The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: DataOverFlow2022 on May 08, 2025, 11:54:58 AM
-
being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill. This would create extraordinary problems with wind. It would present extraordinary problems with general travel.
WTF ? ? ? ?
One
I thought flat earthers claim they understand the RE?
Equipotential: a Property of the Surface of Water
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/equipotential.jpg)
The surface of the sea is a level surface.
By the way. The surveying definition of level surface.
Level Surface : A Curved surface that at every point is perpendicular to the local plumb line. The plumb linemeans the direction in which the gravity acts. Level Surfaces are approximately spheroidal in the shape. The common example of a level surface is a body of the still water.
(https://surveyingwithsamo.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Basic-terms.jpg)
https://surveyingwithsamo.wordpress.com/
Sea level is Equipotential as it curves around the globe, and doesn’t require a boat to sail up or down hill. It just sails on a level surface in the context of surveying, requiring no changes in the terms of gravity in potential energy vs kinetic energy.
Two
When I point out that when a car goes up hill it needs to burn more gas / increases RPM’s / gears down to expend more energy to fight gravity (increase PE in terms of gravity), I get told something along these lines.
Because it doesn't matter.
You'll get to the top of the hill. The drag you perceive from the hill didn't keep you from climbing the first 3/4 of the hill, nor the last 1/4 of it.
That you're delusional is cute. Really it is.
But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.
If gravity were a thing, a big heavy truck shouldn't get up a hill. I've been on mountain driving. I'm afraid trucks can in fact get up hills.
From the thread..
Modern cars absolutely confirm gravity
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91142.30
So? Why would a flat earther bring up a boat would have to “sail up hill” which is invoking gravity in ignorance by flat earthers. When the quiet clearly posted “But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.”
Flat earth is stupid.
With stupid arguments built on misunderstanding the heliocentric model, or just right out lying about the heliocentric model.
-
I guess flat earthers can’t handle they contradict themselves?
-
Flat earthers can't handle the simple fact that down is towards the center of the round earth. I have no idea why that should be so hard to understand.
-
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/equipotential.jpg)
Jesus Christ, your cognitive dissonance is so far up your ass that your own picture has checked as correct water doming up, which to and sensible person would mean that yes, this means boats do need to travel up and down a hill of water. Instead, you take a look at that picture and are like, "How can Bulma say that? I just don't see it!"
Really? Should I spell it out for you? Okay.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1123593550983090283/1370228192882851840/equipotential.jpg?ex=681ebbf2&is=681d6a72&hm=d2a5a2783a452a02302ae317c9ec56e2086c81e256855c60c56bf341fc5cc9e1&)
How is your brain so fucked up that you think it would be the lowest potential for water to mound up rather than laying flat? Even if you could somehow assert the spherical shape of Earth were real, you have literal mound of water that runs upward, and you are convinced that this requires less energy than simply lying flat. According to your own picture, according to your own theory of gravity, water lays flat as a matter of falling to center. It is not pushed up in the air. Even worse, the larger the body of water, the higher the arch would have to be to render a sphere.
What is wrong with your brain?!?
I've put up with alot of your stuff over the years, but when you literally look at a picture of a banana and say that it's an apple, it's time to slap some sense into you, because you are hardcore under a delusion.
-
Jesus Christ, your cognitive dissonance is so far up your ass that your own picture has checked as correct water doming up, which to and sensible person would mean that yes, this means boats do need to travel up and down a hill of water. Instead, you take a look at that picture and are like, "How can Bulma say that? I just don't see it!"
I repeat my question. How can you not understand that the concept of down on a round earth points towards the center of the earth? Seriously, what is so incredulous about that? RE says that the core of the earth is very dense, so less dense objects should naturally fall towards the center, don't you think?
What is wrong with your brain?!?
That's what I keep wondering about FE'ers.
-
which to and sensible person would mean that yes, this means boats do need to travel up and down a hill of water.
No. A boat at sea stays at sea level with the definition of level surface which is “ A Curved surface that at every point is perpendicular to the local plumb line. The plumb linemeans the direction in which the gravity acts. Level Surfaces are approximately spheroidal in the shape. The common example of a level surface is a body of the still water.”
Bulma if you think “ But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.” Then why would going “help hill in a boat” be a problem? So, Bulma? You now believe in gravity. That force a car fights when going from a level surface going up a steep hill where the car has to exert more force by burning more fuel with RPMs increasing and fuel mileage going down to maintain the same speed while going up hill. A simple car going up hill demonstrates gravity is a downward force. The force that keeps you from pushing a car up hill by your own strength.
water lays flat as a matter of falling to center.
But water in the ocean isn’t really “flat”, is it. Between high tides and low tides. Tides coming in and tides going out. With tidal bores with enough force to make rivers run backwards.
This is you.
being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill. This would create extraordinary problems with wind. It would present extraordinary problems with general travel.
Why would it present a problem Bulma if you don’t think there is no gravity? Don’t get angry at me because you subconsciously have to invoke gravity. And FE fails to predict reality. Where Bulma, you contradict yourself.
Because it doesn't matter.
You'll get to the top of the hill. The drag you perceive from the hill didn't keep you from climbing the first 3/4 of the hill, nor the last 1/4 of it.
That you're delusional is cute. Really it is.
But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.
If gravity were a thing, a big heavy truck shouldn't get up a hill. I've been on mountain driving. I'm afraid trucks can in fact get up hills.
Which is it Bulma? There is a downward force called gravity that prevents a sailboat from sailing up hill? Or there is no gravity and so there shouldn’t be a problem with a sailboat sailing up hill in your delusion?
-
Jesus Christ,
That you have to ignore the measurable dip of the horizon proven by your own picture.
(https://i.imgur.com/zvVPv0r.jpg)
If there is no measurable dip of the horizon from the surface of Lake Michigan curving with the earth? From New Buffalo line of sight distance over the water about 40 miles. Why are only the tops of the tallest buildings visible. Where shorter buildings and structures like the Chicago sea wall are not visible. Why are the trees along the Chicago shoreline not visible?
-
I repeat my question. How can you not understand that the concept of down on a round earth points towards the center of the earth? Seriously, what is so incredulous about that? RE says that the core of the earth is very dense, so less dense objects should naturally fall towards the center, don't you think?
More cognitive dissonance. Let's look at the picture again. This time I'll draw arrows toward the center of the Earth created by your imaginary gravity. Maybe this will help you figure it out.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1370246090971943013/gravity.jpg?ex=681ecc9e&is=681d7b1e&hm=a0497d519a1a3a87696dfdc21b3587fe634d7b99b09885af845322daff300c3e&)
All of the water goes toward the center of the Earth, right? So all the water should fall down.
But the water in the center of the lake pushes away from Earth's center in the second frame, against gravity and against the center. Now, you could claim that there's the equivalent of a suspension bridge with water pushing horizontally together, but looking at the water, there is actually no proof of this. You can pour water into a bathtub and nothing like this happens (when water rises, as in a canal lock being closed, it rises because water is being trapped so it can't flow out, so a bathtub would be the ideal place to check whether water mounds... and it doesn't).
Instead, what we get is optical illusions. I went to Lake Occochobee (spelling?) in Florida, and I could not see the other side of the lake. This is not due to a mound, the lake is simply to big to see from one end to another.
Quit lying to yourself, and see some damned reason! This even fails under your own theory.
-
More cognitive dissonance.
Me. You can’t come to terms with the dip of the horizon is a real and measurable thing. Especially when it’s proven from a picture you provided.
That you have to ignore the measurable dip of the horizon proven by your own picture.
(https://i.imgur.com/zvVPv0r.jpg)
If there is no measurable dip of the horizon from the surface of Lake Michigan curving with the earth? From New Buffalo line of sight distance over the water about 40 miles. Why are only the tops of the tallest buildings visible. Where shorter buildings and structures like the Chicago sea wall are not visible. Why are the trees along the Chicago shoreline not visible.
Where you have to ignore that water really isn’t level in the sea between high tide, low tide, tides coming in, tides going out, tidal bores with the power to make rivers run backwards. Where you can’t explain these tide phenomena without contradicting yourself Bulma.
-
I went to Lake Occochobee (spelling?) in Florida, and I could not see the other side of the lake.
This is what your buddy AI comes up with for the widest point
(https://i.imgur.com/00TtZ13.jpeg)
Bulma, it wouldn’t be the first time you blatantly lied.
-
I went to Lake Occochobee (spelling?) in Florida, and I could not see the other side of the lake.
This is what your buddy AI comes up with for the widest point
(https://i.imgur.com/00TtZ13.jpeg)
Bulma, it wouldn’t be the first time you blatantly lied.
Yes? And?
Can you see the other side of that lake in that picture?
I couldn't in real life. I was facing north from the south end. There are no major cities on the other side, no high mountains either. Chicago is a major city with tall buildings. You can expect that to be seen across a bay, and depending of atmospheric conditions, it might appear anything from faintly in the distance to incredibly clearly.
(https://www.boatsetter.com/boating-resources/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/lake-okeechobee-boating-guide.jpg)
You cannot even see the other side of Okeechobee from aerial view. It's incredibly flat, so vanishing point means the land on the other side pretty much disappears. On the south side, there are dikes, but visibility is really that awful.
(http://coastalanglermag.com/okeechobee/lake-okeechobee-boat-ramps/)
I'm telling you my own experience, and you called me a liar. Maybe you could apologize?
-
Can you see the other side of that lake in that picture?
No. Because of the dip of the horizon from earths curvature.
Again..
That you have to ignore the measurable dip of the horizon proven by your own picture.
(https://i.imgur.com/zvVPv0r.jpg)
If there is no measurable dip of the horizon from the surface of Lake Michigan curving with the earth? From New Buffalo line of sight distance over the water about 40 miles. Why are only the tops of the tallest buildings visible. Where shorter buildings and structures like the Chicago sea wall are not visible. Why are the trees along the Chicago shoreline not visible.
Where you have to ignore that water really isn’t level in the sea between high tide, low tide, tides coming in, tides going out, tidal bores with the power to make rivers run backwards. Where you can’t explain these tide phenomena without contradicting yourself Bulma.
-
No. Because of the dip of the horizon from earths curvature.
No. Because short objects vanish into the horizon as part of vanishing point perspective.
On the opposite side of Okeechobee, everything is at or near sea level. Water blends into more water.
On the opposite side of the other is Chicago where buildings reach up as high as 1450 ft or so.
"Do you understand that buildings don't look this way?"
So your rationale is that because mist obscures parts of buildings, they don't exist and this picture is not real?
You accuse me of lying when I tell my actual experiences, while you lie up and down.
Obviously, there are buildings on the other side of that lake. And you go out of your way to find pictures that you say are fake or are just bad pictures.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qmxKnUIS0WM/hqdefault.jpg)
Michigan City, IN
(https://i.imgur.com/8O84Rff.jpeg)
St Joseph, MI
Here's the thing. Fata Morgana (the phenomenon of upside down buildings and other weird shit) is not the same thing as saying something is fake. The atmosphere is acting like a trick mirror. As I've told you. The science types explain it this way.
In short, it is a mirage. It is actually pretty complex stuff. Differences in the heat and humidity lead to layers of air with different density. As light passes through different densities of air it refracts, so the air acts like a giant lens. Depending on the way air is layered it can distort or invert the image.
They go on to say that it cannot possibly be seen from Michigan (even though it is a line of sight) because there is too much curvature. Even though in fact this picture just looks short rather than distorted.
Let me explain why Fata Morgana is pretty good proof that we are not in fact looking at curvature.
Suppose you have a trick mirror, and a flashlight. And you're out at night, so you can't tell what you're seeing is a mirror. You see weird shapes from the light bouncing off the mirror. Now, let's put you on a hill shining that same flashlight. The light won't directly hit, because you are aiming off center. Similarly, in a sphere, earth and sky would curve around a corner, and this nice mirror effect would simply not work. What you'd have instead was light from the bottom of the mirror, or a nice effect at ground level, similar to hitting a mirror from above on a hill. But this is not what we see. We see straight on the horizon.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1370292000024170596/Mirror.png?ex=681ef75f&is=681da5df&hm=3bb7e45616953ba8409c88ff85d5b2ff7dfe661452fcebeaaae4ed4df50410da&)
Whether or not it is a mirage (I think it's legit), light isn't affected by your notions of gravity. Despite people telling in the physics stack exchange, "Light is clearly affected by gravity, just think about a black hole," only to waffle back and say, "but light supposedly has no mass and gravity only affects objects with mass." The point being black holes are theoretical, light has no mass, and it wouldn't go under your curvature hill in order to hit a cloud bank, then bounce back up and round a corner again, all so you can see Chicago as if through a telescopic lens. Whether it's right side up or not, makes absolutely no difference. It is a direct line of sight to Chicago, so depending on clouds and time of day, you can see this view better or worse. Basically, AI art before it was cool, courtesy of the natural world. And none of it could work on a round Earth because light would need to do a series of fairly implausible things all coincidentally, some of which are contradiction.
-
If you didn't want want them to sail up hill you shouldn't have made it round in your new world order.
-
No. Because short objects vanish into the horizon as part of vanishing point perspective.
That is wrong and a lie.
A ball rolling down a hall is perspective.
(https://i.imgur.com/aV5PyG7.gif)
Where the ball never reaches “vanishing” point that is infinitely far away, where you can bring the ball back into view with zooming on it goes beyond resolution.
(https://i.imgur.com/f6uB0lX.gif)
Where the ball never gets blocked by the floor of the hall.
Your picture
(https://i.imgur.com/zvVPv0r.jpg)
Where the bottoms of the taller buildings, the shorter structures, tress, sea wall is physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.
And the setting sun..
(https://i.imgur.com/9ykU1Rd.gif)
Where if you zoom on it..
(https://i.imgur.com/qc2DNhj.gif)
Still blocked from view
Where the sun isn’t shrinking in apparent size like a ball rolling down the hall where there is no “perspective and vanishing point” to invoke in this context.
Where the floor doesn’t block the ball from view.
The sun and the buildings in you picture are physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth. Zooming in doesn’t “uncompress” what is hidden because it is physically blocked.
Similar to the ball being physically blocked from view..
(https://i.imgur.com/sXaX5EJ.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/4dlJbl4.gif)
Yes Bulma, the dip of the horizon is real and measurable. Where it ties into the curvature physically blocking objects from view bottom up. To base any school of thought on anything else is to base that on a lie.
-
If you didn't want want them to sail up hill you shouldn't have made it round in your new world order.
Then you don’t understand the heliocentric model. And if you think a sail boat can’t sail up then you most invoke gravity.
-
No. Because short objects vanish into the horizon as part of vanishing point perspective.
Funny. These structures as single units get physically blocked from view bottom up with distance.
I came across this video. I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.
Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km
(https://i.imgur.com/LKrCzBd.jpg)
The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.
Part four, the classic. Ships disappearing bottom up.
During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNACybk.jpg)
Then a ship farther away.
(https://i.imgur.com/uH4QbOc.jpg)
If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon. There is always my go to ship video.
(https://i.imgur.com/Pq5W3G9.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7L2pQJ6.jpg)
-
I guess too many facts for flat earthers…
Go figure
-
I repeat my question. How can you not understand that the concept of down on a round earth points towards the center of the earth? Seriously, what is so incredulous about that? RE says that the core of the earth is very dense, so less dense objects should naturally fall towards the center, don't you think?
More cognitive dissonance. Let's look at the picture again. This time I'll draw arrows toward the center of the Earth created by your imaginary gravity. Maybe this will help you figure it out.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1370246090971943013/gravity.jpg?ex=681ecc9e&is=681d7b1e&hm=a0497d519a1a3a87696dfdc21b3587fe634d7b99b09885af845322daff300c3e&)
Sorry, but only one of those arrows is pointing towards the center of the earth. The others are pointing off center. Since when is drawing a line from the circumference of a circle to its center such a difficult task?
-
Yeah I figured you'd say that, markjo.
But it's not so. Solids can be shaped in a sphere (as in a boulder)
(https://external-preview.redd.it/7KH-bJvKg4Wxs9_UHz73JQsTs9LHnrJ3CLnKRq2qCUw.jpg?auto=webp&s=e0d24e2300c7ee74f3ad8f597d71aee394e81f7f)
Let's contrast the water to the rock though. The water lies flat, the rock is allowed to form a perfect sphere.
So, if we further elaborate on our picture, you can maybe draw arrows toward the center with land, as you manage with a mountain appearing in all sorts of shapes.
(https://preview.redd.it/t3uiah8knpo01.jpg?width=320&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=b6bb75f6624eaf8b9072cf448a8c5acf1729c18e)
Water on the other hand is not able to be mounded or shaped short of freezing it. Which is to say, solids are able to be compacted together to make buildings, pillars, statues and all other things that are not flat. But liquids tend not to do this. So even if you think that it "should point arrows to the center, the fact of the matter is, its tendency to lie flat is consistent with your gravity, and this will continue regardless of where the center supposedly is. Because of this behavior, we know the actual shape of land must be closer to this:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1370466275515433171/Flat.jpg?ex=681f99ae&is=681e482e&hm=00be6167e30227531e7b429cdd31f990d011d548e7f850158debc03e138f5ed1&)
On such land, you can build a bridge across the aforementioned lake. Or sail across it.
On the other hand, it is difficult or impossible to build a proper bridge on curved ground. Tension forces the structure apart with even an adjustment of only 8 inches for a mile-long bridge. And the more length that a bridge has, the more you would deal with this curvature creating tension.
Rather than a sailboat, I'll give you a rowboat. Have fun rowing uphill. Maybe if you're lucky, you'll get past the peak and the current will be like a water slide.
There indeed are rivers that flow downhill. These are called rapids, and it is difficult to for instance turn the boat against them and try to paddle against the rapids. In fact, you are likely to flood your boat should you try. Which brings us to our point. On any level river, contrary to your delusion, based primarily on the way what you see seems to curve (which is quite different from an actual curve, as I would say to a Catholic telling me that bread and wine actually become the body and blood rather than being symbols) on any lake or river than does not have rapids, you can turn the boat around and paddle or motor or whatever in the other direction. It's perfectly flat, and if you learned to actually understand things, you wouldn't be fooled by silly ideas.
He puts his shipment away then heads out in the opposite direction. This is possible on a flat ocean. In a spherical ocean, we should see him visibly struggling in one direction. As Pitch Meeting says, "It's barely an inconvenience."
-
Yeah I figured you'd say that, markjo.
Water on the other hand is not able to be mounded or shaped short of freezing it.
You mean by ignoring tides? And you completely butchering the round earth model to create a false argument.
Where the force of gravity is simply witnesses by driving a car up a steep hill trying to maintain a constant speed. Again. If I’m driving 55 mph on level surface onto a steep hill, the car has to produce more force to keep the same speed. This is seen through one or a combo of burning more fuel, RPMs going up, Mike mileage dropping, the car gearing down.
-
Rather than a sailboat, I'll give you a rowboat. Have fun rowing uphill.
Why?
Your own post states otherwise.
Because it doesn't matter.
You'll get to the top of the hill. The drag you perceive from the hill didn't keep you from climbing the first 3/4 of the hill, nor the last 1/4 of it.
That you're delusional is cute. Really it is.
But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.
If gravity were a thing, a big heavy truck shouldn't get up a hill. I've been on mountain driving. I'm afraid trucks can in fact get up hills.
-
You're confusing driving up a hill with a car or something (dredging up old posts like a petty ex-gf, are we?) with slowly rowing up a hill while rapids are pushing in the other direction. Gravity makes no difference when driving uphill (possibly because it doesn't exist), while the current of water pushing against you kinda does.
Get in that row boat! I don't expect you back in this forum until you have made a full round trip up and then back down that mountain. No excuses!
-
Yeah I figured you'd say that, markjo.
And I figured that you still wouldn't get it.
But it's not so. Solids can be shaped in a sphere (as in a boulder
Unless that boulder is made of neutron star material, down is towards the center of the earth, not the center of the boulder.
Let's contrast the water to the rock though. The water lies flat, the rock is allowed to form a perfect sphere.
Since it's not a valid comparison, let's not and say we didn't bother.
But liquids tend not to do this. So even if you think that it "should point arrows to the center, the fact of the matter is, its tendency to lie flat is consistent with your gravity, and this will continue regardless of where the center supposedly is.
The only center that gravity is concerned with is the center of mass. In this case, that center of mass is the center of mass of the earth. Unless you can isolate your boulder from the gravitational field of the earth, your example is nonsense.
-
Rather than a sailboat, I'll give you a rowboat. Have fun rowing uphill.
Why?
Your own post states otherwise.
Because it doesn't matter.
You'll get to the top of the hill. The drag you perceive from the hill didn't keep you from climbing the first 3/4 of the hill, nor the last 1/4 of it.
That you're delusional is cute. Really it is.
But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.
If gravity were a thing, a big heavy truck shouldn't get up a hill. I've been on mountain driving. I'm afraid trucks can in fact get up hills.
The mistake you are making, Data, is assuming a flat earfer like Bulma, can think in 3d like normal people like you and I can. These are people who live in a 2d world like Flat Stanley.
You can't just show Bulma a 2d drawing and expect shim to understand a 3d concept. Look at how confused you have made him. He doesn't know if he's Arthur or Martha.
If you seriously want to break the fourth wall with him, I'm sure you own a globe earth model? Start using that with arrows.
-
The mistake you are making, Data, is assuming a flat earfer like Bulma, can think in 3d like normal people like you and I can. These are people who live in a 2d world like Flat Stanley.
Are you kidding? Bulma can't even draw more than one arrow to the center of a 2d circle.
-
You're confusing driving up a hill with a car or something (dredging up old posts like a petty ex-gf, are we?) with slowly rowing up a hill while rapids are pushing in the other direction. Gravity makes no difference when driving uphill
Yeah. It does. Going up hill to maintain the same speed compared to a level surface. The car has to burn more fuel and the engine RPMs increase. This is reflected in gas mileage going way down. If you don’t understand reality, you’re just stupid.
Where you anre ignoring water in the oceans do surge to highs and lows I fluenced by tides.
How does FE make you blind to simple truths?
-
the fact of the matter is, its tendency to lie flat is consistent with your gravity,
Then why are the bottoms of these buildings in your photo physical blocked from view. With short structures, trees, and the sea wall completely physically blocked from view?
(https://i.imgur.com/zvVPv0r.jpg)
-
The mistake you are making, Data, is assuming a flat earfer like Bulma, can think in 3d like normal people like you and I can. These are people who live in a 2d world like Flat Stanley.
Are you kidding? Bulma can't even draw more than one arrow to the center of a 2d circle.
That's exactly what I mean. A two year old child with a thick crayon could draw more technical drawings than bulma.
All flat earthers share a common quirk. They all say they understand the heliocentric model of earth with how gravity works, then, just like bulma, say something which illustrates they dont understand the heliocentric model at all.
It's really quite astonishing. This is what happens when someone watches too many flat screens, from television, to cell phone screens, to computer monitors, and in the case of bulma - his wall mirror where he checks his make-up. Flat, flat, flat.
Too brainwashed to realise his eyeballs which he views the world through - are globes.
-
Jesus Christ, your cognitive dissonance is so far up your ass that your own picture has checked as correct water doming up, which to and sensible person would mean that yes, this means boats do need to travel up and down a hill of water. Instead, you take a look at that picture and are like, "How can Bulma say that? I just don't see it!"
You mean you hate reality, outright reject it; and continually insert your own delusional BS of a magical universal down into models describing reality where such BS has no place?
Do you understand what "up" means on the RE model?
Because you keep acting like you have no idea.
And what makes it even more pathetic is how you then don't apply the same level of stupid to your FE fantasy.
You are happy with 2 locations on a circle being the same distance from the north pole and thus travel between them just being east or west, without thinking you need to go north or south between them.
This demonstrates that you understand this concept, you just refuse to apply it when it shows you are wrong.
Going from A to B in that curve is not going uphill, it is going level.
You should also really stop using discord for your useless images.
As it has disappeared you have spelled out nothing.
How is your brain so fucked up that you think it would be the lowest potential for water to mound up rather than laying flat?
Yes.
Ignoring gravity, water will attempt to minimise its surface area.
So that would make it try to go into a sphere.
But again, you fail to understand the difference between flat and level.
You fail to understand the difference between level and uphill.
You are basically saying "How is your brain so fucked up that you don't just mindlessly accept this baseless FE garbage".
Why should water be flat?
Do you have any justification at all?
NO!
Just magic down.
Meanwhile, the RE model does have an explanation. An explanation which has been shown to work countless times.
According to your own picture, according to your own theory of gravity, water lays flat as a matter of falling to center.
Do you understand what you just said?
Because you literally just contradicted yourself.
If they are trying to fall to the centre, that means it is getting as close to the centre as possible.
This means if the surface is such that part is further away from the centre than another, it will move to get closer, even if it needs to fall a bit sideways.
That means in this simple hypothetical, the surface will adopt a shape that is an equal distance from the centre.
And what will that be for a surface in 3D space around a centre? A sphere.
So no, according to gravity, water will adopt a roughly spherical surface as a matter of falling to the centre.
So what is wrong with your brain?
it's time to slap some sense into you, because you are hardcore under a delusion.
So time to slap some sense into you?
More cognitive dissonance. Let's look at the picture again.
There is no picture.
But given your text, you have clearly done it wrong.
so a bathtub would be the ideal place to check whether water mounds
No. It is a horrible place to try.
This again demonstrates a complete lack of understanding or wilful misrepresentation on your part.
If you tried thinking for once in your life you would understand that means you are looking at a tiny portion of a massive curve.
The drop due to this curve can be approximated as d^2/2R.
Assuming your bathtub is 2 m long, then going from the centre to an edge (to measure the height of that mound) is 1 m, and that drop is a mere 78 nm.
You are not going to see that.
Instead, you need a much greater distance.
Where you can then look at objects across a large body of water and see that the bottom of the object is hidden by the water, even though both it and you are above the water.
The simplest and most straightforward explanation of that is the fact that Earth is round.
This is not due to a mound, the lake is simply to big to see from one end to another.
What magic is stopping you?
We have plenty of examples showing it isn't simply too small.
And you keep appealing to magic distance limits but can't justify it.
Quit lying to yourself, and see some damned reason!
Follow your own advice.
So your rationale is that because mist obscures parts of buildings, they don't exist and this picture is not real?
No, the rationale is that a scaled down view of a closer view of the building shows the bottom should be below the horizon.
This shows water is blocking the view.
while you lie up and down.
Nope, that is still you.
Let me explain why Fata Morgana is pretty good proof that we are not in fact looking at curvature.
You mean let you spout more pathetic lies which fail to address the topic at hand?
None of what you have provided in any way show any problem with the RE.
But it's not so. Solids can be shaped in a sphere (as in a boulder)
Now treat that like Earth.
Draw some lines to the centre of that.
Then show how that should make water flat.
its tendency to lie flat is consistent with your gravity
No, it isn't.
As has already been explained.
So you start with baseless BS to reach BS conclusions.
On the other hand, it is difficult or impossible to build a proper bridge on curved ground.
You have asserted this BS before, but can't justify it at all.
On any level river, contrary to your delusion, ... you can turn the boat around and paddle or motor or whatever in the other direction. It's perfectly flat, and if you learned to actually understand things, you wouldn't be fooled by silly ideas.
Says the one continually appealing to their own delusions as if they are fact and refusing to understand.
Back in reality, it is LEVEL not flat. Following the curve of Earth.
Repeating the same delusional BS wont help you.
You are doing the very thing called out in the OP.
Gravity makes no difference when driving uphill
And more delusional BS.
It makes quite a big difference.
It is much easier to go downhill than uphill.
-
being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill. This would create extraordinary problems with wind. It would present extraordinary problems with general travel.
Bulma. If you sailed west on the ocean for the RE, when would you ever sail downhill?
Rather than a sailboat, I'll give you a rowboat. Have fun rowing uphill.
There’s all kinds of currents in the ocean. If you think you know flat, where you butcher level surface, how is that possible in either model? So Bulma, the only reason in a FE model for currents in the middle of the ocean is water going downhill?
-
It's become clear to me, none of the flat earthers on this site are rich enough to own their very own earth globe.
They just need a practical one, that will help them in the real world. In the case of Bulma and Turbo, whose biggest career aspiration is sharpening pencils for somebody, I propose we start a go-fund me page, to get these guys an earth globe pencil sharpener each.
That way, they can fondle a different type of ball, while sharpening pencils and dribbling snot from their noses, and may elevate their understanding of the heliocentric model.
-
Gravity makes no difference when driving uphill
This is why people hate flat earthers, right out lies like this.
Do you understand anything about driving up hill trying to maintain speed. Especially if you have driven a car or truck with a manual transmission. Its easy to understand the vehicle needs more power to maintain speed when you have to press down more on the gas peddle to feed the engine more gas. And often have to shift down a gear or two and the RPMs are running higher than driving on a level surface for the same speed.
-
Forget about driving up hill. Just by walking up hill you will notice the extra effort required.
-
Forget about driving up hill. Just by walking up hill you will notice the extra effort required.
Bulma just likes to say you’re weak.
Flat earthers make claims about being brainwashed, then have to lie about simple undeniable truths. Flat earthers don’t question, they accept blatant lies like a car doesn’t have to work harder and produce more energy to go up a step hill. Sorry. Just pointing out the obvious.
-
being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill. This would create extraordinary problems with wind. It would present extraordinary problems with general travel.
Just FYI. When I was stationed in Maine. The work barge was right on the river, near the mouth of the river going out to sea. When the tide would come in, the lobster boats going out to sea would have to fight the incoming tide to get to the sea.
-
Forget about driving up hill. Just by walking up hill you will notice the extra effort required.
This is correct. But walking uphill and downhill, you are working with angular momentum. A steep enough hill, and you must fight to stop. The same slant that made the climb laborious now makes the walk down an effort not to run ahead into a truck.
The point being do you notice any such push when you build a mile long pool and try to swim across it? What, you aren't rich enough that you can build a mile long pool? I'll spoil it for you: there is no hill in such water. Having used a canoe a few times, you can typically row there and back unless fighting rapids. Because rapids are where water follows a hill.
-
Forget about driving up hill. Just by walking up hill you will notice the extra effort required.
This is correct. But walking uphill and downhill, you are working with angular momentum.
*sigh* No, that isn’t angular momentum. Please stop making up your own definitions of concepts that are already well defined.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_I_-_Mechanics_Sound_Oscillations_and_Waves_(OpenStax)/11%3A__Angular_Momentum/11.03%3A_Angular_Momentum
The point being do you notice any such push when you build a mile long pool and try to swim across it? What, you aren't rich enough that you can build a mile long pool? I'll spoil it for you: there is no hill in such water. Having used a canoe a few times, you can typically row there and back unless fighting rapids. Because rapids are where water follows a hill.
How many times do we need to explain to you that the curvature of the earth is not a hill? Seriously, is there a number? Are we getting close to that number? The only people who claim that it is are flat earthers who claim to understand RE, but don’t.
-
This is correct.
Do you read what was posted? Or do you babble word salad for the sake of just arguing.
Just FYI. When I was stationed in Maine. The work barge was right on the river, near the mouth of the river going out to sea. When the tide would come in, the lobster boats going out to sea would have to fight the incoming tide to get to the sea. Are the boats going up hill when the tide comes in?
Back to the car thing.
When I take a long curve on a flat surface my RPM’s don’t go up. If I’m driving a manual, I’m not pressing down more on the gas to keep the speed constant. Often I have to get out of the gas peddle to take a turn on a flat surface.
Quite the opposite for going up hill. Again, I have to get into the gas to keep the car going a constant speed. Or even down shift. Where if it’s going up a hill with a curve, I’m not letting off the gas like I do for a curve on a level surface.
Going up hill takes more power where taking a curve on a level surface takes negligible increase in power. Or taking a curve often takes getting off the gas or even braking. Where gravity can be used to slow down a car while going up hill if there is a curve in the road.
Remember Bulma, you posted this.
But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.
Bulma, you are the reason people hate flat earthers. You have zero ability to reason, or so brainwashed you have to right out lie.
So Bulma, why this sudden invoking of angular momentum. Bulma, you are just a big contradicting fake.
-
this is amazing
-
It's like trying to reach geography to a monkey.
The monkey has the intelligence, but doesn't have the intellect to apply that intelligence.
-
it's a circle.
and he's adding a bump to it.
it's amazing.
-
Forget about driving up hill. Just by walking up hill you will notice the extra effort required.
This is correct. But walking uphill and downhill, you are working with angular momentum.
*sigh* No, that isn’t angular momentum. Please stop making up your own definitions of concepts that are already well defined.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_I_-_Mechanics_Sound_Oscillations_and_Waves_(OpenStax)/11%3A__Angular_Momentum/11.03%3A_Angular_Momentum
If I were to lay a coin on a board, which in turn lies across the top of a bench and put all of this in a room with air but no wind, the coin would just sit there on one side of the board. Gravity would never intercede to make this coin fall.
O
==============
| |
| |
++---
| | |
Now if I tilted that board just slightly, "gravity" which never existed before now suddenly kicks in due to nothing more than the angle.
(https://img.freepik.com/premium-vector/law-conservation-angular-momentum-dancer_175634-28017.jpg)
What they describe here as angular momentum is radial momentum. That's momentum at a radius.
This is angular momentum.
(https://d2vlcm61l7u1fs.cloudfront.net/media%2Fc13%2Fc1373853-5c0f-4674-8a0a-20359aaa0655%2Fphpfeugfc.png)
The point being do you notice any such push when you build a mile long pool and try to swim across it? What, you aren't rich enough that you can build a mile long pool? I'll spoil it for you: there is no hill in such water. Having used a canoe a few times, you can typically row there and back unless fighting rapids. Because rapids are where water follows a hill.
How many times do we need to explain to you that the curvature of the earth is not a hill? Seriously, is there a number? Are we getting close to that number? The only people who claim that it is are flat earthers who claim to understand RE, but don’t.
There supposedly is a number. This number has been checked repeatedly by Eric Dubay, and I have never seen it in any of my travels.
The curvature is effectively looking out into a horizon like so...
=====================
/|\
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
only paying attention to the middle line, and deciding that since it goes up toward the sky, there must be a hill somewhere that the sun, planes, birds, and fences go under. It is a really really stupid way of looking at the world, which is up to you, until you start taking school age children and forcibly enlisting them in your idea. Just as I don't like molesting or abusing children, I don't like that little kids are bullied until they agree with this.
Yes, a sphere would dictate that a small slice of a sphere looks like this: <)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1DZyJM9fTVPM-GfLOnXnw_FP6wdMiFvmFeQ&usqp=CAU)
Put that upright, and you have a hill.
(https://i3.wp.com/walter.bislins.ch/blog/media/CurveCalcRefraction2.png?strip=all)
Not coincidentally, the same site that gave me both of these pictures moves next to the idea that if you accept globalism, you also accept climate change:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdJCCujtS4F7mwNugHrKxy1oWxX1YuG4q71Q&usqp=CAU)
The Long Term Strategy Of United States Pathways To Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2050
(https://i1.wp.com/climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2361?strip=all)
I am not paranoid to think that children are abused into accepting an agenda.
But since I reject the whole of Marxist-globalist-environmentalist-space-explorationism, we'll instead focus on how this plays out.
(https://heavennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Earth-Curve-Chart.jpg)
For one mile this is eight inches. But since it's 8 in2 and based on pi or radius or whatever, at mile 2, this is 32 rather than 16 inches as I would have thought. At mile 3, the drop is 72 inches; then 128, 200, etc. In the course of just 10 miles, there is a curvature (supposedly) of 66 ft. By 50 miles, where you can technically still see Chicago (when it is 1666 ft of drop), they excuse it away by claiming it is a mirage.
Sorry, but a mirage does not work on a curve.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1370292000024170596/Mirror.png?ex=6823949f&is=6822431f&hm=75c23270855747382c317fbbe6faa44f2f94bcf56a478f636eccd1b066020f40&)
For the same reason that a flashlight angled straight ahead doesn't really hit a mirror on the bottom of a hill, drop means that light would be doing extremely strange things to even begin to create a mirage. Like, you could only see it at sunset. But in fact:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5212/5463773582_09438a1977_b.jpg)
Broad daylight.
https://www.gps-coordinates.net/distance
42 miles away
Where that image is real or a mirage, the facts don't change.
I drove at one point from the Eastern Shore of Virginia to Seattle, WA. At the 3599 miles, the drop equals the number of miles. This was more than that, with no such adjustment to any roads or bridges or anything really. No such curvature. It fails!
-
Now if I tilted that board just slightly, "gravity" which never existed before now suddenly kicks in due to nothing more than the angle.
The normal force of the board equals the weight of the object. When you tilt the board, the weight of the object overcomes the friction of the surface of the board. Gravity, as a component of weight, was always there.
What they describe here as angular momentum is radial momentum.
No, they're right about angular momentum. Radial momentum is something else.
This is angular momentum.
No, that's linear acceleration. Please, stop trying to redefine physics terms.
Not coincidentally, the same site that gave me both of these pictures moves next to the idea that if you accept globalism, you also accept climate change:
If you haven't noticed the weather changing even during your own lifetime, then you haven't been paying attention.
-
Bulmabriefs144, Virginia to Seattle is from the East Coast of the United States to the West Coast of the United States.
Maybe if you used the correct formula for earth curvature, instead of the flat Earth con man formula, you would have a far more accurate understanding of how much Earth curve you negotiated.
Look at the route you travelled, by looking at a to-scale Earth globe. If you want to see the curve you travelled, mould a piece of wire on your earth globe between Virginia and Seattle to see the curve. Try and understand the globe earth model again, which you clearly never understood properly in the first place.
It's not that hard, Bulma.
-
At the 3599 miles,
What are you babbling about. If you go around the surface of a sphere, you end up where you started. On the surface of the sphere. You don’t magically end up at a higher point above or below the sphere. You’re still on the surface of the sphere. Move half way around the sphere, you’re still on the surface of the sphere. Not magically at an higher point above the surface, not magically below the surface of the sphere.
-
If I were to lay a coin on a board,
That wasn’t the argument.
This was..
Just FYI. When I was stationed in Maine. The work barge was right on the river, near the mouth of the river going out to sea. When the tide would come in, the lobster boats going out to sea would have to fight the incoming tide to get to the sea. Are the boats going up hill when the tide comes in?
Back to the car thing.
When I take a long curve on a flat surface my RPM’s don’t go up. If I’m driving a manual, I’m not pressing down more on the gas to keep the speed constant. Often I have to get out of the gas peddle to take a turn on a flat surface.
Quite the opposite for going up hill. Again, I have to get into the gas to keep the car going a constant speed. Or even down shift. Where if it’s going up a hill with a curve, I’m not letting off the gas like I do for a curve on a level surface.
Going up hill takes more power where taking a curve on a level surface takes negligible increase in power. Or taking a curve often takes getting off the gas or even braking. Where gravity can be used to slow down a car while going up hill if there is a curve in the road.
-
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5212/5463773582_09438a1977_b.jpg)
Broad daylight.
https://www.gps-coordinates.net/distance
42 miles away
Where did you pull 42 miles away?
(https://i.imgur.com/U0b8zOh.jpeg)
https://antivirus.22web.org/av/psyop-plocha-zeme.htm?i=1
This is one of the newer photos where you can see more buildings, especially when compared to the next one. (The Trump Hotel is in line with the Aon Center - as we move away and change the angle of view, they will become separated from each other.)
Chicago from 40 km:
Looks like 40 km by this quote.
Which is more like 25 miles.
I did find this on tineye.
(https://i.imgur.com/HT57D3U.jpeg)
Miller Beach Indian.
Or this..
(https://i.imgur.com/6sL7YS9.jpeg)
As predicted, you say.
As predicted. You lied.
(https://i.imgur.com/q2120mi.jpeg)
Miller beach?
(https://i.imgur.com/Mp4CEO3.jpg)
Which is about 26 miles to Chicago over the water.
Notice you don’t see the Chicago sea walls and trees. If the earth was flat. You should.
Chicago Yacht Club
The sea wall
https://www.iiseagrant.org/chicagowaterwalk/cww5_rtlm_cyc_seawall.html
(https://www.iiseagrant.org/chicagowaterwalk/images/LFMarinas_Theseawall.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y5JIjv0.jpeg)
Nothing to do with you claim of 100 miles.
You understand drive times and distances are different than straight line of sight over the water. Right?
(https://i.imgur.com/3IWu1Ov.jpeg)
Oh. Look. Bulma still lying by using driving distance instead of line of sight distance.
Bulma. You are stupid. Or you really don’t understand 25 miles isn’t 42 miles when looking line of sight over the lake?
-
This is correct.
Bulma. Do you understand that you got called out when you tried to claim you had a picture of Chicago 100 miles away and didn’t produce one.
Then you tried to use a picture from Miller Beach in February that is only 25 miles line of sight distance from Chicago and tried to claim it was 40 some miles away. And you got called out.
Then Bulma, you tried the same lie and were called out again.
Bulma, you are a proven liar. Do you understand.
-
Now if I tilted that board just slightly, "gravity" which never existed before now suddenly kicks in due to nothing more than the angle.
The normal force of the board equals the weight of the object. When you tilt the board, the weight of the object overcomes the friction of the surface of the board. Gravity, as a component of weight, was always there.
Overcome nothing. It slides because it is falling, which again, has to do with buoyancy and angular momentum.
/
/
/
O/
The more I tilt this board, the more one side is against air and the more it stays in motion. But instead of air below this, I built a wooden ramp with mind power. How far this coin rolls depends on its momentum, the density difference between itself and air (a quarter ought to roll farther than a penny), the slope, how sanded and oiled the surface is, etc.
What they describe here as angular momentum is radial momentum.
No, they're right about angular momentum. Radial momentum is something else.
FFS. "Objects in motion stay in motion" is momentum. "Objects at rest stay at rest" is nonsense. There is no such "force" of inertia, as shown by the coin. That's an excuse for paralyzed people not to get off their lazy asses. You ought to be calling something angular momentum that has to do with angles.
Btw, when I typed in radial momentum, it led me straight to
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=radial+momentum&ia=web
Angular momentum
Measure of the extent to which an object will continue to rotate in the absence of an applied torque
Angular momentum (sometimes called moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational analog of linear momentum.
We are not using this definition. They seem to have swallowed a definition by conflation.
Angular momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion along slopes or inclined planes.
Linear momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion along level planes.
Radial/rotational momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion (to rotate) in the absence of an applied torque.
This means a gyroscope spins due to rotational momentum, but it tilts due to angular momentum. Conflating the two is stupid. They are two distinct types of momentum.
This is angular momentum.
No, that's linear acceleration. Please, stop trying to redefine physics terms.
We must use exact terms
Angular: adj. Having to do with angles
Momentum: n. A quantity used to measure the motion of a body, equal to the product of the body's mass and its velocity
We are not taking about its acceleration on a line. We are talking about its continued motion along an angle. Similarly, when someone spins, the angle in question pivots as a radius.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.ZkZs0UPnZQL3x4RIoeqwgAHaEx%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=f6f91fb7e90ce1a09e80f902ae846d53e1cb4f6046b19135d1d157d03c3449ce&ipo=images)
Radius
(https://cdn-academy.pressidium.com/academy/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/45-degrees-1024x770.png)
Angle
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.6-vbFHuaHq0lH-O9eUGHkQHaDn%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=b19f15dae54c3501a7e8e85c9a43b03646bc00124cfe529a9df832412f0a8bde&ipo=images)
Line (a commentary on how bad search engines are, it was the first forty images)
Not coincidentally, the same site that gave me both of these pictures moves next to the idea that if you accept globalism, you also accept climate change:
If you haven't noticed the weather changing even during your own lifetime, then you haven't been paying attention.
They are called seasons. Seasons in turn enter cycles. The most notable cycle being cicadas. Another one being that coastal regions might have a four or seven year frost cycle, where it gets colder at certain intervals. No, I don't believe in climate change. I believe man-made destruction of forests to build unsightly green energy does raise temperature through lack of transpiration. People who log forests for fuel or wood or toilet paper, have an end goal of sustainability. These are called "managed forests"
but there is no such goal for the self-righteous Zizians (named as a byword for a group of trans "environmentalists" that left a tugboat spewing oil in a harbor, deciding it's someone else's problem, then went on to murder people for perceived evils) who convince themselves they do the will of the environment.
If that forest never regrows, they excuse it because it's "producing green energy" (until it isn't, but is instead moldering and producing toxic waste).
You Zizians can take all your "rational" talk and get lost. I don't want veganism nor environmental action while you destroy real environments.
Meanwhile, again, we use exact terms. These are the changing of seasons. Angles, lines, and radii are all different things. And gravity vs buoyancy and angular momentum are different things.
When water is level, you can swim or row across it from every imaginable direction. When water mounds (as it does only in games like Ocarina of Time), then we start talking about the difference in motion on the bulge.
(https://i3.wp.com/walter.bislins.ch/blog/media/CurveCalcRefraction2.png?strip=all)
-
Overcome nothing.
You are incoherently babbling again. And a proven liar.
Again. To take a curve on a level surface with a manual transmission takes no addition pressing down on the gas paddle.
Going up a steep hill takes considerable pressing down on the gas paddle and often downshifting.
My jeep has a six speed manual transmission. I don’t have to press down on the gas paddle more nor down shift to take a curve on a level surface in six gear. Going up even moderate hills takes me pressing down on the gas peddle more to feed the engine more gas to make more power, and I often have to down shift to 5th or 4th gear.
There is definitely a force dragging on the keep going up hill that isn’t present while taking a turn.
I can push my jeep in neutral all day long on a level surface even while turning the steering wheel to turn the jeep. I can’t push the jeep up hill because of gravity.
-
At the 3599 miles,
I can take a piece of rod 3 inches in diameter. Put it in a metal lathe and turn it to cut one thousandth of an inch off the diameter to make a grove in the rod one thousandth of an inch deep. If I don’t advance the cutting tool, the cutting tool just rides the new cut grove. It don’t magically start rising off the grove, it doesn’t magically start cutting deep. Is just traces the surface.
Your logic is stupid Bulma. And it seems your so brainwashed you are a pathological liar.
-
Overcome nothing.
That your so brainwashed by FE that your a pathological liar and keep using the same lies you been called out all. That you have repeatedly been proven a liar.
-
This is correct. But walking uphill and downhill, you are working with angular momentum.
No, angular momentum has nothing to do with it.
Do you even know what that is?
Because you keep using in contexts where it clearly doesn't apply.
Instead, what is important is gravity. You are getting further away from the centre so it takes more effort; vs you are getting closer so it is helping.
The point is, the ground doesn't need to be going down hill to have this.
The point being do you notice any such push when you build a mile long pool and try to swim across it?
No, because you are going level, along a curve.
You are not getting closer or further from the centre (for the simple case of a stationary round Earth, for rotation it gets more complicated, but lets have you understand the basics first).
If I were to lay a coin on a board, which in turn lies across the top of a bench and put all of this in a room with air but no wind, the coin would just sit there on one side of the board. Gravity would never intercede to make this coin fall.
Now if I tilted that board just slightly, "gravity" which never existed before now suddenly kicks in due to nothing more than the angle.
And if you had a brain, and chose to use it, you would understand why.
What direction is gravity trying to make it move?
That is down into the table.
This compresses (usually by an imperceptible amount) the table and results in a normal reaction force perpendicular to the surface of the table.
When the table is level, that results in no net force, because the 2 forces are in opposite directions and equal in magnitude.
(An aside: if they were not equal in magnitude, then either the coin pushes into the table more, compressing it more until either the force of the table increases enough to stop it or it breaks through the table; or the force from the table is greater, pushing it up reducing the compression and reducing the force.)
But when the table is at an angle, then the 2 forces are not in opposite directions. Instead they are offset at an angle, resulting in a net force on the coin with a component in a sideways direction, causing it to move.
Gravity was there the whole time.
What they describe here as angular momentum is radial momentum.
No, what they describe as angular momentum, is angular momentum.
Your pathetic rejection of reality does not change that.
What you lie to everyone about, pretending is angular momentum, is simply linear momentum at some angle relative to level. That is NOT angular momentum.
Angular momentum is where the angle changes.
An easy way to think about it - If the angle remains constant there is no momentum of the angle, so it is not angular momentum.
There supposedly is a number.
And that does not make it a hill.
The curvature is effectively looking out into a horizon
Your pathetic strawmen do not change reality.
Your stupidity and wilful ignorance does not change why people say there is curvature.
Again, a simple example is looking at a building across a lake, and seeing the bottom of the building missing, with water blocking the view; even though both you are the building are above the water.
All the evidence shows it curves.
You have NOTHING to show it doesn't.
Put that upright
And what way is "upright"?
Not coincidentally
Coincidentally, as explained to you repeatedly.
The only part of globalism that deals with the shape of Earth is the name.
Stop spamming the same pathetic BS everywhere.
I am not paranoid to think that children are abused into accepting an agenda.
Like you were abused into accepting Christianity?
It is paranoid to think that all the evidence people point out supporting a round Earth is all BS and that you alone (or a small group of cultists) have worked it out.
Sorry, but a mirage does not work on a curve.
Because you are a moron that is looking in the wrong direction.
The horizon is not perfectly level.
You don't calculate the drop from where you are, unless your eyes are at sea level.
You first need to work out the distance to the horizon.
You even provided an image showing the difference, in just ignored it.
Where that image is real or a mirage, the facts don't change.
Yes, the FACT that the bottom of the buildings are obscured by water, even though both the observer and the observed buildings are above the water.
How is that possible?
Also note they are clearly resolvable so it has nothing to do with perspective or vanishing point or any other BS like that.
I drove at one point from the Eastern Shore of Virginia to Seattle
And cannot explain just what you expected to see and how you expected to see it.
So you fail.
Overcome nothing. It slides because it is falling, which again, has to do with buoyancy and angular momentum.
Unless you are appealing to the rotation of the coin, it has NOTHING to do with angular momentum.
And as shown repeatedly, buoyancy only works with gravity; with you continually fleeing from the refutation of your BS.
We are not using this definition.
Then stop trying to speak English.
If you aren't going to use the definition of words, then conversation is impossible and you may as well be spouting pure gibberish.
Conflating the two is stupid.
And that most certainly appears to describe you.
Failing to understand and then "conflating" the two.
When water is level
i.e. when it is following the general curve of Earth, where the surface is at an equal potential.
-
That your so brainwashed by FE that your a pathological liar and keep using the same lies you been called out all. That you have repeatedly been proven a liar.
You call other people liars, while you can't even tell the truth about what a line is, what angle is, what a radius is. And you tell me something is accelerating on a line when it is continuing to roll on a slope. These are all lies.You can't even tell me here what is a lie.
I can take a piece of rod 3 inches in diameter. Put it in a metal lathe and turn it to cut one thousandth of an inch off the diameter to make a grove in the rod one thousandth of an inch deep. If I don’t advance the cutting tool, the cutting tool just rides the new cut grove. It don’t magically start rising off the grove, it doesn’t magically start cutting deep. Is just traces the surface.
We're not talking about cutting pieces off a rod. We're talking about a confirmed theory of curvature, and how this increase is equal to 90° (which is why at the distance that it is 90°, drop equals length). The measurements are confirmed, as part of angles. They are consistent with that. What isn't confirmed about this theory is that anything of the sort happens. Not even one inch of curvature over 100 miles happens.
Dishonesty through logical fallacy.
Fallacy of composition:
The logical fallacy where one assumes that what is true for a part is also true for the whole is known as the "fallacy of composition." An example is concluding that because every individual part of a machine is light, the entire machine must also be light, which is not necessarily true.
I don't fucking care what happens to 1/1000 of a rod or sphere or whatever. "This tiny point of a basketball is level! It all must be flat!" When you measure enough points as level, sooner or later, you cannot be talking about a sphere. The same isn't true of an angled side of a basketball. And if you held this "level" point to a microscope and while you were saying that it was level, an enemy came and dripped water, would you continue to say that as it rolled across the surface?
My jeep has a six speed manual transmission. I don’t have to press down on the gas paddle more nor down shift to take a curve on a level surface in six gear. Going up even moderate hills takes me pressing down on the gas peddle more to feed the engine more gas to make more power, and I often have to down shift to 5th or 4th gear.
Typical. Unlike some of the more stupid upgrades to a car (keyless ignition, which means the car can't start if the fob runs out of power or gets a wireless issue, short of knowing that there's a manual method which obvious to without reading the manual, power windows which can get stuck in place due to a short), manual transmission should have gone the way of the dinosaur long ago. Your car sucks.
It's like this. While you're fiddling with clutch, angular momentum causes your car to potentially roll backwards, as it is in neutral for the seconds that it's between gears. To get up a moderate hill means fighting the gears of your car, trying to accelerate but instead cutting speed (what you should be doing is staying in your current gear before going up the hill). Meanwhile, I just drive up and down hills with automatic transmission, and then my transmission explodes leaving me stranded in Tucumcari.
(https://i.imgflip.com/4pw07x.jpg)
-
You call other people liars,
Bulma. You more than once tried to say this picture was taken over 40 miles away. You been called out and correct multiple times on this lie.
(https://i.imgur.com/6sL7YS9.jpeg)
Read the caption of the picture.
You have repeatedly highjacked other people’s work and been corrected on it multiple times. For you to use the same lies repeatedly makes you a pathological liar. You are so brainwashed you keep using the same lies you been repeatedly shown to be a liar on.
-
You call other people liars, while you can't even tell the truth about what a line is, what angle is, what a radius is. And you tell me something is accelerating on a line when it is continuing to roll on a slope. These are all lies.
Well at least you are now admitting you are lying.
The one continually lying about things here is you.
Wilfully rejecting the meaning of words to outright lie to people.
We're talking about a confirmed theory of curvature
Yes, something which has been demonstrated countless times; which you can even do yourself, but choose not to.
Not even one inch of curvature over 100 miles happens.
So you have actually measured that?
Constructing a straight edge over 100 miles, and measured that not a single inch of curvature happened?
Just how did you pull off this feat?
Or do you actually mean you just don't know of any instance recoding it, because you choose to remain wilfully ignorant of reality?
Dishonesty through logical fallacy.
Fallacy of composition:
The logical fallacy where one assumes that what is true for a part is also true for the whole
i.e. WHAT YOU ARE DOING!
You can't measure the curve in your bathtub, so you assume it can never be measured.
When you measure enough points as level, sooner or later, you cannot be talking about a sphere.
This is quite literally the fallacy of composition.
You are taking measurements over a tiny area and using that to make a claim about the whole, while ignoring the uncertainty associated with it.
If you want to disagree, why don't you tell us what you are doing to measure it as "level", by which you really mean flat?
The same isn't true of an angled side of a basketball.
Again, Earth is not a tiny ball held on top of a much larger ball.
Stop appealing to your tiny balls. If you want to do so, then do so honestly.
That means understanding which way is "down", and how the measurement of level would work.
Stop appealing to your magical universal down you cannot justify or demonstrates exists.
But that doesn't help you at all with the issue of the OP.
Putting aside your pathetic fantasy for a second, what is expected for the RE?
Can you honestly answer that? Or can you just repeat the same pathetic BS?
it is in neutral for the seconds that it's between gears.
Which is a far greater problem for automatic transmissions.
His car doesn't suck, you just suck.
-
I don't fucking care what happens to 1/1000 of a rod or sphere or whatever. pw07x.jpg[/img]
Read what was posted..
I can take a piece of rod 3 inches in diameter. Put it in a metal lathe and turn it to cut one thousandth of an inch off the diameter to make a grove in the rod one thousandth of an inch deep. If I don’t advance the cutting tool, the cutting tool just rides the new cut grove. It don’t magically start rising off the grove, it doesn’t magically start cutting deep. Is just traces the surface.
Your logic is stupid Bulma. And it seems your so brainwashed you are a pathological liar.
The cutting tool once the grove is cut follows the surface of the spinning rod without leaving the cut grove. It does magical rise out of the grove or start magically cutting without being advanced. Sad you can’t get walking on a large sphere like the earth would be the same way. You would just simply fallow the surface. And would always be on the surface.
-
Btw, when I typed in radial momentum, it led me straight to
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=radial+momentum&ia=web
Angular momentum
Measure of the extent to which an object will continue to rotate in the absence of an applied torque
Angular momentum (sometimes called moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational analog of linear momentum.
We are not using this definition. They seem to have swallowed a definition by conflation.
Angular momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion along slopes or inclined planes.
Linear momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion along level planes.
Radial/rotational momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion (to rotate) in the absence of an applied torque.
This means a gyroscope spins due to rotational momentum, but it tilts due to angular momentum. Conflating the two is stupid. They are two distinct types of momentum.
I’m sorry but it doesn’t work that way. You don’t get to redefine the well established fundamental concepts of physics just because they aren’t to your liking. There is a reason that they have stood the test of time and helped build our modern world; they work. If you don’t want to use the proper vocabulary, then there is no point in trying to have any sort of meaningful discussion.
-
It's like this. While you're fiddling with clutch,
My jeep actual has a six cylinder engine rated around 285 horsepower power. It has plenty of power for a two door jeep.
I can be running on the highway at 70 mph on a curve on a level surface and place the transmission in neutral. The jeep keeps going with momentum taking the turn and doesn’t lose much speed. And when I put it back in 6th gear it’s fine.
If I do the same thing going up a steep hill, I lose speed at a much greater rate. If I try placing the manual transmission back in 6th gear after putting the manual transmission in neutral driving up mid steep hill, I risk stalling out / killing the engine and need to down shift before engaging the transmission.
Again. Staying in 6th on a curve on a level surface doesn’t mess with the fuel mileage. Trying to run up a steep hill in 6th makes the fuel mileage go down with the engine running like crap with no power until I down shift to 5th or 4th gear. Anyway, the gas mileage is still way down. It’s really pronounced if I’m pulling my trailer loaded down with gravel.
Again Bulma, the fact you got to blatantly lie about driving up hill is why people hate flat earthers. You are so brainwashed you have to lie about simple everyday events.
-
you are working with angular momentum. A steep enough hill,
I couldn’t help but think of FE stupidity while at the playground with the kid.
This playground marry-go-round with good bearings is easy to spin. I’ve seen a three year old spin the thing.
(https://i.imgur.com/3KFp2Jv.gif)
Just minimum effort to spin this all steel 400 pound dinosaur of the playground world.
Take the same equipment, try to get it on a decent wheelbarrow, and push it up hill would be back breaking work. I don’t think the three year old is going to cut it.
Yeah, gravity makes it hard to move things with 400 lbs of weight uphill.
-
Minimal effort because of rotational momentum.
The merry go round
is on a level plane turning on a pivot (underneath the main part of the merry go round is its base)
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/playground-merrygoround-2-3d-2004791
Angular momentum would be having a team leave the base behind, and set the thing at a hilltop. Like before, minimal effort is required to push it off the hilltop.
However, rotational/radial momentum and angular momentum are decidedly not synonyms, despite what your established scientism (yes, that is a word, it refers to pseudoscience as a faith system) says. The difference is a key feature of angular momentum, directionality. Move that merry go round to the middle of the hill and have me push it uphill then down.
Obviously, it is far easier to push it downhill than uphill. But the sleight of hand comes from how this is explained. The RE observer invoke "gravity", a so-called force that won't act on its own if that merry go round is firmly situated, instead the object needs the energy from human effort to push it. They also can't explain the difference except that one side is " down" and thus gravity will make it fall that way.
The FE observer instead asks the viewer to look in the direction of the hill and then the direction away from the hill. You are literally pushing against rock or dirt in one direction, with nothing but air in the other direction. Unlike you, I've on occasion moved a car uphill from a ditch or two. It's possible, if you have friends. I've also lifted vs pushed heavy objects uphill (every time we unload from a vacation, we have to walk suitcases up a flight of stairs). On a flat surface or downhill, pushing a heavy object is easier than having to lift it, particularly on a slick surface like ice. But uphill? It's actually easier to lift it! Why is that? Surely you've asked this question! No? Well good, because it's rhetorical. This is because while against the ground, you're dealing with effectively a sloped wall (typically this is why tow trucks pull instead of some big machine pushing, it's about leverage). But if you lift the object, there's air in one direction, air in another, and you only deal with the added mass of the object.
-
Angular momentum
Why do you keep spamming this site with stupidity?
From my car taking a turn on the highway on a level surface. There is no penalty in power and fuel mileage. There is a penalty going up a steep hill with a decrease in gas mileage.
A four year old can spin a merry-go-round with relative ease. Even on a cart, they aren’t going to push the 400 lbs of steel up hill.
Bulma, your argument is just stupid.
-
Minimal effort because of rotational momentum.
No, minimal effort, because it is supported by bearings which minimise friction and you aren't trying to move it further away from Earth.
As opposed to taking something uphill, where you move it further from Earth's centre, needing to fight gravity.
And as it is rotating, i.e. the angle is changing, it then has angular momentum.
Again, you lying about the meaning of words just makes you a pathetic liar. It doesn't make you correct.
Obviously, it is far easier to push it downhill than uphill. But the sleight of hand comes from how this is explained.
Yes, instead of accepting the simple explanation that actually works, you continually appeal to pure BS as if the act of rotating it relative to some magical reference magically changes everything.
They also can't explain the difference
Except I did, and you ignored it.
Meanwhile, your BS doesn't work.
When you push something up a hill, you don't push it into the hill you push it along the hill, parallel to the ground.
It is the same setup, but at a different angle, pushing into the same air.
(https://i.imgur.com/86DpT9t.png)
It makes no sense for there to be any difference in your pile of nonsense.
But there is a reason for the RE - because in one case, you are not changing the distance to the centre, yet in the other 2 you are.
This also directly relates to why it isn't going up or down when travelling level with the curvature of Earth, because you are remaining the same distance.
But uphill? It's actually easier to lift it!
No, it isn't.
It is easier to pull or push something up a hill than it is to lift it.
You can even test this with scales.
But again, none of this helps with your BS where you are claiming to travel along a level surface on a RE you magically need to go up hill.
Why up? Why not down? You have no basis to say any particular part of Earth is "up" in your magic fantasy up.
It remains the same distance from the centre, so it is level, not going up or down.