The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Qrewto on January 29, 2013, 06:14:42 PM
-
If you have ever watched a ship, you know that the sail is the last thing to disappear when a ship goes below the horizon. Please explain.
Here is a picture of what I am talking about kinda:
http://www.project2061.org/publications/EducatorsGuide/online/Examples/Spherical_Earth/ship_horizon.jpg (http://www.project2061.org/publications/EducatorsGuide/online/Examples/Spherical_Earth/ship_horizon.jpg)
-
Ocean swells in the answer. The ocean has massive swells that block the ship as it moves to sea.
-
Ocean swells in the answer. The ocean has massive swells that block the ship as it moves to sea.
Conveniently whenever a ship sails over the horizon? ::)
How about a day when the sea is calm?
-
The sea is calm to the observer at the shore, but after miles and miles at sea, statistics dictate that you will encounter a swell that will block the ship. The sea is never, never ever, calm for miles and miles, it's a constantly moving thing that never calms to the point of perfect flatness. Personally, I wish it did calm like you seem to think it does. It would be one of the most undisputed proofs of a flat-earth available. Sadly, it does not.
-
Well we're talking about a gradual drop off, over minutes and minutes, with the tip of the mast being the last thing you see. If swells were to blame, then we would see the ship rapidly disappearing, then the swell would fall after a little bit and we would see the whole ship again, and then it would be covered again, etc. (before it went out of sight)
Two different scenarios, and while the second one does happen, so does the first. And if the first one happens, well, you're observing earth's curvature.
-
Ocean swells in the answer. The ocean has massive swells that block the ship as it moves to sea.
This is called special pleading. Every person who has actually photographed an apparently sinking ship happened to be looking at a ship entering a swell, but nobody has been casually looking at a ship climbing out of a swell.
If there are lots of swells, so many that everyone who has actually looked has seen a "sinking ship", there has to be as many people who have seen the opposite effect, which is a ship that seems like placed on the side of a mountain.
If you want to plead the existence of swells, you should be able to find lots of photos like that.
-
Well we're talking about a gradual drop off, over minutes and minutes, with the tip of the mast being the last thing you see. If swells were to blame, then we would see the ship rapidly disappearing, then the swell would fall after a little bit and we would see the whole ship again, and then it would be covered again, etc. (before it went out of sight)
Two different scenarios, and while the second one does happen, so does the first. And if the first one happens, well, you're observing earth's curvature.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with rudimentary statistics and something known as a bell curve. Any statistician will tell you that this is what you would expect to... sea.
-
RealScientist goes a little farther with what I was trying to say. A ship can't be hidden by a swell EVERY time it goes over the horizon.
-
Ocean swells in the answer. The ocean has massive swells that block the ship as it moves to sea.
Conveniently whenever a ship sails over the horizon? ::)
How about a day when the sea is calm?
Too convenient for me. For it to happen with every ship every time it goes far out enough doesn't add up, the reason has to be something else. Also ocean swells are detectable, if they really happen that often, they'd be spotted easily. Also you don't see the sandy beach, just the cliffs when out far enough, this would mean that swells between you and the shore must be constant.
So yeah, the lower part of the ship doesn't go out of view because of swells, it's because the earth is round. Duh! ::)
-
Perhaps Pongo should lurk moar and acquaint himself with this thread...
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57031.msg1432041.html#msg1432041 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57031.msg1432041.html#msg1432041)
In which the ocean swell theory is disproved.
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Sceptimatic, if ever there was evidence that you don't understand anything about anything, this post is it.
-
The sea always has swells, at all times of day. See: On the Dimension of Ocean Waves (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za34.htm)
A wave doesn't necessarily need to be as large as the hull to obscure it. When waves are near the level of the eye at the horizon, a receding body can shrink behind the wave, obscured by it from the bottom up, just as a dime held out in front of you can obscure an elephant. See: Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm)
-
The sea always has swells, at all times of day. See: On the Dimension of Ocean Waves (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za34.htm)
A wave doesn't necessarily need to be as large as the hull to obscure it. When waves are near the level of the eye at the horizon, a receding body can shrink behind the wave, obscured by it from the bottom up, just as a dime held out in front of you can obscure an elephant. See: Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm)
Tom, read the link to the thread I posted. I disproved it. Just accept that.
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Sceptimatic, if ever there was evidence that you don't understand anything about anything, this post is it.
How?
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Sceptimatic, if ever there was evidence that you don't understand anything about anything, this post is it.
o.o
-
The sea always has swells, at all times of day. See: On the Dimension of Ocean Waves (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za34.htm)
A wave doesn't necessarily need to be as large as the hull to obscure it. When waves are near the level of the eye at the horizon, a receding body can shrink behind the wave, obscured by it from the bottom up, just as a dime held out in front of you can obscure an elephant. See: Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm)
Tom, read the link to the thread I posted. I disproved it. Just accept that.
Here the analogy you posted:
An analogy would be imagine you're standing on a flat field watching President Obama giving a speech at the other end of it. He's on a podium which raises the height of his head to 10 feet above the ground. If you're right at the back of the crowd, and standing on a box that raises your head to 12 feet above the ground, then no matter how many people are in the crowd or how big it is, if all the people in it are six feet tall you'll still be able to see President Obama.
But what if the crowd of people ascends on an upward incline to the horizon line in the distance? A person on the horizon line would be taller than eye level, which creates an area above eye level for President Obama to recede behind.
-
Perhaps Pongo should lurk moar and acquaint himself with this thread...
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57031.msg1432041.html#msg1432041 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57031.msg1432041.html#msg1432041)
In which the ocean swell theory is disproved.
The Sinking Ship Effect isn't disproven in that thread, it's simply misunderstood. I'm sorry I never responded to your post, but t's not because I couldn't. Rather, I either stopped posting in the forum for a while, forgot that this thread existed, or couldn't bring myself to care enough to write an essay trying futilely to explain a simple idea to you.
-
Perhaps Pongo should lurk moar and acquaint himself with this thread...
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57031.msg1432041.html#msg1432041 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57031.msg1432041.html#msg1432041)
In which the ocean swell theory is disproved.
The Sinking Ship Effect isn't disproven in that thread, it's simply misunderstood. I'm sorry I never responded to your post, but t's not because I couldn't. Rather, I either stopped posting in the forum for a while, forgot that this thread existed, or couldn't bring myself to care enough to write an essay trying futilely to explain a simple idea to you.
It stands as a valid disproof until countered, for I can see no flaw with it. And until you or anyone else can specify a flaw, then claims that it does not disprove the Ocean Swell Theory (NOT the Sinking Ship Effect) are empty words.
-
Hey, guys,
Take a look at "Lack of Proportionality in the Sinking Ship Effect." http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57502.0.html#.UQmt4OlQBPI (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57502.0.html#.UQmt4OlQBPI)
...?
Thanks!
-
Dinosaur Neil just owned all of you haha. And he is completely correct. Reread his logic a few times if you don't understand it.
Basically if you stand on a 60 foot cliff on the beach, you should be able to see the sinking ship effect no doubt, with ocean swells being ruled out. Unless there were 60 FOOT swells every time you tried to observe it...
-
Hey,
I'm a round-earth proponent, but there is actually a slight flaw in Neil's reasoning (though his argument still stands). That is, the wave does not have to be at eye level to block a "sinking" boat; however, if the person is elevated, it does have to be taller than the boat. Do draw a diagram, and notice that there is a triangle "shadowed" by the wave that we cannot see at 60 feet. However, everything falling inside that "shadow" is strictly shorter than the wave. Thus, we would have to have, say, 6 foot swells to cover up a motorboat.
However, more important is the issue that the height of the boat doesn't seem to matter! I've reiterated this a bunch of times, but under the "ocean swell" theory the amount of distance a boat must cover before it "sinks" must be proportional to the height of the boat so long as light travels in straight lines (in your wave diagram, look at the similar triangles). But most boats seem to "sink" at the same distance, including both motorboats and the ten-times-taller aircraft carrier.
Anyway, the ocean swell theory as posed doesn't correlate with observations. Of course, this doesn't refute FET outright, but we have to come up with a better explanation for the Sinking Ship phenomenon.
Thanks!
-
Hey,
I'm a round-earth proponent, but there is actually a slight flaw in Neil's reasoning (though his argument still stands). That is, the wave does not have to be at eye level to block a "sinking" boat; however, if the person is elevated, it does have to be taller than the boat. Do draw a diagram, and notice that there is a triangle "shadowed" by the wave that we cannot see at 60 feet. However, everything falling inside that "shadow" is strictly shorter than the wave. Thus, we would have to have, say, 6 foot swells to cover up a motorboat.
However, more important is the issue that the height of the boat doesn't seem to matter! I've reiterated this a bunch of times, but under the "ocean swell" theory the amount of distance a boat must cover before it "sinks" must be proportional to the height of the boat so long as light travels in straight lines (in your wave diagram, look at the similar triangles). But most boats seem to "sink" at the same distance, including both motorboats and the ten-times-taller aircraft carrier.
Anyway, the ocean swell theory as posed doesn't correlate with observations. Of course, this doesn't refute FET outright, but we have to come up with a better explanation for the Sinking Ship phenomenon.
Thanks!
Well, if the wave is shorter than the boat it will still obscure some of it. I didn't mean it has to be above eye level in order to obscure only part of the boat - that requirement is simply to obscure the whole thing. A wave shorter than the height of the boat can ONLY obscure the whole boat if its crest is above the eye level of the observer - otherwise you can simply see over the top of it. This assumes a flat plane, on a curved surface the geometry actually allows a shorter swell to obscure the boat as the boat itself is "lower" than the observer's eyeline (defined as a straight line between the eye and the top of the ship.)
To answer Tom's question regarding an incline, since you'd be looking up or down the incline one can simply rotate the entire scenario by the number of degrees of the incline and it becomes equivalent to the horizontal scenario again - as the person's eyeline is considered to be parallel to the ground, whether sloped or flat.
-
Right, exactly. I'm just saying that if you did have a wave taller than the boat, it would obscure it even if you were standing at 60 or 100 feet (the taller you're standing, the closer to the boat it has to be). Plus, there's no proportionality; even airplanes at 36,000 feet "sink" at the same distance, though they should be able to go 6,000 times farther than a motorboat under the "ocean swell" theory.
What do FET proponents think of this?
Thanks!
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Because, in this scenario, we have constant gravity downwards.
In the FET, people in Antarctica don't fall off the Earth, they fall towards the Earth. Assuming gravity has uniform magnitude on the surface of the Earth and always is directed towards the centre of the Earth (not entirely true, but close enough in this case,) any and all water should be uniformly flat and level locally at any point on the surface of the Earth. The only way to do this (I imagine there's some differential equation for this, but I'm too lazy to figure it out) is if the surface of the water is spherical, or at least a portion of a sphere.
-
(http://i47.tinypic.com/14vocxl.jpg)
-
(http://i47.tinypic.com/14vocxl.jpg)
Unfortunately for you in the eye the lower part of the object is projected in the upper part of the retina and the upper part of the object is projected in the lower part of the retina.
(http://www.physics.uc.edu/~sitko/LightColor/18-EyeStructure/Eye_files/image002.png)
(http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/joelau/media/eye-optics.jpg)
Just the other way around as you said. Check it in your sixth grade science school book (you did attend the sixth grade, right?)
Anyway, i think you are the perfect F.E. believer. Keep on.
-
The end result is still the same Salviati.
-
What? Why would our vision be split into two parts? How?
-
Hey,
I'm not sure I entirely understood what you were trying to convey in your diagram, sceptimatic... do you think you might be able to explain it a bit more in detail?
Thanks.
-
(http://i47.tinypic.com/14vocxl.jpg)
Why is your ship hovering above the sea? Why isn't the sea a flat plane?
-
Well we're talking about a gradual drop off, over minutes and minutes, with the tip of the mast being the last thing you see. If swells were to blame, then we would see the ship rapidly disappearing, then the swell would fall after a little bit and we would see the whole ship again, and then it would be covered again, etc. (before it went out of sight)
Two different scenarios, and while the second one does happen, so does the first. And if the first one happens, well, you're observing earth's curvature.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with rudimentary statistics and something known as a bell curve. Any statistician will tell you that this is what you would expect to... sea.
Hold up, did everyone just ignore this post? Following a bell curve would mean there would be an equal(or at least close) number of people who see both, a ship disappearing in and out of a swell. Does it not seem odd to you that there are NO accounts of a ship rising out from behind the horizon?
Addition: Also how do you justify the fact that you can see the sunset twice if you lie down as the sun is setting and stand directly upright?
-
The height of waves fall along a bell curve, not the height of a ship.
-
The height of waves fall along a bell curve, not the height of a ship.
I was actually talking about the bell curve of the number of reports for each side, but all the same, wouldn't there be some accounts of ships reappearing above the horizon? As well as the fact that the horizon, instead of being clearly straight, would obviously be distorted by huge waves if you used an even semi-powerful telescope?
And again, how do you justify the fact that you can see the sunset twice if you lie down as the sun is setting and stand directly upright?
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
This is literally the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my entire life. I was taken aback by this.
Sceptimatic, if ever there was evidence that you don't understand anything about anything, this post is it.
This doesn't even do justice to just how stupid that was.
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Dear god, can't believe I missed this...
(http://thedailygrind.robdamanii.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/StarTrekFacePalm.gif)
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Dear god, can't believe I missed this...
(http://thedailygrind.robdamanii.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/StarTrekFacePalm.gif)
Pretty compelling evidence that Scepti is in fact a troll of epic proportions. Literally no one on the internet is that stupid. If someone is that stupid, the probably don't know how to join a forum, or really even feed themselves.
-
While we're all talking about roundness of Earth and Oceans I think its also worth pointing out that the circumference of the round earth is 24,901.5 miles. A complete circle is 360 degrees. This equates to a variance of a level angle of 1 degree every 69.17 miles. That would be nigh imperceptible by senses alone.
-
This equates to a variance of a level angle of 1 degree every 69.17 miles. That would be nigh imperceptible by senses alone.
Good observation. However, in the end what really matters is the distance of the horizon which can be much less than 70+ miles away. The formula for this is explained here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/15/how-far-away-is-the-horizon/#.USWArKUqaE0 (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/15/how-far-away-is-the-horizon/#.USWArKUqaE0)
Distance of horizon = height^2 + 2 * Earth's Radius * height
According to this, the horizon is 3 miles away for a 6 foot man standing at sea level.
-
Hi Dudes!
I am surprised about this "swell-theory". The common explanations for the sinking ship effect are the good old "matter-of-perspective" - theory of Rowbothom and the "bendy-light" - theory of T. Bishop (?). Have they become obsolete?
-
is'nt the "sinking-ship"- phenomenon categorically the same as the "sinking-sun"-phenomenon? shouldn't they have the same explanation, in FET as well as in RET?
-
Oh, and, Sceptimatic! you should hold lectures! would pay for it!!
-
Hi Dudes!
I am surprised about this "swell-theory". The common explanations for the sinking ship effect are the good old "matter-of-perspective" - theory of Rowbothom and the "bendy-light" - theory of T. Bishop (?). Have they become obsolete?
I could be mistaken, but I do believe that bendy light has fallen out of favor. The swell theory supplements the perspective theory.
-
Hi Dudes!
I am surprised about this "swell-theory". The common explanations for the sinking ship effect are the good old "matter-of-perspective" - theory of Rowbothom and the "bendy-light" - theory of T. Bishop (?). Have they become obsolete?
I could be mistaken, but I do believe that bendy light has fallen out of favor. The swell theory supplements the perspective theory.
I disproved the swell theory. Read my post history.
-
Yes he did. Either the earth curves or light bends. that's a matter of observation.
-
His refutation was rife with speculation and hypothetical conjecture.
-
No, it's simple logic. If the swell, that obscures the boat, is at the horizon, too, it must be as big as the boat to do so. If the swell is not at the horizon, but closer to the observer, a smaller swell would work as well, but it just wouldn't be in the line of sight between eye and boat. It would be below it, so how could it obscure the boat?
-
I can hear Richard Feynman cry out from the grave: "If you think you understand the sinking-ship- phenomenon, you don't understand sinking-ship - phenomenon". I suggest you to read both Rowbothom and Tom bishop's glittering works without those distored RE-glasses on the top of your nose, ET. You will see the light.
-
No, it's simple logic. If the swell, that obscures the boat, is at the horizon, too, it must be as big as the boat to do so. If the swell is not at the horizon, but closer to the observer, a smaller swell would work as well, but it just wouldn't be in the line of sight between eye and boat. It would be below it, so how could it obscure the boat?
So boats stay at a constant elevation while at sea? The billions of people worldwide who suffer from sea sickness while on the ocean will be glad to hear about this. We should let them know.
-
Why do debates with flat earthlings allways end up like that? I do not want to WIN in a discussion. I would LOVE it, if somebody could come up with a consistent flat earth theory. But Robotham was an imposter. I read his book. Did he believe, what he wrote? No one will ever know.
By the way, for me (as a Martian) it's no problem to conceive earth as flat and round at the same time. Some enlightened earthlings have developed the concept of many-valued logic. you should get your teeth into it.
-
No, it's simple logic. If the swell, that obscures the boat, is at the horizon, too, it must be as big as the boat to do so. If the swell is not at the horizon, but closer to the observer, a smaller swell would work as well, but it just wouldn't be in the line of sight between eye and boat. It would be below it, so how could it obscure the boat?
So boats stay at a constant elevation while at sea? The billions of people worldwide who suffer from sea sickness while on the ocean will be glad to hear about this. We should let them know.
No, boats do not stay at a constant elevation while at sea. However, if you have a swell obscuring the boat from view while it's in the ocean, they would be able to notice this gigantic taller-than-the-boat swell, considering that they'd be at the bottom of a chasm from all directions (since this effect works from any/all directions).
This concept of a swell obscuring boats at a certain distance just doesn't *cough* hold water *cough*.
-
It's not one gigantic tsunami-like swell that obscures a boat, it's the average of many peaks (or swells) and their opposing troughs that over a distance obscure a boat. Think of it like this and don't take this learning example too literal. Imagine a boat is 100ft out to sea and there are 5 waves between you and the boat. Being that these are shallow and close to shore, they will obscure nothing, or nothing much. Move the boat to 200ft and now there are 10 waves. As the distance from the shore increases, so does the amount of waves and their amplitude, if you will. There is a greater chance that a swell, or crest, or peak will obscure part of the boat. Jump to 50,000ft and it's a statistical improbability that the ship won't be obscured by waves.
-
aren't the waves diminishing in apparent amplitude by the same inverse square law that makes the boat's image itself diminish?
with increasing distance, they will have less ability to obscure the boat.
-
It's not one gigantic tsunami-like swell that obscures a boat, it's the average of many peaks (or swells) and their opposing troughs that over a distance obscure a boat. Think of it like this and don't take this learning example too literal. Imagine a boat is 100ft out to sea and there are 5 waves between you and the boat. Being that these are shallow and close to shore, they will obscure nothing, or nothing much. Move the boat to 200ft and now there are 10 waves. As the distance from the shore increases, so does the amount of waves and their amplitude, if you will. There is a greater chance that a swell, or crest, or peak will obscure part of the boat. Jump to 50,000ft and it's a statistical improbability that the ship won't be obscured by waves.
Given that, what you would see is that as the boat moves further and further away from the observer, it is obscured for more and more time. At distance X, it would be completely obscured 25% of the time, and at least somewhat visible 75% of the time. At distance 2X, it would be obscured 50% of the time, and so on. Until it reached the point at which is was statistically certain that it would be obscured 100% of the time.
But that is not what is observed. The boat is observed to disappear, from the bottom up, at a steady rate, until it is completely gone. At no point is it completely obscured before it disappears for good, and at no point does it reappear after it completely disappears, unless the observer increases elevation.
-
And regardless of sea state bar maby a huricane the ship always starts disappears at the same distance. Also try looking at it the other way. Try and island with a massive volcano on it. Take Tenerife for example. How does the wave effect work on a island many many thousnds of feet tall?
-
It's not one gigantic tsunami-like swell that obscures a boat, it's the average of many peaks (or swells) and their opposing troughs that over a distance obscure a boat. Think of it like this and don't take this learning example too literal. Imagine a boat is 100ft out to sea and there are 5 waves between you and the boat. Being that these are shallow and close to shore, they will obscure nothing, or nothing much. Move the boat to 200ft and now there are 10 waves. As the distance from the shore increases, so does the amount of waves and their amplitude, if you will. There is a greater chance that a swell, or crest, or peak will obscure part of the boat. Jump to 50,000ft and it's a statistical improbability that the ship won't be obscured by waves.
Hold on. To simplify this, if you take a section of a sine wave - as a simple "example" of the peaks and troughs - are you claiming that (assuming the peaks and troughs are semi-random), that there are going to randomly be sine waves taller than entire ships, and that none of them will be immediately next to the ship?
-
And regardless of sea state bar maby a huricane the ship always starts disappears at the same distance. Also try looking at it the other way. Try and island with a massive volcano on it. Take Tenerife for example. How does the wave effect work on a island many many thousnds of feet tall?
Stand on the beach in Los Angeles California. What do you see? Water? What else. Look hard and long. Look all damn day if you want to. Do you see that island out there about 20 miles west? You don't? Walk up into a nearby building about ten stories tall. Now do you see that island. Good! Now stand there all damn day long and tell me if you ever see a swell that conceals that island even for an instant.
-
The sea is calm to the observer at the shore, but after miles and miles at sea, statistics dictate that you will encounter a swell that will block the ship. The sea is never, never ever, calm for miles and miles, it's a constantly moving thing that never calms to the point of perfect flatness. Personally, I wish it did calm like you seem to think it does. It would be one of the most undisputed proofs of a flat-earth available. Sadly, it does not.
A swell is a two way street which would mean it would be a case of peek-a-boo! but of course when a ship disappears over the horizon [curvature of the earth] even in mountainous seas you cant see it.
PS WHAT STOPS A SHIPS RADAR SEEING OTHER VESSELS ONLY SIXTEEN MILES AWAY?
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Why?
It's this thing called gravity.
A ping-pong ball does not have enough gravity to hold the water on its surface.
Earth, however, has a much larger amount of mass, so it has much more gravity than a ping-pong ball, and can hold water on its surface.
-
What if instead of a ship sailing to the end of the earth a plane flies there and over the mountains then off the world and instantly seeing the end of the world and then die. Yeah, right. Seriously you get to the end of the world if it was flat ,but its not, its spherical.
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Why?
It's this thing called gravity.
A ping-pong ball does not have enough gravity to hold the water on its surface.
Earth, however, has a much larger amount of mass, so it has much more gravity than a ping-pong ball, and can hold water on its surface.
If gravity could hold water so well, why does it rise into the air. Gravity as we are told, doesn't exist. To me, it's simply just the weight of an object on a flat earth that doesn't move at all through space, regardless of some theories on that.
Do I know this for certain?
No, of course I don't but I think logical and more simpler.
-
What if instead of a ship sailing to the end of the earth a plane flies there and over the mountains then off the world and instantly seeing the end of the world and then die. Yeah, right. Seriously you get to the end of the world if it was flat ,but its not, its spherical.
No plane or boat or anything will be sailing or flying off of the end of the world because the circle of ice is a lot wider than people think, in my opinion of course.
The rim that is Antarctica, could be hundreds of thousands of miles wide around the edge which no man nor craft can breach.
In truth, there's no real possibility of knowing. It's a lot of guess work.
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Why?
It's this thing called gravity.
A ping-pong ball does not have enough gravity to hold the water on its surface.
Earth, however, has a much larger amount of mass, so it has much more gravity than a ping-pong ball, and can hold water on its surface.
If gravity could hold water so well, why does it rise into the air. Gravity as we are told, doesn't exist. To me, it's simply just the weight of an object on a flat earth that doesn't move at all through space, regardless of some theories on that.
Do I know this for certain?
No, of course I don't but I think logical and more simpler.
Hi Sceptimatic, did you have a good weekend?
Got to say this is one of your best posts! ;D
Let's start with what do you think is weight and does it differ from mass?
-
What if instead of a ship sailing to the end of the earth a plane flies there and over the mountains then off the world and instantly seeing the end of the world and then die. Yeah, right. Seriously you get to the end of the world if it was flat ,but its not, its spherical.
No plane or boat or anything will be sailing or flying off of the end of the world because the circle of ice is a lot wider than people think, in my opinion of course.
The rim that is Antarctica, could be hundreds of thousands of miles wide around the edge which no man nor craft can breach.
In truth, there's no real possibility of knowing. It's a lot of guess work.
Well lets assume we could get through and eventually we will if the end exists. So whats at the end? space or the other end of antartica. and besides if there was a wall then how come its never been seen. to prove it you need photographic evidence of the flat earth. we already have evidence of round earth so post your proof.
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Why?
It's this thing called gravity.
A ping-pong ball does not have enough gravity to hold the water on its surface.
Earth, however, has a much larger amount of mass, so it has much more gravity than a ping-pong ball, and can hold water on its surface.
If gravity could hold water so well, why does it rise into the air. Gravity as we are told, doesn't exist. To me, it's simply just the weight of an object on a flat earth that doesn't move at all through space, regardless of some theories on that.
Do I know this for certain?
No, of course I don't but I think logical and more simpler..
Do you have no knowledge of chemistry at all? if you had taken 8th grade science you would of known that when water turns into a gas it becomes lighter than air so it tends to float above it, why? When water turns into gas, the molecules become lighter than air, water(H2O) in a gas state becomes lighter than oxygen(O) because water is a polar covalent bond, meaning it can pass through other molecules easily, and since the air we breathe(O2) is never pure because it mixes with all the other chemicals in the air, the 2nd lightest combination of oxygen always rises above the other combination of oxygen which is what we see as steam which then is formed into clouds.
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Why?
It's this thing called gravity.
A ping-pong ball does not have enough gravity to hold the water on its surface.
Earth, however, has a much larger amount of mass, so it has much more gravity than a ping-pong ball, and can hold water on its surface.
If gravity could hold water so well, why does it rise into the air. Gravity as we are told, doesn't exist. To me, it's simply just the weight of an object on a flat earth that doesn't move at all through space, regardless of some theories on that.
Do I know this for certain?
No, of course I don't but I think logical and more simpler..
Do you have no knowledge of chemistry at all? if you had taken 8th grade science you would of known that when water turns into a gas it becomes lighter than air so it tends to float above it, why? When water turns into gas, the molecules become lighter than air, water(H2O) in a gas state becomes lighter than oxygen(O) because water is a polar covalent bond, meaning it can pass through other molecules easily, and since the air we breathe(O2) is never pure because it mixes with all the other chemicals in the air, the 2nd lightest combination of oxygen always rises above the other combination of oxygen which is what we see as steam which then is formed into clouds.
The floating described above would be a combination of convection, Brownian Motion and perhaps Strong Force interaction.
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Why?
It's this thing called gravity.
A ping-pong ball does not have enough gravity to hold the water on its surface.
Earth, however, has a much larger amount of mass, so it has much more gravity than a ping-pong ball, and can hold water on its surface.
If gravity could hold water so well, why does it rise into the air. Gravity as we are told, doesn't exist. To me, it's simply just the weight of an object on a flat earth that doesn't move at all through space, regardless of some theories on that.
Do I know this for certain?
No, of course I don't but I think logical and more simpler.
Hi Sceptimatic, did you have a good weekend?
Got to say this is one of your best posts! ;D
Let's start with what do you think is weight and does it differ from mass?
In simplistic terms, weight and mass are the same. In scientific terms they are different in terms of size and density.
For instance, we can look at wind resistance between two equal weights, one of which is a 8 foot x 4 foot ply board sheet and a small cannon ball weighing the same.
Now going by the scientists view , the ball has more mass in it's size as opposed to the sheet.
To be totally honest, mass and weight are basically the same, it all just comes down to the way science likes to make things a little more complicated to fit things into their science.
-
What if instead of a ship sailing to the end of the earth a plane flies there and over the mountains then off the world and instantly seeing the end of the world and then die. Yeah, right. Seriously you get to the end of the world if it was flat ,but its not, its spherical.
No plane or boat or anything will be sailing or flying off of the end of the world because the circle of ice is a lot wider than people think, in my opinion of course.
The rim that is Antarctica, could be hundreds of thousands of miles wide around the edge which no man nor craft can breach.
In truth, there's no real possibility of knowing. It's a lot of guess work.
Well lets assume we could get through and eventually we will if the end exists. So whats at the end? space or the other end of antartica. and besides if there was a wall then how come its never been seen. to prove it you need photographic evidence of the flat earth. we already have evidence of round earth so post your proof.
You post "your" evidence of the round earth with a picture that "you" took first, just so we can be clear that we are on a round earth.
I don't want to see NASA pics, just yours or your friends or someone you know that's taken a picture of the round earth.
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Why?
It's this thing called gravity.
A ping-pong ball does not have enough gravity to hold the water on its surface.
Earth, however, has a much larger amount of mass, so it has much more gravity than a ping-pong ball, and can hold water on its surface.
If gravity could hold water so well, why does it rise into the air. Gravity as we are told, doesn't exist. To me, it's simply just the weight of an object on a flat earth that doesn't move at all through space, regardless of some theories on that.
Do I know this for certain?
No, of course I don't but I think logical and more simpler..
Do you have no knowledge of chemistry at all? if you had taken 8th grade science you would of known that when water turns into a gas it becomes lighter than air so it tends to float above it, why? When water turns into gas, the molecules become lighter than air, water(H2O) in a gas state becomes lighter than oxygen(O) because water is a polar covalent bond, meaning it can pass through other molecules easily, and since the air we breathe(O2) is never pure because it mixes with all the other chemicals in the air, the 2nd lightest combination of oxygen always rises above the other combination of oxygen which is what we see as steam which then is formed into clouds.
I was talking about the fake gravity not the air.
-
Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in something. Weight is a measure of the force gravity exerts on a given object.
Because the force of gravity on all objects on earth is roughly the same (there is slight variation), weight and mass can be easily converted and used almost interchangeably.
But they are not the same. The weight of someone on the moon is different than their weight on the earth. But their mass is the same.
-
Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in something. Weight is a measure of the force gravity exerts on a given object.
Because the force of gravity on all objects on earth is roughly the same (there is slight variation), weight and mass can be easily converted and used almost interchangeably.
But they are not the same. The weight of someone on the moon is different than their weight on the earth. But their mass is the same.
I've just basically said that.
-
Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in something. Weight is a measure of the force gravity exerts on a given object.
Because the force of gravity on all objects on earth is roughly the same (there is slight variation), weight and mass can be easily converted and used almost interchangeably.
But they are not the same. The weight of someone on the moon is different than their weight on the earth. But their mass is the same.
I've just basically said that.
And it was well said. I merely felt that my particular spin on the explanation could provide additional clarity to the subject. I do like to contribute.
-
Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in something. Weight is a measure of the force gravity exerts on a given object.
Because the force of gravity on all objects on earth is roughly the same (there is slight variation), weight and mass can be easily converted and used almost interchangeably.
But they are not the same. The weight of someone on the moon is different than their weight on the earth. But their mass is the same.
I've just basically said that.
And it was well said. I merely felt that my particular spin on the explanation could provide additional clarity to the subject. I do like to contribute.
Fair enough. No problem here. The more contributions, the merrier I say regardless of who agrees or disagrees with topics at hand.
We are all learning, even if we won't budge in our stances. It all gives food for thought.
-
In simplistic terms, weight and mass are the same. In scientific terms they are different in terms of size and density.
Although mass and weight are generally used interchangeably because they are pretty much the same value on earth (give or take minor variations in the local values of the earth's gravity), they are different concepts and should not be confused. Mass is the measure of how much of something there is. Weight is mass under the influence of gravity. Density is the ratio of mass per unit of volume.
For instance, we can look at wind resistance between two equal weights, one of which is a 8 foot x 4 foot ply board sheet and a small cannon ball weighing the same.
Now going by the scientists view , the ball has more mass in it's size as opposed to the sheet.
No. Mass has nothing to do with surface area. The cannon ball will be more dense, however, because it has the same amount of mass in a smaller volume.
-
On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.
The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.
Why?
It's this thing called gravity.
A ping-pong ball does not have enough gravity to hold the water on its surface.
Earth, however, has a much larger amount of mass, so it has much more gravity than a ping-pong ball, and can hold water on its surface.
If gravity could hold water so well, why does it rise into the air. Gravity as we are told, doesn't exist. To me, it's simply just the weight of an object on a flat earth that doesn't move at all through space, regardless of some theories on that.
Do I know this for certain?
No, of course I don't but I think logical and more simpler..
Do you have no knowledge of chemistry at all? if you had taken 8th grade science you would of known that when water turns into a gas it becomes lighter than air so it tends to float above it, why? When water turns into gas, the molecules become lighter than air, water(H2O) in a gas state becomes lighter than oxygen(O) because water is a polar covalent bond, meaning it can pass through other molecules easily, and since the air we breathe(O2) is never pure because it mixes with all the other chemicals in the air, the 2nd lightest combination of oxygen always rises above the other combination of oxygen which is what we see as steam which then is formed into clouds.
I was talking about the fake gravity not the air.
i was talking about the weight of the air we breath compared to water in a gas state, gravity is the force exerted on the mass of an object, if you didn't know, air has weight too.
-
What if instead of a ship sailing to the end of the earth a plane flies there and over the mountains then off the world and instantly seeing the end of the world and then die. Yeah, right. Seriously you get to the end of the world if it was flat ,but its not, its spherical.
No plane or boat or anything will be sailing or flying off of the end of the world because the circle of ice is a lot wider than people think, in my opinion of course.
The rim that is Antarctica, could be hundreds of thousands of miles wide around the edge which no man nor craft can breach.
In truth, there's no real possibility of knowing. It's a lot of guess work.
Well lets assume we could get through and eventually we will if the end exists. So whats at the end? space or the other end of antartica. and besides if there was a wall then how come its never been seen. to prove it you need photographic evidence of the flat earth. we already have evidence of round earth so post your proof.
You post "your" evidence of the round earth with a picture that "you" took first, just so we can be clear that we are on a round earth.
I don't want to see NASA pics, just yours or your friends or someone you know that's taken a picture of the round earth.
You haven't even got one realistic picture of the flat earth not even a fake one and of course no real ones and besides if the there was an end to the world then how could it not be found people have travelled to the center of antartica before and its just ice and snow and guess what they come the other side of antartica. Oh and if gravity didnt exist then when i jump why do i continue going on forever then.