# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 04:57:39 PM

Title: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 04:57:39 PM
The surface distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10,011.720km.  For this point, we're only going to use the Northern Hemisphere.

The circumference at the equator is 40,075.02km.

Using the formula 2*Pi*r=Circumference however, the circumference on a flat Earth would be 62,905.492km

FE Equatorial circumference=62,905.49km (38,087.66 miles) while the actual measured circumference is 40,075.02km (24,901.46),
a difference of   22830.47km  (14186.20 miles).

Therefore the Flat Earth is proven impossible.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2007, 05:08:41 PM
Quote
Therefore the Flat Earth is proven impossible.

Nope, sorry. Your math only demonstrates your ignorance and need to revisit middle school.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 05:24:59 PM
Here, I'll simplify it and show you step by step.

What's 2 times Pi?     About 6.28

what's 6.28 times 10,012?

about 62,900.  That would be the equatorial circumference of a flat Earth.

The true equatorial circumference is 40,075 km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)  Earth's Measurements
http://www.csgnetwork.com/circlecalc.html (http://www.csgnetwork.com/circlecalc.html) Easy to use calculator
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/geolwisc/geostops/halfway.htm (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/geolwisc/geostops/halfway.htm) shows 6222 miles or 10,012 as the distance from the North Pole to the Equator.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: RoundisWrong on March 08, 2007, 05:48:54 PM
The surface distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10,011.720km.  For this point, we're only going to use the Northern Hemisphere.

The circumference at the equator is 40,075.02km.
Did you measure those distances?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 06:09:32 PM
NO, but the radius can be found by using a stopwatch.

Once you find the radius you can know all the attributes of the Earth.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: EvilToothpaste on March 08, 2007, 06:15:08 PM
My stopwatch doesn't have that function, and if it did I wouldn't trust it . . . because WTF?

Now that I have read the article, it makes many assumptions about the shape and movement of the Earth.  Can you see what these assumptions are?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 06:27:31 PM
My stopwatch doesn't have that function, and if it did I wouldn't trust it . . . because WTF?

Now that I have read the article, it makes many assumptions about the shape and movement of the Earth.  Can you see what these assumptions are?

The observation can still be made on a disk. It all depends on when the Sun appears and disappears.  The Flat Earth model has a sunset and sunrise.  That's all that's needed.

Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 06:41:07 PM
I don't mean to go off on a tangent or anything, but has anyone accounted for the acceleration towards the edge of the rotating Flat Earth which would cause sea-levels to be consistently and significantly greater as you move south?

Not to mention the fact that a mere 150ft ice wall could not withstand the immense water pressure of such event.

If anyone even tries to say that the Earth doen't rotate, I will quickly put them in their place with atmospheric mechanics.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: EvilToothpaste on March 08, 2007, 06:45:06 PM
But with different assumptions we must make different conclusions based on the observation.  Assuming a flat Earth this observation would be a measure of the curvature of light (according to EricTheRed's thread on light-curvature).

In either case, though, nothing about the shape or size (or anything) is proved because of the assumptions made.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 07:02:18 PM
But with different assumptions we must make different conclusions based on the observation.  Assuming a flat Earth this observation would be a measure of the curvature of light (according to EricTheRed's thread on light-curvature).

In either case, though, nothing about the shape or size (or anything) is proved because of the assumptions made.

True,  since your height is added to the distance from the center of the Earth(spherical radius). So you would already have to assume the Earth is a sphere in order to get the radius with this experiment.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: RoundisWrong on March 08, 2007, 07:06:32 PM
I don't mean to go off on a tangent or anything, but has anyone accounted for the acceleration towards the edge of the rotating Flat Earth which would cause sea-levels to be consistently and significantly greater as you move south?

Not to mention the fact that a mere 150ft ice wall could not withstand the immense water pressure of such event.

If anyone even tries to say that the Earth doen't rotate, I will quickly put them in their place with atmospheric mechanics.
Who said the flat earth is rotating?

School me in atmospheric mechanics!!!
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 07:21:03 PM
Quote
Who said the flat earth is rotating?

School me in atmospheric mechanics!!!

Everyone on this forum when given this issue has said just that.

Coriolis Effect can only occur on a rotating body.  Coriolis effect is the reason for Buys Ballot's Law that when you stand with your back against the wind lower pressure is to your left in the Northern hemisphere.  Also, Vorticity is stronger towards the poles since the Coriolis effect is much stronger.  Also, the Subtropical jet is formed as Coriolis force causes it to recurve back to the Equator inducing the conservation of angular momentum thereby producing higher winds.

The Coriolis force would be much much stronger on a flat disk than on a sphere.  Not to mention the fact that cyclonic rotation in the southern hemisphere is in opposite direction from that of the Northern hemisphere  which would be impossible on a flat Earth.

Would you like me to elaborate?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: RoundisWrong on March 08, 2007, 07:41:07 PM
Quote
Who said the flat earth is rotating?

School me in atmospheric mechanics!!!

Everyone on this forum when given this issue has said just that.

Coriolis Effect can only occur on a rotating body.  Coriolis effect is the reason for Buys Ballot's Law that when you stand with your back against the wind lower pressure is to your left in the Northern hemisphere.  Also, Vorticity is stronger towards the poles since the Coriolis effect is much stronger.  Also, the Subtropical jet is formed as Coriolis force causes it to recurve back to the Equator inducing the conservation of angular momentum thereby producing higher winds.

The Coriolis force would be much much stronger on a flat disk than on a sphere.  Not to mention the fact that cyclonic rotation in the southern hemisphere is in opposite direction from that of the Northern hemisphere  which would be impossible on a flat Earth.

Would you like me to elaborate?
The Coriolis effect is caused by the container that holds the atmosphere on the flat earth.  The flat earth does not rotate.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 07:54:22 PM
Quote
The Coriolis effect is caused by the container that holds the atmosphere on the flat earth.  The flat earth does not rotate.
So much for your knowledge of atmospheric mechanics.

Please describe the arcane properties that your mystical container posesses that allow it to spin rising parcels of air counter-clockwise and sinking parcels of air clockwise.

The atmosphere is not the only thing that reacts to the coriolis force.  If you fill a large flat circular container with about an inch of water and a small hole in the center, allowing it a couple of weeks to stop moving, and drain the water, you will see the coriolis effect manifested.

Also, the ocean currents are formed by the Coriolis force.  Only they go clockwise in the Northern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: RoundisWrong on March 08, 2007, 08:09:27 PM
I'm simply trying to come up with an FE response.  I don't actually believe this shit.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 08:14:13 PM
No sweat dude
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 08:16:43 PM
I often wonder who really does.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: RoundisWrong on March 08, 2007, 08:25:19 PM
I often wonder who really does.
It seems as though there might be a couple people on here that truly believe the earth is flat, but it's hard to tell.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 08, 2007, 08:31:03 PM
I often wonder who really does.
It seems as though there might be a couple people on here that truly believe the earth is flat, but it's hard to tell.

It is quite an excercise to come up with good defenses.  Before this forum I did not know you could measure the Earth's radius
with a stopwatch.  I had to look that one up.  As for the weather stuff, I use this knowledge everyday to forecast for the Air Force.  I guess that means I must be a part of the force behind the government cover up.

I think a good argument to debunk the curved horizon would be the whole bending light theory that explains the sun rises and sunsets.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: EvilToothpaste on March 08, 2007, 08:33:17 PM
Check out the "True Believers" forum, Mr Fletch.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 05:21:41 PM
The surface distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10,011.720km.  For this point, we're only going to use the Northern Hemisphere.

The circumference at the equator is 40,075.02km.

Your argument starts with a falsehood. There is no "circumference at the equator." Sorry, but you lose.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: EvilToothpaste on March 09, 2007, 05:34:45 PM
The surface distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10,011.720km.  For this point, we're only going to use the Northern Hemisphere.

The circumference at the equator is 40,075.02km.

Your argument starts with a falsehood. There is no "circumference at the equator." Sorry, but you lose.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 05:35:39 PM
The surface distance from the North Pole to the Equator is 10,011.720km.  For this point, we're only going to use the Northern Hemisphere.

The circumference at the equator is 40,075.02km.

Your argument starts with a falsehood. There is no "circumference at the equator." Sorry, but you lose.

His argument assumes there is a "circumference at the equator." There is no such thing. The Earth is not round.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 09, 2007, 05:39:46 PM
So a flat circle cannot have a circumfrence either?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: huerosam on March 09, 2007, 05:41:00 PM
Go to the equator. GO AROUND THE PLANET FOLLOWING THE EQUATOR.
GEE I THINK YOU JUST TRAVELED THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE EQUATOR.
By the way,t hat IS CIRCUMFERENCE before you make an excuse. An dI know you're probably sitting at your computer thinking of one.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 05:41:21 PM
Who said the Earth was a circle?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: EvilToothpaste on March 09, 2007, 05:45:29 PM
Who said the Earth was a circle?
Here we go with another very interesting alternate Earth geometry...

There is no Equator, you RE idiot.
It's an imaginary circle . . .
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: EvilToothpaste on March 09, 2007, 06:02:49 PM
Yes I believe the Equator is an imaginary circle.  You think it is not imaginary?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 06:05:14 PM
Yes I believe the Equator is an imaginary circle.  You think it is not imaginary?

I don't believe in imaginary circles, I only believe in reality. There is no such thing as the "Equator." No circles can be "imagined" on the Earth that have any geographical significance.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: huerosam on March 09, 2007, 06:07:32 PM
It's just referred to imaginary because it isn't visible, whereas it actually DOES get hotter, near the equator, and it marks the meet between the north and south hemipheres.
Also, I'm not posting every few seconds ecause I'm ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING ELSE
OH GOD WHAT A HORRIBLE CONCEPT
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 06:08:47 PM
It's just referred to imaginary because it isn't visible, whereas it actually DOES get hotter, near the equator, and it marks the meet between the north and south hemipheres.

Imaginary hemispheres- more RE bullshit.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: huerosam on March 09, 2007, 06:11:48 PM
Alright, if it is then why does it get hotter at the equator(also, if you're a FEer then you should think that the equator is a nickname for the circumference of the ROUND DISC YOU CALL EARTH)? The answer for REers is that the sun hits there more and so it's hotter. YET ANOTHER STRANGE CONCEPT, THE SUN MAKES THINGS HOT.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 06:14:18 PM
Alright, if it is then why does it get hotter at the equator(also, if you're a FEer then you should think that the equator is a nickname for the circumference of the ROUND DISC YOU CALL EARTH)? The answer for REers is that the sun hits there more and so it's hotter. YET ANOTHER STRANGE CONCEPT, THE SUN MAKES THINGS HOT.

The Earth is not a "round disc," and no serious FEer would say that. You have bought the pseudo-FE conspiracy hook, line and sinker.

I agree that the Sun makes certain regions hotter at different times. That has nothing to do with your nonsense about imaginary circumference or hemispheres.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 07:04:30 PM
Yea, you "got rid of me" all right, silly REers. You treat me like shit because I dare to point out your nonsense, and *I'm* supposed to be the bad guy? No double standards here, nosiree.

Let's subsume your position so far. You believe in an imaginary Equator, imaginary hemispheres, and you think reality is 2D. Anything non-trollish in all of this nonsense?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 07:28:48 PM
Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 08:02:39 PM
No, I have not been "proven wrong." I am not the one who believes in imaginary entities.

Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: huerosam on March 09, 2007, 08:10:07 PM
That makes no sense, my good sir. If it's infinite then how can we walk around it?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 08:17:13 PM
No, I have not been "proven wrong." I am not the one who believes in imaginary entities.

Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.

On your infinite plane theory, what causes rising air parcels to rotate counter-clockwise over the U.S. and sinking air parcels to rotate clockwise?  Try giving a better answer than that it is just coincidence.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 09:54:10 PM
That makes no sense, my good sir. If it's infinite then how can we walk around it?

There is no "around." You don't walk "around" it, you walk "on" it.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 09:57:58 PM
No, I have not been "proven wrong." I am not the one who believes in imaginary entities.

Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.

On your infinite plane theory, what causes rising air parcels to rotate counter-clockwise over the U.S. and sinking air parcels to rotate clockwise?  Try giving a better answer than that it is just coincidence.

If you mean the Coriolis Effect, that's an urban legend (as you can see if you check on snopes.com). Otherwise, I have no idea what you are trying to refer to.

Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 10:54:18 PM
No, I have not been "proven wrong." I am not the one who believes in imaginary entities.

Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.

On your infinite plane theory, what causes rising air parcels to rotate counter-clockwise over the U.S. and sinking air parcels to rotate clockwise?  Try giving a better answer than that it is just coincidence.

If you mean the Coriolis Effect, that's an urban legend (as you can see if you check on snopes.com). Otherwise, I have no idea what you are trying to refer to.

I never said that Coriolis significantly affects the direction of a toilet.  What I'm saying is that the rotation of airmasses is entirely dependent on Coriolis.  Low pressure systems rotate counter-clockwise, and high pressre systems rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere.  Opposite in the Southern Hemisphere.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 09, 2007, 11:01:11 PM
No, I have not been "proven wrong." I am not the one who believes in imaginary entities.

Well, if the Earth is not a circle than what shape do you say it has?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.

On your infinite plane theory, what causes rising air parcels to rotate counter-clockwise over the U.S. and sinking air parcels to rotate clockwise?  Try giving a better answer than that it is just coincidence.

If you mean the Coriolis Effect, that's an urban legend (as you can see if you check on snopes.com). Otherwise, I have no idea what you are trying to refer to.

I never said that Coriolis significantly affects the direction of a toilet.  What I'm saying is that the rotation of airmasses is entirely dependent on Coriolis.  Low pressure systems rotate counter-clockwise, and high pressre systems rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere.  Opposite in the Southern Hemisphere.

Since these hemispheres are wholly imaginary, there must be another reason for it. I am not familiar with weather systems, but someone with more education in the topic would be able to point you to the correct science I'm sure.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 11:06:29 PM
Quote
Since these hemispheres are wholly imaginary, there must be another reason for it. I am not familiar with weather systems, but someone with more education in the topic would be able to point you to the correct science I'm sure.

The simplest answer is usually the right one.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 11:10:06 PM
Quote
Since these hemispheres are wholly imaginary, there must be another reason for it. I am not familiar with weather systems, but someone with more education in the topic would be able to point you to the correct science I'm sure.

Anyone with a good amount of understanding of weather systems would know that the Earth is round.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 09, 2007, 11:28:16 PM
I'll explain the nitty gritty of how it works.  For example, in the Northern hemisphere when hot air rises it induces lower pressure at a location.  This causes air from the surrounding area to move in.  As the parcels move, Coriolis deflects them to the right (or the Earth beneath the air moves) and they begin to flow counteclockwise around the low and begin to rise.  Areas of high pressure are falling so they go the opposite direction (clockwise).

The reason Coriolis occurs can be illustrated even on a disk.  A sphere is not neccessary.  Start at any point on the circle and face East.  Go in a straight line and you will find yourself going closer to the edge of the disk (equator or in the most popular FE, the Ice Wall).  In order to keep going East you have to always be correcting yourself to the left/north.  On a sphere the change is much more gradual.  Try it on a globe.  Since the force is so much stronger on a disk, computer weather models and meteorology would be completely ineffective and no meteorologist would ever be the slightest bit close to a correct forecast since all weather forecasts are based on a spherical Earth.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 10, 2007, 12:11:59 AM
And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Phentos on March 10, 2007, 12:53:55 AM
And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?

No.

Your theory is wrong, just like Timecube (http://www.Timecube.com). However, the Earth is not round, either.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 10, 2007, 01:01:25 AM
And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?

No.

Your theory is wrong, just like Timecube (http://www.Timecube.com). However, the Earth is not round, either.

So what is it, then?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Phentos on March 10, 2007, 01:02:48 AM
So what is it, then?

4D, but don't bother trying to understand; you're too dense. I've read through your posts.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Phentos on March 10, 2007, 01:40:16 AM
First Round Earth whackos, and now this. I guess I shouldn't have expected sanity coming on this board.

It's insane to deny the truth. Why do you deny the 4 dimensions of the earth?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 10, 2007, 07:33:40 AM
And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?

TV news stations forecast for a metropolitan region which covers wide enough of an area to have differing conditions throughout.  I, however, forecast for a 5-mile radius and my forecasts are 90% accurate.  By accurate, I mean within 3 degrees of temperature, 5 knots of wind, and .03 inches of mercury of air pressure.
Either way you look at it, they're very accurate given the amount of data they have to work with.

http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html (http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html)  This shows how sparse the weater baloon data is that forecasters have to work with.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: EvilToothpaste on March 10, 2007, 08:02:23 AM
http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html (http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html)  This shows how sparse the weater baloon data is that forecasters have to work with.
So each one of those "f" lookin' dealy's is a weather balloon?  Do you always forecast for the exact same 5-mile radius area?  Meteorology seems like very complex business; how often does some method of forecasting change?

I'm just curious, I doubt I'm going anywhere with this.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 10, 2007, 08:30:38 AM
http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html (http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html)  This shows how sparse the weater baloon data is that forecasters have to work with.
So each one of those "f" lookin' dealy's is a weather balloon?  Do you always forecast for the exact same 5-mile radius area?  Meteorology seems like very complex business; how often does some method of forecasting change?

I'm just curious, I doubt I'm going anywhere with this.

Right. They show the wind direction and speed.  Every so often I forecast for a different military installation in the South central thogh South East U.S.    A satellite was just sent up that is supposed to be able to work kind of like a very big RADAR.  I don't know too much about though.  With every new advance in computers, forecasting becmoes more accurate.  Satellite imagery was one of the best improvements ever made allowing us to watch the progression of systems that before we could only draw on paper using weather baloon data.  It is so complex that computers have to be the main force if we ever hope to have the "Back to the Future II" precision.  These computers all have Coriolis as a parameter.  My forecasts deal in aviation weather.  So I not only ave to tell you that it's going to be cloudy, but tell you that 5/8 of the sky will have clouds at 12000 feet and so forth.

Also, to improve precision we must have more measurements across the U.S.  It's similar to sample rate in a sound file.  The more samples you have, the less you have to extrapolate and the more subtleties you can pick up on.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 10, 2007, 03:54:39 PM
And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?

TV news stations forecast for a metropolitan region which covers wide enough of an area to have differing conditions throughout.  I, however, forecast for a 5-mile radius and my forecasts are 90% accurate.  By accurate, I mean within 3 degrees of temperature, 5 knots of wind, and .03 inches of mercury of air pressure.
Either way you look at it, they're very accurate given the amount of data they have to work with.

http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html (http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html)  This shows how sparse the weater baloon data is that forecasters have to work with.

If you're 90% accurate, how come YOU're not on the telly? You can do better than professional forecasters with meteorology diplomas? Give me a break.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: mightyfletch on March 10, 2007, 07:38:17 PM
And weather forecasts are notably unreliable. Coincidence?

TV news stations forecast for a metropolitan region which covers wide enough of an area to have differing conditions throughout.  I, however, forecast for a 5-mile radius and my forecasts are 90% accurate.  By accurate, I mean within 3 degrees of temperature, 5 knots of wind, and .03 inches of mercury of air pressure.
Either way you look at it, they're very accurate given the amount of data they have to work with.

http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html (http://weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_500.html)  This shows how sparse the weater baloon data is that forecasters have to work with.

If you're 90% accurate, how come YOU're not on the telly? You can do better than professional forecasters with meteorology diplomas? Give me a break.

I am a professional Air Force Weather Forecaster with a Degree in Meteorology.  Television forecasters don't deviate from the weather models which is why my forecasts are better than theirs.   My forecasts are tailored to aviation which has higher tolerances than civilian forecasts.  Television forecasters are more focused on radio broadcasting than meteorology.  Even the most with Meteorology degrees only learn the physics behind meteorology and don't actually learn how to forecast the weather.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 10, 2007, 09:35:55 PM
I am not angry... just pointing out yet another RE fantasy. Disagreeing with your nonsense does not make me angry.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: GeoLove on March 11, 2007, 05:27:33 AM
I am not angry... just pointing out yet another RE fantasy. Disagreeing with your nonsense does not make me angry.

yeah...rather an avant garde ass hole.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Phentos on March 11, 2007, 12:00:11 PM

yeah...rather an avant garde ass hole.

Do you even know what avant garde is?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: ch3ru on March 11, 2007, 10:42:40 PM
Frankly, I find this FE thing more than a little disturbing, but I'll respect that you have an alternative opinion. However...

Who said the Earth was a circle?
If that is an FE belief, then where does this http://i11.tinypic.com/2w2mzr5.png (http://i11.tinypic.com/2w2mzr5.png) come from?
It's used for explanatory purposes by one of your own, Tom Bishop.

Let's subsume your position so far. You believe in an imaginary Equator, imaginary hemispheres, and you think reality is 2D. Anything non-trollish in all of this nonsense?

Uhh...Yeah, another bit of confusion. As Eviloothpaste said, it's imaginary as in "not visible;" it's simply used as a guideline on sections of Earth. Also, where do you come up with this "2D reality" idea? Reality is clearly believed to be 3D. Otherwise, why would 3D graphics be designed with the goal of trying to produce more real and lifelike imagery?

I don't believe the Earth has a shape. I believe that the surface of the Earth is an infinite plane.
Again, refer to the link above. Also, can you explain how people have circumnavigated Earth by your theory?

And why are you so incessantly rude? It's really unnecessary.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: _MarquisDeSade on March 12, 2007, 06:22:04 AM
Quote
Therefore the Flat Earth is proven impossible.

Nope, sorry. Your math only demonstrates your ignorance and need to revisit middle school.
On another note, how did your interview go with the college girl TOm?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 09:50:29 AM
hello another slightly off topic point here i hope someone can sort out.  FE theory states that the reason things dissappear on the horizon is because they just get so small we cannot see them!  if this is the case when i got myself and my brother both to watch a boat sailing off to france (i am english) i had a high powered pair of binoculars he had his eyes we both saw the boat dissappear at the same time?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: MooBs on March 12, 2007, 09:53:29 AM
hello another slightly off topic point here i hope someone can sort out.  FE theory states that the reason things dissappear on the horizon is because they just get so small we cannot see them!  if this is the case when i got myself and my brother both to watch a boat sailing off to france (i am english) i had a high powered pair of binoculars he had his eyes we both saw the boat dissappear at the same time?

Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 09:55:24 AM
yeah FE people seem to hide behind that alot and relitivity even tho they are horribly misquoting the theory!
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 09:57:49 AM
relitivity even tho they are horribly misquoting the theory!
What part of Relativity have I 'misquoted'?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: MooBs on March 12, 2007, 09:58:43 AM
relitivity even tho they are horribly misquoting the theory!
What part of Relativity have I 'misquoted'?

"Ich bin homosexual, MY GOD DERE IZ DA SHADOW OBJECT!!!" - Einstein.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 10:01:17 AM
i didnt say you had i said some FE theorists had! in another thread good old tom was trying to persuade me that the fact with mathmatics you can PROVE 1=0 was only because i did not understand relitivity! also if we are indeed acelerating at a constant rate of 9.81m/s2 for the last 4.5ish billion years we would be moving at 47000000 times the speed of light relitivity has nothing to do with that!
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 10:03:48 AM
also if we are indeed acelerating at a constant rate of 9.81m/s2 for the last 4.5ish billion years we would be moving at 47000000 times the speed of light relitivity has nothing to do with that!
Relativity has everything to do with it.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 10:12:15 AM
i do joint physics and chem at uni and as far as i know relitivity deals pretty much totally with the warping and bending of time when things start to move close to the speed of light! please quote me the exact part saying it is to do with if u are accelerating at a constant acceleration how you can not whizz straight past the speed of light
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 10:15:20 AM
The exact part?  How about the part where it says that nothing can accelerate past the speed of light?  Or how about the EQUATIONS of Relativity!  You need to study a little bit harder over there at your 'Uni'.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 10:19:24 AM
The exact part?  How about the part where it says that nothing can accelerate past the speed of light?  Or how about the EQUATIONS of Relativity!  You need to study a little bit harder over there at your 'Uni'.

valid point but in that case the earth cannot be accelerating at a constant rate it must have slowed down or else it would have done what relitivity bans! :)
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 10:22:18 AM

valid point but in that case the earth cannot be accelerating at a constant rate it must have slowed down or else it would have done what relitivity bans! :)
Except that those EQUATIONS of Relativity allow for a constant acceleration without ever exceeding the speed of light.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 10:32:59 AM
ok i accept that i might not have learnt that or merely forgotten it but i cannot find anything at the precise moment about this could you please show me these equations
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 10:35:02 AM
w = (u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 10:39:42 AM
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 10:45:23 AM
w is the new velocity

U is the current velocity

v is the additional velocity (due to acceleration)

c is the speed of light
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 11:10:05 AM
w = (u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

ok simplifying it down cause you have a fraction over a fraction we get w=(u+v)*c^2/(1+(u*v)) assuming we let something fall from stop for one second at and acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 it will go from 0m/s to 9.81m/s.  by your formulea w=((0+9.81)*3*10^8/)1+0=2943000000m/s........ a slight anomoly
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 11:34:57 AM
That's because you don't know how to do algebra.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 11:38:20 AM
well please do tell me where i went wrong
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 11:41:03 AM
How did you get the c^2 into the numerator?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 11:43:41 AM
because you have term1/term2/c^2a fraction over a fraction so we can view it as term1/1 * c^2/term2. for an example of this 1/2/1/4=2
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 11:45:37 AM
No, I have term1/(term2 +term3/c^2).  Not quite the same thing.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 11:52:29 AM
No, I have term1/(term2 +term3/c^2).  Not quite the same thing.

sorry miss understanding on the writing of it so...w=(u+v/1) + (v*u/c^2)??
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 11:55:17 AM
No, it's:

Quote
w = (u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: MooBs on March 12, 2007, 11:56:10 AM
because you have term1/term2/c^2a fraction over a fraction so we can view it as term1/1 * c^2/term2. for an example of this 1/2/1/4=2

1/2 = 0.5/1 = 0.5/4 = 0.125?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 12:18:09 PM
for an example of this 1/2/1/4=2
Wow.  Are you sure you are at a university?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 12, 2007, 12:46:50 PM
for an example of this 1/2/1/4=2
Wow.  Are you sure you are at a university?

0.5/0.25 = 2. Don't you understand fractions?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 12:48:57 PM
0.5/0.25 = 2. Don't you understand fractions?
Don't you understand the order of operations?
1/2/1/4 is not (1/2)/(1/4).
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: MooBs on March 12, 2007, 12:50:26 PM
even moobs workered dis 1 out.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Franc T., Planar on March 12, 2007, 12:52:21 PM
0.5/0.25 = 2. Don't you understand fractions?
Don't you understand the order of operations?
1/2/1/4 is not (1/2)/(1/4).

It was obviously a fraction, not a series of divisions. Don't obfuscate the issue.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 12:56:20 PM
It sure looks like a series of divisions.  It is not obviously a fraction.  Math is precise.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: MooBs on March 12, 2007, 12:59:36 PM
It sure looks like a series of divisions.  It is not obviously a fraction.  Math is precise.

FOR ONCE I AGREE WITH THIS IDIOT.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 01:08:05 PM
yeah ok i will submit i made a mistake i was reading it as a series of fractions and thats how i wrote the 5.0/0.25 as i say i now accept you are right and your maths work!
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 01:09:17 PM
i now accept you are right and your maths work!
Of course they work.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 01:15:14 PM
No, it's:

Quote
w = (u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2)

ok having all of this down common sence tells me that if you drop an object accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 and leave it for 1 second it will be moving at 9.81m/s.  so 0+9.81=9.81 9.81/(1+0)=9.81 9.81/300000000=3.27*10^-8 still not 9.81m/s maybe im still miss understanding
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 01:18:55 PM
ok having all of this down common sence tells me that if you drop an object accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 and leave it for 1 second it will be moving at 9.81m/s.  so 0+9.81=9.81 9.81/(1+0)=9.81 9.81/300000000=3.27*10^-8 still not 9.81m/s maybe im still miss understanding
Good Lord!

w = (0 + 9.81)/(1+0*9.81/c^2) = 9.81
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: sokarul on March 12, 2007, 01:26:26 PM
ok having all of this down common sence tells me that if you drop an object accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 and leave it for 1 second it will be moving at 9.81m/s.  so 0+9.81=9.81 9.81/(1+0)=9.81 9.81/300000000=3.27*10^-8 still not 9.81m/s maybe im still miss understanding
Good Lord!

w = (0 + 9.81)/(1+0*9.81/c^2) = 9.81

Since when did they use the relativistic velocity addition formula for 9.8ms/s?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 01:30:06 PM
What?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: sokarul on March 12, 2007, 01:33:21 PM

Since when did they use the relativistic velocity addition formula for 9.8ms/s?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 01:36:25 PM

Since when did they use the relativistic velocity addition formula for 9.8ms/s?
9.8ms/s?  Is that milliseconds/second?  Do you mean m/s^2?  What about 9.8?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: sokarul on March 12, 2007, 01:40:11 PM

Since when did they use the relativistic velocity addition formula for 9.8ms/s?
9.8ms/s?  Is that milliseconds/second?  Do you mean m/s^2?  What about 9.8?
O wow I missed that.

But anyway, who uses the velocity addition formula for such slow speeds.  Let alone accelerations
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 01:43:33 PM

But anyway, who uses the velocity addition formula for such slow speeds.  Let alone accelerations
Well if you want to be accurate, you had better use it.  If your speeds get rather high, then you better start using it.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: sokarul on March 12, 2007, 01:47:31 PM

But anyway, who uses the velocity addition formula for such slow speeds.  Let alone accelerations
Well if you want to be accurate, you had better use it.  If your speeds get rather high, then you better start using it.

Ok please use that equation for values A and B where A = 9.8m/s/s and B= 10m/s/s.  Also what value for C will you use, because I dont know the acceleration of light value.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 01:56:15 PM
Ok please use that equation for values A and B where A = 9.8m/s/s and B= 10m/s/s.  Also what value for C will you use, because I dont know the acceleration of light value.
Obviously you've never taken a class in Relativity.  Acceleration is absolute.  The equation I provided is for velocity addition.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Tobias on March 12, 2007, 02:00:04 PM
ok having all of this down common sence tells me that if you drop an object accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 and leave it for 1 second it will be moving at 9.81m/s.  so 0+9.81=9.81 9.81/(1+0)=9.81 9.81/300000000=3.27*10^-8 still not 9.81m/s maybe im still miss understanding
Good Lord!

w = (0 + 9.81)/(1+0*9.81/c^2) = 9.81

did i do it wrong again with the series of divisions as u said it was cause the answer does not come out as 9.8! i have only just seen this equation but it doesnt work for the gravitational accelration u are suggesting maybe u need to learn relativity
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: sokarul on March 12, 2007, 02:07:19 PM
Ok please use that equation for values A and B where A = 9.8m/s/s and B= 10m/s/s.  Also what value for C will you use, because I dont know the acceleration of light value.
Obviously you've never taken a class in Relativity.  Acceleration is absolute.  The equation I provided is for velocity addition.
I called it the velocity addition formula.

I called it the velocity addition formula.

You guys were using 9.81m/s/s, I missed the part where he took of the acceleration part to just make 9.8m/s.  SO it looked like you were using it for acceleration.   But either way there is no reason to use that formula at such slow speeds.  It will be accurate just adding them together.

I have take physics that covers the relativistic equations.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 02:08:26 PM
did i do it wrong again with the series of divisions as u said it was cause the answer does not come out as 9.8! i have only just seen this equation but it doesnt work for the gravitational accelration u are suggesting maybe u need to learn relativity
There is no way you are in college.  If you are, you must be no further than basic algebra.

Look:

w = (u + v) / (1 + u*v/ c^2)

Let's take this slowly.

u = 0.  This is our current velocity, and we are starting at rest.
v = 9.8m/s.  This is our additional velocity, due to accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 for 1 second.

Now, (u + v) = (0 + 9.8 ) = 9.8.

(1 + u*v/c^2) = (1 + 0*9.8/c^2) = (1 + 0) = 1.

Therefore, w = 9.8/1 = 9.8.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 02:09:51 PM
But either way there is no reason to use that formula at such slow speeds.  It will be accurate just adding them together.
But you can't just add them together at relativistic velocities.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: sokarul on March 12, 2007, 02:13:42 PM
But either way there is no reason to use that formula at such slow speeds.  It will be accurate just adding them together.
But you can't just add them together at relativistic velocities.
Which is why I said
Quote
Since when did they use the relativistic velocity addition formula for 9.8ms/s?
I ment that 9.8 is such a slow speed. I didnt catch the acceleration part till later.  There is no reason to use it at 9.8m/s.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 02:15:27 PM
Yes, I got that.  You don't have to use it at slow speeds.  However, you must use it when velocities become fractions of c.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 12, 2007, 03:15:57 PM
Ok please use that equation for values A and B where A = 9.8m/s/s and B= 10m/s/s.  Also what value for C will you use, because I dont know the acceleration of light value.
Obviously you've never taken a class in Relativity.  Acceleration is absolute.  The equation I provided is for velocity addition.

Didn't you say acceleration was relative?
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: TheEngineer on March 12, 2007, 03:48:49 PM
Acceleration is relative to varying FORs.  It is absolute in space in Special Relativity.
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: Geordi la Forge on March 12, 2007, 04:47:28 PM
For those that are teh sux:

w =    u + v
1 +   uv
c^2
Title: Re: Radius of the Earth proves spherical
Post by: johnfrusciante on November 15, 2007, 09:52:26 AM
My stopwatch doesn't have that function, and if it did I wouldn't trust it . . . because WTF?

such is the problem with you crazies.