1
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Slow website
« on: August 17, 2015, 11:45:30 PM »
Maybe I don't know what a slow website feels like, but it is still taking like 10-15 seconds to load a page for me.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: variations in gravity
« on: February 09, 2015, 09:10:03 PM »
Well, because that's just how it works. The objects don't fall to Earth because the acceleration is universal.
Except when it isn't. Like when I jump in the air right? Or a plane is flying.
When you jump you are momentarily moving faster than the Earth, but since you are no longer being affected by UA, the Earth catches up with you.
3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: One vs one debate
« on: November 02, 2013, 10:35:18 PM »
I am a bit confused. At one point you are saying that the shortest route is to fly the artic circle...
But in another one you say the opposite?
Unless you are thinking about FE, in which case you are thinking about a Mercator map which we don't use. In this one, the shortest flight DOES travel through the artic, and even over the Alaskan Peninsula identically to the way it does in your picture of the flight.
Here is another one, from SFO to Japan. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL853
It too is following the great circle.
But in another one you say the opposite?
Problem is that the flat maps do not correspond with a true flat earth, because as said. The shortest distance between San Fransisco and Tokyo is to fly cross the pacific, near Hawaii and not all the way around near Alaska and Russia.
Unless you are thinking about FE, in which case you are thinking about a Mercator map which we don't use. In this one, the shortest flight DOES travel through the artic, and even over the Alaskan Peninsula identically to the way it does in your picture of the flight.
4
Flat Earth General / Re: Compass heading
« on: November 02, 2013, 10:04:04 PM »Draw a stick figure just southward of that dot.
Your comment falls apart here. If you are past the edge of the Earth you are in space and the Earth has sped past you. Your compass will point towards nothing because there is nothing to point to.
You agree magnets have two poles, right? I can see the northpole on the flat earth, but then...where is the south pole?
They have poles, but that doesn't mean they must be linear. Here is a visualization. Take a bunch of magnets, cut them into slivers, fashion them into a circle. Suddenly you have a magnet with one pole as the center and the other as the rim.
You may say, "But that sort of configuration will clearly just break apart and repel itself!"
Not true, if the material is bound stronger than the repulsive forces, it will hold together. This is the reason why bar magnets don't spontaneously split lengthwise all the time.
5
Flat Earth General / Re: Compass heading
« on: November 01, 2013, 06:11:30 PM »
You clearly do not understand FET. Please read the FAQ.
This is what it looks like, with red pointing towards North and black pointing South.
South points outwards towards the rim. Not some random spot.
This is what it looks like, with red pointing towards North and black pointing South.
South points outwards towards the rim. Not some random spot.
6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: One vs one debate
« on: November 01, 2013, 06:00:45 PM »So you say that the earth is flat, but they made maps that would correspond with a sphere. Then at the same time these maps should correspond with a flat earth, because otherwise they can't be used in real life.
Please elaborate on this. Because I do not know a single person that travels using a globe. Everybody that I know uses a FLAT map, so clearly it is working just fine.
7
Flat Earth General / Re: A boat with a gyroscope experiment.
« on: November 01, 2013, 05:57:45 PM »Sure, but one of the three will still be changing on a round earth
Congrats, you have determined that the XY axis of the gyroscope is irrelevant, as it is not guaranteed to trigger any change.
8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: One vs one debate
« on: November 01, 2013, 12:58:28 PM »
The two routes look pretty much the same to me. You are just zoomed in on the "short" route so that the curve in it is more exaggerated. In the other one you can see half the US, so of course it looks more like a line. That first image is also completely ridiculous. Your evidence for a "direct" route is ANYTHING but that.
9
Flat Earth General / Re: A boat with a gyroscope experiment.
« on: November 01, 2013, 12:38:58 PM »From an extern reference frame there aren't straight lines on a sphere, only arcs of big circle.Third case: rotation around the Y (left-right) axis: relevant because on a flat earth it can't change (trip always planar), while on a spherical earth it surely changes (it has to be a rather long trip though).
Why does it surely change? Is it not possible to travel in a straight line on a sphere?
If your path ends up curving, that just means that you did not plan your trip very well.
Irrelevant. If I were to travel from the South Pole to the North Pole along a line of latitude I could do so without my path changing along the X-Axis (right/left)
If your path ends up curving, that means that you choose a path that was already going to curve, and you need to plot your expeditions better.
10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: One vs one debate
« on: November 01, 2013, 12:34:37 PM »It does NOT show that pilots fly in loops and all directions when flying to their destination. I show you what an air route looks like from Johannesburg to Sydney. Here you go http://postimg.org/image/s16sf2hnl/
Your post demonstrates EXACTLY what I was talking about. On RE planes don't take the shortest path to their destinations. There are many other factors that weigh in. So your assertion:
Quote
On the FE map distances between Australia and South Africa would take them across China, India and the Middle east, because that is the shortest distance.
doesn't make sense because planes intentionally don't take direct routes.
11
Flat Earth General / Re: Compass heading
« on: November 01, 2013, 10:40:13 AM »Alright, so up here at the Northern Hemisphere the compass points to the north. Crossing the equator it points to southpole. This is problematic, since there is no southpole on a flat earth.
Can you FE defenders accept the earth has to be a sphere now? If not, explain how this would work then on a flat earth...
Please read through the FAQ and wiki to avoid further embarrassment. A FE most definitely has a south pole.
12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: One vs one debate
« on: November 01, 2013, 10:38:04 AM »
The FET also does not correspond with real world observations, to name one. Flights for example. On the FE map distances between Australia and South Africa would take them across China, India and the Middle east, because that is the shortest distance. In real life however these flights fly close to the Southpole.
Quote
There are too many variables. Performance is effected by fuel loads, ambient temperatures and pressures, engine models, the list goes on. Depending on what is happening with other traffic you might be in a hold, or routed out of your way to avoid other traffic or storms. The pilots do not fly direct to their destination either. Depending on the wind they might take off in the opposite direction to the intended route. They then fly SIDS (Standard Instrument Departures) onto a route, follow some beacons, get onto an Oceanic Highway on the way their, follow a STAR (STandard ARrival) on approach, and again go right round the back of an airport to land in the right direction. When pilots are following routes like the typical ones below, how can anyone make a simple straight line DST comparison to ascertain shape? Only the aircraft's Flight Management System really knows how far that trip is. The pilot just uses the data it provides. However FMS source code is closely guarded.
Below is a SID example. Note how the pilots fly curves and loops. They do not go direct.
13
Flat Earth General / Re: A boat with a gyroscope experiment.
« on: November 01, 2013, 10:05:43 AM »Third case: rotation around the Y (left-right) axis: relevant because on a flat earth it can't change (trip always planar), while on a spherical earth it surely changes (it has to be a rather long trip though).
Why does it surely change? Is it not possible to travel in a straight line on a sphere?
If your path ends up curving, that just means that you did not plan your trip very well.
14
The Lounge / Re: World Peas.
« on: October 31, 2013, 03:24:48 PM »
Have you tried freezing grapes yet?
15
Flat Earth General / Re: Making a laser experiment to find out once for all.
« on: October 31, 2013, 10:06:45 AM »
I don't think this experiment would be conclusive regardless of the results. If it was found that they laser was able to make its mark and the earth was flat, then RE'ers would inevitably just respond "Well there are just some parts of the Earth that are dead zones! Odds are that when the Earth is as big as it is, there is going to be flat spots." 
16
Flat Earth General / Re: A boat with a gyroscope experiment.
« on: October 31, 2013, 10:01:48 AM »
I eagerly await the results of this experiment. Please post back when you have completed it.
17
The Lounge / Re: World Peas.
« on: October 31, 2013, 09:52:57 AM »I have never heard of peas being a snack food before. How interesting!
Have you ever tried freezing grapes? I think that they do a similar thing.
Your first post in five months and this is the thread you decide to put it in?
What is wrong with peas?
18
The Lounge / Re: World Peas.
« on: October 30, 2013, 12:03:50 AM »
I have never heard of peas being a snack food before. How interesting!
Have you ever tried freezing grapes? I think that they do a similar thing.
Have you ever tried freezing grapes? I think that they do a similar thing.
19
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Physicist anything.
« on: May 13, 2013, 08:21:11 PM »And Teflon is a solid and that's really slippery.Why is ice slippery?A combination of factors, applied pressure to melt the surface layer/ frictional heating to melt the surface layer. At lower temperatures however the phase properties of ice become quite complicated. In essence the bonds at the surface of the water are weaker, as you would imagine, and the structure of ice has a high free energy facilitating a "semi-liquid" state for these surface molecules. Basically the surface of ice is a very thin liquid and we all know liquids are slippery.
Molasses is a liquid, and it is not slippery. Tar is not slippery either.
Not it isn't. You wouldn't lubricate something with Teflon, would you?
Graphite is slippery.
20
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Physicist anything.
« on: May 11, 2013, 10:50:11 AM »Why is ice slippery?A combination of factors, applied pressure to melt the surface layer/ frictional heating to melt the surface layer. At lower temperatures however the phase properties of ice become quite complicated. In essence the bonds at the surface of the water are weaker, as you would imagine, and the structure of ice has a high free energy facilitating a "semi-liquid" state for these surface molecules. Basically the surface of ice is a very thin liquid and we all know liquids are slippery.
Molasses is a liquid, and it is not slippery. Tar is not slippery either.
21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Things not crashing into earth (UA)
« on: February 21, 2013, 07:36:50 AM »QuoteSomething is pushing the Earth from below, and the Earth is pushing us and the air at the same rate of acceleration.A question about this, assuming a finite earth:
since earth is denser than the air (a safe assumption I think), earth would sink, dislodging the air and making it "leak" through the boundaries. So unless there's a continual source of air above or a mechanism to get the "leaked" air back, we would run out of atmosphere at some point.
Umm... could you reiterate this? What exactly is the Earth sinking into, and how is the air being dislodged?
22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Things not crashing into earth (UA)
« on: February 20, 2013, 03:54:12 PM »Dog, the "accelerating Earth" pushes the air too at the same rate, which also pushes whatever has a high enough surface area to mass ratio. It works the same way as gravity, as far as simulating gravity goes.
The same reason when gravity is pulling something down, the air "holds" it up. Now if the air is pushing up according to FE, it would provide the same result.
Keep in mind, I am RE. Just pointing some things out.
Cheers.
So why do feathers fall?
He told you the principle, it works the same way for feathers. In RE, feathers fall slowly because they have a high surface area and low mass which means the drag force on it is significant enough to counteract some of the force of gravity. In FE it merely works in the opposite direction. The cushion of air interacts with the feather enough to move it in the same direction the Earth is moving, but not so much that the accelerating Earth will not eventually catch up.
23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Is Not On Your Side
« on: February 20, 2013, 03:48:41 PM »
Interesting article, but how is this relevant to the fora you posted it in?
24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Go tell Felix Baumgartner the earth is flat!
« on: February 20, 2013, 03:47:16 PM »
What about him? He wouldn't have been high enough to see the entire Earth. In the videos, the "curvature" of the Earth stretches and compresses quickly as the camera moves about which means that the "evidence" that they hold demonstrate nothing besides bad camera quality.
25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control
« on: January 19, 2013, 05:47:16 PM »
You'd think that people at a gun show would at least understand how to safely handle guns. But nope. Today on "Gun Appreciation Day" five different people got shot. So much for the argument that you'd never see someone get shot at a gun show.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/19/1473881/two-people-accidentally-shot-at-a-gun-show-safety-checkpoint-on-gun-appreciation-day/?mobile=nc
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/19/1473881/two-people-accidentally-shot-at-a-gun-show-safety-checkpoint-on-gun-appreciation-day/?mobile=nc
26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Gun Control
« on: January 17, 2013, 06:55:46 AM »Point? Could have used his mother's legally owned hammer.
This is the stupidest sort of argument pro-gun people make. Blunt weapons may have a higher overall kill rate, but they do not have a higher per incident kill rate. Unless you are Thor you aren't magically going to kill 20 people.
27
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Man of Steel photo released
« on: January 13, 2013, 10:53:27 AM »
There is only one true superman:
28
The Lounge / Re: 4chan vs Reddit
« on: January 12, 2013, 07:11:04 PM »
9GAG is le best of all worlds. They even have paid people to take top posts from 4chan/reddit, retitled them, and then put a watermark on it.
29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Top 10 reasons why we know the earth is round
« on: January 06, 2013, 02:51:42 PM »I found this on youtube. It explains everything so very clearly.
If you are able give me a reason why all 10 of these reasons aren't true I'll be a believer
Have you even read the FAQ? I doubt so, because literally every single one of those "reasons" are addressed in it.
30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: RET Destroyed: Objects do not fall at the same rate
« on: December 18, 2012, 10:54:39 PM »Interesting paper, as I had no idea that Karamanev's work had been extended out of the bioreactor. I consider myself duly enlightened and chastised.
However, I note that the equation in the paper and the one you have posted are not identical.
yours is:
CD = (4/3)*(g*D/ut2)*(ps-pf)/pf
the paper states:
vt = ((4/3)*(g*d/CD)*(pp-pa)/pa)^0.5
Note that I'm not querying the differing variable names, rather the different form of the two equations. They give quite different results, although the outcome remains the same.
Toodles
His equation has just been solved in terms of drag coefficient instead of velocity.
Take his equation and raise both sides to the 2nd power.
vt = ((4/3)*(g*d/CD)*(pp-pa)/pa)^0.5
=
vt2 = ((4/3)*(g*d/CD)*(pp-pa)/pa)
Now we want to isolate the drag coefficent, so multiply both sides by CD
vt2*CD = ((4/3)*(g*d/)*(pp-pa)/pa)
Divide over velocity.
CD = (4/3)*(g*D/vt2)*(ps-pf)/pf
It is now in terms of drag coefficient, and the same equation that I had used.
Where does the form you used come from, as I would be interested in reading the paper?
His equations are actually standard in most recent fluid mechanic books. I will see if I can find a version online, but that may be difficult since these are usually books you buy for uni. It would defeat the purpose if they were free online.
I found my text book from a few years ago and scanned relevant page instead. It isn't the best image, but it was the best I could get with my scanner and a thick book. If you look at the bottom, it even references the journal you mentioned.
On the second image it should the same equation in the previous paper I had linked. As I said, mine is just in terms of drag coefficient, but you can also consider on the first page when it has (3/4)CD*Re that the Reynolds number is just dissolved into the right side of the equation.
Fluid Mechanics for Chemical Engineers by James O. Wikles