The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.
A very good illustration of the difference is given in fig. 76. False or prevailing perspective would bring the lines A, B, and C, D, to the same point H; but the true or natural perspective
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig76.jpg)
brings the line A, B, to the point W, because there and there only does A, W, E, become the same angle as C, H, E. It must be the same angle or it is not the vanishing point.
The law represented in the above diagram is the "law of nature." It may be seen in every layer of a long wall; in every hedge and bank of the roadside, and indeed in every direction where lines and objects run parallel to each other; but no illustration of the contrary perspective is ever to be seen in nature.
...
In accordance with the above law of natural perspective, the following illustrations are important as representing actually observed phenomena. In a long row of lamps, standing on horizontal ground, the pedestals, if short, gradually diminish until at a distance of a few hundred yards they seem to disappear, and the upper and thinner parts of the lamp posts appear to touch the ground, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 77.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig77.jpg)
Fig. 77.
Fig. 77.
John, what part of refraction or "Rowbotham's Law" predicts the apparent curvature visible in that photograph?Didn't you look carefully at Rowbotham's diagrams and see the curve that he so thoughtfully drew in?
as well as Rowbotham's Law of Nature.You mean conman row boats lies to pretend Earth doesn't curve?
The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point.No, that is how perspective works.
before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.Nope. The vanishing point is infinitely far away. Not where the angle is one arcminute.
A very good illustration of the difference is given in fig. 76.You mean an example of where the curvature of Earth obstructs the view.
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!I can see at least 38 separate ones, but it is hard to tell exactly how many as it starts blurring together at the end.
I appreciate it!
Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
Okay, 38.Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!I can see at least 38 separate ones, but it is hard to tell exactly how many as it starts blurring together at the end.
I appreciate it!
Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!That image is much better!
I appreciate it!
Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
Row boats are not sentient and cannot lie.as well as Rowbotham's Law of Nature.You mean conman row boats lies to pretend Earth doesn't curve?
See, the problem with his BS is requires first assuming Earth is flat, then using the observation which clearly show a curve to pretend perspective does something that it does not.We don't assume the earth is flat. We know it is flat through zetetic and neozetetic inquiry. To properly address your other points I need to know your opinion on Being. Does a phenemona itself have being, and what constitutes this being? What about observed entities? What is the relationship between this tie, and how can we view a true being and know that a phenemona is accurately representing it?
That image is much better!Source?
I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.
The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
I'd also like to know how we know this isn't a dip underground. We already see the towers are not level.You do understand that in the context of a round earth, straight and level are not the same thing, don't you?
I'd also like to know how we know this isn't a dip underground. We already see the towers are not level.Underground???
No, but I understand what you are trying to say. This was not my point; they are not even level to an altitude. Why would they be? That would be gross over-engineering.If you actually took the time to learn a little bit about surveying you would realize just how stupid your comment is and how delusional your flat earth claims are.
No, but I understand what you are trying to say. This was not my point; they are not even level to an altitude. Why would they be? That would be gross over-engineering.
We don't assume the earth is flat.Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
We know it is flat through zetetic and neozetetic inquiry.No you don't.
To properly address your other points I need to know your opinion on Being.Why?
I'd also like to know how we know this isn't a dip underground. We already see the towers are not level.No, we see that they are not in a straight line. That does not mean they aren't level.
Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:We don't assume the earth is flat.Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
...
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
Why would they suddenly switch what towers they are using or start having the towers below water level?Lots of day to day reasons come to mind. It is irrelevant, as they clearly aren't standing level. You see dips and dodges in the peaks of the structure.
Southern GPS issues? Angles of the sun prove a round earth.Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:We don't assume the earth is flat.Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
...
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0
It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?Who else?
Angles of the sun are actually one of the older, and disconnected proves of the flat Earth. Both discovered by Rowbotham and Taoists, as well as any free thinking man, they are nothing but proof that the Earth is not a Globe unless presupposed.Southern GPS issues? Angles of the sun prove a round earth.Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:We don't assume the earth is flat.Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
...
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0
It has been oft cited and oft reviewed in the flat earth community. I don't know what to tell you other than 'shake a stick towards flat earth literature' and it will come up.It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?Who else?
They are not level to an altitude given even the close towers. In otherwords, they are not laid evenly, even assuming a supposed curvature to the world. How am I to assume the further away towers don't also suffer from this error, and aggregate it? You can clearly see dips between adjacent towers that are not reflected over the entirety of the surface, or even the next tower in line.
Curvature cannot be seen at these distances, even if the earth was round. This leads us to alternate hypotheses. Now, may I ask, do you feel it might be colder the further you travel away from land?
Not when measured from more than 2 locations.Angles of the sun are actually one of the older, and disconnected proves of the flat Earth. Both discovered by Rowbotham and Taoists, as well as any free thinking man, they are nothing but proof that the Earth is not a Globe unless presupposed.Southern GPS issues? Angles of the sun prove a round earth.Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:We don't assume the earth is flat.Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
...
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0It has been oft cited and oft reviewed in the flat earth community. I don't know what to tell you other than 'shake a stick towards flat earth literature' and it will come up.It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?Who else?
Really.
Most books from Dubat to Rowbotham mention it.
Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:As I said the last time you brought this up, none of that is evidence that Earth is flat.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0
It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?Why would I need to refute it?
Angles of the sun are actually one of the older, and disconnected proves of the flat Earth.No it isn't. The angles of the sun have never been a proof of a flat Earth.
there is nothing that says this curvature wouldn't present naturally given the Law of NatureSure there is, the fact that the "Law of Nature" is just blatant lies to try and hide the curve by pretending nature is magic.
If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!That image is much better!
I appreciate it!
Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.
Google maps shows this to about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
The image seems to be taken from about 1000' from the first tower in the straight line, where it splits.
https://goo.gl/maps/W6hhGV5Y1PB2
Open in maps and you can see "street" view
(https://i.imgur.com/aeWuKTl.png)
You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2
(https://i.imgur.com/rGQSfUc.png)
If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!That image is much better!
I appreciate it!
Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.
Google maps shows this to about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
The image seems to be taken from about 1000' from the first tower in the straight line, where it splits.
https://goo.gl/maps/W6hhGV5Y1PB2
Open in maps and you can see "street" view
(https://i.imgur.com/aeWuKTl.png)
You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane.
https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2
(https://i.imgur.com/rGQSfUc.png)
What happened to the three mile horizon?
I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.
about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
Are you telling me that perspective does not apply to bodies observed over a long enough period, as exemplified by the original photograph?
I am talking about the peaks of the towers. They do not align, as one would assume if they were basing their construction off the edge of the water, to each other in a polynomial fashion. The tips of each tower, relative to the previous, have a wide margin of error. When this error is aggregate over the entire structure, there is nothing that says this curvature wouldn't present naturally given the Law of Nature and refraction.
Do you feel you can see curvature of the earth over these distances if the Earth was a Globe?
Why so?
Are you telling me that perspective does not apply to bodies observed over a long enough period, as exemplified by the original photograph?
I am talking about the peaks of the towers. They do not align, as one would assume if they were basing their construction off the edge of the water, to each other in a polynomial fashion. The tips of each tower, relative to the previous, have a wide margin of error. When this error is aggregate over the entire structure, there is nothing that says this curvature wouldn't present naturally given the Law of Nature and refraction.
Well Forest you need to do the math with the number of towers to the horizon (not total visible) if you want to calculate distance to the horizon .Your four miles seems to be wrong.
Or you could just read my first post.QuoteI count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.
Do you need help with the math or would you just rather read my first post?Quoteabout 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?The RE-tard comments are right there in your post.
What happened to the three mile horizon?
Where is the RE-tard math?
Well Forest you need to do the math with the number of towers to the horizon (not total visible) if you want to calculate distance to the horizon .Your four miles seems to be wrong.
Or you could just read my first post.QuoteI count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.
Do you need help with the math or would you just rather read my first post?Quoteabout 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
I did the math just with the38 distinguishable pylons [/u](claimed by JackBlack).
38 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart
38 x 950 = 36,100 feet.
36,100/5280 = 6.8 miles
Your "three mile horizon" is for the camera 6 feet above the water but in that Google Street-view photo the camera is obviously much more than 6 feet above the water.You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane.If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?
https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2(https://i.imgur.com/rGQSfUc.png)
What happened to the three mile horizon?
Where is the RE-tard math?
The peaks of the towers don't align evenly. This makes it an unsuitable choice for a study to determine shape of the earth. Come ack with something science would validate and we can talk more.They don't? Look again at Soundly's powerline videos and photos:
The peaks of the towers don't align evenly. This makes it an unsuitable choice for a study to determine shape of the earth. Come ack with something science would validate and we can talk more.
The peaks of the towers don't align evenly. This makes it an unsuitable choice for a study to determine shape of the earth. Come ack with something science would validate and we can talk more.Science isn't the issue here, the FEers are.
So, I can notate in my journal how I changed my belief - how much cable did they buy?!Who cares?
You really nailed those peaks. Good job on that job. Really puts the Flat Earth Idea to shame. Shit never-mind about all this. Better go home and forget about it. The weight of your evidence is far too much for me to carry. This is just wild how accurate it is! Holy shit. You've convinced me. Science is totally the way to go.
You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.No.
Maybe this will help...
(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)
You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.
22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart
22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.
20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.No.
Maybe this will help...
(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)
You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.
22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart
22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.
20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.
That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.
According to RE-tard math, not possible.
You really nailed those peaks. Good job on that job. Really puts the Flat Earth Idea to shame. Shit never-mind about all this. Better go home and forget about it. The weight of your evidence is far too much for me to carry. This is just wild how accurate it is! Holy shit. You've convinced me. Science is totally the way to go.What on earth are you raving on about! You don't take defeat well, do you?
The photo you presented, remember that?Your "three mile horizon" is for the camera 6 feet above the water but in that Google Street-view photo the camera is obviously much more than 6 feet above the water.You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane.If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?
https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2(https://i.imgur.com/rGQSfUc.png)
What happened to the three mile horizon?
Where is the RE-tard math?
A camera 32 feet feet above the water would make the horizon about 7 miles away.
That looks about right when you consider that the I10 is above a railway line and the railway line is 7 to 10 ft above lake level.
Like to try again?
That is simply an effect of the zoom lense.You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.No.
Maybe this will help...
(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)
You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.
22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart
22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.
20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.
That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.
According to RE-tard math, not possible.
You can CLEARLY see the towers curve over the horizon.
This proves you dead wrong. Period.
The Earth is NOT flat, and you are an obvious idiot.
Incorrect! I thought I spelt this out for you before, but I guess your tine mind can take it in.You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.No.
Maybe this will help...(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)
You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.
22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart
22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.
20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.
That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.
According to RE-tard math, not possible.
Go back to your corner and have a biscuit.Lackey want a cracker?
| 55 years ago today (1959), the 1st color photo of Earth from space was taken from a Thor missile - 1 Dec 2014. (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3x9kz8IMAA-5nN.png) From: Ron Baalke, Space Explorer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Asteroid 6524 Baalke. (https://twitter.com/ronbaalke/status/539444127709265920) |
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."
Quote from: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 04:26:07 PM
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."
Quote from: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 04:26:07 PM
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."
Okay.
The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.
That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.No, it means you can see ones which are further than the horizon.
According to RE-tard math, not possible.
That is simply an effect of the zoom lense.No it isn't. Zoom lenses do not make things going off into the distance appear to curve.
The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.You mean your tactic of grasping at whatever BS you can to pretend your FE delusions are correct; while ignoring refutations of your claims with you just repeating the same BS.
You really nailed those peaks. Good job on that job. Really puts the Flat Earth Idea to shame. Shit never-mind about all this. Better go home and forget about it. The weight of your evidence is far too much for me to carry. This is just wild how accurate it is! Holy shit. You've convinced me. Science is totally the way to go.
Are you just playing dumb to avoid admitting that you are wrong or can you possibly be that stupid?You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.No.
Maybe this will help...
(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)
You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.
22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart
22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.
20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.
That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.
According to RE-tard math, not possible.
OK, Mr Smart Aleck, if you think my estimate of 32 feet is wrong, you tell me the height of that camera above the water level.Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."
Okay.
The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.
Let me introduce a second line of power poles to further obfuscate my contributions to the thread in an effort to make it seem like I know what I am writing about...No...
OK, Mr Smart Aleck, if you think my estimate of 32 feet is wrong, you tell me the height of that camera above the water level = Allow me to feign ignorance and skipp over the post by NAZA which states the photographer is standing 10 feet above the water line.FTFY.
I could estimate it more accurately by scaling from the height of the towers, but frankly, I can't be bothered wasting my time on you! = I have never been concerned about finding the truth anyway...I am only concerned about making sure I reach my daily post quota...FTFY.
Here a little video(https://i.imgur.com/3rf2udX.gif)
How to End Flat Earth in 2.5 minutes
Let me introduce a second line of power poles to further obfuscate my contributions to the thread in an effort to make it seem like I know what I am writing about...No...
Ain't gonna happen cupcake...
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.
Why are the water stains curved in this image and why do they stop after the horizon even though the tops of the pilings are still visible?
(https://i.imgur.com/Fmv8JHY.jpg)
No it isn't.All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.
Why are the water stains curved in this image and why do they stop after the horizon even though the tops of the pilings are still visible?
(https://i.imgur.com/Fmv8JHY.jpg)
Period.
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.BS.
Yes. It is.No it isn't.All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.
Why are the water stains curved in this image and why do they stop after the horizon even though the tops of the pilings are still visible?
(https://i.imgur.com/Fmv8JHY.jpg)
Period.
"Lense is accepted as an alternative spelling by Webster's Third New International Dictionary..." - https://www.google.com/search?q=lense&oq=lense&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3488j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8distortionAll of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.
Lens (note correct spelling)
can distort a picture.. It can't actually change what's in the picture.Correct.
A lens can't make something in the picture (ie: the bottom of the distant poles) disappear behind something else in the picture (ie: the water).Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!
1: Fuck Webster's ... I'm British and Speak English not Americanese. ;)"Lense is accepted as an alternative spelling by Webster's Third New International Dictionary..." - https://www.google.com/search?q=lense&oq=lense&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3488j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8distortionAll of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.
Lens (note correct spelling)can distort a picture.. It can't actually change what's in the picture.Correct.A lens can't make something in the picture (ie: the bottom of the distant poles) disappear behind something else in the picture (ie: the water).Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!
I am talking about the peaks of the towers. They do not align, as one would assume if they were basing their construction off the edge of the water, to each other in a polynomial fashion. The tips of each tower, relative to the previous, have a wide margin of error. When this error is aggregate over the entire structure, there is nothing that says this curvature wouldn't present naturally given the Law of Nature and refraction.
Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!Would you like the name of a good optometrist, ophthmalogist or maybe a Seeing-eye-Dog?
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?
1: Fuck Webster's ... I'm British and Speak English not Americanese. ;)Ah, the Brits...
https://writingexplained.org/lens-or-lense
2: The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing [sic] behind the water in that picture!Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.
Would you like the name of a qualified AA sponsor?Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!Would you like the name of a good optometrist, ophthmalogist or maybe a Seeing-eye-Dog?
If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?
And yet the horizon isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!
(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)
All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.
Lackey is grasping at straws. I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.
NAZA never claimed that "the red lineIf you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?
And yet the horizon isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!
(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)
All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.
Lackey is grasping at straws. I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.
If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?
And yet the horizon isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!
(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)
All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.
Lackey is grasping at straws. I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.
Did you experience some form of blunt force trauma to the head prior to making this post/picture?
2: The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing [sic] behind the water in that picture!Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.
No Forest, I placed the line BELOW the horizon so others could see that the horizon is NOT DISTORTED.Except several people who have also looked at the photo and state without equivocation or mental reservation that not only do the towers nearer the horizon begin to appear more distorted the closer they are to the horizon line, the horizon also displays distortion and is not really a crisp, clear sharp line.
Just like the lines NEXT to the towers prove that the towers are NOT DISTORTED.Yeah, not there but the ones closer to the horizon line are.
In other words, your silly lie about lense(sic) distortion has been proven wrong.Lense is not a spelling error, doofus...and it is lense distortion.
Now how about wiping all that egg off of your face and try again?You are wearing the egg, making all these baseless claims.
I love it when a Flatter shoots himself in the foot, but unlike you most flee after doing so. You seem to have an endless supply of ammo and enjoy the pain.Perhaps the reason maybe I have not shot myself, "in the foot."
Not to mention the logic of starting a thread with a picture that proves the planet a sphere in the first place.Ask any fellow RE-tard and even they will tell you the Earth is TOO BIG to make an informed decision about the shape based on visual evidence obtained at ground level.
Now hobble back to that keyboard and give us some more!I am not hobbling (at least due to you and other RE-tards).
You're the best argument for a spherical earth I've seen. This thread should be a sticky.
2: The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing [sic] behind the water in that picture!Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.
1: Spelling correction accepted.. Fair cop! :)
2: Where do you think they are then? I can't see them and I think they're behind the water, over the horizon.
2: Where do you think they are then? I can't see them and I think they're behind the water, over the horizon.Too far away to be seen due to dense atmoplane.
So Forrest your evidence is "Other people say it's distorted near the horizon"As soon as you stop acting like you have any kind of fucking idea whether or not the lines you placed on the image are valid or not...
(https://i.imgur.com/eBr1jXJ.jpg)
Chamber another round and try again.
Let's examine what the powerline would look life if the earth were flat.
Here are perspective lines extended from the first 3 towers...
(https://i.imgur.com/AqIDBOc.jpg)
You've proven that math isn't your cup of tea but maybe you could Google up some info on your magical lens that distorts an image by making the powerline curve while leaving EVERY straight line in the image perfectly straight?
And it's also the reason there are no Flatters at sea.Yeah, that's why they imploy 'plane' sailing!
Well, we've seen in the past with the transatlantic cable that the length of the cable does not match up with a round earth - as well as other large structures with cable. I'd love to know that this cable length is indeed predicted by a flat earth. Of course, you'd know this if you knew enough about our beliefs to argue against them.So, I can notate in my journal how I changed my belief - how much cable did they buy?!Who cares?
That doesn't magically make Earth flat.
So Forrest your evidence is "Other people say it's distorted near the horizon"As soon as you stop acting like you have any kind of fucking idea whether or not the lines you placed on the image are valid or not...
(https://i.imgur.com/eBr1jXJ.jpg)
Chamber another round and try again.
Let's examine what the powerline would look life if the earth were flat.
Here are perspective lines extended from the first 3 towers...
(https://i.imgur.com/AqIDBOc.jpg)
You've proven that math isn't your cup of tea but maybe you could Google up some info on your magical lens that distorts an image by making the powerline curve while leaving EVERY straight line in the image perfectly straight?
What, are you going to write, "Expert Etch-a-Sketch Designer," as part of your qualifications within your signature?
Might as well go purchase Spirograph and superimpose that crap on top of the picture for all it is worth...
One more fucking time and for the record...
You are a RE-tard.
Accept that.
Ask any other RE-tard: "Hey, fellow RE-tard! Can a person tell from Earth-bound visual evidence whether or not the Earth is flat?"
The answer will be: "No, a person cannot claim proof of the shape of the Earth based on Earth-bound visual evidence because the Earth is too big."
Of course, that argument will be utilized to its fullest extent by RE-tards when an FE proponent states, "The Earth is flat. Look out your window."
The fact fucked-faced forgetful and hypocritical RE-tards choose to ignore that argument in instances like this only indicates the urgent need for these RE-tards to perform cranial rectalotomies as expeditiously as possible.
Not sure about the Forrest bits, but I'm sure its as stellar as your take on my presence in the thread. Its really nice of you to summarize the discussion here for other globularists that might have difficulty reading it. In the future, you should strive towards accuracy rather than whatever it is you were trying to do. Though honestly, it looks like you are just trying to call us poopieheads.Translation :
All my arguments for aflatround earth have been shot down and the only thing I have left is name calling and feet stomping.
Must suck to beyoume.
A recap so far
John Davis:
The bottom could be uneven.Proven irrelevant.Derail thread.
The tops aren't perfect.Explained by spacing with images.Wisely flees tread.
I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion
How do you reconcile these facts with your method?
Common JD. Even you know that you are just trying to muddy the waters. Your best defence would have been photoshop. But Soindly took care of that by live streaming the video of his taking that picture. Also anyone can go there and check it out and apparently, a lot of people have."The method used to take this photo and manipulate it both are in opposition to the facts we are using it to supposedly prove. But you have to be [insults here] to say otherwise or I forgot: [insutls here]"
I would have expected a conspiracy as defence. Or even some magical science created for the purpose. Something about Euclidean or proto Euclidean or something like that.
The picture simply proves a curvature. Only the blind, the deluded, the deceptive and their ilk will say otherwise. Leaving fleeing as the only resort.
Or trolling. I forgot trolling.
It could be cropped or a particularity of the editing used or the lens. It could be a particularity of the weather, or any number of other variables that were not properly eliminated as causes.I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion
How do you reconcile these facts with your method?
If it were a distortion, then why would the distortion be only in the left half of the image?
Follow-up question: what about all the other images and videos?
I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize. This is also why many folks claim to see curvature at the beach - an impossibility even if the earth were some silly bowling ball hurled and spinning down a cosmic drain.
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion.
How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?
Did I mention the horizon?I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.
Were not discussing the curve in the horizon John, I'm trying to get you to discuss the curve in the transmission line that is almost perpendicular to the horizon. Specifically the water stains on the concrete pillings. Stop avoiding it.
This manipulation does not necessarily provide an accurate image. Unless it does and you can tell me why?Quote"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize. This is also why many folks claim to see curvature at the beach - an impossibility even if the earth were some silly bowling ball hurled and spinning down a cosmic drain.
No it means that the camera was not held perfectly level with horizon, about one degree in fact. I fix that so my vertical lines would be truly vertical.
I've never tried holding a digital photograph. However, if the camera was not level, there would still be distortion. The fact you had to rotate it already hints the photo was bunk in the first place, before the invalidating manipulations. How did you go about 'rotating' it?Quote" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion.
I did not skew the image, I rotated the canvas. If you are holding a picture in your hands and you tilt the picture one degree does that make the picture invalid? Try again.
I'm not seeing any watermarks on that image. I may be misunderstanding the intent of your question here.QuoteHow do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?
See above.
Now about those water marks...
Common JD. Even you know that you are just trying to muddy the waters. Your best defence would have been photoshop. But Soindly took care of that by live streaming the video of his taking that picture. Also anyone can go there and check it out and apparently, a lot of people have."The method used to take this photo and manipulate it both are in opposition to the facts we are using it to supposedly prove. But you have to be [insults here] to say otherwise or I forgot: [insutls here]"
I would have expected a conspiracy as defence. Or even some magical science created for the purpose. Something about Euclidean or proto Euclidean or something like that.
The picture simply proves a curvature. Only the blind, the deluded, the deceptive and their ilk will say otherwise. Leaving fleeing as the only resort.
Or trolling. I forgot trolling.
Round earth science folks!It could be cropped or a particularity of the editing used or the lens. It could be a particularity of the weather, or any number of other variables that were not properly eliminated as causes.I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion
How do you reconcile these facts with your method?
If it were a distortion, then why would the distortion be only in the left half of the image?
Follow-up question: what about all the other images and videos?
As experts will tell you, it is almost impossible to see curvature even if the earth were round. I would hazard these photos are not taken for the cause of 'proving the earth is round' and are there for other reasons, and as such these independent variables were ignored.
As soon as you stop acting like you have any kind of fucking idea whether or not the lines you placed on the image are valid or not...Translation :
What, are you going to write, "Expert Etch-a-Sketch Designer," as part of your qualifications within your signature?
Might as well go purchase Spirograph and superimpose that crap on top of the picture for all it is worth...
One more fucking time and for the record...
You are a RE-tard.
Accept that.
Ask any other RE-tard: "Hey, fellow RE-tard! Can a person tell from Earth-bound visual evidence whether or not the Earth is flat?"
The answer will be: "No, a person cannot claim proof of the shape of the Earth based on Earth-bound visual evidence because the Earth is too big."
Of course, that argument will be utilized to its fullest extent by RE-tards when an FE proponent states, "The Earth is flat. Look out your window."
The fact fucked-faced forgetful and hypocritical RE-tards choose to ignore that argument in instances like this only indicates the urgent need for these RE-tards to perform cranial rectalotomies as expeditiously as possible.
Good morning John! Glad to see you back.Thank you!
Did I mention the horizon?I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.
Were not discussing the curve in the horizon John, I'm trying to get you to discuss the curve in the transmission line that is almost perpendicular to the horizon. Specifically the water stains on the concrete pillings. Stop avoiding it.
Quote"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize. This is also why many folks claim to see curvature at the beach - an impossibility even if the earth were some silly bowling ball hurled and spinning down a cosmic drain.QuoteNo it means that the camera was not held perfectly level with horizon, about one degree in fact. I fix that so my vertical lines would be truly vertical.This manipulation does not necessarily provide an accurate image. Unless it does and you can tell me why?
QuoteI've never tried holding a digital photograph. However, if the camera was not level, there would still be distortion. The fact you had to rotate it already hints the photo was bunk in the first place, before the invalidating manipulations. How did you go about 'rotating' it?Quote" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion.
I did not skew the image, I rotated the canvas. If you are holding a picture in your hands and you tilt the picture one degree does that make the picture invalid? Try again.
The fact you had to rotate it already hints the photo was bunk in the first place, before the invalidating manipulations.
QuoteI'm not seeing any watermarks on that image. I may be misunderstanding the intent of your question here.QuoteHow do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?
See above.
Now about those water marks...
Common JD. Even you know that you are just trying to muddy the waters. Your best defence would have been photoshop. But Soindly took care of that by live streaming the video of his taking that picture. Also anyone can go there and check it out and apparently, a lot of people have.The best thing would have been not to bring up that image in the first place. John is smarter than that.
I would have expected a conspiracy as defence. Or even some magical science created for the purpose. Something about Euclidean or proto Euclidean or something like that.
The picture simply proves a curvature. Only the blind, the deluded, the deceptive and their ilk will say otherwise. Leaving fleeing as the only resort.Pretty much sums it up.
Or trolling. I forgot trolling.
Can you or can you not fucking read?As soon as you stop acting like you have any kind of fucking idea whether or not the lines you placed on the image are valid or not...Translation :
What, are you going to write, "Expert Etch-a-Sketch Designer," as part of your qualifications within your signature?
Might as well go purchase Spirograph and superimpose that crap on top of the picture for all it is worth...
One more fucking time and for the record...
You are a RE-tard.
Accept that.
Ask any other RE-tard: "Hey, fellow RE-tard! Can a person tell from Earth-bound visual evidence whether or not the Earth is flat?"
The answer will be: "No, a person cannot claim proof of the shape of the Earth based on Earth-bound visual evidence because the Earth is too big."
Of course, that argument will be utilized to its fullest extent by RE-tards when an FE proponent states, "The Earth is flat. Look out your window."
The fact fucked-faced forgetful and hypocritical RE-tards choose to ignore that argument in instances like this only indicates the urgent need for these RE-tards to perform cranial rectalotomies as expeditiously as possible.
All my arguments for a flat earth have been shot down and the only thing I have left is name calling and feet stomping.
Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.So you think they just magically vanish then?
If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.There is no indication he is claiming anything of the sort rather than providing it as a reference.
Did you experience some form of blunt force trauma to the head prior to making this post/picture?
Lense is not a spelling error, doofus...and it is lense distortion.That has been shown to be a blatant lie.
Demonstrates top -notch skills learned in kindergarten. But serves no useful purpose...Nope, it demonstrates that lens distortion is not making the towers appear to follow a curved line.
Ask any fellow RE-tard and even they will tell you the Earth is TOO BIG to make an informed decision about the shape based on visual evidence obtained at ground level.Sure, retards like you might say that, but intelligence people will not.
Well, we've seen in the past with the transatlantic cable that the length of the cable does not match up with a round earth - as well as other large structures with cable. I'd love to know that this cable length is indeed predicted by a flat earth. Of course, you'd know this if you knew enough about our beliefs to argue against them.Are you ever able to make an honest comment?
So, now, lets talk about that lens huh? So this camera, including the human eye, doesn't experience barrel distortion?No, not magical barrel distortion which just makes distant objects appear to curve over the horizon.
How do you account for the error in the peaks of the towers that would aggregate the further out we go from the source of the picture?That was already explained to you.
How do you account for refraction?Refraction makes objects appear higher than they are, the further away they are.
It could be cropped or a particularity of the editing used or the lens. It could be a particularity of the weather, or any number of other variables that were not properly eliminated as causes.No, it couldn't.
It is quite clear you are grasping at whatever straws you can to pretend your delusions are correct.
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?
And yet the horizon isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!
(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)
All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.
Lackey is grasping at straws. I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.
I
No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane.Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.So you think they just magically vanish then?
If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.There is no indication he is claiming anything of the sort rather than providing it as a reference.[/quote]
Did you experience some form of blunt force trauma to the head prior to making this post/picture?
If you think the apparent curvature in that picture is just a result of lens distortion you need help.Nope...
That has been shown to be a blatant lie.Cue unsubstantiated, baseless, "NO U!"
It is not lens distortion. If it was far more would be distorted.
Nope, it demonstrates that lens distortion is not making the towers appear to follow a curved line.A line superimposed after the fact on top of a picture would not serve or bolster your statement
Sure, retards like you might say that, but intelligence people will not.Of course they wouldn't!
They will tell you it superficially appearing "flat" from ground level is not enough to conclude it is flat or a sphere.FTFY.
No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane.Yet we can magically distinguish the towers?
Reference to what?A reference to a straight line.
According to him, it is referencing the horizon.It is to allow you to compare the horizon to a straight line, without obstructing the horizon.
It is most definitely lense distortion.Explain how. I have explained how we know it isn't due to lens distortion.
Cue unsubstantiated, baseless, "NO U!"Yeah, I figured you would pull some shit like that as you are completely unable to defend your claims, so you just repeatedly assert them and say everyone else is lying.
A line superimposed after the fact on top of a picture would not serve or bolster your statementSure it would. These lines show that the towers are not distorted due a lens. This shows that the curve is due to the lens.
Intelligence people do not engage in speaking the truth.Perhaps I should have said intelligent, honest people.
FTFY.No, you didn't fuck it for me, you fucked it for yourself because you are unable to honestly and rationally defend your position, so you need to lie about what others say.
You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone.Yes you can as I have explained in numerous threads.
You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone.You really are the master of inconsistency!
Again, the position of objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below.So "objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below"
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?
And yet the horizon isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!
(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)
All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.
Lackey is grasping at straws. I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.
I
He kicked his own ass!!
Regarding the lens distortion. I tried a correction, and the pillars cannot be made to appear straight by correcting for lens distortion. The shape of the curve is different, so now it has a weird shape when I tried to correct it. Guess what? It didn't need to be corrected.
(https://i.imgur.com/bgwP3CM.jpg)
You guys are great! I’ll come ack when you need more help. For now, I’ll continute to spectate.
Good morning John! Glad to see you back. Busy with that letter?You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. I placed a vertical line at the horizon and at first completely visible tower. I placed a reference line (red) to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)
Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.
While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
Not hardly...You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone.You really are the master of inconsistency!
Because, as you RE-tards like to point out, the Earth is too big.Again, the position of objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below.So "objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below"
but "the position of objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below".
But firstly, please explain exactly why,
"You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone."
So how about you prove that the earth is flat using only "ground based visual observations alone".How about you shove that word, "prove," where the sun don't shine...
If you can't, we must just assume that the earth is a Globe, as that shape has been accepted for millennia and fits all our ground based observations.Bullshit.
Because, as you RE-tards like to point out, the Earth is too big.That does not preclude all Earth based observations of things on Earth showing that Earth is not round.
Yes, the earth looks flat to a casual observer, but there are many ways of observing the curve from even a low level.But firstly, please explain exactly why,Because, as you RE-tards like to point out, the Earth is too big.
"You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone."
I say, the Earth is flat because it looks flat, you come back and say the Earth would look flat because it is a huge sphere...
Horizon not at eye level in an Airplane, fiveredpears better enlarged to full screen. | Flat Earth Debunked: The Horizon Always at Eye Level, Rhetoric&Discourse |
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0thzfx6itaxum1w/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens%20-%20cropped.jpg?dl=1) The sharp sea-air boundary is evidence of a near horizon. | (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQNPzfo8cZE/maxresdefault.jpg) Fuzzy Horizon from High Altitude |
And while the horizon does look flat, there is another clue:Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?
The horizon from a low level is sharp and well defined, as in the left photo
but the flat earth "horizon" would be determined by the limited visibility through the air and might be expected to be more like the photo on the right:[/center]
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0thzfx6itaxum1w/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens%20-%20cropped.jpg?dl=1)
The sharp sea-air boundary is evidence of a near horizon.(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQNPzfo8cZE/maxresdefault.jpg)
Fuzzy Horizon from High Altitude
Yes, there are plenty of clues, if you are prepared to look.
It does make sense. There is no evidence that proves the earth is not round.And while the horizon does look flat, there is another clue:Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?
The horizon from a low level is sharp and well defined, as in the left photo
but the flat earth "horizon" would be determined by the limited visibility through the air and might be expected to be more like the photo on the right:[/center]
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0thzfx6itaxum1w/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens%20-%20cropped.jpg?dl=1)
The sharp sea-air boundary is evidence of a near horizon.(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQNPzfo8cZE/maxresdefault.jpg)
Fuzzy Horizon from High Altitude
Yes, there are plenty of clues, if you are prepared to look.
Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?Yes, what's your problem?
Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?Not sure about him, but it makes sense to me.
Good morning John! Glad to see you back. Busy with that letter?You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. I placed a vertical line at the horizon and at first completely visible tower. I placed a reference line (red) to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)
Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.
While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
I don't think you understand what "render" means.Good morning John! Glad to see you back. Busy with that letter?You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. I placed a vertical line at the horizon and at first completely visible tower. I placed a reference line (red) to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)
Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.
While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?
And yet the horizon isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!
(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)
All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.
Lackey is grasping at straws. I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.
I
He kicked his own ass!!
Rumour is he's a highly paid undercover shill.Regarding the lens distortion. I tried a correction, and the pillars cannot be made to appear straight by correcting for lens distortion. The shape of the curve is different, so now it has a weird shape when I tried to correct it. Guess what? It didn't need to be corrected.
(https://i.imgur.com/bgwP3CM.jpg)
A man true to his word...You guys are great! I’ll come ack when you need more help. For now, I’ll continute to spectate.
It's almost as if you anticipated the use of the distortion card. Uncanny. ;)
Could the software you used create such a curve from a similar photo of a shorter bridge with no apparent curve?
.
I don't think you understand what "render" means.Render = provide or offer or give.
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?Do you mean the photo he added the lines and points to?
Good morning John! Glad to see you back. Busy with that letter?You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. I placed a vertical line at the horizon and at first completely visible tower. I placed a reference line (red) to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)
Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.
While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
Okay.Good morning John! Glad to see you back. Busy with that letter?You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. I placed a vertical line at the horizon and at first completely visible tower. I placed a reference line (red) to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)
Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.
While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
Yes.
You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.
Maybe this will help...
(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)
You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.
22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart
22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.
20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
We must also take into account water's tendency to cause refraction
as well as Rowbotham's Law of Nature.
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)Repeating, you want the community to accept both as accurate?
...22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.
22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart
22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.
20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
I will be happy to discuss any and all aspects of the image once you man up and address the issues about lens distortion you have been avoiding.
It is most definitely lense distortion
No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane
What part of this do you not understand?When the truth about a matter is so obvious, it needs no further defense.I will be happy to discuss any and all aspects of the image once you man up and address the issues about lens distortion you have been avoiding.
You had enough information to make this claim about lens distortion...QuoteIt is most definitely lense distortion
Defend your claim.
You had enough information to make this claim about support pilings...Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.Quote
No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane
Now explain why the pilings drop out of view after the horizon but the towers they support are still visible.
If you had enough information to make the claims in the first place, then you have enough information to defend them.
Or were you just talking out your ass as usual?
Man up and answer the questions that other members have asked you about your claims.
AFTER you answer those questions I will be happy to answer any questions you have.
I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.Barrel distortion is negligible with this picture. This is a high magnification shot.
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.No, it will not in this case.
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortionHe rotated it slightly. Do you even understand photoshop?
How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?I would say he understands photography and photoshop more than you.
Typical flatter.Here is my proof:
In their delusional minds repeating an unsubstantiated claim is proof of said claim.
You were asked specific questions about your claim, such as how does a lens cause curvature in the powerline and yet leave ALL straight lines in the image straight. What is the name of such a lens, etc.
Simply repeating your claim is not answering those questions about your claim.
But a nice try with your foolishness about the atmosphere. The problem is that the atmosphere doesn't magically change thickness at 10' only past the horizon.
Try again.
Now what is your proof that "It is most definitely lense distortion"?
More patting on the back, uttering "GOOD JOB!"About to be shot down in flames...
Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:We don't assume the earth is flat.Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
...
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0
19 poles to the horizon.Where did he say that?
When the truth about a matter is so obvious, it needs no further defense.Yes, because people don't question it.
Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?Not sure exactly what you are asking, but it seems to be based upon more ignorance of how Earth and the curve works.
What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?
Here:19 poles to the horizon.Where did he say that?
You seem to completely fail to understand what that image is showing.
I placed a vertical line at the horizon and at first completely visible tower. I placed a reference line (red) to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)
Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.
Sorry Jack, I question your humanity...When the truth about a matter is so obvious, it needs no further defense.Yes, because people don't question it.
As people are questioning it,...
Atmoplane is more dense at sea level.Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
Instead all above the water line is clearly visible, with the pylons absent.
If you are not sure what it is I am asking then I believe you need to re-read the question and the supporting statements and objections. Then counter. I will post it here again:You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?Not sure exactly what you are asking, but it seems to be based upon more ignorance of how Earth and the curve works.
What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?
Above is relative to where on Earth you are.
Ignoring mountains and the like the Earth drops lower than you in all directions.
However, if you use a point some distance away as a reference, Earth drops in all directions from that point, making you lower, not higher.
Why would it be 3 miles?
Here is my proof:
Start with the second photo of yours:
You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?
What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?
Are you are going to write me in reply that a boat, if introduced in a reshoot of the scene, was photographed sailing in a direct parallel line to the towers, would be found to be EIGHT FEET ABOVE the observer at 19 stanchions away...???
Here:So nowhere.
I placed a vertical line at the horizon and at first completely visible tower. I placed a reference line (red) to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(http://[quote author=NAZA link=topic=73925.msg2012228#msg2012228 date=1516724383)
Sorry Jack, I question your humanity...Really? That is the best you can do?
That does not address my issue.Atmoplane is more dense at sea level.Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
Instead all above the water line is clearly visible, with the pylons absent.
If you are not sure what it is I am asking then I believe you need to re-read the question and the supporting statements and objections. Then counter. I will post it here again:I don't, as they don't help clarify it.
Nope, you don't.Here:So nowhere. Got it.
I placed a vertical line at the horizon and at first completely visible tower. I placed a reference line (red) to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(http://[quote author=NAZA link=topic=73925.msg2012228#msg2012228 date=1516724383)
I placed a vertical line at the horizon...
Unless you can point out how that indicates there are 19 towers to the horizon.You are correct Jack.
Just a note, "as far as I could resolved[sic] them" doesn't mean the horizon is there, nor does it mean the ones prior to it doesn't count.
Yes.That does not address my issue.Atmoplane is more dense at sea level.Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
Instead all above the water line is clearly visible, with the pylons absent.
Are you claiming the atmosphere has one density at sea level, which it keeps until it magically jumps to another density which it keeps?
I suggest you read more slowly or you have someone read it to you:If you are not sure what it is I am asking then I believe you need to re-read the question and the supporting statements and objections. Then counter. I will post it here again:I don't, as they don't help clarify it.
Where are you pulling the 3 miles from?
Where are you pulling 8 feet from?
Here is my proof:
Start with the second photo of yours:
You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?
What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?
You are going to write me in reply that a boat, if introduced in a reshoot of the scene, was photographed sailing in a direct parallel line to the towers, would be found to be EIGHT FEET ABOVE the observer at 19 stanchions away...?
Nope, you don't.Pretty sure I do.I placed a vertical line at the horizon...
You are correct Jack.Yes, not to the horizon.
It does indicate 19 points however within the field of the picture.
And what do you suppose the 19 points within the picture are presented to the audience for?Yes, as was already indicating.
Evidence of curvature, correct?
And how high do those points continually rise above the self-admittedly "level," yellow line?No, not a self-level yellow line.
They cannot possibly represent more than the eight foot dip to the horizon by an observer at height of ten feet above see level, as the points referenced at the top commence a downward slope prior to point 19!Again, where are you getting these numbers from?
So, whether or not the 19 points is to the horizon or not, I DNGAS!But that changes if it should be the 8 feet to the horizon (although I still don't know where you are pulling 8 feet from) for these 19 towers, or a smaller drop based upon the distance to the 19th tower.
That doesn't back you up.Are you claiming the atmosphere has one density at sea level, which it keeps until it magically jumps to another density which it keeps?Yes.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/)
I suggest you read more slowly or you have someone read it to you:I suggest you address the actual questions raised rather than just repeating the same nonsense.
So are the steadily rising (then subtly lowering) of the 19 points he places at the top of the towers purposeful obfuscation of the issue?Nope, you don't.Pretty sure I do.I placed a vertical line at the horizon...
Saying he placed a vertical line at the horizon doesn't indicate there are 19 towers to the horizon.
See above...and like I wrote there, it is no longer an issue.You are correct Jack.Yes, not to the horizon.
It does indicate 19 points however within the field of the picture.
So how do you conclude that there are 19 points to the horizon?
Good...And what do you suppose the 19 points within the picture are presented to the audience for?Yes, as was already indicating.
Evidence of curvature, correct?
Then take that up with NAZA:And how high do those points continually rise above the self-admittedly "level,"No, not a self-levelyellowEDITED: red line?yellowEDITED red line.
Above a red line connecting the first tower with enough visible to the last tower.
There is no indication that this line is level.
...I placed a reference line (red) to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.A line of perspective on a flat surface = LEVEL!!!
The tops of the towers are roughly level, following the curve of Earth; this line would only be level at one point as it doesn't follow the curve of Earth.Google is your friend for the numbers.They cannot possibly represent more than the eight foot dip to the horizon by an observer at height of ten feet above see level, as the points referenced at the top commence a downward slope prior to point 19!Again, where are you getting these numbers from?
Why 8 feet?
If it isn't going all the way to the horizon, why would it be to the horizon?
Again, there is still some distance to that tower.So, whether or not the 19 points is to the horizon or not, I DNGAS!But that changes if it should be the 8 feet to the horizon (although I still don't know where you are pulling 8 feet from) for these 19 towers, or a smaller drop based upon the distance to the 19th tower.I suggest you read more slowly or you have someone read it to you:I suggest you address the actual questions raised rather than just repeating the same nonsense.
WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE NUMBERS FROM?
Science has never made such a statement regarding air density or clarity...if science ever claimed such, that claim would fly directly in the face of fog or smog or whatever other junk disappears as one rises in altitude...That doesn't back you up.Are you claiming the atmosphere has one density at sea level, which it keeps until it magically jumps to another density which it keeps?Yes.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/)
If there was such a density step it would be clearly measurable and produce significant effects.
Science has indicated that the density of air is a smooth gradient...
Since no one has any real argument that debunks the picture showing curvature, I guess we can wrap this up.No, the picture does NOT show curvature.
Another globe Earth victory.
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
So are the steadily rising (then subtly lowering) of the 19 points he places at the top of the towers purposeful obfuscation of the issue?Who says they are rising then lowering?
Regardless, at this point in time, I no longer care...Of course you don't; you have been shown to be wrong and have no justification for any of your claims.
Then take that up with NAZA:No, =FLAT!!!...I placed a reference line (red) to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.A line of perspective on a flat surface = LEVEL!!!
Google is your friend for the numbers.So you have no basis and are just making up the numbers?
10 feet is the claim made by NAZA for the height of the observer in the photos.Yes, that is one number out of the 3 you have.
Science has never made such a statement regarding air density or clarityYes it has, quite frequently.
No, the picture does NOT show curvature.Yes it does. You are yet to provide an alternative.
It shows the lengths disingenuous RE-tards will go to in order to present a case.Nope. But it does show the lengths you will go in order to pretend there is no case, making up strawman after strawman, baselessly asserting and then refusing to back it up and so on.
1) He places a line he purports to be level across the waist line of the towers, then plots 19 dots at the shoulder points of the towers, supposedly increasing in curvature over the waist line of the towers!!!No he didn't.
2) Anyone with a shrimp (hats off to the bayou creator of this fantasy image and explanation) for a brain knows towers are not manufactured this way and every other photo of these towers in a line distinctly shows that construction of the towers is identical as far as height, shape, and dimensions.Which just goes to show the curve observed in the photo is not due to the construction of the towers, that the tops of the towers should follow Earth and thus the curve is the curve of Earth.
There is no way a person standing at a ten foot observing level on the Earth, facing any direction (even if it is a sphere), will experience an eight feet wall of "curved water" prior to the horizon line, or other construction raised an additional eight feet IN HIS LINE OF SIGHT DUE TO A SPHERICAL EARTH.To the horizon, you are correct.
The line of sight to the horizon, according to RE-TARD MATH, is dropping from OBSERVATION POINT to horizon...No, according to rational people math.
So, these photos are due to lense distortion.No they aren't.
Independent observer standing at any height above point zero (point zero could occupy any radian on the sphere) can look in any direction and will not see any evidence of "upward curvature," then"downward curvature."So far the only person suggesting any magic "upwards curvature" is you.
All of the towers in the picture (except for the last) are built to the same specs (height, width, etc.)That's right. Instead they see the towers arcing down, following the curve of Earth line in that photo.
A person standing at one end of the towers would not see any evidence of the towers arcing upward then sloping downward.
That is impossible on a spherical surface.
Only an AI bot arguing with an FE would try to convince an FE that evidence of curvature could be depicted at ground level in a photo, when it cannot.Except it can easily be depicted in a photo, as this photo clearly shows.
So far the only person suggesting any magic "upwards curvature" is you.Incorrect.
All of the towers in the picture (except for the last) are built to the same specs (height, width, etc.)That's right. Instead they see the towers arcing down, following the curve of Earth line in that photo.[/quote]
A person standing at one end of the towers would not see any evidence of the towers arcing upward then sloping downward.
That is impossible on a spherical surface.
Only an AI bot arguing with an FE would try to convince an FE that evidence of curvature could be depicted at ground level in a photo, when it cannot.Except it can easily be depicted in a photo, as this photo clearly shows.
Nope, I'm correct. Here you are again suggesting it, yet no one else does.So far the only person suggesting any magic "upwards curvature" is you.Incorrect.
The dots at the tops of the towers were placed at the tops of the towers to present the illusion of an upward rising arc. Those dots at the tops of the towers are increasing distance over the height of the red line.
Like I wrote earlier, you are being disingenuous, dishonest, and I am placing all AI bots on ignore from this post forward.i.e. you have been shown to be a blatant liar and are now coming up with whatever BS you can to justify your delusions of grandeur.
Like I wrote earlier, you are being disingenuous, dishonest, and I am placing all AI bots on ignore from this post forward.
Doesn't know what going on in the picture.You've been shot down in flames. Deal with it.
A person standing on a sphere will not see any evidence of curvature (confirmed by simple math) prior to the horizon.Why not?
Notice how the tops of the towers are reflecting an upward arc to the horizon and then sloping downwards...STOP REPEATING THE SAME BS AGAIN AND AGAIN!!
A person standing on a sphere will not see any evidence of curvature (confirmed by simple math) prior to the horizon.Why not?
You are yet to justify thisNotice how the tops of the towers are reflecting an upward arc to the horizon and then sloping downwards...STOP REPEATING THE SAME BS AGAIN AND AGAIN!!
This has been explained to be crap to you repeatedly.
It isn't curving up. The red line is pointing down. The towers curve down.
Any photograph which is provided for debate has to include the following: source of the photograph, altitude of the observer (if it is not specified then we take the worst case scenario, just as I have done with some of the images which featured lake Ontario as seen from Grimsby), distance to the desired visual target.
Now, here real time videos which do not show any kind of a curvature across Lake Pontchartrain:
Please provide the following (if you have done that already, just list the link):
-original source for the photograph
-altitude of the observer (does the photographer mention that, or is it your estimate)
-distance to the desired visual target
Yes, the fourth video has the wrong powerline, no problem, that much is obvious, however I included it for the information it provides.
Now, here are the other three videos, real time images which no curvature at all across lake Pontchartrain:
Now, here are real time videos which do not show any kind of a curvature across Lake Pontchartrain:Except they quote clearly do.
totallackey, can you download the first video of my previous message, so that it can be kept as a reference in any future debates.Yes.
Any photograph which is provided for debate has to include the following: source of the photograph, altitude of the observer (if it is not specified then we take the worst case scenario, just as I have done with some of the images which featured lake Ontario as seen from Grimsby), distance to the desired visual target.How desperate are you to use a video with blatant miraging?.
Now, here are real time videos which do not show any kind of a curvature across Lake Pontchartrain:
The meaning of desperation will becomes very clear to you once I bring into our discussion the photographs across the English Channel, across the strait of Gibraltar, across lake Ontario, and of course the Tunguska explosion.
Now, all of the RE have been had on a grand scale: the photograph is a fake, it comes from a fake video.
The photograph in this thread is fake.Nope, its real and can be verified in reality.
height of observer = 2 ftWhere are you pulling this shit from?
With an even better camera the entire shoreline would appear from top to bottom.Prove it. I am yet to a single instance of a better camera magically being able to undo the curve.
The meaning of desperation will become very clear to you once I bring into our discussion the photographs across the English Channel, across the strait of Gibraltar, across lake Ontario, and of course the Tunguska explosion.Yes, as you get desparate and continually bring up irrelavent crap rather than try to discsus the topic at hand, as you are desparate to pretend your FE delusions are correct and simply can't face reality.
We have been discussing sokarul for quite some time and have concluded that Sokarul is a chemist who collects urine.
Here are some quotes from sokarul, so that everybody can understand what is going on:Have anything from the last 7 years?
"You have to get over the fact that two things can be equal and not be the same thing.
A dead particle does not equal an alive particle.
It it theories water came from asteroids.
So the ground accelerates them, then why do they not leave the ground?
I wasn't thinking about the other type of acceleration."
Yet, he is allowed to post in the upper forums...
Meteor
No, it certainly could not have been a meteor.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995521#msg1995521
The meaning of desperation will become very clear to you once I bring into our discussion the photographs across the English Channel, across the strait of Gibraltar, across lake Ontario, and of course the Tunguska explosion.;D ;D ;D Oh sure, says the man who claims: ;D ;D ;D
Now, all of the RE have been had on a grand scale: the photograph is a fake, it comes from a fake video.
The information in my messages is correct, as always.Really? Justify these to any rational person !
Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Reply #410 on: August 09, 2017, 06:07:14 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818)and
EARTH - SUN DISTANCE: 15-20 KILOMETERS
The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The distance from Earth to the Sun is some 15-20 km.
Flat Earth Theory is a subset of a larger topic: the new radical chronology of history.
The new chronology of history: the correct chronology starts in the year 1000 AD, nothing is known prior to 800 AD.
The new radical chronology of history: each and every event assumed to have taken place prior to 1780 AD has been totally forged/invented/falsified. History is just some 365 years old (I started with a figure of 500 years, and slowly reduced the period to 364-365 years).
Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.
The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier, after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.
Where is the pier and the 2 story deck that is behind the house?
Where is the pier and the 2 story deck that is behind the house?;) ;) Probably a flood in Lake Pontchartrain and it's all underwater - like all the sinking ships over the horizon! ;) ;)
... altitude of the observer...And we all know how bad you are at estimating that factor.
In the well established tradition which started with Kepler (who faked all of the entries in his tables), the REtards are resorting to fake videos.Nope, it is a well established tradition that you will do whatever BS you can to avoid admitting your delusions are BS.
The following video is a complete fakeNope. It's real and you can verify it yourself by going there.
JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARENope. They seem just as stationary as the rest.
An obvious CGI.Nope. CGI wouldn't have that problem.
Where is the bottom of the house?That does not answer the question. ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!
For that particular distance (6.8 miles) and the altitude of the observer (2 ft. as told by the author of the photograph) you get a drop of 30 ft. If we add the waves, then you get some 32 ft.
This thread is over.Yes, you lose, repeatedly.
What the frell is this?Good thing it isn't just off the top of his head.
With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
The formula you use is an innacurate one.
You cannot increase the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83 just off the top of your head.
Your innacurate assessment leads to an irrational result: where you are able to delete 13.89 ft from the correct value (30.44 ft).And there you go misunderstanding it yet again.
Remember, I have been involved in many more debatesI am yet to see you engage in any debate on this site. You continually ignore what has been said and just repeat the same refuted BS.
The main component is the QUALITY OF THE CAMERANo it is not.
Three successive photographs, each using a better quality camera, thus capturing more details.Nope. Three photos taken from completley different locations with completely different conditions.
What is needed is another video which could settle the entire debate.It has already been settled. On a FE the towers should appear to be in a straight line and the bottom of the houses should be clearly visible, as should Toronto's shore.
This is just what that user on youtube did.Drop, not how much should be hidden. Try again.
Here is the final video:
Distance 10.4 miles.
Drop = 66 ft.
This is how easy it is to prove that Lake Pontchartrain is actually flat.Nope, you just proved it is curved.
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.That is the funniest line uttered in support of Soundly's shit I have ever seen!!!
Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.That is the funniest line uttered in support of Soundly's shit I have ever seen!!!
Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.
LMMFAO!
Would not surprise me in the least...The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.That is the funniest line uttered in support of Soundly's shit I have ever seen!!!
Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.
LMMFAO!
Perhaps Naza is Soundly's alt. Only he knew that the first three or four bases wobble and move around.
That is a funny line indeed.
But let's (be)entertained (by) that for the moment.Finds the whole concept of FE stupid and "insulting."
I would argue that I was insulted first, before I made my first post.
I have installed many satellite antennas so I am part of the conspiracy or I am too stupid to notice it is fake. I find this insulting.
My father was a surveyor, I find it very insulting that you guys accuse him of being a conspirator.
As does the family of every person that has been or DIED in space travel, every scientist, every airline pilot, every ship captain, every teacher, etc. I could go on but you get my point.
Not too mention the billions of people who are indoctrinated.
So Sandokhan, you can never claimed that you were insulted first.
And do not be surprised if people are quick to insult, YOU choose a belief that is insulting to billions.
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.No. You have been desparately trying to dismiss it as fake because you know you have no rational defence against it.
And yet reality struck back: the video turned out to be a miserable hoax.Nope. You attempting to dismiss it as one doesn't magically make it into one.
Let us increase the distance to 13 km.i.e. lets try and change the topic yet again to avoid your miserable defeat.
No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:Citation needed.
From the same spot, a splendid photograph:Which once again shows this curvature with the botom of the mountain hidden by the water instead of the shoreline and objects near the shore being visible like you would expect if Earth was flat.
If you go to Google, you can test for yourself whether the power lines are plotted "perfectly straight."I wouldn't say perfect, but it is pretty darn straight, when you use the correct powerline rather than the one your lying video used.
"My father this...," or "my family that..." Hell, let us take a look:i.e. lets follow in the footsteps of Sandy and try to avoid the topic at any cost.
What the frell is this?Incorrect!
With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
The formula you use is an innacurate one.
You cannot increase the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83 just off the top of your head.No-one is increasing the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83!
standard refractionThe 4/3 the geometrical radius of the earth is a rough approximation for radio and radar signals.
(electromagnetism)
Refraction which would occur in an idealized atmosphere in which the index of refraction decreases uniformly with height at a rate of 39 × 106 per kilometer; standard refraction may be included in ground wave calculations by use of an effective earth radius of 8.5 × 106 meters, or 4/3 the geometrical radius of the earth.
From: The Free Dictionary, Standard Refraction (https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/standard+refraction)
Let us increase the distance to 34 km.
The English Channel: 34 km distance from Cap Gris Nez to Dover, a curvature of some 22.4 meters on a round earth.
https://s16.postimg.org/jznqhanrp/dover1.jpg (https://s16.postimg.org/jznqhanrp/dover1.jpg)
https://s16.postimg.org/lf9aqof4l/dover2.jpg (https://s16.postimg.org/lf9aqof4l/dover2.jpg)
The original webpages, as they were posted on flickr.com
The photographers located between Cap Blanc Nez and Cap Gris Nez: we will ascend to 30 meters.
http://image.ibb.co/cmTkZR/doverbest2.jpg (http://image.ibb.co/cmTkZR/doverbest2.jpg)
And now the photograph itself: no curvature whatsoever, all the way to the other shoreline, the Dover cliffs seen in their entirety (on a round earth, from 30 meters, we could not see anything under 16.5 meters from the other side), the ships are not part of an ascending/descending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.4 meters:
https://s9.postimg.org/ptymv8ltb/doverbest_zpse4522974.jpg (https://s9.postimg.org/ptymv8ltb/doverbest_zpse4522974.jpg)
Another photograph taken right on the beach of Cap Gris Nez: no curvature over a distance of 34 km:
http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg (http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)
Dover cliffs:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4070/4521816996_2971e62065.jpg (http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4070/4521816996_2971e62065.jpg)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1051/4726849923_389dba2176.jpg (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1051/4726849923_389dba2176.jpg)
In this photograph there is no hidden portion: a perfectly flat surface of the strait all the way to the other shoreline.You give no details as to the height the photo was taken from, so it's useless as evidence. But(https://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)
And a professionally produced video, which shows the very same thing:You're joking! There us no way to see a "MIDPOINT 3.5 METERS VISUAL OBSTACLE" that's about 7 km away. That's a fraction of a pixel on either image.
No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip (The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Gilliam)
38:28 to 38:35
In both images THERE IS NO ASCENDING SLOPE AND NO MIDPOINT 3.5 METERS VISUAL OBSTACLE.
Again, here is the fake video:Rubbish! But there is no need to shout.
JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE, MAYBE ITS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN...........OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????
WHY ARE THE FOOTINGS MOVING AT THE BASE?
Soundly faked the damn videos.Really?
The footings are moving at the base.
An obvious CGI.
Lake Pontchartrain West Side Transmission Lines Raw - (Debunk Flat Earth), Soundly | DSCN1121 - Flatearth Game, Set, Match - (Flat Earth Debunked), Soundly |
Let us increase the distance to 34 km.
The English Channel: 34 km distance from Cap Gris Nez to Dover, a curvature of some 22.4 meters on a round earth.
(https://s16.postimg.org/jznqhanrp/dover1.jpg)
(https://s16.postimg.org/lf9aqof4l/dover2.jpg)
The original webpages, as they were posted on flickr.com
The photographers located between Cap Blanc Nez and Cap Gris Nez: we will ascend to 30 meters.
(http://image.ibb.co/cmTkZR/doverbest2.jpg)
And now the photograph itself: no curvature whatsoever, all the way to the other shoreline, the Dover cliffs seen in their entirety (on a round earth, from 30 meters, we could not see anything under 16.5 meters from the other side), the ships are not part of an ascending/descending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.4 meters:
(https://s9.postimg.org/ptymv8ltb/doverbest_zpse4522974.jpg)
Another photograph taken right on the beach of Cap Gris Nez: no curvature over a distance of 34 km:
(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)
Dover cliffs:
(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4070/4521816996_2971e62065.jpg)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1051/4726849923_389dba2176.jpg)
In this photograph there is no hidden portion: a perfectly flat surface of the strait all the way to the other shoreline.Unless you are going to lie and claim the trees grow underwater, there is stuff hidden.
No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:If there is no curvature, what is hiding the shoreline?
In both images THERE IS NO ASCENDING SLOPE AND NO MIDPOINT 3.5 METERS VISUAL OBSTACLE.Again, WHY WOULD THERE BE A MAGIC ASCENDING SLOPE?
\You mean the real video you are yet to refute?
Again, here is the fake video:
JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPSWhich is it? 3 or 4?
AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS AREJust like the last time you said it, this remains pure bullshit.
OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????Why would someone trying to fake it looking curved magically make them wobble around?
Soundly faked the damn videos.Nope, not obvious.
The footings are moving at the base.
An obvious CGI.
Anyway, to recap:Actual recap:
totallacky, take a look at this:And you are a total ignoramous!
WE HAVE BEEN DEBATING A PHYSICS ILLITERATE!!!!
THE JACKBOT IS A PHYSICS ILLITERATE.
It used A VARIABLE RADIUS TO DERIVE A SAGNAC FORMULA:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2021997#msg2021997
But the Sagnac features only one radius, and it is constant.
The jackbot is an semi-analphabetic physics illiterate!!!
jackbot and rabbibot.I'm sorry if I was supposed to have caught on to this sooner, but is it common knowledge that Sandokhan and Papa Legba are characters played by the same person? Or did he just get caught up in his "bot" schtick and forgot he was posting from Sandokhan?
Comparing drawings designed to show lines of perspective with an actual photo of powerlines disappearing over the horizon is a lame sort of argument.It disappears simply because it is unable to be resolved by the human eye any further.
We don't have to rely on this particular photo, nor assume that all the powerline structures are equally tall or anything of that sort. If you were to go to the southernmost tip of Florida, you could see the causeway leading to Key West disappear over the horizon. And it is significant that we would say OVER the horizon, as if it were on the far side of a hill, because, as with a hill, there is a characteristic of curvature involved. If the earth were flat, we could see those powerlines or the Key West causeway disappear in the distance - visible but so small because of the distance that we can no longer make it out - but we could continue to see it to the very end with a strong enough telescope because, on a flat earth, its end point would never be concealed from us. But the end point is concealed from us in the real world and even the strongest telescope can't enable us to see it - because it disappears from view over the curve of the earth.
I'm sorry if I was supposed to have caught on to this sooner, but is it common knowledge that Sandokhan and Papa Legba are characters played by the same person? Or did he just get caught up in his "bot" schtick and forgot he was posting from Sandokhan?You think papa and sandokhan are the same persona?
We have in the upper forums TWO PHYSICS ILLITERATES: the jackbot and rabbibot.No, SandyBot, they did not USE A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.
Both USED A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.
A SURE SIGN OF PHYSICS ILLITERACY.
The Sagnac has a CONSTANT RADIUS.
I locked the thread, also. It's just a repetitive flame fest anyway. It would be so helpful if you didn't respond to him and spam other threads he posts in with off topic stuff.
Sure two fixed radii come into the derivation.I locked the thread, also. It's just a repetitive flame fest anyway. It would be so helpful if you didn't respond to him and spam other threads he posts in with off topic stuff.
Agreed.
However, take a look at the previous two messages signed rabinoz.
they did not USE A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.
JackBlack used two fixed radii in the derivation and
Quote from: JackBlack on June 03, 2017, 04:10:29 PM
For the system we are discussing, the interferometer is on Earth (or quite close to it), and thus R CANNOT be constant. Instead R MUST CHANGE AS IT GOES ALONG THE LOOP!
Each and every user should take a long look at this.You are totally incorrect, Mr Sandokhan, the results that I have been presenting are exactly in agreement with the accepted ideas on the Sagnac delay.
Two users are modifying the hypotheses of a well known and established experiment, the Sagnac, to suit their own purposes.
Sagnac Effect, E. J. POST, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 475 (1967) – Published 1 April 1967 (http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Post1967.pdf) we have
Section III. General Aspects of the Theory, near end p. 478QuoteSummarizing, the experiments of Sagnac, Pogany and Michelson-Gale and the results of Harress, as re-interpreted by Harzer, demonstrate beyond doubt the following features of the Sagnac effect. The observed fringe shift
a) obeys formula (1);
b) does not depend on the shape of the surface A;
c) does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;
d) does not depend on the presence of a comoving refracting medium in the path of the beam.
Please note that E. J. POST specifically states,
"does not depend on the shape of the surface A;"
"does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;"
Care to explain in your own words what
"does not depend on the shape of the surface A" and "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation" mean?
This is more than just trolling, or not debating in good faith: it is called scientific illiteracy.Just who is trolling? Much of what I present is from papers, many that YOU sourced.
rabinoz deserves a long ban for this: after the moderator stipulated clearly that she locked the thread, he opens a new thread and also comments here, using the same scientific illiterate arguments.Please show just what "scientific illiterate arguments" I have presented.
In most textbooks result (5) is expressed by the fringe shift in units of the wavelength λ0∆Z = 4 A · Ω/(c λ0)where, in general, the scalar product of the oriented area A enclosed by the light path with the vector angular velocity Ω enters. One can show that the fringe shift is independent of the shape of A and of the position of the rotational axis, but depends on the cosine of the angle between A and Ω.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V. And over 3,000,000 litres of fuel.
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
Have difficulty counting, don't you, rabbibot?I do take a while to get to 3,000,000!
Here's a definition of the the term physical object that will prevent you squirming out of your shocking blunder:I made no blunder, but what is the relevance of your link?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body
Not looking good for you, is it?It's looking fine for me, you're the one that didn't do his homework.
No Mr PapaBot, you are not correct! And you simply can't understand, Momentum Conservation in Explosions. (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-in-Explosions)But, make sure you read it all! Right down to the bits on the cannon and the carts.
If you did, you might understand rockets.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
PapaBot the Voodoo Priest cannot read, I said "over 3,000,000 parts" not "number of objects (in) a rocket . . . . . 3,000,000".New number of objects a rocket is according to the rabbibot: 3,000,000...https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
PapaBot the Voodoo Priest cannot read, I said "over 3,000,000 parts" not "number of objects (in) a rocket . . . . . 3,000,000".New number of objects a rocket is according to the rabbibot: 3,000,000...https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.Nope, all totally irrelevant.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.Nope, all totally irrelevant.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
PapaBot the Voodoo Priest cannot read, I said "over 3,000,000 parts" not "number of objects (in) a rocket . . . . . 3,000,000".New number of objects a rocket is according to the rabbibot: 3,000,000...https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
It's pretty clear what you said, rabbibot.
As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
And where did I say that, Mr Arch Deceiver? I could suggest that:As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.Nope, all totally irrelevant.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
So the fact that you are a proven liar is irrelevant?
I'd say it invalidates every single thing you write.And I could remind you that we know
Your shillgorithm army will doubtless disagree...
Legba is the promoter of verbal facility, of double talk, the arch deceiver, not malicious, but a jokester, a prankster--the preeminent trickster god—like John the Conqueror, the guileful scourge of the Louisiana and Mississippi plantation owners—the trickster who will make a fool of you or scare the hell out of you, either just for laughs, or to teach you a lesson about life.So we are prepared for your deceptive antics Mr Voodoo Priest!
And where did I say that, Mr Arch Deceiver? I could suggest that:As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.Nope, all totally irrelevant.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
So the fact that you are a proven liar is irrelevant?
- Sandokhan was lashing out to cover his total failure.
- dutchy is known for his totally incorect "on-line" assessments.
- The Voodoo Priest's claim was totally irrelevant!
Quote from: Papa LegbaI'd say it invalidates every single thing you write.And I could remind you that we know
Your shillgorithm army will doubtless disagree...QuoteLegba is the promoter of verbal facility, of double talk, the arch deceiver, not malicious, but a jokester, a prankster--the preeminent trickster god—like John the Conqueror, the guileful scourge of the Louisiana and Mississippi plantation owners—the trickster who will make a fool of you or scare the hell out of you, either just for laughs, or to teach you a lesson about life.So we are prepared for your deceptive antics Mr Voodoo Priest!
A singular noun often describes an object that comprises of multiple other objects under a collective description. For example:Only an idiot RE-tard would write "rocket," = "loaded gun."
“A loaded gun” describes a single object consisting of a gun and one or more pieces of ammunition. Would you argue that a loaded gun could be unloaded or fired and thus the separate parts would then be described as a gun and some ammunition as discrete objects.
The same applies to a rocket.
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.
Incorrect!Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.
Incorrect:
http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
The system of this invention reduces the recoil.Yes, reduces the recoil, but does not eliminate it!
Incorrect!Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.
Incorrect:
http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
And you claim that a Patent Application is necessarily scientifically correct? Pull the other one!Incorrect!Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.
Incorrect:
http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
The patent states quite clearly that the main cause of recoil in a gun is from atmospheric gasses re-entering the evacuated barrel after the bullet has left.
Over-unity energy motor-generator, EP 1821391 A1No Mr Demented Voodoo Priest, there is nothing necessarily scientific about a Patent Application. A
ABSTRACT
An over-unity motor-generator is provided. The over-unity motor-generator includes a motor circuit unit, a motor-generator unit for generating an electric energy by rotating by an electric energy, and a generator circuit unit for commutating an alternating current generated from the motor-generator unit and outputting a direct current. The motor-generator unit includes a stator including a motor winding having n-phases, the motor winding being magnetized by receiving an electric power from the motor circuit unit and wound in an independent, multi-phase parallel distribution manner of an n-phase and a generator winding having 2n-phases and supplying the electric energy to the generator circuit unit, the generator winding being wound in an independent, multi-phase parallel distribution manner, a rotor having stacked silicon plates, flat permanent magnets buried in the stacked silicon plate and arranged in a radial direction, and a shaft located on a center of the stacked silicon plates, a commutation encoder having detection regions and non-detection regions and disposed on an end of the shaft of the rotor, and 2n-number photo sensors for transmitting an optical sensor signal to the motor circuit unit by, when the commutation encoder rotates together with the shaft, being turned on at the detection regions and off at the non-detection regions. . . . .
Read the rest in: Over-unity energy motor-generator, EP 1821391 A1 (https://www.google.com/patents/EP1821391A1?cl=en)
Yeah, run away from the evidence...Yet satellites provide us with broadcast tv and navigation.
See ya!
Now for another Lie from the rabbibot...
This time it is claiming that satellites will not be in free fall because they are sitting on a table or something:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523
It is mental.
They will claim whatever they want to get the patent.Incorrect!Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.
Incorrect:
http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
More lies from the madman.
The patent states quite clearly that the main cause of recoil in a gun is from atmospheric gasses re-entering the evacuated barrel after the bullet has left.
You claim that shpayze rokkitz work by the same mechanism.
You are wrong, and now you are lying about the matter.
Again...
The RE should not be mentioning guns at all, especially rail guns.Why do you show face here? You ran away from the moon bounce thread.
In the one of the most famous experiments of the 20th century, Dr. Graneau proved that energy efficiency equation of the rail gun disproves the theory of relativity:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1993276#msg1993276
They will claim whatever they want to get the patent.Wait a minute...
If air caused recoil then different grain bullets would recoil the same. Gunpowder amount would also not matter.
Can you just think for once. Please?
Did I just tell you not to jump to stupid conclusions?They will claim whatever they want to get the patent.Wait a minute...
If air caused recoil then different grain bullets would recoil the same. Gunpowder amount would also not matter.
Can you just think for once. Please?
You are claiming the amount of air displaced is the same for a .44 Magnum bullet as it is for a .22 Long Rifle bullet?
Please elucidate the audience!
The RE should not be mentioning guns at all, especially rail guns.
In the one of the most famous experiments of the 20th century, Dr. Graneau proved that energy efficiency equation of the rail gun disproves the theory of relativity:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1993276#msg1993276
Actually, had you read or checked the links many have shown you, you would have learned many things.
Actually, had you read or checked the links many have shown you, you would have learned many things.O rly?
Here's a link showing that the rabbibot thinks satellites sit on tables:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523
Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1d1.gif)
Gravity not forcing Physics Book down.(http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/_Media/iss_discovery_110226_med.jpeg)
Gravity not forcing Satellite in orbit down!
Rabinoz claiming gravity does not force things downwards, as well as several other mad things:I had thought that even a Demented Voodoo Priest might realise that gravity is not forcing the book on a chair any further down and
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg1968575#msg1968575
Watch:The initial recoil is captured by the slide of the gun. That uses the recoil to eject the empty cartridge and load the next round.
The gun does not recoil until ten bullet is well out of the barrel.
So, yet another lie from the rabbibot and his sockpuppet Chum.
Actually, had you read or checked the links many have shown you, you would have learned many things.O rly?
Here's a link showing that the rabbibot thinks satellites sit on tables:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1d1.gif)
Gravity not forcing Physics Book down.(http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/_Media/iss_discovery_110226_med.jpeg)
Gravity not forcing Satellite in orbit down!
I knew the Demented Voodoo Priest was an ignorant idiot, but I assumed that even he might know the difference between a Physics Book and a Satellite.
As I thought! The Demented Voodoo Priest can't even read.Actually, had you read or checked the links many have shown you, you would have learned many things.O rly?
Here's a link showing that the rabbibot thinks satellites sit on tables:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1d1.gif)
Gravity not forcing Physics Book down.(http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/_Media/iss_discovery_110226_med.jpeg)
Gravity not forcing Satellite in orbit down!
I knew the Demented Voodoo Priest was an ignorant idiot, but I assumed that even he might know the difference between a Physics Book and a Satellite.
Where's the imaginary table you claim the satellite is sitting on, rabbibot?
Or is it in free fall, like I claim repeatedly?
What about recoil, and the fact you were proven wrong?
Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1d1.gif)
Gravity not forcing Physics Book down.(http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/_Media/iss_discovery_110226_med.jpeg)
Gravity not forcing Satellite in orbit down!
Only an idiot could confuse a Physics book with a satellite.
What about recoil, and the fact you were proven wrong?
That never happened.
The jackbot wrote some mad post that I never read and the rest of you just shitposted.
What about recoil, and the fact you were proven wrong?
That never happened.
The jackbot wrote some mad post that I never read and the rest of you just shitposted.
"The initial recoil is captured by the slide of the gun. That uses the recoil to eject the empty cartridge and load the next round. But it can only move so far, and the springs start transferring force to the rest of the pistol and by extension the hand.
If you watch the video, you notice the main body of the pistol starts moving backwards before the gasses finish exiting the barrel, showing quite conclusively that gasses reentering the barrel is not required to produce recoil."
How is that false?
EDIT: Oh yeah, you never read it. Figures.
i.e. you just ignore when people prove you wrong.What about recoil, and the fact you were proven wrong?That never happened.
The jackbot wrote some mad post that I never read and the rest of you just shitposted.
But as long as you derailIf you want to stop derailing, how about you address the pic in the OP?
Perhaps you should go back and read the patent before lying to me again?Perhaps you should watch the video you provided before trying to use a patent as fact.
Another video for you to lie about, Debunkatron:Are you capable of making a post which isn't full of lies?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=w4iraJVSdTA
Still, you redefined Newton's second law as Force equals Mass times Deceleration in another thread, so God only knows where your AI madness will lead next...
What about the video explaining recoil?
Which part of the video was false? And how?
Rvlvrbot now also wasting my time with lies, exactly the same as the rabbibot openly admits to doing:The only lies I can see in there are yours, Mr Voodoo Priest, but then Papa Legba is The Deity of Deception and Trikeration, so we expect nothing else.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2024715#msg2024715
What a coincidence!
Rvlvrbot now also wasting my time with lies, exactly the same as the rabbibot openly admits to doing:The only lies I can see in there are yours
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2024715#msg2024715
What a coincidence!
Shouldn't you be banned again?
Last I checked I did not claim recoil is caused by air rushing back in the barrel of a gun.
Now we are getting somewhere! Could you tell us what those are, please?
No, you dumb fuck, own up.
List the things here, and prove us wrong. You know what they are, it should not be a tremendous burden even for you to write those down. The only one I remember you referring to was a collection of slow motion clips showing a gun being fired.
Yes, our masters pay us good money to catch idiots like you from spreading their misinformation without anyone debunking it. (I have no idea how you pay your bills after being declared bankrupt. I guess welfare does work.)
Still, it would appear, again, you are not able to provide us the things you claim you know. You really think people believe any of the things you say as you are never able to follow through?
Try me.
You can provide the links, right?
The one that agreed with me you mean?No the one that disagreed with you.
SECONDARY RECOIL, botty boy.Yes, one of 2 types of recoil experienced by the gun.
SECONDARY RECOIL, botty boy.Yes, one of 2 types of recoil experienced by the gun.
The primary recoil from the bullet itself and then from all the gasses escaping, with the gun pushed back "much like a rocket".
But the primary recoil was caused by the gasses pushing against both the gun and the bullet.You could see it that way.
When the bullet is out of the barrel, what are the gasses pushing on then?Nope. It doesn't really matter what they push against.
Another mass must take the place of the bullet, and that mass can only be the mass of the atmosphere.
So rockets must push on air.Yes, the "air" which is the exhaust that is propelled from them.
Oh and btw the third cause of recoil is the inrush of atmosphere into the evacuated barrel.Pure garbage.
So you see I was right and all sources were provided, thus rvlvr is a liar.Nope, you were wrong just like normal.
That would be polite.You might want to get a dictionary and find out what polite is.
Actually, "Papa Legba", you are the shill here. You do the bidding of your flat Earth masters.How can a puppet, completely under control of its masters ever be said to have any intelligence?
They use your lack of intellect to their advantage, and you do their bidding like the lowly serf you are.
When the bullet is out of the barrel, what are the gasses pushing on then?There is no need for the gas to push on anything.
Another mass must take the place of the bullet, and that mass can only be the mass of the atmosphere.Oh and btw the third cause of recoil is the inrush of atmosphere into the evacuated barrel.Pure garbage.
The inrush of atmosphere into the evacuated barrel would suck the gun forwards and then stop it.
The jackblack AI algorithm has not been programmed to understand Newton's third law..Are you ever able to honestly respond to a post?
Force pairings are unnecessary to it, and force vectors can be reversed as needed to fit whatever mad bullshit it is spamming.
Total physics illiterate.
The jackblack AI algorithm has not been programmed to understand Newton's third law..You are the one wanting to discard Newton's third law and pretend the gas needs to push of something,
Force pairings are unnecessary to it, and force vectors can be reversed as needed to fit whatever mad bullshit it is spamming.
Total physics illiterate.
Looks like the Confused Voodoo Priest still doesn't understand the totality of Newton's third law.The jackblack AI algorithm has not been programmed to understand Newton's third law..You are the one wanting to discard Newton's third law and pretend the gas needs to push of something,
Force pairings are unnecessary to it, and force vectors can be reversed as needed to fit whatever mad bullshit it is spamming.
Total physics illiterate.
The need for something extrinsic to push off is the totality of Newton's third law.
Looks like the Confused Voodoo Priest still doesn't understand the totality of Newton's third law.The jackblack AI algorithm has not been programmed to understand Newton's third law..You are the one wanting to discard Newton's third law and pretend the gas needs to push of something,
Force pairings are unnecessary to it, and force vectors can be reversed as needed to fit whatever mad bullshit it is spamming.
Total physics illiterate.
The need for something extrinsic to push off is the totality of Newton's third law.
It could be said that once the burnt fuel reaches the bell of the rocket it is "extrinsic" to the rest of the rocket!
Though where did Newton mention "extrinsic" anyway? An object can split in two and one half can push off the other.
So the Deceptive Voodoo Priest fails again! ;D ;D So sorry about that. ;D ;D
The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.Once it has left rocket it is not, just as the bullet is not part of the gun.
The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.Once it has left rocket it is not, just as the bullet is not part of the gun.
The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.Maybe according to Papa's imaginary laws of physics, not according to Newton.
Therefore it will require a body extrinsic to the rocket for it to create a force pairing and thus produce motion.
So rocket exhausts do not exert a force then?No, they do exert a force, on the rocket.
Yeah, you don't understand anything, let alone Newton's third law.There you go projecting again.
If you like, you can consider the exhaust the "extrinsic body".
Yeah, you don't understand anything, let alone Newton's third law.Who doesn't understand anything again, Mr Delusional Voodoo Priest Controlled Puppet?
Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:I don't take orders from a Delusional Voodoo Priest.
It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.
If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:I don't take orders from a Delusional Voodoo Priest.
It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.
If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
I notice you cut it from my reply, as if you did not want anyone to watch it...
I notice you cut it from my reply, as if you did not want anyone to watch it...Chatbot fail. Don't cut his post where he... (rest of mad bot shitpost cut out)
No. If you are sane you can.If you like, you can consider the exhaust the "extrinsic body".If you're mental you can
A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects.Considering they separate, they are quite demonstrably two (or more) separate objects.
The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards.Nope.
This accords with Newton's third law i.e. f1=-f2.My analysis does. Your analysis does not.
Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:Nope.
If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.i.e. you will completely ignore the arguments presented.
No not Nope not no Nope doesn't no ignore
Incorrect! In the de Laval nozzle soninc flow in the throat and supersonic flow in the bell prevents any outside forces, such as from the exhaust hitting the ground affecting the thrust.Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:I don't take orders from a Delusional Voodoo Priest.
It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.
If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
So you could not provide similar visual evidence as I did that the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket and chose to launch into a mad tirade of abuse instead?
That is so unlike you, rabbibot!
Anyhoo, neither forces exerted by the body nor forces internal to the body can be included in any consideration of how said body creates force pairings, rabbibot...
So your de laval nozzle is irrelevant, as any forces therein would be internal.
So, please make a free body diagram of a rocket that includes neither the exhaust nor the combustion chamber/nozzle, so we can finally see where the force pairings are created.No free body diagram is necessary! if you want one, go scribble one out yourself.
You know, do something an engineer might?Read about supersonic flow again and again till you understand it!
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif)On this slide, we show a schematic of a rocket engine. In a rocket engine, stored fuel and stored oxidizer are ignited in a combustion chamber. The combustion produces great amounts of exhaust gas at high temperature and pressure. The hot exhaust is passed through a nozzle which accelerates the flow. Thrust is produced according to Newton's third law of motion.
The amount of thrust produced by the rocket depends on the mass flow rate through the engine, the exit velocity of the exhaust, and the pressure at the nozzle exit. All of these variables depend on the design of the nozzle. The smallest cross-sectional area of the nozzle is called the throat of the nozzle. The hot exhaust flow is choked at the throat, which means that the Mach number is equal to 1.0 in the throat and the mass flow rate m dot is determined by the throat area. The area ratio from the throat to the exit Ae sets the exit velocity Ve
and the exit pressure pe. You can explore the design and operation of a rocket nozzle with our interactive thrust simulator (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/ienzl.html) program which runs on your browser.
The exit pressure is only equal to free stream pressure at some design condition. We must, therefore, use the longer version of the generalized thrust equation to describethe thrust of the system. If the free stream pressure is given by p0, the thrust F equation becomes:F = m dot * Ve + (pe - p0) * Ae
Notice that there is no free stream mass times free stream velocity term in the thrust equation because no external air is brought on board. Since the oxidizer is carried on board the rocket, rockets can generate thrust in a vacuum where there is no other source of oxygen. That's why a rocket will work in space, where there is no surrounding air, and a gas turbine or propeller will not work. Turbine engines and propellers rely on the atmosphere to provide air as the working fluid for propulsion and oxygen in the air as oxidizer for combustion.
The thrust equation shown above works for both liquid rocket and solid rocket. engines. There is also an efficiency parameter called the specific impulse (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/specimp.html) which works for both types of rockets and greatly simplifies the performance analysis for rockets.
From: NASA Rocket Thrust Equation. (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/rockth.html)
Cut out all your mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience and just left the negativity...You mean cut out all the rational arguments showing you to be wrong.
Cut out all your mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience and just left the negativity...You mean cut out all the rational arguments showing you to be wrong.
Let's now take a closer look at the equation provided by Nasa:No it does not! The first term is m dot and it the mass flow rate of exhaust gases.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rockth.html
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif
The first term says Force = Mass x Velocity
Incorrect!
whereas NASA web sites say that
Force = Mass x Acceleration (Newton’s 2nd law of motion):
https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/journey_newtona2.htm
"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something.
Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space.That is again is totally baseless. There is absolutely nothing in either Newton's 3rd law or Conservation of Momentum to suggest that.
It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.And the high momentum of this gas has to be matched by the same magnitude momentum change in the rocket.
The second term (Pressure Difference between inside the rocket and the vacuum of space) x Nozzle Area violates the “free expansion” effect, part of the first law of thermodynamics by which pressurized gas moves into a vacuum without any work being done. It does not matter how highly pressured the gas is inside the rocket nor how fast it comes out. Because it is going into a vacuum the gas makes the trip “for free” and does not do any work, does not expend any energy and does not create any force or thrust.No, you need to ask just what the system that has no work done on it.
Joule-Thomson Expansion - Free Expansion of a Gas
Imagine a gas confined within an insulated container as shown in fig 1. The gas is initially confined to a volume V1 at pressure P1 and temperature T1. The gas then is allowed to expand into another insulated chamber with volume V2 that is initially evacuated. What happens? Let’s apply the first law.
We know from the first law for a closed system that the change in internal energy of the gas will be equal to the heat transferred plus the amount of work the gas does, or ∆U = Q + W. Since the gas expands freely (the volume change of the system is zero), we know that no work will be done, so W=0. Since both chambers are insulated, we also know that Q=0. Thus, the internal energy of the gas does not change during this process.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ziz3fq8l3zs8vvg/Expansion%20into%20box.png?dl=1) Fig 1 Expansion into box
from reference below
From: Joule Thomson (http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html)
Now, how does this relate to a rocket in space? For an ideal gas, free expansion does no work, but what does this mean? It is simply that the temperature of the gas is unchanged during the expansion. But, the upper diagram does not represent our rocket in free space. The right half of this should be replaced by "the infinite vacuum of space", more as in fig 2. Joule-Thomson expansion simply says that the temperature of an (ideal) gas does not change, but this in no way affects Newton's Laws of motion. The whole system is the rocket plus the "near-infinite vacuum of space". There is nothing in the Joule-Thomson free expansion to "countermand" the momentum of the gas heading right (in the lower diagram) imparting like momentum to the rocket heading left. As obviously expected there is no conflict between Newton's Laws and the Joule-Thomson free expansion. | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/t54sznbrf2agpqi/Expansion%20into%20space.png?dl=1) Fig 2 Expansion into space modofied from reference |
The NASA space rocket equation has two terms the first of which is incorrect and so is the second."No, neither term is incorrect. Not only that, but it is hardly "The NASA space rocket equation".
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/momntm.html
https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/f.html
Totally incorrect!
Nasa has never sent a single rocket into outer space: the experimental data simply does not exist to support the free stream pressure equation.
It is very easy to prove that each and every NASA space mission was faked.Really? NASA was not the first to launch space mission and there are now many other countries that have launched them.
"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.A rock has momentum after you throw it, which is not a force. Why are you conveniently forgetting the force being applied to the rock when you throw it? The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working. Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.
If gas has an effect on objects in a vacuum we would expect to find an example in nature.Okay? Does Force still equal Mass x Acceleration? If so, who cares how tall the plume is or what the diameter of the moon is? I don't see height or diameter in the only relevant equation. What is the mass of the water being expelled, what is the acceleration, and what is the mass of the moon? Once you have those numbers, plug them in and calculate just how much force you think should be applied to the moon and what the resulting movement should be. If after all that, you still think something is wrong, let us know and we can discuss that.
"Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM into space. The diameter of the moon itself is only 500 KM. Does this jet have any effect? No. The jet as tall as the moon is wide goes harmlessly off into space."
https://www.space.com/22181-saturn-moon-enceladus-water-geysers.html
https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/enceladus/
"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working. Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.
The force vector of the exhaust is away from the rocket, so the force vector of the rocket is away from the exhaust."NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working. Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.
The force vector of the exhaust is opposite to the force vector of a hand throwing an object.
So your analogy is the opposite of the truth.
kek
The rocket and exhaust are ONE object, creating ONE force vector, rearwards.
When this one force vector strikes the second object of the atmosphere, a second force vector is created in the opposite direction, thus propelling the rocket in that direction, i.e. forwards.
Newton's third law - f1=-f2, two objects, equal and opposite, action/reaction.
Simple enough...
You're not programmed to understand that though, so on we slog, forever...
The force vector of the exhaust is away from the rocket, so the force vector of the rocket is away from the exhaust."NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working. Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.
The force vector of the exhaust is opposite to the force vector of a hand throwing an object.
So your analogy is the opposite of the truth.
kek
The rocket and exhaust are ONE object, creating ONE force vector, rearwards.
When this one force vector strikes the second object of the atmosphere, a second force vector is created in the opposite direction, thus propelling the rocket in that direction, i.e. forwards.
Newton's third law - f1=-f2, two objects, equal and opposite, action/reaction.
Simple enough...
You're not programmed to understand that though, so on we slog, forever...
F1=-F1
So the issue here is that you are under the mistaken impression that a rocket and its exhaust, moving in 2 different directions, are somehow the exact same object? That would certainly complicate things if it were remotely accurate...The force vector of the exhaust is away from the rocket, so the force vector of the rocket is away from the exhaust."NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working. Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.
The force vector of the exhaust is opposite to the force vector of a hand throwing an object.
So your analogy is the opposite of the truth.
kek
The rocket and exhaust are ONE object, creating ONE force vector, rearwards.
When this one force vector strikes the second object of the atmosphere, a second force vector is created in the opposite direction, thus propelling the rocket in that direction, i.e. forwards.
Newton's third law - f1=-f2, two objects, equal and opposite, action/reaction.
Simple enough...
You're not programmed to understand that though, so on we slog, forever...
F1=-F1
Fixed that for you.
A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects.
The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards.
This rearwards force vector creates a force pairing with the mass of the atmosphere, thus propelling the rocket in the opposite direction, i.e. forwards.
This accords with Newton's third law i.e. f1=-f2.
Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:
It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.
If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
Lol round and round we go in the mad shillgorithm waltz...My visual evidence is that the rocket in the video is not a gas.A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects. Because both the rocket an exhaust are clearly both gasses
The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards. Wait no, the rocket would diffuse in all directions because it's a gas
This accords with Newton's third law i.e. everything is a gas
Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that the rocket is a gas
It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.
If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
Lol round and round we go in the mad shillgorithm waltz...So if a handheld sink sprayer was being held up by the water it is pushing out, I say it is the force of the water leaving the nozzle pushing it upward. You would believe that the water is pushing off the bottom of the sink and holding the sprayer up.A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects.
The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards.
This rearwards force vector creates a force pairing with the mass of the atmosphere, thus propelling the rocket in the opposite direction, i.e. forwards.
This accords with Newton's third law i.e. f1=-f2.
Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:
It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.
If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
A rocket is not a tap.But they are both being influenced by Newton's 3rd law, the relevant part of the problem. It's called an analogy. Look it up if you're not sure how it works.
And water is an incompressible fluid.Mostly incompressible, which should make the sprayer go even higher without any ability of the water to flex, so you're losing even more ground with that observation...
So much fail it would be hard for a human to bear...That is painfully true, just not the way you think.
A rocket is not a tap.It's called an analogy.
Water is an incompressible fluid.So water being incompressible makes it harder for it to transfer a force, lollolololololololol. You dumb.
Water is an incompressible fluid.So water being incompressible makes it harder for it to transfer a force, lollolololololololol. You dumb.
Lately, this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/AGV3xiF.png)
Has been presented quite a bit in support of RE.
Time to discuss this particular image and a couple questions follow:
RE-tards, what is the measured distance of the photographer from the subject matter at hand?
What is the measured distance between each tower in the image?
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-today-s-scientists-have-substituted-mathematics-for-experiments-and-they-wander-off-through-nikola-tesla-183687.jpg)Good job providing a quote which shows the problem with yourself.
Nasa has never sent a single rocket into outer space: the experimental data simply does not exist to support the free stream pressure equation.
It is very easy to prove that each and every NASA space mission was faked.Yet you have been completely unable to do so.
it shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that rockets cannot work in full vacuum:
The ring shaped exhaust will use only ETHER WAVES to propel the rocket: without the ether, no thrust is possible.No. The exhaust is leaving the rocket. This requires a force to push it out the back of the rocket, even in a vacuum. This needs to be balanced by an equal and opposite force which is pushing the rocket forwards.
The Nasa equation has never been tested in real life experiments in the assumed outer space vacuum: each and every space mission was faked.No, all the evidence indicates it is real, and you are substituting math and nonsense in the place of experiment.
Let's now take a closer look at the equation provided by Nasa:No it doesn't.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rockth.html
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif
The first term says Force = Mass x Velocity whereas NASA web sites say that
Force = Mass x Acceleration (Newton’s 2nd law of motion):
The second term (Pressure Difference between inside the rocket and the vacuum of space) x Nozzle Area violates the “free expansion” effect, part of the first law of thermodynamics by which pressurized gas moves into a vacuum without any work being done.No it doesn't.
The NASA space rocket equation has two terms the first of which is incorrect and so is the second."No, as per usual, both terms are correct and you have no idea what you are talking about.
It is being described as the mass flow rate, but the terms in the m dot expression are: mass and velocity.Stop lying.
A clear contradiction.Yes, by you.
As for Nasa having faked all of its space missions, it is very simply to prove this: the Allais effect, the DePalma spinning ball experiment, the Biefeld-Brown effect show that there is no such thing as the law of universal gravitation, supposedly used by Nasa to compute the trajectories.So you have nothing showing that NASA faked anything. Got it.
Please explain how the Nasa space missions took place without using the law of universal gravitation.Who cares how they took place? You provided quote complaining about using math instead of experiment.
Which is not what you did at all.I meant cutting out all the mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience that violates both Newton's laws of motion and the laws of Thermodynamics, Negatron:Cut out all your mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience and just left the negativity...You mean cut out all the rational arguments showing you to be wrong.
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
I do find it amusing that you and so many other flat earthers treat Nikola Tesla as some sort of Flat Earth Folk Hero but Tesla certainly did not believe the earth to be either flat or stationary!(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-today-s-scientists-have-substituted-mathematics-for-experiments-and-they-wander-off-through-nikola-tesla-183687.jpg)
Read:
HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1915-02-07.htm) also in
— How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies — ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915 (https://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art10.html) in which he states:Quote from: Nicola TeslaSure, Nikola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount
Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.
The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.
INVENTIONS OF TESLA
Mother Earth Put to Work.
“By this invention every live part of Mother Earth's body would be brought into action. Energy will be collected all over the globe in amounts small or large, as it may exist, ranging from a fraction of one to a few horse power or more. Every water fall can be utilized, every coal field made to produce energy to be transmitted to vast distances, and every place on earth can have power at small cost. One of the minor uses might be the illumination of isolated homes. We could light houses all over the country by means of vacuum tubes operated by high frequency currents. We could keep the clocks of the United States going and give everyone exact time; we could turn factories, machine shops and mills, small or large, anywhere, and I believe could also navigate the air."
Transmission of Intelligence.
One of the most important features of this invention,” said Mr. Tesla, “will be the transmission of intelligence. It will convert the entire earth into a huge brain, capable of responding in every one of its parts. By the employment of a number of plants, each of which can transmit signals to all parts of the world, the news of the globe will be flashed to all points. A cheap and simple receiving device, which might be carried in one's pocket, can be set up anywhere on sea or land, and it will record the world's news as it occurs, or take such special messages as are intended for it.
From: tesla universe INVENTIONS OF TESLA (https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/inventions-tesla)
A rocket and its exhaust do not move as a single entity.
More gish gallop Pseudoscience and NO U from blatant AI algorithm [Papa Legba]You keep mistyping names for some reason.
It says the exhaust requires a force to push it out the back of the rocket.Yes, because it does.
The combusting gas of the exhaust is the force.But as per Newton's third law, you can't have a force in isolation.
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.I don't think you understand pressure.
No pushing required.
It is a physics illiterate.You certainly are.
The mad AI algorithm lies blatantly.Yes, you do lie blatantly don't you.
Look:Yes, look.
None other than your idol, I. Newton made it very clear that he believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES at work: terrestrial gravity and planetary/stellar gravity. One is a force of pressure, the other one a force of rotation.Do you actually know anything about thrust? Why would you look at one atom or electron? It's a combination of all of them. Please note this before you claim air cannot be responsible.
As such, you need some kind of barrier/shield between the two: that is the dome.
Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:
Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':
....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:
A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:
1. Terrestrial gravity
2. Planetary/stellar gravity
Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.
Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
Ionic
Ion wind/excess ions/heavy ions cannot be responsible for the Biefeld-Brown effect:
(https://s1.postimg.org/4p74pzl0xb/bb1.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/1no02xq6zz/bb2.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/1yatw3n7kv/bb3.jpg)
The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.
VIDEO: BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, balancing a condenser on a beam balance
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/elghatv1.htm (includes three videos of the experiment)
(http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/elghatab.jpg)
...
Here is Newton proving you wrong:
...
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.Here is Newton proving you wrong:
...
Newtonian gravity is no longer the accepted theory for gravitation. You need to advance a few years.
Then, you are going to have to explain the fact that the output energy for the Tesla bifilar coil is much greater than the input energy:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2018999#msg2018999
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.Here is Newton proving you wrong:
...
Newtonian gravity is no longer the accepted theory for gravitation. You need to advance a few years.
The gravitational potential energy equation for rockets is based totally on Newtonian gravity.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026412#msg2026412
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis. A pressure on an object will add a force to the object. This force will depend on the objects area. The acceleration of the object will depend on this force and the mass of the object.. This is not see by objects in freefall. Objects in freefall fall at the same rate regardless of mass or shape.
Here is Newton proving you wrong:Newton can't prove anybody wrong. No theory is dependent on the words of any one person. Newton was also an alchemist.
But for some reason you disagree with Tesla - was Nikola Tesla wrong about the shape and motions of the earth?NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount
Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.
The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis. A pressure on an object will add a force to the object. This force will depend on the objects area. The acceleration of the object will depend on this force and the mass of the object.. This is not see by objects in freefall. Objects in freefall fall at the same rate regardless of mass or shape.You really need to learn how to use the "Quote facility" so that you ;D victim ;D is identified.
Your assertion has been debunked right here:Rubbish, of course "Objects in freefall fall at the same rate regardless of mass or shape".
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026418#msg2026418
Which means you are trolling the upper forums as usual.Incorrect, that would be your presenting arguments totally contrary to well accepted physical laws.
What is interesting is that Einstein's GR can be solved using the Schwarzschild metric[1] for the case of a small object (say a rocket, a satellite, an aircraft, a car, you, I or a ball) travelling at a velocity much less than "c" near the surface of a massive object (say the earth).It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.Here is Newton proving you wrong:
...
Newtonian gravity is no longer the accepted theory for gravitation. You need to advance a few years.
The gravitational potential energy equation for rockets is based totally on Newtonian gravity.That's no problem! For all practical purposes GR and Newtonian Gravitation end up with the same result.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026412#msg2026412
Lol check out the rab claiming satellites sit on tables then calling himself an idiot for saying so:If you think that post says anything about "claiming satellites sit on tables" you reading comprehension score is about -5 out of 10.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2024656#msg2024656
The rab doesn't think gravity forces things downwards:Gravity does not force anything down! Look at this again.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2017797#msg2017797
| (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1d1.gif) Gravity not forcing Physics Book down. | (http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/_Media/iss_discovery_110226_med.jpeg) Gravity not forcing Satellite in orbit down! |
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
Lol check out the rab claiming satellites sit on tables then calling himself an idiot for saying so:If you think that post says anything about "claiming satellites sit on tables" you reading comprehension score is about -5 out of 10.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2024656#msg2024656
Just check out that post to see the Ignorant Deceptive Voodoo Priest again trying to deceive everybody, as it always does.
But what can we expect? Papa Legba is well known for being a trickster and deceiver!
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
Wtf?
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.
Incorrect as usual!The posts prove that you lie and contradict yourself about the most obvious and provable effects of gravitation.Lol check out the rab claiming satellites sit on tables then calling himself an idiot for saying so:If you think that post says anything about "claiming satellites sit on tables" you reading comprehension score is about -5 out of 10.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2024656#msg2024656
Just check out that post to see the Ignorant Deceptive Voodoo Priest again trying to deceive everybody, as it always does.
But what can we expect? Papa Legba is well known for being a trickster and deceiver!
Yet here you are, pontificating about its causes...
How was I supposed to know that the Idiotic Paranoic Delusional Voodoo Priest was writing a post?You are a timewasting AI algorithm.
And, as usual, you posted another reply whilst I was writing this one.
Incorrect as usual!You did this to waste yet more of my time.
You also contradicted yourself again in it.
Case proven.Incorrect as usual!
Oh, and another reply from empirical whilst I was writing this...I have no idea whether you are writing posts or practising your usual Voodoo Witchcraft. Though it's rather obvious now that you really are an Psychotic Paranoic Delusional Voodoo Priest.
Funny how you know I am online and writing replies, is it not?Something a bot would be perfect for.
Case proven again.
Incorrect as usual!The posts prove that you lie and contradict yourself about the most obvious and provable effects of gravitation.Lol check out the rab claiming satellites sit on tables then calling himself an idiot for saying so:If you think that post says anything about "claiming satellites sit on tables" you reading comprehension score is about -5 out of 10.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2024656#msg2024656
Just check out that post to see the Ignorant Deceptive Voodoo Priest again trying to deceive everybody, as it always does.
But what can we expect? Papa Legba is well known for being a trickster and deceiver!
Yet here you are, pontificating about its causes...Quote from: Papa LegbaHow was I supposed to know that the Idiotic Paranoic Delusional Voodoo Priest was writing a post?You are a timewasting AI algorithm.
And, as usual, you posted another reply whilst I was writing this one.Quote from: Papa LegbaIncorrect as usual!You did this to waste yet more of my time.
You also contradicted yourself again in it.Quote from: Papa LegbaCase proven.Incorrect as usual!Quote from: Papa LegbaOh, and another reply from empirical whilst I was writing this...I have no idea whether you are writing posts or practising your usual Voodoo Witchcraft. Though it's rather obvious now that you really are an Psychotic Paranoic Delusional Voodoo Priest.
Funny how you know I am online and writing replies, is it not?Something a bot would be perfect for.
Case proven again.
A Psychiatrist would probably decide that his professional diagnosis was that you were "Stark Starin' Bonkers".
Should we pass the hat around to pay for some professional help to assist your recovery from this Paranoic Delusional Psychosis you now seem to be suffering from?
Just trying to help!
The rocket and satellite equations of motion are much more complex than the thrust formula.How about you deal with your earlier failures before moving on.
The usual time wasting waffle and personal abuse from an obvious AI algorithm that contradicts itself in the space of one post and does not know gravity forces things down.Yes, that does seem to be all you are capable of doing.
This is all it is programmed to do.
Now how about you address my posts explaining why you are wrong
<< Off-topic ramblings of Puppet Legba deleted >>Now that we know you only do your flat-earth puppeteers' bidding, you've lost all your :P credibility ::), Mr Puppet Legba
Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.
Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.
I didn't realise that the lettuce and cucumber we so closely related, one would almost think they were con-joined twins, or just cons?Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.
The vegetables have spoken.
I didn't realise that the lettuce and cucumber we so closely related, one would almost think they were con-joined twins, or just cons?Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.
The vegetables have spoken.
<< Off-topic ramblings of Puppet Legba deleted >>Now that we know you only do your flat-earth puppeteers' bidding, you've lost all your :P credibility ::), Mr Puppet Legba(http://cliparts101.com/files/436/D70D91B7EF610CC201493CE120349FB9/Puppeteer_1.png)
Poor Pathetic Papa controlled by FE strings.
PS You never had any ::P credibility ::), so I guess it's no loss to Mr Puppet Legba. You're a joke Mr Legless Legba.
And don't accuse me of ad hominem attacks or personal abuse, it's about all you do except for a little Voodoo fyzix.
How about you stop wasting my time asking me to repeat things I already did?I'm not.
How about you stop wasting my time asking me to repeat things I already did?I'm not.
You are.No, I'm not.
The Idiot Voodoo Puppet on a String could save everybody's time by just not replying.I'm not.You are.
A rocket and its exhaust do not move as a single entity.
The mad AI algorithm lies blatantly.
The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself and moves with the rocket at all times.
The simplest of observations proves this.
Look:
No further communication is possible with the mad lying AI algorithm.
Incorrect.No. That is where you avoided it yet again and provided more evidence that you are wrong.
Here is where I answered your mad AI question:
Incorrect.No. That is where you avoided it yet again and provided more evidence that you are wrong.
Here is where I answered your mad AI question:
The rockets are burning fuel, producing exhaust, yet the same amount "stays" with the rocket, indicating the rocket is continually ejecting that exhaust.
The jackblack AI algorithm admits I am correct that the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket and moves with it at all times, whilst somehow insisting I am also wrong at the same time.The only one you are showing to be a mental lying machine is yourself.
It is a mental lying machine: proven fact.
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
Wtf?
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.
Wtf?
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
The center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis. A pressure on an object will add a force to the object. This force will depend on the objects area. The acceleration of the object will depend on this force and the mass of the object.. This is not see by objects in freefall. Objects in freefall fall at the same rate regardless of mass or shape.Actually no. You called your version gravity a pressure, not just a force but a pressure.
Your assertion has been debunked right here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026418#msg2026418
Which means you are trolling the upper forums as usual.Once again, people aren't trolling because they disagree with you.
“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.Yes, in RE science this is true. In RE science aether plays no part in gravity and it's now understood that gravity is not a force.
Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.See above
Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.Forcing out ether like that will not lead to one single down direction. No accepted theory uses this.
The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”
The jackblack AI algorithm admits I am correct that the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket and moves with it at all times, whilst somehow insisting I am also wrong at the same time.I have never admitted the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket, nor that it moves with the rocket.
It is a mental lying machine: proven fact.
The rockets are burning fuel, producing exhaust, yet the same amount "stays" with the rocket, indicating the rocket is continually ejecting that exhaust.
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
Wtf?
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.
Wtf?
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.htmlQuoteThe center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492
If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?
An object remains stationary unless acted on by a force? Ever heard of that law?If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
Wtf?
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.
Wtf?
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.htmlQuoteThe center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492
If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?
Wtf?
An object remains stationary unless acted on by a force? Ever heard of that law?If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
Wtf?
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.
Wtf?
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.htmlQuoteThe center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492
If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?
Wtf?
If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?QuoteAn object remains stationary unless acted on by a force? Ever heard of that law?
I think you are referring to Newtons first lawQuoteNewton's first law: An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force
And papa your reference was about the second law of thermodynamics which is a complete and different topic
And papa your reference was about the second law of thermodynamics which is a complete and different topic
To piggy back on on sokarul's video on the reaction mass
If you set yourself up on a skateboard and threw
a small 10kg mass; such as a lead ball
--- vs ---
a light 1kg mass with a large surface area; such as a pillow
which one would push you further back?
If the a small heavy object pushes you further back further, it shows that the mass itself is throwing you back
if the object with a large surface area pushes you back further, it shows that reaction against air is throwing you back
Just felt like adding this to the mix of arguements
If your still think you can change Papa's view point then you have officially been trolled and should declare yourself an idiot, get up, leave your chair, go have a drink at the closest pub, and rethink your life. . .
Maybe meet a girl or something while your at it
A gas is not a solid.
No I didn't.I have never admitted the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket, nor that it moves with the rocket.Yes you did.
Here it is again:The rockets are burning fuel, producing exhaust, yet the same amount "stays" with the rocket, indicating the rocket is continually ejecting that exhaust.
And if the exhaust is not producing a force, then do please tell us what is?And there you go changing your question/claim.
Gas does not have mass
Gas does not have massWtf?
http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/GasDensity.html
There you go blatantly misrepresenting people yet again.Gas does not have massWtf?
http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/GasDensity.html
The topic is the curvature that is shown in Soundly's powerline videos and photos:<< Irrelevant and off-topic >>
The topic is...
I've got a cheap project for you that can answer your questions. Wal-Mart's online store sells a little rocket that can reach over 1000 feet. It has an ejectable camera that will parachute down the rocket will just fall and need to be replaced. It runs about 120 bucks and through the images you get from the camera if you can find it again will clearly show the curve of the earth. This method doesn't prove the earth is a speher but will clearly show you the earth is not flat. Now unless you think that this camera somehow gets tampered with magically during flight or somehow developed a Wi-Fi transponder to download a faked video and pics of your area then it is rather hard to say the earth is flat after you see what you see. Good luck and have fun, those rockets are rather wild.Sorry, 1000 feet does not cut the mustard.
Incorrect.No, I am quite correct.
Gas has mass.
Are you totally ignorant of all the "Laws of Motion"?If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Wtf?
Wtf?
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.
Wtf?
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
The gas in these illustrations would have very little mass, but the Saturn V exhaust flow rate averaged over 12,800 kg/s at a velocity of about 2400 m/s.QuoteJoule-Thomson Expansion - Free Expansion of a Gas
Imagine a gas confined within an insulated container as shown in fig 1. The gas is initially confined to a volume V1 at pressure P1 and temperature T1. The gas then is allowed to expand into another insulated chamber with volume V2 that is initially evacuated. What happens? Let’s apply the first law.
We know from the first law for a closed system that the change in internal energy of the gas will be equal to the heat transferred plus the amount of work the gas does, or ∆U = Q + W. Since the gas expands freely (the volume change of the system is zero), we know that no work will be done, so W=0. Since both chambers are insulated, we also know that Q=0. Thus, the internal energy of the gas does not change during this process.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ziz3fq8l3zs8vvg/Expansion%20into%20box.png?dl=1) Fig 1 Expansion into box
from reference below
From: Joule Thomson (http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html)
Now, how does this relate to a rocket in space?
For an ideal gas, free expansion does no work, but what does this mean? It is simply that the temperature of the gas is unchanged during the expansion. But, the upper diagram does not represent our rocket in free space. The right half of this should be replaced by "the infinite vacuum of space", more as in fig 2.
Joule-Thomson expansion simply says that the temperature of an (ideal) gas does not change, but this in no way affects Newton's Laws of motion. The whole system is the rocket plus the "near-infinite vacuum of space".
There is nothing in the Joule-Thomson free expansion to "countermand" the momentum of the gas heading right (in the lower diagram) imparting like momentum to the rocket heading left.
As obviously expected there is no conflict between Newton's Laws and the Joule-Thomson free expansion.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/t54sznbrf2agpqi/Expansion%20into%20space.png?dl=1) Fig 2 Expansion into space
modified from reference
Gas does not have mass??? You should write a book about that
Gas does not have mass
Wtf?
http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/GasDensity.html
If you set yourself up on a skateboard and threw
a small 10kg mass; such as a lead ball
--- vs ---
a light 1kg mass with a large surface area; such as a pillow
which one would push you further back?
Incorrect.No, I am quite correct.
Gas has mass.
Do you think a gas has mass or not?Yes. I know gas has mass.
Maybe you shouldn't lie about what people say in the first place, then you wouldn't get yourselves in these pickles...Good advice, you should follow it.
As I have indicated before, with the conservation of momentum equation I used
The equation you admitted you made up and began from false premises anyway?No, the equation that was based upon the conservation of momentum, which was not false in any way.
The equation you admitted you made up and began from false premises anyway?No.
Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".No, the equation that was based upon the conservation of momentum, which was not false in any way.Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".No.Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
But, your only sentence started with "Not", so Not starting all your sentences with the word 'Not' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Not much less, though!
Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".No, the equation that was based upon the conservation of momentum, which was not false in any way.Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
But, your only sentence started with "Not", so Not starting all your sentences with the word 'Not' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Not much less, though!
Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Mad lying AI algorithm discovers sophism whilst desperately trying to change the subject from its string of mad lies...
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sophism
Nobody surprised.
stop changing the subject to avoid answering the question pussy.Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".No, the equation that was based upon the conservation of momentum, which was not false in any way.Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
But, your only sentence started with "Not", so Not starting all your sentences with the word 'Not' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Not much less, though!
Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Mad lying AI algorithm discovers sophism whilst desperately trying to change the subject from its string of mad lies...
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sophism
Nobody surprised.
You mean, while I vainly tried to return the debate to the OP that YOU had derailed it from with, Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image... « Reply #212 on: February 10, 2018, 07:51:17 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2022557#msg2022557)Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".No.Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
But, your only sentence started with "Not", so Not starting all your sentences with the word 'Not' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Not much less, though!
Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Mad lying AI algorithm discovers sophism whilst desperately trying to change the subject from its string of mad lies...
So, let's delete the rest of your trash and get back to the OP!Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".No.Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
But, your only sentence started with "Not", so Not starting all your sentences with the word 'Not' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Not much less, though!
Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Mad lying AI algorithm discovers sophism whilst desperately trying to change the subject from its string of mad lies...
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.Meanwhile continually stripping out large sections of a post which show you to be completley wrong would make you look like a pathetic troll that needs to repeatedly lie.
lying, madness, time wasting, computerised ranting...Those last few describe you quite well.
Or do you really think sane people cannot recognise this?
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.Meanwhile continually stripping out large sections of a post which show you to be completley wrong would make you look like a pathetic troll that needs to repeatedly lie.
In that post there were 3 sentences. One started with no.
In the prior post of mine there were 7 sentences, none of which started with no.lying, madness, time wasting, computerised ranting...Those last few describe you quite well.
Or do you really think sane people cannot recognise this?
Now quit with the BS and answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.Meanwhile continually stripping out large sections of a post which show you to be completley wrong would make you look like a pathetic troll that needs to repeatedly lie.
In that post there were 3 sentences. One started with no.
In the prior post of mine there were 7 sentences, none of which started with no.lying, madness, time wasting, computerised ranting...Those last few describe you quite well.
Or do you really think sane people cannot recognise this?
Now quit with the BS and answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Don't care.
You protect paedos:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932
You are scum.
Translation: He is a pussified troll too cowardly to address the topic of this thread.Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.Meanwhile continually stripping out large sections of a post which show you to be completley wrong would make you look like a pathetic troll that needs to repeatedly lie.
In that post there were 3 sentences. One started with no.
In the prior post of mine there were 7 sentences, none of which started with no.lying, madness, time wasting, computerised ranting...Those last few describe you quite well.
Or do you really think sane people cannot recognise this?
Now quit with the BS and answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Don't care.
You protect paedos:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932
You are scum.
Don't care.No I don't. You just lie about people. You are the scum here.
You protect paedos:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932
You are scum.
The why...atmospheric arcing is just the beginning but already blows your claim out of the water and fyi, the arcing angle that day is quite severe and your ball would end up being less than a few hundred meters if you continued its path in a full circle.Care to elaborate on this magical atmospheric arcing?
Why is this powerline curved moron?