Excellent picture or a tectonic plate boundary there. Oh dear.... sorry to have to be the one to break this to you but.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 One of the longest running and most controversial theories in geology is the Expanding Earth theory. From the earliest school classes to the most advanced university geology lectures we are all taught that the size of the Earth has been constant and unchanging for thousands of millions of years, so virtually everyone is astonished when first presented with evidence for an Expanding Earth. Some people are so shocked by the array of observations supporting an Expanding Earth model they simply deny there is any evidence for expansion. This rejection of the observations can become very animated at times but a few people are sufficiently curious to carefully investigate the facts indicating that the Earth has expanded over geological time. Some of the more well known investigators into the Expanding Earth theory are professors of geology and other sciences, who continue to examine the supporting evidence and report the results of their observations in various scientific papers and books. This history of the Expanding Earth theory is still developing today as these new scientific observations are examined and debated. The most widely known geological evidence for Earth expansion is a simple reconstruction of the ancient continents and ancient ocean floor like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The continents are ancient and some regions have existed for more than 3,800 million years but in geological time scales the ocean floor is relatively young and ranges from only about 200 million years old at the continents to areas at the mid-ocean ridges that are still forming today. When the dinosaurs first evolved none of today's ocean floor existed. Consider how unlikely it is that the entire ancient ocean floor fits together so precisely to form a complete sphere on the ancient Earth. If the missing ancient ocean floor had been generated by any other process than an Expanding Earth it would be improbable that the areas were the exact shapes required to reconstruct a smaller Earth. It would be more likely that irregular shapes that didn't fit together would exist. The probability of the Expanding Earth forming by chance is so low it seems impossible. It is similar to arguing that a jigsaw puzzle fits together by chance rather than for any logical reason. Read more here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 For those who really want to get into it. Skip to 1.20. 14 glorious parts. Fill those boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Jim Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 51 minutes ago, thplinth said: Oh dear.... sorry to have to be the one to break this to you but.... Most of what he says is correct, except that he says there cannot be subduction and therefore reaches his conclusion. Why can there not be subduction? He says mantle is too dense. He's missing the fact that rock in continental crust is lighter than that in ocean crust, and therefore one starts to slide over the other. From there on it is like an escalator. There is evidence for subduction in analysis (chemistry of the volcanoes) of the mountain chains formed above it. One day the Atlantic sea floor may (he would use the word "must") begin to subduct along is edges as it is lighter than American & European crust. We should get new mountains like the Andes right here some day. The granites of the Lake district are where this (volcanics due to subduction where an ocean ultimately closed) happened before and the Southern Uplands were accreted opposite to them as coastal sediments were bulldozed up. The evidence is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 How the fuck is it a conspiracy that the Earth is growing? Who is it conspiring with? I don't believe it is growing at any significant rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.