Industrial flat glass, needs a flat earth

you're failing harder than a dyslexic in a spelling contest, the process is as such; the glass flows onto the tin surface forming a floating ribbon with perfectly smooth surfaces on both sides and an even thickness. it's flatness is not specifically engineered in, it is a by product of being far too short to notice any curve. now why don't you lurk moar and keep your ridiculous theories locked up where they can't infect any more easily influenced and empty vessels

Quote from: elduderino on April 22, 2011, 01:14:54 PM

Adding to this, we can certainly make kilometer-long assemblies perfectly flat. You know, the assembly floor doesn't have to follow the Earth's curvature. That, and the Earth's curvature isn't even perfect, some spots ARE flat, some others are mountains, etc. The Earth is just a ball with a very uneven surface. Hell, the Earth doesn't even have the same radius at the poles and at the equator, nor is the radius constant there. It's easy to find flaws in the "RET" if you take the Earth as a perfect sphere.

It would not matter if the floor of the building was perfectly flat. If the Earth was spherical, and gravity existed, the liquid glass would slightly pool the follow the curvature of the Earth, resulting in the glass not being perfectly flat. If this were not true. The oceans would not follow the curvature of the Earth either. They would be perfectly flat.

Do you think that the water would just lay flat on that flat structure, or do you think it would pool, as illustrated? It can't just lay flat on the structure. Gravity would be pulling it towards the center of the Earth, meaning that it is going to pull it all as close as it can.

you can't be serious with this shit, can you? your basic, and crippling flaw is that there is no 'up' or 'down' in space

the water 'sticks' to the surface due to the uniform nature of gravity exerting the same force all over the planet at the same time, and the atmospheric pressure being high enough that the gasses pool as water on the surface

once again I am jaw dropped by your delusional rantings

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on September 16, 2010, 05:09:14 PM

This argument appears flawless.

Looks to me like another VICTORY FOR FE!!!!

I applaud you Thork, keep up the great work! 

let me rebuke your fanboi post with a deep flaw; float glass isn't proposed to be perfectly 'flat', the technique is used to produce a perfectly smooth surface

you guys have fail written all over you

Yes, you seem to have said something new in a terribly boring, repetitive and long thread.

Lower quality glass is not different from the best because it is (or is not) curved by some micrometers in a one meter glass. It is clearly inferior because a flawed machine makes every 5 cm or so of the glass have inconsistent thickness, therefore making it comparable to a series of prisms, which distort the image you see through it in some circumstances. That is the imperfection that does reduce the value of the glass, and you can see it clearly if you see through the glass or mirror at a very oblique angle.

On the other hand, a glass that is concave with a radius of some 6000 km is beyond the capacity of any human to detect, except with the most sophisticated equipment. Even the frames in which the glass is installed are usually bent by a lot more than a few micrometers, so the installed glass is far from being flat even if it comes perfect from the factory. Just take an uninstalled frame and hold it by two opposing corners and you will see it visibly bending.

you can't be serious with this shit, can you?

Your time here could be a lot more enjoyable if you could be a little more open minded and a little less hostile.

I agree with Markjo.

my time here would be a lot more enjoyable if some of you would answer questions on the topic and stop avoiding them, it is frustration at the total lack of answers, diversionary tactics and being told to read the same one book that you all get your views from. you're like sheep blindly following the crackpot theories instigated by a heroin addict over 200 years ago.

explain why the sun stays the same size in the sky from one side to the other despite going from 31 miles above us to over 14,000, according to your 'facts'

explain why we can't see to the far side of the disc, and are limited to 6 miles

explain why the other globe planets formed as such yet earth is a huge metal disc flying through space

explain how land and ships appear to rise out of the horizon

in fact explain all of the above if the surface isn't curved

and that's just for starters, no answers are to be found in the Q&A, so, go for it, one by one, explain them

Where is your evidence that Rowbotham was addicted to heroin? I assume that's who you're referring to, even though it wasn't "over 200 years ago."

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 22, 2011, 01:26:20 PM

Quote from: elduderino on April 22, 2011, 01:14:54 PM

Adding to this, we can certainly make kilometer-long assemblies perfectly flat. You know, the assembly floor doesn't have to follow the Earth's curvature. That, and the Earth's curvature isn't even perfect, some spots ARE flat, some others are mountains, etc. The Earth is just a ball with a very uneven surface. Hell, the Earth doesn't even have the same radius at the poles and at the equator, nor is the radius constant there. It's easy to find flaws in the "RET" if you take the Earth as a perfect sphere.

It would not matter if the floor of the building was perfectly flat. If the Earth was spherical, and gravity existed, the liquid glass would slightly pool the follow the curvature of the Earth, resulting in the glass not being perfectly flat. If this were not true. The oceans would not follow the curvature of the Earth either. They would be perfectly flat.

Do you think that the water would just lay flat on that flat structure, or do you think it would pool, as illustrated? It can't just lay flat on the structure. Gravity would be pulling it towards the center of the Earth, meaning that it is going to pull it all as close as it can.

you can't be serious with this shit, can you? your basic, and crippling flaw is that there is no 'up' or 'down' in space

the water 'sticks' to the surface due to the uniform nature of gravity exerting the same force all over the planet at the same time, and the atmospheric pressure being high enough that the gasses pool as water on the surface

once again I am jaw dropped by your delusional rantings

Where did I ever stated "up" or "down" in that post? Are you purposely trying to misrepresent me? I never used such words. I used "toward the center of the Earth" which is a perfectly valid description. You are terrible at trolling, and you don't even seem to have a clue as to what the post was talking about.

explain why the sun stays the same size in the sky from one side to the other despite going from 31 miles above us to over 14,000, according to your 'facts'

explain why we can't see to the far side of the disc, and are limited to 6 miles

explain why the other globe planets formed as such yet earth is a huge metal disc flying through space

explain how land and ships appear to rise out of the horizon

in fact explain all of the above if the surface isn't curved

Every single one of these questions are asked several times a week. If you cannot use the search function, you are a failure.

If you cannot use the search function, you are a failure.

Can you?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 03, 2011, 07:24:58 PM

If you cannot use the search function, you are a failure.

Can you?

I do all the time... 

Quote from: Puttah on May 03, 2011, 07:52:57 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 03, 2011, 07:24:58 PM

If you cannot use the search function, you are a failure.

Can you?

I do all the time...  

Oh it's back up and running! This deserves an...

FE VICTORY

I suggest you read and lurk. It states perfectly flat.

I suggest you read and lurk.  The Inventor admits the curvature of this process exists. 

Berny
Also Float Glass is not optical Quality

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 03, 2011, 08:57:02 PM

Quote from: Puttah on May 03, 2011, 07:52:57 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 03, 2011, 07:24:58 PM

If you cannot use the search function, you are a failure.

Can you?

I do all the time...  

Oh it's back up and running! This deserves an...

FE VICTORY

Yay! 

Quote from: Puttah on May 03, 2011, 09:10:23 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 03, 2011, 08:57:02 PM

Quote from: Puttah on May 03, 2011, 07:52:57 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 03, 2011, 07:24:58 PM

If you cannot use the search function, you are a failure.

Can you?

I do all the time...  

Oh it's back up and running! This deserves an...

FE VICTORY

Yay! 

id have to admit, but more like
FES WEBSITE VICTORY

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 03, 2011, 09:26:32 PM

Quote from: Puttah on May 03, 2011, 09:10:23 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 03, 2011, 08:57:02 PM

Quote from: Puttah on May 03, 2011, 07:52:57 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 03, 2011, 07:24:58 PM

If you cannot use the search function, you are a failure.

Can you?

I do all the time...  

Oh it's back up and running! This deserves an...

FE VICTORY

Yay! 

id have to admit, but more like
FES WEBSITE VICTORY

Power to the people!!!

The OP also states that the float line is 0.5km long. It is, but the actual flotation furnace isn't, most are well under 100m long and the perfectly level line beyond it is constantly drawing the glass through. There certainly isn't enough room in a 62m long furnace (which seems to be the standard length for Stewart Engineering furnaces), for curvature to have any effect. Another misinterpretation by the FE fans...well done.

The OP also states that the float line is 0.5km long. It is, but the actual flotation furnace isn't, most are well under 100m long and the perfectly level line beyond it is constantly drawing the glass through. There certainly isn't enough room in a 62m long furnace (which seems to be the standard length for Stewart Engineering furnaces), for curvature to have any effect. Another misinterpretation by the FE fans...well done.

Except there is ~.5mm of curvature every 6m.

Quote from: Ali on May 05, 2011, 02:34:31 AM

The OP also states that the float line is 0.5km long. It is, but the actual flotation furnace isn't, most are well under 100m long and the perfectly level line beyond it is constantly drawing the glass through. There certainly isn't enough room in a 62m long furnace (which seems to be the standard length for Stewart Engineering furnaces), for curvature to have any effect. Another misinterpretation by the FE fans...well done.

Except there is ~.5mm of curvature every 6m.

What does it matter the curvature of the glass when in its pliable state is reheated in a lehr on the flat conveyance system?

Berny
Still wondering why Thorks thread is coming back to life

Berny
Still wondering why Thorks thread is coming back to life

Because it is clearly a good one!

Just look at all the thread that have lots of pages in the upper fora. Top notch!

I think your calculating with the earth's radius at 6371 meters, instead of kilometers.

There are a number of formulas for calculating the curve, most involve trig.  But the easiest and closest approximate formula I've seen (for short distances) is:
y = - L^2 / 8R  So:
Curve = 6^2/8*6371000 in meters
Curve = 36/50968000 in meters
Curve = 0.7 microns (over 6 meters)

Not perfect, but a small fraction of the glass thickness.  Seeing the curve over small distance is very difficult at the human scale.  That's why distances of several miles are needed.

(someone please check my math!)

Quote from: berny_74 on May 05, 2011, 02:15:55 PM

Berny
Still wondering why Thorks thread is coming back to life

Because it is clearly a good one!

Just look at all the thread that have lots of pages in the upper fora. Top notch!

And it has nothing to do whether or not the Earth is Flat.  The only way to conclusively prove it either way is to ask an industrial flat glass producer to make a run of flat glass over the tin bath and let it cool on the tin bath.  Then the ~50 meter glass plate would have to be carefully removed from the tin (if even possible) and carefully placed in a liquid to minimize the effects of gravity on naturally flexible glass and attempt to measure the bend.

Not to mention dozens of other variables.

Berny
Doesn't have the time to deal with that experiment

Quote from: Ali on May 05, 2011, 02:34:31 AM

The OP also states that the float line is 0.5km long. It is, but the actual flotation furnace isn't, most are well under 100m long and the perfectly level line beyond it is constantly drawing the glass through. There certainly isn't enough room in a 62m long furnace (which seems to be the standard length for Stewart Engineering furnaces), for curvature to have any effect. Another misinterpretation by the FE fans...well done.

Except there is ~.5mm of curvature every 6m.

That's a nice attempt at skewing the truth in your favour - even though .5mm in 6m is less than 0.01%, the magnitude of your answer is still more than 100x bigger than the true value.

I think your calculating with the earth's radius at 6371 meters, instead of kilometers.

There are a number of formulas for calculating the curve, most involve trig.  But the easiest and closest approximate formula I've seen (for short distances) is:
y = - L^2 / 8R  So:
Curve = 6^2/8*6371000 in meters
Curve = 36/50968000 in meters
Curve = 0.7 microns (over 6 meters)

Not perfect, but a small fraction of the glass thickness.  Seeing the curve over small distance is very difficult at the human scale.  That's why distances of several miles are needed.

(someone please check my math!)

A good approximation (which assumes the distance we are talking about is actually tangent to the surface of the Earth, (as though the Earth was flat) is

h = -R + sqrt(R^2 + d^2) , where R is the radius of the Earth and d is the distance along the Earth (approximate to the real distance along the Earth). Make sure you use the same units, so if you measure the radius of the Earth in kilometres, then you need to do that for d as well, 1 metre = 0.001 kilometres. This has been used time and time again by FEers in order to skew their results, as shown above in the first quote of this post.

A more ideal answer is to take the distance along the round Earth, but the formula is more complicated for this,

h = R(-1 + sec(d/R)), where sec(x) is the secant function 1/cos(x).

At 6 metres, the first formula gives (using R=6.371*10^6, d=6) h=2.825*10^-6 which is about 2.8 micrometres.

the second formula gives the same result, and only deviates from the first after the 11th decimal place.
For longer distances however, the deviation will become more apparent and the difference approaches infinite as we approach 1/4 of the Earth's circumference.

I think your calculating with the earth's radius at 6371 meters, instead of kilometers.

It was most certainly not!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42558.msg1055809#msg1055809

Quote from: A.R. Wallace on May 05, 2011, 02:28:03 PM

I think your calculating with the earth's radius at 6371 meters, instead of kilometers.

It was most certainly not!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42558.msg1055809#msg1055809

You trust Thork's maths more than a math major's? And it has been said time and time again that he got his maths wrong, but you still choose to use his numbers - why? Because you're pulling another typical FE move - "if it works in my favour, I'll exploit it".

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 05, 2011, 11:59:20 PM

Quote from: A.R. Wallace on May 05, 2011, 02:28:03 PM

I think your calculating with the earth's radius at 6371 meters, instead of kilometers.

It was most certainly not!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42558.msg1055809#msg1055809

You trust Thork's maths more than a math major's? And it has been said time and time again that he got his maths wrong, but you still choose to use his numbers - why? Because you're pulling another typical FE move - "if it works in my favour, I'll exploit it".

Do point out where his calculations are incorrect.

Quote from: Puttah on May 06, 2011, 12:39:58 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on May 05, 2011, 11:59:20 PM

Quote from: A.R. Wallace on May 05, 2011, 02:28:03 PM

I think your calculating with the earth's radius at 6371 meters, instead of kilometers.

It was most certainly not!

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42558.msg1055809#msg1055809

You trust Thork's maths more than a math major's? And it has been said time and time again that he got his maths wrong, but you still choose to use his numbers - why? Because you're pulling another typical FE move - "if it works in my favour, I'll exploit it".

Do point out where his calculations are incorrect.

He assumes that the change in height is linearly dependent on the length of the glass. By his same logic, one could have calculated the height given over, say, 1000km, which would give an answer of
h = -6.371*10^6 + sqrt( (6.371*10^6)^2 + (10^6)^2 ) = 78km
So in every 1,000km there is a height of 78km, which is a 7.8% change. Using this percentage (which is where Thork was wrong for doing so) a 6m glass panel should bend by 7.8% which is 48cm. Suddenly we have a bigger result than your 500 micrometers, and again bigger than the actual true value of 2.8micrometers.

In summary, you need to use the formula each and every time.

Well the formula I used (y = L² / 8R) is an approximation, but one that agrees with a lot of published carts, including the one published in ENaG.
So I don't know how we came up with such different numbers, I'll have to double check.  We disagree by about 4:1, tho it's still a pretty small curve over 6 meters.  Over a few miles it would be a big error.
The is also the "Dip=L²/1.513" formula.  (L in miles, dip in inches).

my time here would be a lot more enjoyable if some of you would answer questions on the topic and stop avoiding them, it is frustration at the total lack of answers, diversionary tactics and being told to read the same one book that you all get your views from. you're like sheep blindly following the crackpot theories instigated by a heroin addict over 200 years ago.

explain why the sun stays the same size in the sky from one side to the other despite going from 31 miles above us to over 14,000, according to your 'facts'

explain why we can't see to the far side of the disc, and are limited to 6 miles

explain why the other globe planets formed as such yet earth is a huge metal disc flying through space

explain how land and ships appear to rise out of the horizon

in fact explain all of the above if the surface isn't curved

and that's just for starters, no answers are to be found in the Q&A, so, go for it, one by one, explain them

Those questions could literally all be answered by reading the FAQ and using the search function.

Well the formula I used (y = L² / 8R) is an approximation, but one that agrees with a lot of published carts, including the one published in ENaG.
So I don't know how we came up with such different numbers, I'll have to double check.  We disagree by about 4:1, tho it's still a pretty small curve over 6 meters.  Over a few miles it would be a big error.
The is also the "Dip=L²/1.513" formula.  (L in miles, dip in inches).

Ahh ok I found out what they did. It wasn't the maths, but the technique of finding the dip. Throughout this thread, everyone has been using this idea:



which can be described by the formula
h = -R + sqrt(R^2 + d^2)

And a more realistic method than the above that I described is like this:



which is described by
h = R(-1 + sec(d/R))

But the approximate formula you used is actually this method:



Which is exactly described by
h = R(1 - cos(d/2R)) and can be approximated by h = d^2 / 8R

The approximation formula you used is a Taylor series approximation and is very good for values of d much less than R, a better approximation yet would be d^2 / 8R - d^4 / 384R, but you can see why this isn't used, since the approximation is already good enough and we are assuming the Earth is perfectly round, gravity is perfectly uniform and directed to the centre of the Earth. All of these assumptions are false so taking a more accurate and more correct calculation over a simple one is futile.

Quote from: karl on May 03, 2011, 04:26:59 PM

my time here would be a lot more enjoyable if some of you would answer questions on the topic and stop avoiding them, it is frustration at the total lack of answers, diversionary tactics and being told to read the same one book that you all get your views from. you're like sheep blindly following the crackpot theories instigated by a heroin addict over 200 years ago.

explain why the sun stays the same size in the sky from one side to the other despite going from 31 miles above us to over 14,000, according to your 'facts'

explain why we can't see to the far side of the disc, and are limited to 6 miles

explain why the other globe planets formed as such yet earth is a huge metal disc flying through space

explain how land and ships appear to rise out of the horizon

in fact explain all of the above if the surface isn't curved

and that's just for starters, no answers are to be found in the Q&A, so, go for it, one by one, explain them

Those questions could literally all be answered by reading the FAQ and using the search function.

He said he has read the FAQ’s and not found any answers, hence having to post them here. I find myself in the same situation, the Q&A’a do not answer anything, they just make statements, and the questions above, are valid, and require a scientific explanation. I don’t know why you cannot do this and instead point to a list on the forum that doesn’t answer anything at all. Please help us understand by answering the above without getting mad and pointing to external references