Couple of interesting pieces of news...

China is going to limit addictive software!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6544759.stm

Water detected on distant planet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6544257.stm

cool, now soon they'll find aliens.

China is nutty. Their wacky escapades don't interest me.

As for the water thing - that planet is 150 light years away. Or to put it another way, what we see now, is what it looked like 150 years ago. The planet itself might not even be there now.

I don't know why they bother spending all their money trying to prove there's a bit of water on a planet billions of miles away that we'll never ever get to.

...and what they see now is what we looked like 150 years ago, so everything is right on time.

seen as China has the 2nd largest number of people online in the world, what they do is quite important.
Changing games so the score doesnt increase isnt as bad as the other things they have done like banning a videogame that featured Tibet as an independent country or locking up political dissidents.

I dont think a planet is going to change much in 150 years, you can look at the stage its sun is in and instantly know if the planet is still there or not.

If you cant see the point in astronomy you were probably one of those people who would have disaproved of spending money on microbiology back when 'germ theory' was the laughing stock of the scientific community when Pasteur proved that disease was the result of tiny particles that we cant see.

One of my favorite images. Kinda makes you wonder.

Actually, the chinese thing is not such a bad idea, even though it limits freedom and all. It might actually save some peoples relationships. :)

No more WoW widows...hehe.

yeah I might try to limit my kids' online games in the future like an old fart hehe ;-)

The universe is teeming with life. The only hindrance is the long distance phone bill.

besides. There are candidates for life-bearing bodies in our own solar system. We should start there. Hell.. One is only a couple decades away (counted development time) if we really wanted to check it out.

Yep, only 150 light years away. Carbonite?

Hey Chroma.. Check your e-mail
>.>

Um... And also, I wanna pet giant slug from Europa

Hmm...my email was empty. :(

I been messing with my site too!
www.zamagames.com

Obviously you haven't read genesis.

Great. Maybe the thieving bastards in Aus can get lost over on that planet instead.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s737697.htm

I think once you understand evolution, you know that life is a natural physical phenomenon, and a statistical likelihood. If a system starts self-replicating, that system will naturally become more successful over time. If it doesn't, it will be replaced by more successful variations.

It would be pretty absurd to think that ours is the only planet on which self-replicating organic systems have sprung up. Life probably spontaneously forms right here on Earth all the time, if it can survive long enough without getting eating by a bacterium or something.

Space research is essential to the long-term survival of the human race.

-finite water supply
-demand for energy
-overpopulation
-global warming
-declining resources

It is possible that these could be better solved with this kind of research, studying planetary bodies to help with fusion research, mabe one day we will be 'mining' water from elsewhere (europa, mars poles etc.) Living in orbiting/underwater cities etc. who knows what we could achieve if we put our minds to it and got priorities right.

Far bigger wastes of money (unneccessary and obscene expenditure) include:

-War
-Price / wages of pro footballers etc.
-Wages of actors etc.
-Politics
-Cost of MS software, and subsequent hardware 'outdating'
-Departmental budgets (where depts. overspend in order to get the same amount next time)

Its a long long long list. Space programs are a small cost in comparison.

Also overpriced medicine.

cool...

well.. actually.. NASA IS one of the people spending where they don't have to. They also have very very very bad habits. They like to reivent the wheel a lot, and then reuse outdated technology for no reason. It is a real mess.... My Dad does Reliability for them... He knows.

"Aron, we have this problem with our legacy power control system. It produces too much heat for the instruments we are going to carry. We don't know how well these new fangled heat conductors will work in a vaccum."

"Why don't you build a new power control system?"

"We are too busy with these heat conductor and radiation systems."

"If you replaced the legacy 40 year old power control system, you wouldn't need the fancy heat transfer system."

"Oh... But that's boring, who would want to design a new power control system? The old one works fine."

Paraphrased, but more-or-less a real conversation.


Thankfully, this is just going in a $200,000,000 satellite that will detect ocean salinity from orbit... No big deal... :P One that my dad showed could have been built for $20,000,000 with the same parts bought based on how cheap they are, and not on government contracts.

Life on earth didn't even come from earth. What does that tell you?

Chroma: ditch that font and go with Arial or Verdana. Also remove the underlines from your links. It'll do wonders. Maybe think about putting a 1 pixel border around the main table.

As i said above: -Departmental budgets (where depts. overspend in order to get the same amount next time)

The ESA,RSA etc. and the private sector cannot afford to waste such money so they *try* and do it right.

My point was more about the need, not the method.

I was just pointing out that NASA is subject to those Departmental Budgets.. so it was a small hole in your arguement.

I agree.. People who don't think we need a space program are ignorant.

Ahh i see your point now.

Lol i should have added:
-bureaucracy at nasa :)

markd: thanks, arial looks way better! I'm finally getting my head around this html/css thing.

What? Since the dawn of time, the water supply on Earth has been almost constant.

This isn't a real problem. First Law of Thermodynamics anyone? We just need to figure out more efficient ways of producing/consuming energy.

Is also a fairly non-issue. Just move to Australia.

Not an issue either. If we can survive in space, we can survive on a hot planet as well.

The real reason we must learn to survive in space, is that in 4-5 billion years, the earth will be engulfed by the sun, as it expands to a Red Giant. In fact we need to create fully self-sustained space stations, as our galaxy (and possibly our universe) is doomed, since stars have a finite (albeit long) life cycle.

This of course providing we can stop hating each other long enough to actually make it that far or alternatively embrace the genocide of everyone who isn't like us.

..i'll tell you something about universe...we are all in one cute big ball, and I'm feeling cool about it...I like it dirty..yeahh..and yeah FlameDuck, thats nice try, but no matter what we do, our cute mega mega giant ball (universe) will collapse in to itself, so its game over anyway...o yeah..I like it dirty...

I've always said. We should just build a few giant mirrors and keep on using all the gas we want. It is the rampant middle-of-the-grounders that keep great things from happening.

Either be totally moral and find an alternative to killing animals (and smart plants) or just kill off all the africans and asians. Either way. We'll be good.

Why on earth would you want to not kill animals?

Don't forget the Semites, Slavics, Polynesians and other fringe ethnic groups. Seriously ethnic cleansing is not the solution - just look at Texas.

I.. was kidding.

..i'm not kidding..all this will be smashed, so its kind a cool...

Well.. actually. They think the universe will keep expanding forever right now.. But its so out on the fringe it isn't really 'knowable' right now. As far as we know, the universe could be escapeable, we could store enough energy for the million or so years it might take for a new one to form. It is too early to decide it must end.

However. There are too many things that can happen to a single planet to wipe out all life. Everything from big rocks, to rogue black holes, to seemingly small things like pandemics.

The only way to really ensure the continuation of humanity is to populate other planets. Then other galaxies. More and more distant.

Of course... Over time we'll become many different sub-strains of humanity.. In time, we won't recognise/be genetically compatable with eachother.. But by then, that shouldn't matter.

..universe will crash back..one day potential energy will be equal to kinetic, and then kiss goodbye...I like it by the way...leaving nice feeling that all a**holes on this world will end up anyway..

I've been reading about Creationism : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

OK then, you start now on this forum ;-) I hereby name thee "LoveDuck"

Be careful with creationist writing. There are only 2 ways. believe what you feel, or believe what you observe. The thing is, people can select which to follow for any given thing. So someone can observe that evolution makes sense, and that it is observable, then also believe in god. Which creates the distinctions. None of that is science. Science just says that life changes over time. It is the creationists that make that out to mean more than it does.

Neuro: Interesting link thanks. Got a whole bunch of stuff in there.

The problem with Panspermia is it deals with how life got to earth but not how that life was made in the first place.

> It is the creationists that make that out to mean more than it does.

To be fair, there are a number of evolutionists that do the same.

Because they're cute and fluffy?

While you're at it, you might want to study a little truthiness as well.

Also, here is another page dealing with Creationism/Intelligent Design.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Evolution is not an ideology or belief system.

Not all animals are cute and fluffy tho'. Surely you aren't suggesting we only kill animals that aren't cute and fluffy?

hehe I think I saw that episode on youtube or something. Yeah here's the thing, his explanation is damning of Americans (and of course people in generaly) but it's probably true, in fact for me it has a "truthiness" feel about it.

LOL! Has anyone else actually read what some of these creationist folks believe in?? Some really hilarious stuff...


Wow....and they want to teach this to kids in school?

> There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Evolution is not an ideology or belief system.

I've seen a number of evolutionists claim it is proof that there is no God. I've seen another group say it has no bearing at all, and a third group claiming it proves it. All three groups are taking an observation and turning it into a philosophy.

> Wow....and they want to teach this to kids in school?

There are nuts everywhere. It only gets to be a problem when they get elected to school boards, which I admit has happened here in the US.

I believe the universe will recycle itself some how, though, I dont believe in the 'big crunch' theory, the universe is expanding faster, and as we know it, it will probably just fizzle out....

As light travels over a long period of time, it could slow down, and over zillions (Dont quote me on that one) of years, parts of the the universe would become massless, now, light has no mass, but contained mass, so effectively, the slowing of light could change the properties of its mass/contained mass ratio and somehow be effected by the massless universe... Say,having actual mass... Now imagine all the light (with mass) banging into each other, I dare say it could spit out a bit of energy.

Next thing, new universe!

Well, thats what I think, but on the subject, anyones guess is as good as anyones,well, until someone tries to create a mini universe in a lab somewhere (which wouldnt suprise me) :)

Dabz

Not fresh water, once its salinated there is nowhere to put the residue from de-salination in such quantity. And if theres no trees left to make enough fresh then were fked


true, but people on this planet hate spending money, walking to work and washing dishes, including me, so wouldnt mastering a cheap form of fusion be better from say the easy to sustain hydrogen etc?


true, except centeral australia and africa will most likely be uninhabitable within 100 years



Couse we can, but we still need food water and power to be able to do so.


Doomed i tell you DOOMED! :P

DAMN, IVE GOTTA STOP WATCHING THE DAMN DESCOVERY / GEOGRAPHIC CHANNELS >:(

I've actually seen commercials about this kind of stuff on TV late at night. I thought it was a joke at first...never realized how serious some people are about this stuff.

No you haven't, because Evolutionists do not exist. It is a fake word invented by creationists to discredit scientists. What you may have heard is Atheists claim that Evolution proves there is no god. As any agnostic will tell you it is unlikely that you can prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent being.

You're right. There's more fresh water now, than at any other time in history.

Yes. No more politically motivated hippie TV for you. :o>

:P

> What you may have heard is Atheists claim that Evolution proves there is no god.

No I've heard a scientist speaking on evolution says this. The fact that they believe there is no god also making them atheists is beside the point.

.no comment, getting 2 D33P 4 me!

Water evaporates and returns to the Earth as rain. It's water from the sky.

The fact that it falls out of the sky makes it all the more painful to pay for :/

Rubbish. Science is the study of natural phenomenon. The existence of gods is a supernatural or philosophical debate. Thus if someone says "God does not exist" it is a matter of belief, regardless of whether they're a king or a chimney sweeper.

Whether someone is a scientist is the bit that's irrelevant in a theological discussion, because it's just not science. Much like when having a scientific discussion about thermodynamic properties, or an idealogical discussion about the practicality of communism, it doesn't matter whether you're an Atheist, a Hindu, a Muslim or a Jew.

In some countries (like Denmark) it's pumped up from the groundwater.

> Rubbish.

I agree it's rubbish, doesn't change the fact that I heard it, more then once. If the fact that they are confusing science and religion bothers you then I can't argue that point since I agree. If the term "evolutionist" bothers you then I'll simply agree to disagree - since I consider myself to be one, the God believing kind, but one none the less.

true, but considering the worlds fresh and useable water makes up about 3-5% it really depends where you live, especially in 100 years if these is anything to go by:

About the water and why:
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/435-edws.html?gclid=CI3p9tWJvosCFQ0wlAodwHHIxQ
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=5fae1bbc-e8db-4edb-8a65-a0604185a9d0
In general:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6532323.stm
http://www.southbaymobilization.org/newsroom/earth.htm

Ever heard of Reasonism?

the blackholes may absord all the &&&holes.. you never know

If you believe in god, and see that evolution makes sense, you are an evolutionist. Since you must make the distinction to your peers. Everyone else who 'believes in evolution' is just 'educated'.

It's like the flat earth society. That's how dumb not believeing in evolution is. It;s like thinking the earth is flat.

..anyone ask self, in to what universe expanding anyway?? And one things is for sure, nothing is just plain coincidence...fact that we cant observe things becouse our knowledge is not strong enough, doesnt mean that things we cant percept is not there...like God...so, as chinese says 'be careful what you wish for..it may came truth..'

Excuse me Damp, but you cannot prove that the earth isnt flat. Ok so some of the physics you learnt you would have to assume is wrong. For example, light would need to bend away from the flat surface of the earth. (Which you can only prove it doesnt if you take the earth to be round, its one of those self comfirming thoeries). And also that the metric would need to change, which again we only assume it doesnt, cos it seems not to change.

(And dont give me any of that "You will fall of the edge), cos metric changes so that you travel an infanitly smaller, (or larger depending on if we want an infinate plane or not), distance in the same unit time as you get closer to the "Edge". The only way to really really prove that the earth isnt flat is to be at all points of its sruface at the same time which you cannot do. So we accept the round earth model, cos it removes the topalogical parts of space travel equations.

Again, its only because the maths are easier if you say that the earth isnt the centre.

There have been three studies into this "Planet", (I say "Planet", cos its really a brown dwalf), that have published since Jan. Two have said that the water spetra that they were looking for (9.8microns I think), wasnt there, and that it was silica that they were seeing (9.5 I think), and one that said it still might be water.

Obviously the news media jumped at the later of these, (Cos finding water is a big deal), but ... well you know. Thier needs to be another (At least) study, and there are only 2 non-solar system masses (of the 217 odd that we have found), that have a plane of orbit good enough for spectra analysis.

I have no doubt that there is life out there, but this is a faith thing. Finding the first non-solar mass/planet was a big step to showing that is was statisicaly likly, (And dont forget that was only 1992), and if they can now show that these masses have water as part of there makeup then a bigger step in showing that the life would be somthing we could relate to. However it is still just faith that lets people say that life must exist somewhere else.

And stateing blindly that "It must" because.... is what gives the more fundimental creationists the ability to counter it. Both the existance of a God and extra Solar life are at the moment unproven. But only one of which has the chance of proff becomeing available.

End Note. Imagine how funny it would be, if the first Aliens to visit earth, were on a pilgrimage to the Holy land. hahahahahahahahaha

ps
It not expanding into anything, its a 3d space bounded in 4d, it just gets bigger (Or everything in it gets smaller including the metric if that make you feel more comfortable)

H&K... well... -I- can't prove this. But NASA can, as they can see the earth is round from space. Unless you think they are liars.. hahaha.

Same for earth going around the sun, we never would have gotten to mars if it wasn't correct.

If this was 1907 you'd be correct. But we have actual evidence, not just math, to back those claims up.

H&K is either joking or crazy (or both).
It would be impossible to get satellites to orbit a flat earth, and whats this "cos metric changes so that you travel an infanitly"? What scientific evidence is this based on other than pulling it out of thin air?

..regarding universe expansion...its interesting that its expanding to 'nowhere' or not expanding at all..so, I said it will crash back, becouse everithing in nature so far cycling, and only difference is time frame, thats all...so as a universal rule applied on to everything far as i can see, its obvious that it will happen with universe too..its just matter of time, for us almost infinite, as for universe, short like mouse fart....simple as that..it'll go to begining and I like it..cool..

TEH MOONZ ARE MAED OFF CHEESES!!!!!!11+

The earth would appear to be a "Globe" from space if it was in fact a "Globe", or if light acted the way stated for it to act. In this case it would also look like a "globe"

Stop for a moment and think why would it be impossible? Cos it wouldnt. It is quite possible to draw a circle on a plate, so why is it impossible on a plane?
Im afraid there is no scientific evidence to show if the metric changes or stays the same because we only have the metric to messure it with.


The only reason its more likly that the world isnt flat, and isnt the centre of the universe, is besause the Math is easier if it isnt. But is cannot be proven not to be a flat plane unless you can be at every point of it at the same time. But to state it as fact, is just faith.

how about the "moon in the well" test?

oh here's a link:

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gkastr1.html

Just goes to show that you don't understand science. Good science is not about proving something is true, good science is about proving that something we believe to be true isn't.

In either case, it is a piece of cake to prove the Earth is flat. Just go around it. Also, geosynchronous orbits wouldn't be possible if the world was flat. Since we can see that the Earth is round (now from space, but initially by its shadow on the moon) and since we know it rotates around its own axis (as demonstrated by Foucault's pendulum), it is through observation, quite clear that the Earth is indeed not flat.

Not a huge math fan, are you? The math would be easier if we used a simplistic medieval view of the world. The only problem with that is, that while the math is simpler, it doesn't add up.

Drawing a circle is the same as getting a satellite into orbit?
Good thing gravity and motion keeps the circle on the plate so it doesn't fall off. Please think next time.
In which case the maths would fail along with space missions which use the math.
In your (flat) world lunar eclipses don't occur because that would require the earth (which is flat) to have the moon (which might be flat) to be in the earths shadow. Is the sun flat too?

Just go to the seaside and look at the horizon. :P

As a keen amateur astonomer and having not been an active member of this forum for over a year now I am really itching to contribute some facts here. But I fear that as soon as I do, skid will come along and lock the thread.

Shame...

Prof! long time no see. Well it hasn't quite descended into a rant yet so...

I always wondered if that curve is real or an illusion...

The moon is just far enough along the plane for the light from the sun to have been bent enough so that non will fall apon the moon

And the world was never proved not to be flat, (Which we belived), all that was shown was that if it was a globe it made it easier to explian things, but that didnt prove it was a globe

I assume thats a typo, but either way its not a piece of cake to prove either.



Nope, that doesnt prove that the world as an axis, just that it is spinning.

Only, and I say again Only, if the metric is constant , (Which we cannot prove either way)

For a globe geosynchronous orbits is where the "Object" falls toward the earth at the same rate that the earth spins. For a flat earth geosynchronous orbit is where the object is high enough in the sky for the gravitional pull of the earth to equal that of the rest of the universe. A bit higher and it gets "Pulled" away from the earth, a bit lower and it falls towards it

If we accept the premise that the simplest solution to a problem is the correct one, then the world is a globe. This does not prove it is a globe. But once accepted other things (Such as gravity and therefore orbits) became easier to explain. This unfortunatly didnt prove that the earth was a globe. Everything that has been shown to work with a Globe earth, also works with a Flat earth, just with a lot more topological transformations. The only problem would be that there needs to be a point of the Globes surface at infinity, which is why I keep saying the only way to prove the earth not flat is to be at every point of it at the same time. (And saying we have been to every point of it doesnt work, cos just like Quantum the observer changes the point). Foucault's pendulum does imply that this point changes from (In the globe model), pole to pole as we approach each pole (or approach infinity), and was to be honest the best "It must be a globe" argument put forward, but can still be explained by the flipping of the infinate point.

H&K..you did play a lot wit single surface particle system past time intensively,did ya,aa??

So is the moon flat too? What about the other planets?

..man...I hope for him tits is not flat too..otherwise hes in deep sh.t..

No.
As the light from the sun gets close to the earth it bends away.
This produces night when the sun is far enough away from a point.
The higher a thing is above the surface the further away it needs to be from the sun to be in the dark.

So if the moon is far enough away from the sun along the plane, then any light that would hit the moon is "pushed away" from the earths surface, and so non falls apon the moon. Thus lunar eclipse.

How bout we jus call it a shadow! Geez...

Right.. What force is pushing away the light?

We are calling it a shadow, I was just pointing out that a shadow can be caused by other means than something being in the way of the light.

So the earth is flat now?

Yes - a "Discworld", if you will, supported by four giant elephants that stand on the back of a giant space turtle.

Apparently all the math fits a flat earth if you twist the math enough because the spherical earth is just an "illusion"; kind of like invisible pixies but everyone knows pixies are real.

Before Newton Named Gravity didnt mean it didnt exist, just call it whatever you like.

No, its a Globe, its just that its impossible to prove so. Lots of things in science are based on theroy rather than proof. The problem is that if it becomes the accepted Therory it is taken as being proven. In this case, it became obvious to the anchient Greeks that it was a lot lot easier to explain things if the earth was a globe, something that the main Euorpeans concluded nearly 2000years later.

It simplifed things so much, that even threatend with prison, (And worse excommunication), people refused to accept that it was Gospel that the world was flat. Once all the greater minds accepted that the "Globe Model" was the one they were going to use, the rest of the population caught on, and assumed that this had been proven. But is hadnt.

Although it sounds stupid, and lots of people havent taken it seriously, a flat plane can be mapped onto a globe as long as the distances between points on the globe do not need to be the same distance apart on the plane (ie the metric on the plane isnt constant). The problem is the closure point, (Normaly taken as being the pole opposite from where you started), which in a globe model you can travel to, but in a Plane model you cannot and is infact a circle of infinate diameter. However this "Pole" was arbitarlay chosen, so the only way you could be really really sure is if you were at all points of the globe at the same time.

Yes ;)
But as its accepted that the simplest solution is corrent, it make more snce to work on the assumtion that the world is a globe

Before Newton gravity was still "detected" by people. You on the other hand just made up an undetectable force.

Your problem is you're confusing "Scientific Theory" with "guessing", a scientific theory will always remain a scientific theory because it is an explanation of scientific facts.

This force is detectable by you, just go and look at the horizon, see the way you cannot see things more than about 25 miles away. That the effect of this force pushing the light away.

No. Your problem is that you are taking something as the most likly, to have been proven. And just assume that I must be wrong in my assertion that it is unproven.

Thats already explainable without making up forces.

I see no such effect of light being pushed away. I do however see the effect of the atmosphere distorting the light.

I'm taking the best explanation that fits the facts over some claim that you obviously haven't thoughtout.

Well you're wrong in what a scientific theory is.

Give up Az, I had a philosophy professor go on and on about how it was impossible to prove the door to the classroom was not alive...

He's only being devil's advocate he doesn't really think the earth is flat... but hey I guess I just won an award for pointing out the obvious, sorry ;-)

..well, obviously he has a problems with observing that rounded bodys is rounded..most probably his car wheels looks like rectangles to him(dont start story about infinite number of flat surfaces over wheel, etc..blah blah) as well as engine doesnt exist, but somehow hes pushing it with his foots (Flintstones) and worse, im wondering how he can see tits or good looking woman butt...twisted,flat, or oh my God, maybe doesnt exist at all?...yiikkk..

With a the assumption of a flat earth, explain how my airplane flew tocalifornia, then hawaii, then japan, then india, then spain and then back to maryland, all without the land/water going away under the plane.

Also, explain how doing so isn't proof that the earth is at least a cylinder.

Cos you were not in a rocket.

All the points you have picked are in the same hemisphere, so just look at an atlas of the northern Hemishere (on a flat page) and draw the jorney.

Well, a cylinder has two open points, where as a globe and an infinatly flat plane dont.
But the point is, Im not trying to prove the earth is flat, (or a cylinder), but rather that is cannot be shown that the earth is Globe.

If it was so obvious that the earth was a globe, why did anyone ever think otherwise? Its only obvious to you, because you have been told it is so, yet you cannot prove it. You have taken someones word for it, who took someones word for it, who took someones word for it, who decided that a globe made the orbits of the solar bodies make more sence.

In the globe model you cannot see them because they are over the horizon (which is about 3.5 miles away). It the flat model which needs to expalin the light being distorted.

What if I believe the word, of someone who has been in outerspace and seen that the earth is a globe? Is that close enough to the source? Or is it more likely that he, and everyone else involved in that mission, were liars?

I understand what you are saying. That because -I- was not in space, I can't tell.

Well, Prove to me that you aren't in the matrix and that you aren't told that the world exists. Or that this forum isn't a figment of your imagination. Or that I can't read your mind.

It it might be a valid point, that we all have to take science we didn't do ourselves on faith. However, When the first photos of the earth were taken from orbit, there didn't exist graphics software like photoshop. I believe these photos, and all the people who have been into orbit since.

What you are saying is no different than if I asked you to prove germ theory. You can't. You can prove microscopic organisms exist, but you can't prove that inside a human body, they cause disease. You can say it is most likely, since those organisms are always present in someone with the disease and not in someone who doesn't have it. But it could be an ellaborate coincidence and really be caused by magic.

Or, maybe the organisms thrive on that evil magic, and that is why they are always present.

There is a reason they say the most simple answer is normally the right one. What people leave out is the part about it not just being the most simple, but the one that explains the most, or everything.

Science opperates on assumptions, and those are tested regularly. It could be, that some new theory in the future will explain more things, and one did. A while ago, we measured the earth's size and found that it isn't a perfect sphere. That it is actually a little bottom heavy. This explains some things with climate, sea currents, wind, and continental drift, that we couldn't really get a grip on before that.

He saw what was either a globe, or a flat plane that curved light away from it, making it seem that the further (in X,and z to use B3D), you looked away from the point you were above, the more away (in Y) the spot you were looking at seemed, until the light curved away so much non of it reached the observer.
He had taken someones word for it, who took someones word for it, who took someones word for it, who decided that a globe made the orbits of the solar bodies make more sence.
It not a question of what he saw, its a question of the interpritation for the reason for it.

Yes I can, I can get the tissue that they are poported to attack, and I can watch them attack it under a microscope.

But even if I couldnt, that would just show another thing that cannot be proven.

True. So whats wrong with me saying you only assume the earth is a Globe.

Im not the one stateing something as scientific Fact, Im saying that although the most likely reason, It cannot be proven to be true.

Instead of tying to prove the earth is a Globe you have asked ME to prove that its not a cylinder, and then to prove Germs exists? You cannot prove the earth a globe, because it cannot be proven. This doesnt mean it isnt one, just that you cannot prove it so.

If the metric isnt constant and get either bigger or smaller (depending on if you want an infinate plane of not), the further away from the point of rotation. And light curves away from its surface, then there isnt any evidence that will show the earth to be a globe as opposed to a flat plane.
Just because its more likely that light travels in straight lines and the a Yard is always the same length (And also doesnt curve), just means that a globe is most likely shape.

You could try to argue, that if you drilled a hole right through the centre of the earth, and then got a telescope you could see a (Lets assume china), chinese bloke waving to you. And I would then say that when you are under the earth, light still curves and that seeing him just shows you have dug a curve and not a straight line.

...now he comparing astromechanics with B3D...so B3D is plain proove for you and tons of sattelites who use to take images of planet at same time from different positions (so its obvious its sphere) as well as astronauts is not good enough?? Well boy..far as I know math, sphere is most energy efficient shape as well as shape what has maximum volumen with minimum taken surface...so its not coincidence that all things in nature (read universe) is well optimized on most efficient way, obviously its not coincidence that atoms spinning, planets spinning, your car wheels spining, DNA spiral spinning , etc...same unique signature, so if you are smart enough , you dont have to center of eartj to see is it huge iron superheated core spinning or not..learn from given examples...and i would like to see soap bubble you making by pushing air from your mouth, in shape of cylinder or flat surface...but I'll tell ya..it will be sphere, no matter how much you wanted it to be your flat surface or box...

By the way, the earth isnt a true sphere, its an Oblate Spheroid, and if we include water into the equation (Which is a BIG part of Earth), the moon pulls the water a little (tides),thus distorting the overall shape again!

Just thought I'd point that out, well, a mate mentioned it in the pub lastnight (He likes conversations like this, lol)

*Edit: oh, and he mentioned*
he thinks the worlds not flat too, just by looking at the GPS system, 20 odd satellite, all in medium orbit around the globe, all relaying information, and all with known positions in space... Basically, he suggests that if you plotted each coordinate of each satellite, and shoved the data in a 3D modelling program, say as a vertex, and joined them all up, you would in fact, end up with a blocky sphere shape.

Dabz

scientific Fact IS educated assumption. "Proven" in the sense you are suggesting does not exist. What you are argueing is moot, because taken to it's fullest reason it negates the validity of existence. Anything that makes the quest for knowledge futile isn't worth exploration. That is why what you are saying is bullshit.

Prove what my astronaut friend saw wasn't reality. Prove that he can see. Prove that he is alive. Prove that he even exists. Prove that you exist.

The evidence suggests all these things are true. Only you suggest otherwise, because they cannot be proven to be true.

Using your definition of proven, of course. The actual definition is quite different.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proven

the first definition is "to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim." and the others are much like it.

Proof has built into it's definition evidence. The Evidence points to a round earth.

My astronaut friend sees is as such. I can fly/sail around it. Satellites orbit it. The other planets would appear to be them, as do all planet and greater size cellestial bodies. (Other then nebula, which you are free to argue the earth is if you wish)

If the earth were flat, you would have to explain what makes it appear as a sphere to all instruments and observations. You would have to define some mechanism as to what bends light relative to where a person is standing specificly to them, while also bending it to someone a thousand miles away, is such a way that it matches up perfectly with a sphereical earth. Which is how GPS works.

A plane of GPS satellites could be tricked, What makes them link up around the edges seamlessly. Are there indeed edges?

Explain it. If your devil's advocate theory holds rational and mathematical creedance, you should be able to prove it. In the scientific sense. In the defined sense.

A scientific fact is a verifiable observation, that would exclude this untestable force that H&K keeps bringing up. Why doesn't Astronauts see this pushing away of light, or pictures from satellites? Saying its some big illusion without a scrap of evidence puts it into the realm of fantasy.

This is the dumbest argument I've heard in a while. The Earth is obviously a globe, and debating that fact is entirely pointless.


Complete bullshit.

Yeah.. But sometimes it is a good brain teaser to re-evaluate your understanding of the world. Test things that don't normally need testing.

Which.... I hope... Is H&Ks goal... I hope.

They do. Thats why the earth looks like a globe.

Again.

Either light travels in straight lines and the earth is curved, and the metic is constant.
or
The earth is flat, light travels in a curve away from the earth, and the metric isnt constant.

Either of these would make all observations look exactly the same.

Saying look I see this therefore.. doesnt porve anything because It would all look the same

My original statment still stands


It makes no difference at all which one is true, because everthing would look and act exactly the same in either situation. The point is, that because everyting would feel and act the same, it was easier to assume it was a globe, because it make the explination of everthing else easier. And as stated the simplest solution is probably right. But you cannot prove or disprove either situation. Because its unprovable.

You guys are so... well, words just fail me. Only on a geeky forum.

I'm just glad you have to be a member to access this forum. Any outsiders would die laughing, and we'd become the joke of teh interwebz. :P

Its no more stupid than Evolutionists Vrs Creationists, and a lot less contravertial.

There are though some things that no matter how obvious to you that they are true, cannot be proven to someone else if that other person has different underlining fundimential beliefs.

People make a statement based on little more than a premise, which unfortuanaly, isnt shared by the other person. Then the conclustion, which seems reasonable, and even logical also isnt accepted simpley because they dissagreed with the premise. Even if they think the concution seems right.

Yep. Result... war! We humans really are pathetic. No wonder other civilizations are keeping a safe distance. :)

Which would give the effect of multiple suns if someone was at the right angle from the earth, no satellites have captured such an image.

Evolutionists? Are they like Gravitists or Atomicists?

Similar - they're called factists. :P

No it wouldnt, it would make things look just like they do now. There would only be one "Lane" from any point to the Sun. If the Earth was flat, this one lane is curved, and if the Earth was a Globe, this Lane is Straight.

I dont know, I just cut and pasted both words from previous posts

You're not very consistent, if the light from the sun get pushed away by the earth then who ever observes this light will see will be seeing that of the sun. Or does this force also change the spectrum of the light? Or just erase it from existence?

No I am being consistant. ALL light from the sun is effected by the flat plane of the earth. When you see the light from the sun, there is only pushed away light. Its simply that it is only noticable on light that wasdirected towards the earth. Light traveling stright up from the plane (ie away from the sun), is going faster than light going straight down.

I appoligise if I miss worded it before.

Even light thats travelling away from the other side of the sun?!

Oh, and the earth isn't a 'flat plane'.

Anyway, this thread has gone completely stupid.

So yes.

No, probably not. But science, (And expecialy logic ot true false), is normaly only self proveing within its own base premise system. If you start from the premise that light travels in a straight line, then yes the earth can be shown to be a globe. If you start from the premise that the Earth is flat, then Light needs to travel in a curve.
However either system would result in acceptable/explainable observations. And it is impossible to tell which of these universes we live in.

The only reason I brought this whole thing up was to show that there are very few things that can be taken as fact. And it just gets my nose up when, (As in the first parts of this thread), people state the someone elses "Truth" isnt possibley true because its based on a different "Premise" than theirs.

I dont know if I'm completely numb, or, My secondry school was in fact a special school, but just say if I'm playing toeball (soccer), and I'm lining up for a 25 yard free kick, and I leg it up to the ball, is the ball a globe?

I'm having massive trouble in actually thinking the earth is flat... No, if this thread has told me anything, it makes me think that the earth is more rounder than I could ever imagine!

Why?

Because someone mentioned that the universe works in 4D... X,Y,Z and Time

So if the universe is currently in four dimensions, how can objects in the universe work on a 2D plane only?

And going off Einsteins view of things, he mentioned that the universe was flat, but he never mentioned objects within the universe were flat too, in fact, his theory suggested that objects actually 'bent' the universe.

No light in the theory, no force, just good old common sense!

Dabz

Do you even understand what science is? Science hasn't been "logic that is true or false", since the middle of the 16th century. Modern science consists of "hypothesis' that have yet to be falsified". No real scientist will tell you what the universal truth is. They will tell you what the evidence suggests is likely - and that is why faith and science are fundamentally incompatible.

Actually I believe he suggested that objects with extreme mass / gravitational forces bent light.

...pathetic...

Thats exactly what I just said Flame. And one of the Hypotheseis' that was abandond was that the world was flat. It just became more likly that the world was a globe. It cannot be proven so.

But you quote from me isnt a statement, its a noun. I agree with you totaly, its not ben since the middle of the 16th century that science neeed things to be proven to be true for them to be excepted as so. Exactly at the time that it Europe decided to accept the GLobe earth model over the Flat earth model.

You are attacking me, by saying, HAHA H&K science dosent deal with true or false anymore, which is just what I am saying. I am saying that because sceince works that way, it is somtimes impossible to use sceince to prove something true.

I have put forward the Hypothesis that the world could be flat. I have exlained how with a differing metric and light curveing away form the earth, all observational evienence can go either way. You seem to have taken this to mean that I am trying to prove that the earth is flat. I am not, because within moderen science we accept that somethings are impossible to prove for "Science hasn't been logic that is true or false, since the middle of the 16th century."

Translation.
Flame is saying. Look H&K stop it. Sceince since the middle of the 16th century doesnt work on what is true or false.
And I am repling,
Then agree with me, cos as sceince since the middle of the 16th century doesnt work on what is true or false, it is at the least possible that it cannot prove that the earth is a globe

And yes Flame I do know what science is, can you not see that it isnt I who is holding to a "Truth", but rather I who am saying there is no truth as to what shape the earth is. I can tell you what the evidence suggests is likely, which is a Globe, but that it could also be a plane. (And please note again, I am only saying it cannot be proven to be a globe, I am not saying it is a Plane)

Who said that the plane was only in 2d? In one of the examples there is "Under the surface", and nearly all the posts delt with "Light above the surface"
And the time comment is just a relevent (or not) to a plane earth and a globe earth.

People seem to have an underlying belief that science is based on hard solid Facts and Truths.
Its not, its based on self supporting Hypothesis that are sustainable over a long period of critism and analysis, and science lets you go back and "edit" the gospels.

Somethings in science cannot be proven to be so, because thats not how science works anymore. Religion on the otherhand doesnt have the period of critism and analysis. (or if it did it was alot longer ago), and hardly ever lets you go back and chance some of the underlying permises.

The "Earth as a Globe" is an example of something that was accepted as the most likly answer because it was the simplest solution. (But not the only solution). Any Flat solution had to have at a minimum curveing light, and either an "edge" or an infinate plane which to be true would need a variable metric. (Cos we could see that there wasnt an edge and that it wasnt infinate).
They didnt prove that ot was a Globe, it was just an easyer solution to the problem. But because of the way science works in most peoples minds this ment "The earth is A Globe, we can prove it", whereas all it really ment was "The earth is a Globe, cos its the most likly answer"

The Earth is not flat. This has been proven. Let this pointless argument die.

It doesn't have to be. Science is not a metric for truth. Science is a metric for knowledge. Saying that "Science cannot prove the world is round" is absurd, because it is not the premise of (real) science to prove anything (the curvature of the world or otherwise).

No. I'm saying you're stating a false hypothesis, which has been positively falsified on several occasions, independently of one another. Not because it was the most convenient hypothesis, but because it was false. A more suitable statement would be science cannot (yet) prove that the Earth isn't a hypersphere (or rather is not round, in the traditional sense), because science can most definitely and irrefutably prove that the Earth isn't flat.

A self-supporting hypothesis is not science either. In order for a hypothesis to be considered science, it must at the very least, be potentially falsifiable, and supported by empirical observations and experiments. For the better part of 2000 years (from Aristotle to Newton) it was believed that an object weighing ten times as much as another object, would fall to the ground ten times as fast when dropped. Why? Because in almost 2000 years, nobody thought to do an experiment to see whether the hypothesis was accurate.

I know

No it hasnt been proved to be a false Hypothesis, it has been shown to not be as simple a solution to explain the observable evidence

No. What science can say, is that if other hypothesis are correct, then we can most definatly show the world isnt flat.

My statment that if the metric isnt constant, (Something we would be unable to prove of dissprove), and that our messure of "straight" (The uneffected beam of light:- Again something we cannot prove of dissprove), is incorrect, then it cannot be proven that the earth isnt flat. The proffs of a globe earth all depend on the physic being the way we think it is.

Im not suddgesting the the physic we have chossen is incorrect or correct, because as you stated since the 16hundreds its not there to be correctr, but rather its there to be consistant within itself. And as long as it is, we dont mess with it. But unfortuanatly its based apon things that are untestable to us.

I countered the statment that the World is a globe, with the staement "You can only prove that it is a globe, if light, (normaly) travels in straight lines, and the metric stays the same".

Its perfectly possible to remodel the entire universe model, and have all observational evidence expalinable, just everything would have to include a metric transformation. The point is, why bother? If its simpler use the Globe model cos it would give the same resutls.

Well I think we are not useing the terms equaly, cos thisI would concider that to be part of self supporting, but I take your correction of my definition on board, Concider my earlyer post to contain it

Because sometimes it would. And I agree but in this instance all experimental evedence would give the same result, because Im suddjesting that the underlying Physic cannot be proven

This is what I am replying to. I was pointing out to Damp, that although he belives that the earth is a globe, it cannot be proven to be so, IF I REFUSE to accept Damps underlying belief in the modern physic


[@ Flame, Theoreticaly, if you actualy come to try and model the universe based on a flat plane earth you hit a congruense point, that of the oposite pole of the globe that you started from, This point (And infact all points above and below it), needs to be represented by a circle of infinate diameter. It would therefore be impossible to actualy "be" at this point. Fortunatly, (if you really wanted to use the model, this point is infanatly small, and arbitary in possition, so generaly you just say its "Not Here". ]

Speak for yourself.

Do you have any idea how much of BRL's paid for bandwidth you're sucking up with this load of nonsense??

An argument about whether the earth is round or flat - I truly believe I have now seen it all on bb.com. :/

Hopefully before too long, a moderator will be along to give the lot of you a damn good shoeing.

I fail to see how a moot arguement that really ammounts to symatics. (when people -really- thought the earth was flat, it wasn't based on light bending. Why fear falling off the edge of the world, then?)

I'm talking about THESE people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

And what THEY believe.

That is just as stupid as thinking that animals don't change over time.

Pictures from space clearly show that the earth is an orb, round, globe, whatever you wanna call it. It's a ball of rock, etc etc. Look at the moon. Observe it. It's round. So's the earth. If you haven't noticed. Free floating bodies in space, tend to be round. Look at the Sun (not with your naked eye...), it's round.

Look at marbles, they are round. My ex-wife is round, hence she proves that the earth is round. And proves that I can't stay married to a round female. Whatever I'm going to bed...

No, the sun emits light and since the sun isn't massive enough to pull the light back the light is going to travel outward. Ofcourse people can observe this light, unlike your light being pushed away from the earth.
You still haven't answered where this pushed away light goes to and why no probes have detected it.

The light from the sun is invisible unless its directed at the earth? I think you'll find the probes on mars *can* detect light from the sun.

So this light is travelling faster than the speed of light? Wheres your measurements you've taken of this light?

If H&Ks claim is a hypothesis then there should be a way to test for this "push away light" he keeps making up.

Hes saying everything that appears spherical is spherical except for the earth, thats flat.

..after this thread, i know why for him will be quite impossible to finish any game..obviously hes looking for prooves for too many bullshit whats just waste of time since its quite obvious...is my sprite rounded or flat?? Thats the question?!

Hm.. I actually like to pipe in on that magical number '4.5 billion years', as in, within that timespan we need to move our ass somewhere else before the sun puts the earth on the BBQ.

I actually wonder what the name and properties of the next epoch are, heck.. what about the next period or era? How long have we been around? 40.000 years. (humans in their current form), according to science the earliest ancestors date back around 20.000.000 years (talking more about the ape'ish stuff here eh). That's all peanuts if you compare the age of the earth. I've yet to see the current human race to live another -let's be optimistic- million years. A *million* years.. any idea how long that is? :P Can we even live here on this ball by then? Or will we see a rerun of the late Perm period where the whole shebang turns into a large desert? Why wouldn't we just be wiped out in a million years anyway, or sooner? That whole space thing seems far-fetched to me. I don't think ppl are to live in space in some artificial world (like that famous rotating wheel), but on a real planet. Terraforming? Takes eons. Until terraforming is done, ppl have to live in space, I don't know if we can.. I think not.
There's a natural law dictating that any intelligent type of species can't leave its original planet en-mass, in order to prevent space colonisation. Sofar I think this law is valid.

I think DampeS8N said it best when he said something to the effect of - taking your logic to the limit you can't prove you even exist.

I understand what you are trying to do here H&K - but you've got to realize how futile it is. Nothing can ever be wholly proven to be universally true, because everything we "know" is limited to our single frame of reference, and we can not even prove that this frame of reference exists or that it is similar to anyone elses frame of reference.

CS

I have to disagree. Look how much humanity has changed in the last million years. We'll change that much in the next. Only globally.

Even if the world became a total wasteland, it wouldn't be over-night most likely.

Besides there are several 'planet sized' moons which wouldn't be too hard to set up bases on. We think of moons as tiny, but many of them are pretty big For example..

The earth is about 8000 miles across. Our moon is about 2000.

First you have Ganymede, then titan. Both of these are over 3000 miles. There are Triton and Io.

Callisto, Europa.. The hard part is

Io, Titan, and Triton all have atmospheres, and in Titan's case.. a really good one.

Not to mention Mars and Venus, which could both easily support small pockets of humans in domes.

Venus, could have it's atmosphere processed to convert much of it's CO2 into Oxygen. It wouldn't take that long (at worst 1000 years) to do that. While 1000 years sounds like a lot, it isn't really when you consider what you are doing.

Venus' atmosphere is dense, that would lighten it considerably.. It should be pretty easy to fly through the atmosphere indefinitly, with planes/airships that use the sun to produce energy. It is questionable as to if you could ever breathe the air... but you could harvest the oxygen from it easily. Infact.. You could fly perpetually through the air to releave pressure while you gradually make oxygen. So during that 1000 years you could be living there. The surface is under about 90 times the pressure of earth.. But that is nothing compared to deep sea vessles.

And mars is a different story.. There is little hope of ever being able to walk free on the surface of mars.

Regardless.. There are enough close planetary bodies to ensure humanity exists at least 1 more million years. Potentially the 4.5 billion.. By then, I'm sure we will have been to other systems. The galaxy is only about 300,000 light years across. If we managed to travel at 1% the speen of light, which wouldn't be hard with even modern technology in the form of ion thrusters. (given a heafty accelleration... like 500 years. If we went 1% of the speed of light, it would only take 300 million years to traverse the entire galaxy. Infact... We could reach another galaxy before our own sun died, if we really wanted too.

The nearest star is over 4 light years... Which would take about 400 years to get too at 1% the speed of light. However.. It would take as much as 10 times that long to get there due to acceleration.

needless to say. Starting in our own solar system is the key. And If we put our minds to it, we could have bases on at least 5 bodies within the next 100 years.. It'll likely take 10 to 100 times that long in reality.

If I am lucky, I'll get to see the first one. Assumeing we don't eliminate aging before I die... Which is a possibility.

Maybe.. maybe not. I think space exploration is a bit more complex than what it may look like the way you describe things.. :P

While 'life' might be not unique to earth, the chances have been lowered in the eyes of some when taking some other factors in mind. The earth/moon-collision theory where a planet bumped onto earth 4 billion years ago (resulting in our moon) suggests that life was made possible because of this bump. So, the conditions that make life possible might require a fusion like this.. how often does that happen?

Next, Jupiter. It's argued that the presence of Jupiter is good for earth's life, as Jupiter acts as a shield for meteorites coming from the Oort-cloud. Just imagine Shoemacher-Levi hitting earth back then.. we must be lucky to have a Jupiter around. How many solarsystems have a Jupiter?

What if Mars and Venus are no option and we *have* to move to another solar system, somewhere lightyears away. We could technically build a giant ark already, carrying thousands of colonist, for a 100.000-year journey.
- Where are you going to find ppl who will never meet their goal, who will never return to their homeland/familly, and who are -formost- capable of making that journey in the first place (you don't want n00bs on board eh).
- How to keep peace on board? You can't have war and riots.
- Who says that when the ark arrives the ppl actually can be arsed to come out of their save 'home'-ark? Perhaps they'll see it as their permanent home, call it a day, and continue travelling. By then, the whole mission was useless anyway. This all, assuming this voyage will be made in the first place..


btw, I'm not at all against space exploration and space colonisation. I just don't think we can do it. Not now at least, and by the time we might be up to it, I highly doubt ppl are still around. From that pov I'd first like to see an answer to my geolgical question: what will the next epoch, era etc. look like? Previous epochs and eras were based on a certain change of climate or the (mass-)extinction of a species. These days we actually have the power to make a species extinct, but also to save a species, or even make new ones (such as our masses of cats and dogs). We even might have had a hand in a climate change (tho still unproved afaik).

Animals changed slightly in the past millions of years due evolution. Humans are actually trying to *not* change anymore. Some might argue that we grow fatter on a structural base, but that's actually not how we *want* to be. I question whether humans *have* to change or whether we can remain to be the same for millions or billions of years. Would we look the same in one million years from now?

Ohwell, random sunday-talk o_o

I think that alien technology would have to have teleport capabilities to be coming here and zooming around. If we can figure out how the aliens get from alpha centauri to here by lunchtime then we've got this space travel stuff fixed and we can just find a new planet or several probably that supports life properly and not have to worry about the crap planets we have here.

While we're chatting to the aliens we could ask whats with the anal probing.

This thread represents an all time low for bb.com, and that's saying something. :D

I might be a noob to actual space travel.. But the astronauts I know, and the people like my dad who work with them, all want to do this kind of thing. They all want to build bases on the moon, go into deep space... We are talking about people willing to spend a full year in a tiny little room.

These are the explorer of the old... Was it any different for the Vikings, when the set out for new land? Columbus? Hell.. The people following the herds over the land bridge into the americas?

It is in our blood.

I'd go. No question. I might be totally bored for the rest of my life... I might have a meaningless relationship with someone purely to have children. I might even regret it. But you couldn't stop me from going if I had the chance.

big10p wrote:

Agreed. Perhaps this thread should be made a sticky in order to function as some sort of public health warning. You know, "WARNING: This could happen to you if you spend too much time inside your head, and inside your room in front of a computer!"

DampeS8N wrote:

= the life of the typical bedroom coder nerd.


= the secret dream of the typical bedroom coder nerd.

Believe it or not. I meant that as a negative... I was talking about forced breeding.. Might not even involve sex.. but I'm sure it would. Sex with

I was just having a disucssion with a co-worker the other day about the future of sex. I think things will become quite "Gattaca" like, where natural born humans are shunned and sex itself is either phased out or people are sterilized at birth (or sterilize themselves - prior to having any children - willingly).

I'd say sorry for heading off-topic but...c'mon, is there any hope for this thread? :P

There sure isn't now you've suggested sex may be phased out from the human race. :P

Its not an argument about whether the earth is round or flat, its an argument about whether you can prove it to be round or flat.

(Apart from I am.)
But equaly somethings cannot be taken to be universaly false, this thread started to discredit belief systems on the bases that they are obviously wrong. And the obviousness of this wrong was compared to the earth being flat. Which I know, that no matter how stupid it would be if true, or how unlikly it is to be true, cannot be shown to be false.

It would look the same

Get a telescope, go to NewYork, look east. If you see europe then light travels in straight lines, if you dont, its becasue it travels in a curve. (I would Like to point out that as Im not trying to prove or disprove anything, its your remit to disprove this, for I am not saying either is true)

No, the metric changes so that in the same unit time it appears to be going the same distance. I was a bit unclear about that, when it goes down from the sun and is being pused back, the metric get longer, and above the sun moveing away from the earth it gets shorter. Traveling the same unitmetric per unit time. (And before you start on that, in Black holes the unit Time is supposed to get longer, mind you they cannot prove that its not the Unit metric getting smaller)

Like I said, go to the seaside and look at the horizon.

Space probes would see the light being pushed away from earth, you still haven't addressed that. You may aswell just say the light ceases to exist.
Hang on, before you said it was places on the flat earth that the metrics change, now its places in space where ever this "pushed away" light goes. So if two space shuttles where above the earth and one went to where this "push away" light would be, would this shuttle become invisible? could it send radio messages or would that get pushed away too?
(And before you start on that, in Black holes the unit Time is supposed to get longer, mind you they cannot prove that its not the Unit metric getting smaller)

The moon is really made of cheese. Prove it's not.

Look I have explained this, space probes see the bit of light reflected off the planet as the earth, the light being pushed away from earth they see as the Space arround the earth. Honestly Azathoth and Big10p everything would look the same.

Imagine you are this big (Nearly)Allpowerfull being, and you boss, (A little bit closer to allpowerfull), says
"Look Mate, remember that earth we were suppsoed to make",
"Yes boos, loverly globe jobbie",
"Well, head office have messed it up, they have sent us an infinate Flat plane instead."
"Bugger"
"Exactly..... Anyway, Im off, you sort it out. You have full power to change any of the laws of Physics that you want, just make sure that no one can tell the difference by looking"
And he did.

So once again, it is perfectly possible to messabout with the laws of physics. Specificaly the metric and light, and make a flat earth look just like ours does, and we wouldnt be unable to tell, because we are part of that physic

No just bigger, but you wouldnt be able to tell. cos although it got bigger, the thing you would messure it with also got bigger

I had thought that I said for the earth to be flat the metric would have to change, specificaly.....

All light is effected depending apon its direction and distance from the plane, you seem to be under the impression that there is some light that is not "Pushed away".

If they saw the light thats "pushed away" it would look like that of the sun since its the suns light, you still haven't explained why nothing has observed this "pushed away" light as this light should be in every direction anyway.

You've gone one step further and completely made up forces and then ignore any unwanted effects they might cause.

I can settle this.

If the metrics and physics are all screwed up, then a flat plane is nolonger a flat plane.

In other words. The earth is viewable as a sphere, ergo, our perception of all things is distorted in a way that can't be measured. Meaning. What we view as flat, isn't flat.

In other words. In this fictional universe, the flat earth society is still wrong, because they are looking as a sphere(flat plane) and calling it flat(spherical).

I understand so far that some light from the sun doesn't make it to earth because its getting pushed away making the earth appear like a globe, ok?
Now if a probe outside of earth is in the path of this pushed away light it should be able to detect it.

Azathoth... What he is saying is correct.. It just doesn't negate what I said. It doesn't prove his point.

The light being pushed away from the earth is seen by the probe. Which is why it sees blank space and not the earth.

What it also would do, is make a 40 mile long flat plane floating above the earth look like it bends upward. at the edges. Which would make it appear to be a segment of a sphere.

Unless, as he claims isn't the case, only some light is bent. Because it isn't. A parallel plane would apear to mirror the earth... Meaning the moon is likely a disc floating over the earth, and not a sphere.

Regardless. When the flat earth people try to call the earth flat, it goes against their perceptions. They look at the flat plane of the moon and see a sphere. So you have to take the opposite of what they say to be their meaning.

So they are still wrong.

I win.

The light is coming from the sun, what happens when you reflect sun light? It sure doesn't look like blank space.

Edit: What I'm saying is if the probe is in the path of the pushed away light *after* its been pushed away and towards the probe, then it should appear as if the probe is looking directly at the sun.

Exactly. :)
What Ive been saying all along is that if we change are definition of straight (If this case an uneffected beam of light), and say instead that its the surface of the earth, and that therefore light is bent. We would be unable to tell the differance. Except that the earth would therefore need to either an edge or an infinity point. To not be able to tell if it had either of these the metric would need to change so as it was impossible to reach either. The only problem left then, is that there is one point of the original globe model (and as I said earler all points above and below it), that cannot exist, so as long as its impossible to be at every point of the earth at the same time, you cannot tell.

And it would. In your model if the probe is looking directly at the sun, then its a straight line from (say), the lens to the sun, in my model it still sees the sun, but the light hasnt traveled in a straight line to get there.

I ment not earth, but space. Very badly worded I accept.

But you were not challanged to show them wrong, but rather prove to me that the earth was indead a globe. Which as there is at least another model that gives all the same obsevational reasult you cannot do.

Sciene if full of these, things that are almost certainly correct, or at the least give the simplest explination. What should distuguish a scientist from a fudementalist, is that a scientist shouldnt mind if the fundimental premis of the system is questioned.
If I had asked you to prove that Evolution was correct, there would have been a load of fundimental religious posts, and we would have been unable to actualy discuss the problem, because it would be impossible for some people to question the fundimental premis that God may not exist.
What tends to happen though is that people who have decided to join the "Sceince" camp, bring to it an almost "religious" belief that it must be correct. However as flame as pointed out several times sceince isnt like that anymore to scientists, it only like that to the fan base (And chemists, hahahahah)

If a fundemental premis is shown to be "questionable" a good therist should think about it. Whereas a good follower of a religion seems more likly to get a stick.

But your model would have rays of light or even the appearance of a second sun coming from around the earth due to light of the sun being bent back before reaching earth.

And this force thats bending the light back before reaching earth wouldn't make it look like space either.

Since no one seems to understand me I've drawn a picture:

well this thread certainly exploded. Hope you are having fun ;-)

No, there is still only one route for the light to take, its just that I am saying that route could be curved.

If you draw a ray trace back from your "probe" towards the extended flat plane, that ray isnt drawn straight, but curved, and so its origin is Space, so althouh your probe is pointing directly towards the flat plane, it cannot see it.

Your ray of light comming from the sun should start to curve imediatly, as should the reflected light

Right.. so if the probe was in orbit around the sun but facing towards earth it would never see the "pushed away" light?
Wouldn't the gravity of an infinite plane be very high? Much higher than that of earths.

Any light that they see is "Pushed away" or rather curved light. All light in the entire universe travels in a curve, just the plane of the curvature originates from the theretical Earths centre (If is wasnt flat), if they were orbiting the sun faceing the earth they would see exactly the same in each model.

It has greater mass yes, and if it was the same distance away in both models it would have greater gravity, but as the majority of the plane of the earth is over half infinity away, then the effect of this mass overall is exactly the same. (But it was kapernicus' orbit models that pursuaded people that the earth was infact a globe, and if you model the gravity it just gets really really stupid)

Haha, nice thread GA. Good thing it didn't get hijacked!

H&K you can stop. it doesn't prove anything. The Flat Earth Society is stupid regardless of the physics involved.

I win, yay yay, I win. I am teh greetest.

Chroma: lol, yeah imagine that! ;-) I don't mind if my threads get hijacked anyway, it's all a bit of fun.

Well.. To be fair, this thread began with very 'random' begnings.. So it seems fitting to have randomness inside.

Um. Half infinity is still infinity.

well... not really. half of infinity is infinity over 2.... it is another imaginary number.... could just be irrational i guess... not sure which it counts as.

Yes really, if you could divide infinity by 2 you're still going to end up with infinity.

lol, here we go again! ;)

Dabz

when you go on a ship in the ocean you can see another boats mast before you see the rest of the ship so the earth must be round.

H&K was offering an opportunity for us to test our values and accepted facts. There is nothing wrong with that.

No matter how obvious an argument is you cant just say 'obviously the earth is round' and leave it at that, that is 'not thinking' and 'not thinking' is dangerous.

The philosophists door was not alive because it cant 'self replicate'.
All other forms of life can replicate themselves.

Must?
Or..... etc

(The only must is that light doesnt travel along the earths surface)

what other shape could it be?

if it was flat the boat would fade into view as a whole object

Unknown number devided by 2 = SOME OTHER unknown number.

It might be accepted that I/2=I, And in the context of infinity being all possible numbers, it is correct. BUT, It is incomplete.

In other words.

I = I/2
2I = I
2I/I = I/I

2 = 1

When USED as a number, it doesn't add up.

In this sense. I devided by 2 is I/2 and can't be reduced further.

Disagree? Give me a proof of it. Show me how my proof (that 2 = 1) is wrong. Based on the rules of infinity, it is correct. Since I/2 is I and I devided by I is 1.

2 times 5 devided by 5 is 2.

So. Saying infinity devided by 2 is infinity is purely academic. And I believe, wrong. It is also why you don't often see it in formulas.

It is a logical problem. Since Infinity is the upward edge, the largest possible number, only since there is no largest number, it is just a concept, it is taken that I devided by 2 is I. But that isn't correct. It is half of I. which is unknown, and there for is I/2, and can't be reduced.


But this is all silly anyway. There are several 'kinds' of infinity. You can define infinity so that I/2=I. However, you can't say Infinity devided by 2 is Infinity is algebra.

Lets talk about space-filling curves now....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-filling_curve

Wibble.

Chunkations

He's saying that light is pushed away from the surface of the earth. and if the earth was an infinite plane, that would produce the appearance of a sphere. However.. I'm sitting here doing the math and not seeing how A: The the planets revolve. B: Moons travel around their planet/the earth. and C: How the shadow of night works... How, you can have a day/night cycle at all. Well, since the sun can't ACTUALLY travese around the flat plane of the earth. So unless it has some strange orbit that enables it to change relative angle to a place on the earth, it should appear to circle the sky like a halo. Not a ring.

Care to explain those H&K

Don't forget the retrograde motion of mars!

Well.. The retrograde motion of mars can be explained by mars turning its ass around and back-tracking. OR.. Perhpas all the planets circle the sun, while the sun circles the earth. Which was a theory once, but doesn't 'really' fit what we see.

Well... the sun one is easyest, the sun is closest to a specific (differing) point on the earth all the time, normaly just above or below (in your model) the equator. It does the same in my model, cept now its is traversing a big circle halfway (in your metric) from the edge.
The other palnets are globes, they revolve about there axis same in both mobels.
You have a day night cycle when the sun if too far along the plane for the curveature of the light to allow any light to reach the plane, that is all the light has curved away. Go get an atlas that shows the moons position above the earth.

@Chunkations Only(Ignore all the rest of the stuff, just this question)

The boat would fade into/outof veiw only if the world was flat and light traveled in straight lines


Unfortuanaly you have leapped to defend a conlution (Unthinkingly? maybe), that not seeing the whole boat appear at the same time, but rather the top first, means the earth must be round.

But please pause for a moment, it only shows that light hasnt followed the earths surface.

Well. IN THAT CASE. Mars Retrograde motion isn't explained.... Or is.. and you meant that the planets are going around the sun AND aren't at their proper distances... Or that they also exhibit incorrect motion.

In the classical theory, mars' retrograde was explained first by it actually backtracking, then, inacurately by it's motion around the sun.

Can you give me something more accurate? The devil really is in the details here...

> But please pause for a moment, it only shows that light hasnt followed the earths surface.

If this were true, that light was pulled toward the earth, at some distance, not only would we see the top of the boat - we would see it from above. That does not happen. We see the details we would see *IF* the light was going in a straight line, not what would see if the light had been bending toward us.

why wouldnt light travel in a straight line?

> why wouldnt light travel in a straight line?

If you are asking me, it is a hypothetical question back to H&K. I'm saying, "If light bends toward the Earth the way you postulate, this other effect should take place and does not".

@Dynaman
But it is true? Light doesnt follow the earths surface?

@Chunks
It probably wouldnt. But not being able to see the whole boat, but only its mast. Means that the light doesnt follow the same curvature as the earth. So your conclustion that it must be round because of this observation is incorrect, you also need to prove that light travels in a straight line.
(Dont forget, Im not claiming that it does travel in a curve, but rather that the observational evidence would be the same)

I never said anything like that at all. I have revered to the curve of the light, at the most as "Push away". Which I changed to "Travels in a curve"

You know that I cannot, this was the whole reason that people finally accepted the globe model, my entire point as been that bacause the math to do this in a globe model was easyer it became the accepted model, not because it was proven the other model was wrong, but because it becomes bloody stupid when applied to orbits (Especialy moons of the planets), its not unsolveable, but as you said you get slowdown/reverse and other stupid movements.

> But it is true? Light doesnt follow the earths surface?

Only by accident sometimes. A light shining straight up to the ceiling certainly does not.

> I never said anything like that at all. I have revered to the curve of the light, at the most as "Push away". Which I changed to "Travels in a curve"


OK - if light travels in a curve, such that the top of a ship is seen before the bottom it is *STILL* the case that we would be able see the deck of the ship and not just the side at long distances. We can not do that (unless we are above the deckline of course) so light can not be curving. Or does the light that would have been heading straight toward us curve but the light heading up at a slifht angle not curve?

So you are saying that light does follow the earths surface?

> So you are saying that light does follow the earths surface?

If you shine a flashlight along the floor, yes - and only for a short distance. Other then that, no.

So why do you have fault with the statment
Your replies to this have been

I don't have fault with it, I have fault with the idea that light curves. (to be pedentic since that seems to be the point, curves within the confines of this example, light does curve near black holes but that is not germaine to this particular discussion)

If you can answer why the light which would be heading straight for us curves, but the light that would not be heading for us does not curve it would be helpful.

Or am I getting the assertion that the reason the ship's mast can be seen before the ship is becuase the light is curving incorrect?

> (The only must is that light doesnt travel along the earths surface)

That is the incorrect statement, not only must it not travel along the surface, it must go in different directions based on the position of the recipient of the light in order to do what you are claiming it does.

Whats the point?

If you are actualy going to take fault with the statement "Light doesnt follow the earths surface", which it plainly true.
Then you arent actualy going to read any reply proplery are you?
All the questions you have asked have been replied to earler.

> All the questions you have asked have been replied to earler.

Not adequately. No one has yet explained why certain light curves, bends, goes in a different direction, etc. but other light does not. Since I guess such an answer would spoil the fun I will have to leave now.

LOL!

This is quite surreal, i go away to Latvia for 4 days to buy some cheap booze and stuff, when i come back its a photo-quantum-physics debate!

Hmm, light, im not a physicist so probably way off, but i did read somewhere that light can be 'bent' by the visible effects of strong gravitational pulls, ie light can actually bend around stars etc. (kind of like the effect of a black hole is so strong even photons cannot escape etc)

Don't know if its relevant or helps here tho. Really though, who knows, mabe the universe in general was farted out of the butt of some otherworldly drunken stoner like me, who thought too much on the NUMBER (42 was it?)

However to stay on topic, space resesarch is important to see that butt and better understand its workings, so we can use the knowlage here on earth to improve things.

And oooo! oooo!, i can prove the world is round as ive been round it, i started heading east, and came back to where i started!

Read the Thread

> Read the Thread

So sorry, The Monty Python skit is on, I seem to be living through it too.

> This is quite surreal, i go away to Latvia for 4 days to buy some cheap booze and stuff, when i come back its a photo-quantum-physics debate!

> but i did read somewhere that light can be 'bent' by the visible effects of strong gravitational pulls, ie light can actually bend around stars etc.

Yup - but since it was not Germaine to the topic at hand I left it out of one of my earlier posts, since the core question is being dodged so completely as it is...

Don't worry, the booze just hasn't worn off yet.

What core question? This one?

which has been answerethree times
You just seem to have ignored this answer every time. Light travels in a curve, not some light, all light. Not just light reflected off something all light, not just light near the flat plain all light. Somtimes, the curve is falt, and would be decribed as stright, but there is no cross over of path . There is no special light that travel differently to any light it is close too, there is only one direct light path from any point to any other point, just that it is not garenteed to be a straight line)
Read the thread

Everyone seems to have forgotten about china.

Ive been there and its kind of odd. They have a realy big bloody proxy server! (the great firewall of china!) you cant get BBC, CNN etc. unless you check into a really posh hotel (with direct sat access i guess) not an everyday thing to do on a backpackers budge!

The internet cafes over there are PACKED with kids playing games. All i can say is this will be hard to enforce without harsh mesures.

Lets talk about black holes now. If Gravatons exist, and transmit gravity. They are massless. Other Massless particles (Like photons) can't escape the gravity of a black hole. Gravatons must, therefore, not effect eachother. Can anyone else think of another particle that supposedly isn't effected by gravity?

Not a particle, but when I lived at my mams house, she could cook a full english breakfast, and you could turn the plate upside down without anything coming off.

The dog loved it! :)

Dabz

Dan wrote:


You can't easily watch western english language channels in China? How awful! Perhaps we should invade.

You're right about censorship being an issue in China, but the internet side of things is easy to circumvent with proxies. It would be an absolute disaster for China to allow freedom of the press at this crucial stage in its development. Oddly enough, what with the rampant, unchecked capitalism and in the ansence of the rule of law, China is in some ways a more free society than most developed countries (with obvious political exceptions, of course.)

P.S. China is not odd, and claiming that it is says more about you than it does about China.

Yeah. Long as you don't do anything to the government, and don't do.... hahahahahh..haahah.ah.ahaha

Ok ok ok ok... Comcast is advertising Space week on Discovery Channel with Jamiroquai's 'Virtual Insanity'... Not sure if it is discovery doing the ad or comcast... either way.. NOT the right song... That's like... Using the song "Strange Fruit" to advertise Juicy Fruit...

Bit of an odd response, i wasnt being critical or political, just truthful, the '!!' were for emphasis on the unusual-ness.

It is a surprise for many when they visit china.

Really? How odd. ;)

What, you aren't allowed to laugh in China either? :p

My thoughts and theory on this:

Light can be pulled by gravity, so it COULD be pulled to the earth, but our gravity is such that any "bend" in the light would be completely undetectable.

If we had a much higher gravitational pull (or light travelled at a slower pace..) then it *MAY* follow the earths curve, making the surface look almost flat. the gravitational pull however would be such that earth would almost be a black hole.


and Black holes are the proof here- light cannot escape the gravitational pull.

I put more thought into it. Really, the only 'logical' way that H&K's system would be true is if some magical force keeps the sun traveling around the earth. Or provids a gravity center for satelites and the moon.

it really -can't- be true. Be cause it's truth doesn't just effect the roundness of the earth, but everything we know about physics.

It doesn't work. For many reasons, not just cause this magical light-pushing-force doesn't exist, but because nothing would work.

Also.. My hysterical laughter was about the commercial on the TV next to me. I typed what I was saying to myself... hehe

Yep, straight wouldnt be straight and the metric wouldnt be constant.

Anyway Nothing to do with a flat earth
Ok proper universe model, Gravatons do not exist.

Remember the thread about how when its said a "4th" dimention, we dont need to be talking about time?

Well anyway, the universe is "Mostly flat" in a 4th dimention (I say flat because the diagrams of it always draw it as a flat plane, but really its just a single value that is mostly constant).

When light is traveling, (or anything), in the universe it travels along uneffected (or effected concistantly), by this mostlyconstant. Any mass effects this number, and makes it lower, and makes it lower in any space near to it at a rate of mass*Distance^.5

Things next to a mass will try to move to a lower value of this number, (Because it represnets a lower energy value), and will move towards it. This is gravaty.

When people say "Gravity well", the mean a really low value for this number.

(Mind you, this is only therory, and I probably cannot prove that gravitons dont exist, this is just a simpler model that doesnt meed a massless particle to exist)

OK, I couldn't resist.....

1) massless particles do exist and they can be detected too! There are two types that we know of so far, 'Photons' and 'Gluons'. Photons make up light and other electromagnetic radiation. Gluons carry a strong nuclear force that hold quarks together.

2)Gravity does bend light. How it does it nobody quite knows for sure. Seeing as light is made up of massless photons it would seem that another mass would have no gravitational effect on it, but it does. In 1919 Einstein predicted that an imminent solar eclipse would appear to move the surrounding background stars from their current positions during the duration of the eclipse then move them back when the eclipse ended. They appeared to do just that. However, the stars had not moved at all. What had happended is that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of our sun on its way to us. This proved that a large enough mass could bend light. This gravitational effect on light confirmed his thoery of gravity or 'General Relativity'.

3) So it would appear that light has mass based on the evidence collected from eclipse experiments even though the light itself is made up of massless photons. The bottom line to whether light has mass is both 'yes' and 'no'. It depends who you talk to. The reality is that there must be some other element that makes up light that we dont know of that interacts with other masses.

4) The black hole thing is too long to get into and I could talk all day about it. Most of it is only theory anyway.

5) Is the earth flat? The answer to this is 'no'. It is spherical in shape. But how can you observe this fact yourself without simply listening to someone elses explanation? There is an experiment that everyone can do to prove this and you don't need a ticket on the space shuttle to find out. How about a lunar eclipse? Perfect! When a full Moon occurs in the plane of Earth's orbit, the Moon slowly moves through Earth's shadow. Every time that shadow is seen, its edge is round. The only solid that always projects a round shadow is a sphere. It cannot be a flat circle because lunar eclipses happen at different altitudes and attitudes every time yet the shadow on the moon is always round. The earth therefore must be spherical in shape.

That's my pennies worth and I hope that you found it interesting.

Prof.

p.s. Markd - Nice picture. Is that the Hubble Deep Field View?

"Prof"?

I thought you was long-term banned?

Welcome back to me Blitz massiv.

Check-it.

No, I wasn't banned. I just got sick and tired of stupid childesh threads so I stayed away for a while. Anything to do with science and astronomy though, and I'll happily contribute.

Prof.

Oh, I forgot about the water bit.....

Below is a picture of NGC 7027. It is a planetary nebula at a distance of around 2600 light-years from earth. An instrument called a The Long-Wavelength Spectrometer (LWS) has detected masses of water vapour in this region (in space). The chances are that many of the planets within the nebula also contain water.

There is an immense amount of water out there and only now are we able to find it.

Hehe, then you have ol' G.W. talking about having Mars as the second "Earth" to make it another planet of life. Wow, what a president we have when it comes to stuff like this.

That is probabaly the only good idea he has had to date, lets hope he goes there to live.