The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: totallackey on January 19, 2018, 12:44:17 PM

Title: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 19, 2018, 12:44:17 PM
Lately, this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/AGV3xiF.png)
Has been presented quite a bit in support of RE.

Time to discuss this particular image and a couple questions follow:

RE-tards, what is the measured distance of the photographer from the subject matter at hand?

What is the measured distance between each tower in the image?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 19, 2018, 02:01:17 PM
We must also take into account water's tendency to cause refraction, as well as Rowbotham's Law of Nature.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
Quote
The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.

A very good illustration of the difference is given in fig. 76. False or prevailing perspective would bring the lines A, B, and C, D, to the same point H; but the true or natural perspective

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig76.jpg)

brings the line A, B, to the point W, because there and there only does A, W, E, become the same angle as C, H, E. It must be the same angle or it is not the vanishing point.

The law represented in the above diagram is the "law of nature." It may be seen in every layer of a long wall; in every hedge and bank of the roadside, and indeed in every direction where lines and objects run parallel to each other; but no illustration of the contrary perspective is ever to be seen in nature.

...

In accordance with the above law of natural perspective, the following illustrations are important as representing actually observed phenomena. In a long row of lamps, standing on horizontal ground, the pedestals, if short, gradually diminish until at a distance of a few hundred yards they seem to disappear, and the upper and thinner parts of the lamp posts appear to touch the ground, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 77.

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig77.jpg)
 Fig. 77.
Fig. 77.


Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: markjo on January 19, 2018, 03:41:44 PM
John, what part of refraction or "Rowbotham's Law" predicts the apparent curvature visible in that photograph?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 19, 2018, 05:06:14 PM
John, what part of refraction or "Rowbotham's Law" predicts the apparent curvature visible in that photograph?
Didn't you look carefully at Rowbotham's diagrams and see the curve that he so thoughtfully drew in?

Look at these
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig76.jpg)

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig77.jpg)

It looks to me as though Rowbotham has drawn a piecewise-linear approximation to the curve of the Globe.
If not, just what hides the trunks of the trees or the bases of the lamp-posts?
Does light behave differently ;D below the "line-of-sight" than above?  ;D Hogwash!

That fits well with Soundly's powerline videos and photos:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7c33oqcoezqtsrj/Lake%20Pontchartrain%20Transmission%20Lines%20Nikon%20P900%20.jpg?dl=1)
Lake Pontchartrain Transmission Lines Nikon P900
The powerlines are shown on Google Earth, so anyone can easily find out exactly where they are.
Look up the YouTube channel Soundly, YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCDXr2cbK7WlfeYEtJxC9i3w) for details.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 19, 2018, 07:56:07 PM
as well as Rowbotham's Law of Nature.
You mean conman row boats lies to pretend Earth doesn't curve?

The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point.
No, that is how perspective works.
It doesn't matter how far the lines are distant from your eyes. Perspective has no preferential direction.

You aren't trying to see an object from your eye-height. You are merely trying to resolve a shape.

before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.
Nope. The vanishing point is infinitely far away. Not where the angle is one arcminute.


A very good illustration of the difference is given in fig. 76.
You mean an example of where the curvature of Earth obstructs the view.

See, the problem with his BS is requires first assuming Earth is flat, then using the observation which clearly show a curve to pretend perspective does something that it does not.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 19, 2018, 11:36:43 PM
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2018, 02:55:33 AM
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
I can see at least 38 separate ones, but it is hard to tell exactly how many as it starts blurring together at the end.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 20, 2018, 04:49:01 AM
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
I can see at least 38 separate ones, but it is hard to tell exactly how many as it starts blurring together at the end.
Okay, 38.

Care to provide any answer to the following questions:

What is the measured distance of the photographer from the subject matter at hand?

What is the measured distance between each tower in the image?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 08:52:22 AM
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
That image is much better!

I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Google maps shows this to about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
The image seems to be taken from about 1000' from the first tower in the straight line, where it splits.
https://goo.gl/maps/W6hhGV5Y1PB2

Open in maps and you can see "street" view
(https://i.imgur.com/aeWuKTl.png)

You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane. 

https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2

(https://i.imgur.com/rGQSfUc.png)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 10:09:50 AM
as well as Rowbotham's Law of Nature.
You mean conman row boats lies to pretend Earth doesn't curve?
Row boats are not sentient and cannot lie.
Quote
See, the problem with his BS is requires first assuming Earth is flat, then using the observation which clearly show a curve to pretend perspective does something that it does not.
We don't assume the earth is flat. We know it is flat through zetetic and neozetetic inquiry. To properly address your other points I need to know your opinion on Being. Does a phenemona itself have being, and what constitutes this being? What about observed entities? What is the relationship between this tie, and how can we view a true being and know that a phenemona is accurately representing it?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 20, 2018, 10:29:53 AM
That image is much better!

I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
Source?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 10:36:25 AM
I'd also like to know how we know this isn't a dip underground. We already see the towers are not level.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: markjo on January 20, 2018, 10:46:34 AM
I'd also like to know how we know this isn't a dip underground. We already see the towers are not level.
You do understand that in the context of a round earth, straight and level are not the same thing, don't you?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 11:43:44 AM
No, but I understand what you are trying to say. This was not my point; they are not even level to an altitude. Why would they be? That would be gross over-engineering.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 12:41:04 PM
I'd also like to know how we know this isn't a dip underground. We already see the towers are not level.
Underground???
The bottom of the lake is irrelevant, in fact it's best describes as when the muddy water gets thick enough to hold up your anchor.  It's 10 to 20 feet of muck.
Power lines, and anything else that doesn't float, are built using friction pilings.  Concrete and steel "posts" that are 100+ feet hammered into the mud until friction is sufficient to hold up the load.  Only the top matters.
No, but I understand what you are trying to say. This was not my point; they are not even level to an altitude. Why would they be? That would be gross over-engineering.
If you actually took the time to learn a little bit about surveying  you would realize just how stupid your comment is and how delusional your flat earth claims are.

I'll make it simple for you.

You start at tower one, at X distance above sea level.
You shoot a level line to tower two to determine its height.
From tower two, not tower one, you shoot a level line to tower three.
From three to four, from four to five, etc.

This is NOT over-engineering, it is the simplest way to do it shy of measuring up from the water.  Which of course is infeasible because of waves.  It automatically insures that the curve of the earth is followed and all will be the same height. 
If the earth were flat all points could be shot from tower one but in reality that doesn't work.
This is why there are no surveyors who believe your BS and also why you accuse them of being dishonest members of the  grand conspiracy.

No, but I understand what you are trying to say. This was not my point; they are not even level to an altitude. Why would they be? That would be gross over-engineering.

Well now we can say that you've seen the curve of the earth. 

I expect your resignation letter will be posted soon in the announcement forum?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 12:43:16 PM
They are not level to an altitude given even the close towers. In otherwords, they are not laid evenly, even assuming a supposed curvature to the world. How am I to assume the further away towers don't also suffer from this error, and aggregate it? You can clearly see dips between adjacent towers that are not reflected over the entirety of the surface, or even the next tower in line.

Curvature cannot be seen at these distances, even if the earth was round. This leads us to alternate hypotheses. Now, may I ask, do you feel it might be colder the further you travel away from land?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2018, 12:50:25 PM
We don't assume the earth is flat.
Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
Also, did you notice that I said far more than just that?
Your BS "law of nature" is based upon ignoring the curvature of Earth and pretending the results from it is some magic law of nature, which magically makes the bottom of objects get cut off first.

We know it is flat through zetetic and neozetetic inquiry.
No you don't.
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
All rational analysis (including zetetic methods) indicates it is round.

To properly address your other points I need to know your opinion on Being.
Why?
Perspective can be boiled down to a simple math problem.

Even con-man row boat's claims make no sense if there was some magic law of perspective.

It wouldn't cause objects to disappear from the bottom up. It would actually cause them to disappear from the height of your eye-line, outwards.

I'd also like to know how we know this isn't a dip underground. We already see the towers are not level.
No, we see that they are not in a straight line. That does not mean they aren't level.
As for why it wouldn't be a dip underground, that would be because they are travelling over water.
There will likely be slight discrepancies in height, but not enough to produce that curve.
Why would they suddenly switch what towers they are using or start having the towers below water level?

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 12:55:56 PM
We don't assume the earth is flat.
Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
...
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 12:56:57 PM
It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 12:57:57 PM
Quote
Why would they suddenly switch what towers they are using or start having the towers below water level?
Lots of day to day reasons come to mind. It is irrelevant, as they clearly aren't standing level. You see dips and dodges in the peaks of the structure.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: inquisitive on January 20, 2018, 12:58:51 PM
We don't assume the earth is flat.
Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
...
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0
Southern GPS issues?  Angles of the sun prove a round earth.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: inquisitive on January 20, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?
Who else?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 01:03:44 PM
We don't assume the earth is flat.
Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
...
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0
Southern GPS issues?  Angles of the sun prove a round earth.
Angles of the sun are actually one of the older, and disconnected proves of the flat Earth. Both discovered by Rowbotham and Taoists, as well as any free thinking man, they are nothing but proof that the Earth is not a Globe unless presupposed.

It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?
Who else?
It has been oft cited and oft reviewed in the flat earth community. I don't know what to tell you other than 'shake a stick towards flat earth literature' and it will come up.

Really.

Most books from Dubat to Rowbotham mention it.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 01:04:09 PM
They are not level to an altitude given even the close towers. In otherwords, they are not laid evenly, even assuming a supposed curvature to the world. How am I to assume the further away towers don't also suffer from this error, and aggregate it? You can clearly see dips between adjacent towers that are not reflected over the entirety of the surface, or even the next tower in line.

Curvature cannot be seen at these distances, even if the earth was round. This leads us to alternate hypotheses. Now, may I ask, do you feel it might be colder the further you travel away from land?

If you are talking about 2 towers being spaced wider than the norm this is for boat channels.  If memory serves me correctly there are 3 channels.  I'm more familiar with the north shore so I can't say for that's not 2 or 4 or more.

Btw, why do you use perspective in instances where it is patently  false yet refuse to consider forced perspective making the curve look more exaggerated exactly as it should?

Edit

[Quote ]Now, may I ask, do you feel it might be colder the further you travel away from land?[/quote]

It's South Louisiana John it's hot everywhere!
I see your point, but it's not a factor unless your talking dead of winter.  It's a shallow lake and it stays pretty warm.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 01:07:22 PM
Are you telling me that perspective does not apply to bodies observed over a long enough period, as exemplified by the original photograph?

I am talking about the peaks of the towers. They do not align, as one would assume if they were basing their construction off the edge of the water, to each other in a polynomial fashion. The tips of each tower, relative to the previous, have a wide margin of error. When this error is aggregate over the entire structure, there is nothing that says this curvature wouldn't present naturally given the Law of Nature and refraction.

Do you feel you can see curvature of the earth over these distances if the Earth was a Globe?

Why so?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: inquisitive on January 20, 2018, 01:15:28 PM
We don't assume the earth is flat.
Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
...
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0
Southern GPS issues?  Angles of the sun prove a round earth.
Angles of the sun are actually one of the older, and disconnected proves of the flat Earth. Both discovered by Rowbotham and Taoists, as well as any free thinking man, they are nothing but proof that the Earth is not a Globe unless presupposed.

It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?
Who else?
It has been oft cited and oft reviewed in the flat earth community. I don't know what to tell you other than 'shake a stick towards flat earth literature' and it will come up.

Really.

Most books from Dubat to Rowbotham mention it.
Not when measured from more than 2 locations.

Please provide details from current surveyors.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2018, 01:19:54 PM
Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0
As I said the last time you brought this up, none of that is evidence that Earth is flat.
It is a compilation of lies (such as "There is no law of optics that would allow a body to appear flat if it was indeed round.", which completely ignores how optics actually works), nonsensical claims (such as "Water has been determined experimentally to be level. If the earth was round, and spun, water would not be level.", which completely ignores what level means) and the closest you get to "evidence" is being unable to distinguish between being curved and flat (such as "Find the curve! You can't.").

So no, there is no evidence at all which would convince an honest, rational person that Earth is flat. But there is plenty to convince them it is round.

You have also indicated you don't even want to debate those points.

It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?
Why would I need to refute it?
How did conman row boat show these structures don't take into account the curve?
More importantly, what would you expect the curve to do such that it would need to be taken into account.

Angles of the sun are actually one of the older, and disconnected proves of the flat Earth.
No it isn't. The angles of the sun have never been a proof of a flat Earth.
However they are still a current proof of Earth being round.

The best you get regarding a flat Earth is a few measurements producing a widely inaccurate height of the sun which varies dramatically.
However you can get a fairly accurate calculation of the circumference of Earth from multiple observations.

there is nothing that says this curvature wouldn't present naturally given the Law of Nature
Sure there is, the fact that the "Law of Nature" is just blatant lies to try and hide the curve by pretending nature is magic.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 20, 2018, 02:05:29 PM
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
That image is much better!

I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Google maps shows this to about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
The image seems to be taken from about 1000' from the first tower in the straight line, where it splits.
https://goo.gl/maps/W6hhGV5Y1PB2

Open in maps and you can see "street" view
(https://i.imgur.com/aeWuKTl.png)

You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane. 

https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2

(https://i.imgur.com/rGQSfUc.png)
If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?

What happened to the three mile horizon?

Where is the RE-tard math?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 02:31:21 PM
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
That image is much better!

I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Google maps shows this to about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
The image seems to be taken from about 1000' from the first tower in the straight line, where it splits.
https://goo.gl/maps/W6hhGV5Y1PB2

Open in maps and you can see "street" view
(https://i.imgur.com/aeWuKTl.png)

You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane. 

https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2

(https://i.imgur.com/rGQSfUc.png)
If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?

What happened to the three mile horizon?


Well Forest  you need to do the math with the number of towers to the horizon (not total visible) if you want to calculate distance to the horizon .

Or you could just read my first  post.

Quote
    I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Do you need help with the math or would you just rather read my first post?
Quote
  about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 02:46:52 PM
Are you telling me that perspective does not apply to bodies observed over a long enough period, as exemplified by the original photograph?

I am talking about the peaks of the towers. They do not align, as one would assume if they were basing their construction off the edge of the water, to each other in a polynomial fashion. The tips of each tower, relative to the previous, have a wide margin of error. When this error is aggregate over the entire structure, there is nothing that says this curvature wouldn't present naturally given the Law of Nature and refraction.

Do you feel you can see curvature of the earth over these distances if the Earth was a Globe?

Why so?

Because that curve has been getting in the way of me and my destination for 5 decades.  I suffered the trauma of my brother's ridicule for calling it a hill the first time I noticed it.   ;)

When you see a giant oil rig offshore rise up from the horizon just a few miles away it leaves no doubt.  Especially at dusk/dawn when you can  only see the navigation lights on the derick while the much brighter and larger rig is hidden behind the horizon.

You can call that the curve or an effect of the curve it's the same thing.
It also means sphere or cylinder and that can be answered by looking left or right.   :)

And it's also the reason there are no Flatters at sea.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 03:04:45 PM
Are you telling me that perspective does not apply to bodies observed over a long enough period, as exemplified by the original photograph?

I am talking about the peaks of the towers. They do not align, as one would assume if they were basing their construction off the edge of the water, to each other in a polynomial fashion. The tips of each tower, relative to the previous, have a wide margin of error. When this error is aggregate over the entire structure, there is nothing that says this curvature wouldn't present naturally given the Law of Nature and refraction.



Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.

What can NOT be explained by perspective is the water line on the towers.
Notice how they disappear right at the horizon yet you still see the white base of the towers?

Are you claiming water part of the conspiracy now?

Btw this power line was installed before nasa was founded so you can forget the they built it to make the earth look curved theory.

Now about that letter. ..
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 20, 2018, 03:41:58 PM
Well Forest  you need to do the math with the number of towers to the horizon (not total visible) if you want to calculate distance to the horizon .

Or you could just read my first  post.

Quote
    I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Do you need help with the math or would you just rather read my first post?
Quote
  about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
Your four miles seems to be wrong.

I did the math just with the 38 distinguishable pylons (claimed by JackBlack).

38 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

38 x 950 = 36,100 feet.

36,100/5280 = 6.8 miles
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2018, 03:44:27 PM
If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?

What happened to the three mile horizon?

Where is the RE-tard math?
The RE-tard comments are right there in your post.
The horizon varies depending upon how high you are.
Objects disappearing depend upon how high they are.
It isn't a magic case of once something is 3 miles away it disappears.

According to https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ then for a distance of 7 miles, with a viewer height of 6 feet, only 11 feet are hidden. Accounting for standard atmospheric refraction, only 8 feet are hidden.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 04:26:07 PM
Well Forest  you need to do the math with the number of towers to the horizon (not total visible) if you want to calculate distance to the horizon .

Or you could just read my first  post.

Quote
    I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Do you need help with the math or would you just rather read my first post?
Quote
  about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
Your four miles seems to be wrong.

I did the math just with the38 distinguishable pylons [/u](claimed by JackBlack).

38 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

38 x 950 = 36,100 feet.

36,100/5280 = 6.8 miles

You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.

Maybe this will help...

(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)

You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.

22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.

20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 20, 2018, 05:24:19 PM
You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane. 

https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2

(https://i.imgur.com/rGQSfUc.png)
If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?

What happened to the three mile horizon?

Where is the RE-tard math?
Your "three mile horizon" is for the camera 6 feet above the water but in that Google Street-view photo the camera is obviously much more than 6 feet above the water.

A camera 32 feet feet above the water would make the horizon about 7 miles away.
That looks about right when you consider that the I10 is above a railway line and the railway line is 7 to 10 ft above lake level.

Like to try again?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 05:59:09 PM
The peaks of the towers don't align evenly. This makes it an unsuitable choice for a study to determine shape of the earth. Come ack with something science would validate and we can talk more.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 20, 2018, 06:29:43 PM
The peaks of the towers don't align evenly. This makes it an unsuitable choice for a study to determine shape of the earth. Come ack with something science would validate and we can talk more.
They don't? Look again at Soundly's powerline videos and photos:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7c33oqcoezqtsrj/Lake%20Pontchartrain%20Transmission%20Lines%20Nikon%20P900%20.jpg?dl=1)
Lake Pontchartrain Transmission Lines Nikon P900
The powerlines are shown on Google Earth, so anyone can easily find out exactly where they are.
Look up the YouTube channel Soundly, YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCDXr2cbK7WlfeYEtJxC9i3w) for many video and details.

Maybe you could come back with some proof of the flat earth that science would validate and we can talk more.
I have yet to see it - and I have looked at your 142 "evidences", seen much of William Carpenters "100 proofs that the Earth is not a Globe" and Eric Dubay's 200 proofs.

The only thing against debunking those is the sheer tedium and repetition involved - its more a proof by exhaustion, Argumentum Ad Infinitum.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 07:30:59 PM
The peaks of the towers don't align evenly. This makes it an unsuitable choice for a study to determine shape of the earth. Come ack with something science would validate and we can talk more.

Let's look deeper...

Here is a dot place on key points as far away as I could resolve them.

(https://i.imgur.com/etrrk7k.jpg)

Not exactly the straight lines of perspective  that you would expect if the earth were flat.

(https://i.imgur.com/tCShTUg.jpg)

Now I can't place more dots with certainly but we can extend the those lines to a vanishing point.

(https://i.imgur.com/vpRkP2Q.jpg)

When can we expect that letter?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: defender_of_truth on January 20, 2018, 09:12:02 PM
You guys are great! I値l come ack when you need more help. For now, I値l continute to spectate.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 09:26:39 PM
You really nailed those peaks. Good job on that job. Really puts the Flat Earth Idea to shame. Shit never-mind about all this. Better go home and forget about it. The weight of your evidence is far too much for me to carry. This is just wild how accurate it is! Holy shit. You've convinced me. Science is totally the way to go.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 20, 2018, 09:29:18 PM
So, I can notate in my journal how I changed my belief - how much cable did they buy?!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2018, 10:46:29 PM
The peaks of the towers don't align evenly. This makes it an unsuitable choice for a study to determine shape of the earth. Come ack with something science would validate and we can talk more.
Science isn't the issue here, the FEers are.
Science has already validated the shape of Earth. Guess what? It's round. The problem is the FEers are in denial, so you are provided simple everyday things which can be used to show it is round, like this.

Also, science doesn't need it perfectly aligned.
We can see that there are some minor variations in the height of each one, but that is quite small when you have so many. If Earth was flat you would expect these to follow straight lines, they don't.

So, I can notate in my journal how I changed my belief - how much cable did they buy?!
Who cares?
That doesn't magically make Earth flat.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Crutchwater on January 21, 2018, 04:14:16 AM
You really nailed those peaks. Good job on that job. Really puts the Flat Earth Idea to shame. Shit never-mind about all this. Better go home and forget about it. The weight of your evidence is far too much for me to carry. This is just wild how accurate it is! Holy shit. You've convinced me. Science is totally the way to go.


NOW you're getting it!

Too bad about all your wasted time though, THAT has to sting a bit!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 21, 2018, 04:21:53 AM
You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.

Maybe this will help...

(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)

You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.

22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.

20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
No.

I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.

That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Crutchwater on January 21, 2018, 04:29:48 AM
You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.

Maybe this will help...

(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)

You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.

22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.

20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
No.

I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.

That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.

You can CLEARLY see the towers curve over the horizon.

This proves you dead wrong. Period.

The Earth is NOT flat, and you are an obvious idiot.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 21, 2018, 04:30:09 AM
You really nailed those peaks. Good job on that job. Really puts the Flat Earth Idea to shame. Shit never-mind about all this. Better go home and forget about it. The weight of your evidence is far too much for me to carry. This is just wild how accurate it is! Holy shit. You've convinced me. Science is totally the way to go.
What on earth are you raving on about! You don't take defeat well, do you?

If those photos are not evidence of curved water, I suggest you trade in your seeing-eye-dog - see, I'm learning ridicule from the Master,
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 21, 2018, 04:30:50 AM
You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane. 

https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2

(https://i.imgur.com/rGQSfUc.png)
If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?

What happened to the three mile horizon?

Where is the RE-tard math?
Your "three mile horizon" is for the camera 6 feet above the water but in that Google Street-view photo the camera is obviously much more than 6 feet above the water.

A camera 32 feet feet above the water would make the horizon about 7 miles away.
That looks about right when you consider that the I10 is above a railway line and the railway line is 7 to 10 ft above lake level.

Like to try again?
The photo you presented, remember that?

Not referencing the I 10 photo.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 21, 2018, 04:34:57 AM
You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.

Maybe this will help...

(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)

You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.

22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.

20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
No.

I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.

That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.

You can CLEARLY see the towers curve over the horizon.

This proves you dead wrong. Period.

The Earth is NOT flat, and you are an obvious idiot.
That is simply an effect of the zoom lense.

Go back to your corner and have a biscuit.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 21, 2018, 04:38:55 AM
You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.

Maybe this will help...

(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)

You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.

22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.

20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
No.

I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.

That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.
Incorrect! I thought I spelt this out for you before, but I guess your tine mind can take it in.

The distance to the horizon depends on the height of the observer.
The horizon would be about 3 miles away for an observer 6 feet above the water.
The horizon would be about 7 miles away for an observer 32 feet above the water.

So try that out with your FE-tard math.

The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Crutchwater on January 21, 2018, 04:41:05 AM
Oh, yeah... It's an optical distortion from telephoto lens..

Right.

Try again, Mr. lacking
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 21, 2018, 04:44:47 AM
Go back to your corner and have a biscuit.
Lackey want a cracker?

PS In case to hadn't heard, the earth is a Globe and has since there was anything living on it. here's it's first colour protrail:
55 years ago today (1959),
the 1st color photo of Earth from space
was taken from a Thor missile - 1 Dec 2014.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3x9kz8IMAA-5nN.png)
From: Ron Baalke, Space Explorer
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Asteroid 6524 Baalke.
(https://twitter.com/ronbaalke/status/539444127709265920)
Hope you like it!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 21, 2018, 04:55:21 AM
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.
AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."

Okay.

The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Crutchwater on January 21, 2018, 05:05:11 AM
Quote from: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 04:26:07 PM
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.
AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."

Okay.

The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.
[/quote]

It's alright, Mr Lacking...

People sometimes have to admit defeat.

It's just YOUR turn right now!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 21, 2018, 05:12:37 AM
Quote from: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 04:26:07 PM
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.
AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."

Okay.

The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.

It's alright, Mr Lacking...

People sometimes have to admit defeat.

It's just YOUR turn right now!
[/quote]
Not hardly.

You'se guys don't even have your numbers straight. for cryin out loud...

LOL!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Crutchwater on January 21, 2018, 05:29:28 AM
You can't even use the quote feature correctly, for crying out loud!

Another victory for RE!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 21, 2018, 12:05:16 PM
That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.
No, it means you can see ones which are further than the horizon.
You would expect to.
Like I said before, objects don't just magically disappear when they reach the horizon, they begin to be obscured from the bottom up.

According to math based upon reality (i.e. RE math) there is nothing wrong with that.

That is simply an effect of the zoom lense.
No it isn't. Zoom lenses do not make things going off into the distance appear to curve.

The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.
You mean your tactic of grasping at whatever BS you can to pretend your FE delusions are correct; while ignoring refutations of your claims with you just repeating the same BS.
That wont work on us, or any rational people.

How about you try honesty with honest rational arguments, oh wait, you want to show Earth is flat and you cant use honest rational arguments for that.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 21, 2018, 12:36:34 PM
You really nailed those peaks. Good job on that job. Really puts the Flat Earth Idea to shame. Shit never-mind about all this. Better go home and forget about it. The weight of your evidence is far too much for me to carry. This is just wild how accurate it is! Holy shit. You've convinced me. Science is totally the way to go.

Why are you obsessed with the peaks yet ignore the 800 pounds gorilla  in the room, the rest of the tower?  Spoiler: I know the answer.
I explained to you that that the towers are all not space evenly and I explained the reason why this is.  I even posted a image that illustrates this:
(https://i.imgur.com/etrrk7k.jpg)
I will be happy to provide ammo for your other foot and highlight the poorer OP image that actually shows the top of all towers after this afternoon's hunt.

Now, I've once again addressed your comments would you please respond in kind and address the other 90% of the towers.
Let's get down to earth and start at the bottom, the high water stains on the concrete pilings.

(https://i.imgur.com/Fmv8JHY.jpg)
1. Why are the water stains curved?

Has water now joined with light and air in conspiring to make the earth look round?

2.  Why do the water stains disappear after the horizon yet the tops of the pilings are still visible?

You owe your supporters answers before you post your letter.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 21, 2018, 12:58:10 PM
You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.

Maybe this will help...

(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)

You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.

22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.

20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
No.

I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.

That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.
Are you just playing dumb  to avoid admitting that you are wrong or can you possibly be that stupid?
I'll give you another chance since you're such a nice and charming guy with this analogy.

You are standing in a field looking down a fence that as 37 posts spaced 10' apart.

There is another fence that runs perpendicular to fence one and intersections fence one at post 22.  Post 22 is shared by both fences.

The question arises how far away is fence two (the horizon)?

I'll even make it multiple choice to help you.

How far away is fence two(the horizon)

A.  There are 22 posts to fence two(the horizon) therfore 22 x 10' = 220'

B.  There are 22 posts to fence two(the horizon) and there are 15 posts past fence two(the horizon) therefore 37 x 10' = 370'

C.  I cannot answer this question on the grounds that it proves me wrong, dumb, or both.


My advice is to stop digging.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 21, 2018, 06:57:34 PM
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.
AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."
Okay.
The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.
OK, Mr Smart Aleck, if you think my estimate of 32 feet is wrong, you tell me the height of that camera above the water level.

I could estimate it more accurately by scaling from the height of the towers, but frankly, I can't be bothered wasting my time on you!
Here a little video

How to End Flat Earth in 2.5 minutes
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 22, 2018, 05:59:01 AM
Let me introduce a second line of power poles to further obfuscate my contributions to the thread in an effort to make it seem like I know what I am writing about...
No...

Ain't gonna happen cupcake...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 22, 2018, 06:05:33 AM
OK, Mr Smart Aleck, if you think my estimate of 32 feet is wrong, you tell me the height of that camera above the water level = Allow me to feign ignorance and skipp over the post by NAZA which states the photographer is standing 10 feet above the water line.
FTFY.
I could estimate it more accurately by scaling from the height of the towers, but frankly, I can't be bothered wasting my time on you! =  I have never been concerned about finding the truth anyway...I am only concerned about making sure I reach my daily post quota...
FTFY.
Here a little video

How to End Flat Earth in 2.5 minutes
(https://i.imgur.com/3rf2udX.gif)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 22, 2018, 06:54:26 AM
Let me introduce a second line of power poles to further obfuscate my contributions to the thread in an effort to make it seem like I know what I am writing about...
No...

Ain't gonna happen cupcake...

As I thought, your answer is:

C.  I cannot answer this question on the grounds that it proves me wrong, dumb, or both.


Must suck to be you.
You start a thread hoping to disprove damning evidence against a flat earth and it blew up in your face.
John Davis has to resort to a poor attempt at humor to save face and he can't answer two simple questions.

All you've proven is that you're too stupid to grasp basic math or too disingenuous to admit a mistake.  I'm okay with either one, and frankly neither is surprising.
At least John was smart enough to put his shovel down.

Would you like to attempt  to answer the questions that he is avoiding?   There's plenty of dirt left in the hole.

Why are the water stains curved in this image and why do they stop after the horizon even though the tops of the pilings are still visible?

(https://i.imgur.com/Fmv8JHY.jpg)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Mikey T. on January 22, 2018, 07:38:16 AM
Why does this look pretty close to what I personally witnessed at Lake Pontchartrain on multiple occasions.  I lost count of how much money I spent to cross the lake bridge going South, it's free going North.

https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 22, 2018, 08:31:10 AM

Why are the water stains curved in this image and why do they stop after the horizon even though the tops of the pilings are still visible?

(https://i.imgur.com/Fmv8JHY.jpg)
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Period.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 22, 2018, 09:21:11 AM

Why are the water stains curved in this image and why do they stop after the horizon even though the tops of the pilings are still visible?

(https://i.imgur.com/Fmv8JHY.jpg)
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Period.
No it isn't.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: 54N on January 22, 2018, 11:17:24 AM
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Lens (note correct spelling)  distortion can distort a picture..  It can't actually change what's in the picture.
A lens can't make something in the picture (ie: the bottom of the distant poles) disappear behind something else in the picture (ie: the water).
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 22, 2018, 01:05:47 PM
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.
BS.
Explain what lens magically causes this distortion.
Explain how this also magically makes it happen to the human eye.

Also, address the issues raised with your BS regarding the horizon.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Crutchwater on January 22, 2018, 01:52:05 PM
Flat Earth is burning in embers, get over it...

Grow up, and move on to chemtrails, whatever!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 22, 2018, 02:25:09 PM

Why are the water stains curved in this image and why do they stop after the horizon even though the tops of the pilings are still visible?

(https://i.imgur.com/Fmv8JHY.jpg)
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Period.
No it isn't.
Yes. It is.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 22, 2018, 02:28:32 PM
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Lens (note correct spelling)
"Lense is accepted as an alternative spelling by Webster's Third New International Dictionary..." -   https://www.google.com/search?q=lense&oq=lense&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3488j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8distortion
can distort a picture..  It can't actually change what's in the picture.
Correct.
A lens can't make something in the picture (ie: the bottom of the distant poles) disappear behind something else in the picture (ie: the water).
Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Crutchwater on January 22, 2018, 02:35:21 PM
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: 54N on January 22, 2018, 06:16:02 PM
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Lens (note correct spelling)
"Lense is accepted as an alternative spelling by Webster's Third New International Dictionary..." -   https://www.google.com/search?q=lense&oq=lense&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3488j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8distortion
can distort a picture..  It can't actually change what's in the picture.
Correct.
A lens can't make something in the picture (ie: the bottom of the distant poles) disappear behind something else in the picture (ie: the water).
Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!
1:   Fuck Webster's ...  I'm British and Speak English not Americanese.     ;)
https://writingexplained.org/lens-or-lense

2:  The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing behind the water in that picture!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 22, 2018, 07:14:28 PM

I am talking about the peaks of the towers. They do not align, as one would assume if they were basing their construction off the edge of the water, to each other in a polynomial fashion. The tips of each tower, relative to the previous, have a wide margin of error. When this error is aggregate over the entire structure, there is nothing that says this curvature wouldn't present naturally given the Law of Nature and refraction.


As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal.   I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)

Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.

While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 22, 2018, 07:18:58 PM
Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!
Would you like the name of a good optometrist, ophthmalogist or maybe a Seeing-eye-Dog?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 22, 2018, 07:49:32 PM
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?

And yet the horizon  isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!

(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)

All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.

Lackey is grasping at straws.  I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.

I
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 23, 2018, 04:08:48 AM
1:   Fuck Webster's ...  I'm British and Speak English not Americanese.     ;)
https://writingexplained.org/lens-or-lense
Ah, the Brits...

Hey, do you know the difference between an intelligent Brit and a unicorn?

Nothing, as they are both fictional.
2:  The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing [sic] behind the water in that picture!
Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 23, 2018, 04:11:10 AM
Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!
Would you like the name of a good optometrist, ophthmalogist or maybe a Seeing-eye-Dog?
Would you like the name of a qualified AA sponsor?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 23, 2018, 04:13:40 AM
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?

And yet the horizon  isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!

(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)

All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.

Lackey is grasping at straws.  I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.

If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.

Did you experience some form of blunt force trauma to the head prior to making this post/picture?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 23, 2018, 04:32:08 AM
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?

And yet the horizon  isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!

(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)

All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.

Lackey is grasping at straws.  I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.

If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.
NAZA never claimed that "the red line you he superimposed on that picture is the horizon line", so your posts is meaningless.

Had he posted it superimposed on the horizon, it would have obliterated the horizon and then you would have complained about that!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 23, 2018, 05:20:40 AM
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?

And yet the horizon  isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!

(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)

All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.

Lackey is grasping at straws.  I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.

If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.

Did you experience some form of blunt force trauma to the head prior to making this post/picture?

No Forest, I placed the line BELOW the horizon so others could see that the horizon is NOT DISTORTED.
Just like the lines NEXT to the towers prove that the towers are NOT DISTORTED.
In other words, your silly lie about  lense(sic) distortion  has been proven wrong. 
Now how about wiping all that egg off of your face and try again?
I love it when a Flatter shoots himself in the foot, but unlike you most flee after doing so.  You seem to have an endless supply of ammo and enjoy the pain.
Not to mention the logic of starting a thread with a picture that proves the planet a sphere in the first place.
Now hobble back to that keyboard and give us some more!

You're the best argument for a spherical earth I've seen.  This thread should be a sticky.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: 54N on January 23, 2018, 05:31:29 AM
2:  The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing [sic] behind the water in that picture!
Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.

1:  Spelling correction accepted..  Fair cop!   :)
2:  Where do you think they are then?     I can't see them and I think they're behind the water, over the horizon.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 23, 2018, 06:09:47 AM
No Forest, I placed the line BELOW the horizon so others could see that the horizon is NOT DISTORTED.
Except several people who have also looked at the photo and state without equivocation or mental reservation that not only do the towers nearer the horizon begin to appear more distorted the closer they are to the horizon line, the horizon also displays distortion and is not really a crisp, clear sharp line.
Just like the lines NEXT to the towers prove that the towers are NOT DISTORTED.
Yeah, not there but the ones closer to the horizon line are.
In other words, your silly lie about  lense(sic) distortion  has been proven wrong.
Lense is not a spelling error, doofus...and it is lense distortion.
Now how about wiping all that egg off of your face and try again?
You are wearing the egg, making all these baseless claims.

And your act of superimposing lines on the picture?

Demonstrates top -notch skills learned in kindergarten. But serves no useful purpose...
I love it when a Flatter shoots himself in the foot, but unlike you most flee after doing so.  You seem to have an endless supply of ammo and enjoy the pain.
Perhaps the reason maybe I have not shot myself, "in the foot."
Not to mention the logic of starting a thread with a picture that proves the planet a sphere in the first place.
Ask any fellow RE-tard and even they will tell you the Earth is TOO BIG to make an informed decision about the shape based on visual evidence obtained at ground level.

So this photo proves nothing!
Now hobble back to that keyboard and give us some more!

You're the best argument for a spherical earth I've seen.  This thread should be a sticky.
I am not hobbling (at least due to you and other RE-tards).
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 23, 2018, 06:23:17 AM
2:  The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing [sic] behind the water in that picture!
Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.

1:  Spelling correction accepted..  Fair cop!   :)
2:  Where do you think they are then?     I can't see them and I think they're behind the water, over the horizon.

Kinda like the concrete    base of the larger tower next to the powerline?

(https://i.imgur.com/UDzpV0S.jpg)

Forest will probably claim that they didn't use pilings for that tower.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 23, 2018, 06:26:30 AM
2:  Where do you think they are then?     I can't see them and I think they're behind the water, over the horizon.
Too far away to be seen due to dense atmoplane.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 23, 2018, 07:06:15 AM
So Forrest your evidence is "Other people say it's distorted near the horizon"

(https://i.imgur.com/eBr1jXJ.jpg)

Chamber another round and try again.

Let's examine what the powerline would look life if the earth were flat. 
Here are perspective lines extended from the first 3 towers...
(https://i.imgur.com/AqIDBOc.jpg)

You've proven that math isn't your cup of tea but maybe you could Google up some info on your magical lens that distorts an image by making the powerline curve while leaving EVERY straight line in the image perfectly straight?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 23, 2018, 07:12:42 AM
Bendy light! It must be caused by bendy light!  :o
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 23, 2018, 07:31:57 AM
So Forrest your evidence is "Other people say it's distorted near the horizon"

(https://i.imgur.com/eBr1jXJ.jpg)

Chamber another round and try again.

Let's examine what the powerline would look life if the earth were flat. 
Here are perspective lines extended from the first 3 towers...
(https://i.imgur.com/AqIDBOc.jpg)

You've proven that math isn't your cup of tea but maybe you could Google up some info on your magical lens that distorts an image by making the powerline curve while leaving EVERY straight line in the image perfectly straight?
As soon as you stop acting like you have any kind of fucking idea whether or not the lines you placed on the image are valid or not...

What, are you going to write, "Expert Etch-a-Sketch Designer," as part of your qualifications within your signature?

Might as well go purchase Spirograph and superimpose that crap on top of the picture for all it is worth...

One more fucking time and for the record...

You are a RE-tard.

Accept that.

Ask any other RE-tard: "Hey, fellow RE-tard! Can a person tell from Earth-bound visual evidence whether or not the Earth is flat?"

The answer will be: "No, a person cannot claim proof of the shape of the Earth based on Earth-bound visual evidence because the Earth is too big."

Of course, that argument will be utilized to its fullest extent by RE-tards when an FE proponent  states, "The Earth is flat. Look out your window."

The fact fucked-faced forgetful and hypocritical RE-tards choose to ignore that argument in instances like this only indicates the urgent need for these RE-tards to perform cranial rectalotomies as expeditiously as possible.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 23, 2018, 08:07:17 AM
And it's also the reason there are no Flatters at sea.
Yeah, that's why they imploy 'plane' sailing!



So, I can notate in my journal how I changed my belief - how much cable did they buy?!
Who cares?
That doesn't magically make Earth flat.
Well, we've seen in the past with the transatlantic cable that the length of the cable does not match up with a round earth - as well as other large structures with cable. I'd love to know that this cable length is indeed predicted by a flat earth. Of course, you'd know this if you knew enough about our beliefs to argue against them.


So, now, lets talk about that lens huh? So this camera, including the human eye, doesn't experience barrel distortion? How did the photographer ensure his picture was level to the horizon?

How do you account for the error in the peaks of the towers that would aggregate the further out we go from the source of the picture?

How do you account for refraction?

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 23, 2018, 08:11:09 AM
So Forrest your evidence is "Other people say it's distorted near the horizon"

(https://i.imgur.com/eBr1jXJ.jpg)

Chamber another round and try again.

Let's examine what the powerline would look life if the earth were flat. 
Here are perspective lines extended from the first 3 towers...
(https://i.imgur.com/AqIDBOc.jpg)

You've proven that math isn't your cup of tea but maybe you could Google up some info on your magical lens that distorts an image by making the powerline curve while leaving EVERY straight line in the image perfectly straight?
As soon as you stop acting like you have any kind of fucking idea whether or not the lines you placed on the image are valid or not...

What, are you going to write, "Expert Etch-a-Sketch Designer," as part of your qualifications within your signature?

Might as well go purchase Spirograph and superimpose that crap on top of the picture for all it is worth...

One more fucking time and for the record...

You are a RE-tard.

Accept that.

Ask any other RE-tard: "Hey, fellow RE-tard! Can a person tell from Earth-bound visual evidence whether or not the Earth is flat?"

The answer will be: "No, a person cannot claim proof of the shape of the Earth based on Earth-bound visual evidence because the Earth is too big."

Of course, that argument will be utilized to its fullest extent by RE-tards when an FE proponent  states, "The Earth is flat. Look out your window."

The fact fucked-faced forgetful and hypocritical RE-tards choose to ignore that argument in instances like this only indicates the urgent need for these RE-tards to perform cranial rectalotomies as expeditiously as possible.

Translation :
All my arguments for a flat earth have been shot down and the only thing I have left is name calling and feet stomping.

Must suck to be you.

A recap so far
John Davis:

The bottom could be uneven.  Proven irrelevant.

Derail thread.

The tops aren't perfect.   Explained by spacing with images.

Wisely flees tread.

Forrest:

Simple math is beyond my mental capabilities.

Avoid issue of water marks.

Show ignorance of how optics work.

Call people poopyheads.

All we need now is for the third stooge to hop up and claim victory for the flat earth.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 23, 2018, 08:15:02 AM
Translation :
All my arguments for a flat round earth have been shot down and the only thing I have left is name calling and feet stomping.

Must suck to be you me.

A recap so far
John Davis:

The bottom could be uneven.  Proven irrelevant.

Derail thread.

The tops aren't perfect.   Explained by spacing with images.

Wisely flees tread.

Not sure about the Forrest bits, but I'm sure its as stellar as your take on my presence in the thread. Its really nice of you to summarize the discussion here for other globularists that might have difficulty reading it. In the future, you should strive towards accuracy rather than whatever it is you were trying to do. Though honestly, it looks like you are just trying to call us poopieheads.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 23, 2018, 08:19:43 AM
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.  Busy with that letter?

As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal.   I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)

Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.

While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 23, 2018, 08:29:26 AM
I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.

"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize. This is also why many folks claim to see curvature at the beach - an impossibility even if the earth were some silly bowling ball hurled and spinning down a cosmic drain.

" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion

How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: SpaceCadet on January 23, 2018, 08:31:26 AM
Common JD. Even you know that you are just trying to muddy the waters. Your best defence would have been photoshop. But Soindly took care of that by live streaming the video of his taking that picture. Also anyone can go there and check it out and apparently, a lot of people have.

I would have expected a conspiracy as defence. Or even some magical science created for the purpose. Something about Euclidean or proto Euclidean or something like that.

The picture simply proves a curvature. Only the blind, the deluded, the deceptive and their ilk will say otherwise. Leaving fleeing as the only resort.

Or trolling. I forgot trolling.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 23, 2018, 08:32:21 AM
I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.

"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion

How do you reconcile these facts with your method?

If it were a distortion, then why would the distortion be only in the left half of the image?

Follow-up question: what about all the other images and videos?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 23, 2018, 08:36:25 AM
Common JD. Even you know that you are just trying to muddy the waters. Your best defence would have been photoshop. But Soindly took care of that by live streaming the video of his taking that picture. Also anyone can go there and check it out and apparently, a lot of people have.

I would have expected a conspiracy as defence. Or even some magical science created for the purpose. Something about Euclidean or proto Euclidean or something like that.

The picture simply proves a curvature. Only the blind, the deluded, the deceptive and their ilk will say otherwise. Leaving fleeing as the only resort.

Or trolling. I forgot trolling.
"The method used to take this photo and manipulate it both are in opposition to the facts we are using it to supposedly prove. But you have to be [insults here] to say otherwise or I forgot: [insutls here]"

Round earth science folks!

I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.

"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion

How do you reconcile these facts with your method?

If it were a distortion, then why would the distortion be only in the left half of the image?

Follow-up question: what about all the other images and videos?
It could be cropped or a particularity of the editing used or the lens. It could be a particularity of the weather, or any number of other variables that were not properly eliminated as causes.

As experts will tell you, it is almost impossible to see curvature even if the earth were round. I would hazard these photos are not taken for the cause of 'proving the earth is round' and are there for other reasons, and as such these independent variables were ignored.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 23, 2018, 08:46:09 AM
I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.

Were not discussing the curve in the horizon John, I'm trying to get you to discuss the curve in the transmission line that is almost perpendicular to the horizon.   Specifically the water stains on the concrete pillings.  Stop avoiding it.


Quote
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize. This is also why many folks claim to see curvature at the beach - an impossibility even if the earth were some silly bowling ball hurled and spinning down a cosmic drain.

No it means that the camera was not held perfectly level with horizon, about one degree in fact.  I fix that so my vertical lines would be truly vertical.

Quote
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion.

I did not skew  the image, I rotated the canvas.  If you are holding a picture in your hands and you tilt the picture one degree does that make the picture invalid?  Try again.

Quote
How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?

See above.

Now about those water marks...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 23, 2018, 08:50:53 AM
I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.

Were not discussing the curve in the horizon John, I'm trying to get you to discuss the curve in the transmission line that is almost perpendicular to the horizon.   Specifically the water stains on the concrete pillings.  Stop avoiding it.
Did I mention the horizon?
Quote

Quote
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize. This is also why many folks claim to see curvature at the beach - an impossibility even if the earth were some silly bowling ball hurled and spinning down a cosmic drain.

No it means that the camera was not held perfectly level with horizon, about one degree in fact.  I fix that so my vertical lines would be truly vertical.
This manipulation does not necessarily provide an accurate image. Unless it does and you can tell me why?
Quote
Quote
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion.

I did not skew  the image, I rotated the canvas.  If you are holding a picture in your hands and you tilt the picture one degree does that make the picture invalid?  Try again.
I've never tried holding a digital photograph. However, if the camera was not level, there would still be distortion. The fact you had to rotate it already hints the photo was bunk in the first place, before the invalidating manipulations. How did you go about 'rotating' it?
Quote
Quote
How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?

See above.

Now about those water marks...
I'm not seeing any watermarks on that image. I may be misunderstanding the intent of your question here.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 23, 2018, 08:53:37 AM
Common JD. Even you know that you are just trying to muddy the waters. Your best defence would have been photoshop. But Soindly took care of that by live streaming the video of his taking that picture. Also anyone can go there and check it out and apparently, a lot of people have.

I would have expected a conspiracy as defence. Or even some magical science created for the purpose. Something about Euclidean or proto Euclidean or something like that.

The picture simply proves a curvature. Only the blind, the deluded, the deceptive and their ilk will say otherwise. Leaving fleeing as the only resort.

Or trolling. I forgot trolling.
"The method used to take this photo and manipulate it both are in opposition to the facts we are using it to supposedly prove. But you have to be [insults here] to say otherwise or I forgot: [insutls here]"

Round earth science folks!

I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.

"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion

How do you reconcile these facts with your method?

If it were a distortion, then why would the distortion be only in the left half of the image?

Follow-up question: what about all the other images and videos?
It could be cropped or a particularity of the editing used or the lens. It could be a particularity of the weather, or any number of other variables that were not properly eliminated as causes.

As experts will tell you, it is almost impossible to see curvature even if the earth were round. I would hazard these photos are not taken for the cause of 'proving the earth is round' and are there for other reasons, and as such these independent variables were ignored.

Are you suggesting that photos or videos that demonstrate the curvature of the Earth should be disregarded unless they were made with that specific intent?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 23, 2018, 09:02:07 AM
I'm suggesting that scientific evidence should attempt to eliminate independent variables that could poison the results. I am also suggesting that photos that are not made with the specific intent of demonstrating the curvature of the Earth tend not to do this. This particular photo we can easily say hasn't - as it is not even shot levelly.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 23, 2018, 09:09:14 AM
As soon as you stop acting like you have any kind of fucking idea whether or not the lines you placed on the image are valid or not...

What, are you going to write, "Expert Etch-a-Sketch Designer," as part of your qualifications within your signature?

Might as well go purchase Spirograph and superimpose that crap on top of the picture for all it is worth...

One more fucking time and for the record...

You are a RE-tard.

Accept that.

Ask any other RE-tard: "Hey, fellow RE-tard! Can a person tell from Earth-bound visual evidence whether or not the Earth is flat?"

The answer will be: "No, a person cannot claim proof of the shape of the Earth based on Earth-bound visual evidence because the Earth is too big."

Of course, that argument will be utilized to its fullest extent by RE-tards when an FE proponent  states, "The Earth is flat. Look out your window."

The fact fucked-faced forgetful and hypocritical RE-tards choose to ignore that argument in instances like this only indicates the urgent need for these RE-tards to perform cranial rectalotomies as expeditiously as possible.
Translation :
All my arguments for a flat earth have been shot down and the only thing I have left is name calling and feet stomping.[/quote]
Can you or can you not fucking read?

The fact of the matter, regardless of your fucking incessant whining about the matter, is this: Earth bound visual evidence is not proof one way or the other of a flat or spherical earth.

That is just a fact of life you will need to accept.

Once you accept that, perhaps you will not be so sensitive when someone calls you a RE-tard.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 23, 2018, 09:37:41 AM
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.
Thank you!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 23, 2018, 10:18:53 AM
I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.

Were not discussing the curve in the horizon John, I'm trying to get you to discuss the curve in the transmission line that is almost perpendicular to the horizon.   Specifically the water stains on the concrete pillings.  Stop avoiding it.
Did I mention the horizon?

Yes you did.
  Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.

You even quoted yourself saying it.

Quote
Quote
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize. This is also why many folks claim to see curvature at the beach - an impossibility even if the earth were some silly bowling ball hurled and spinning down a cosmic drain.

Quote
No it means that the camera was not held perfectly level with horizon, about one degree in fact.  I fix that so my vertical lines would be truly vertical.
This manipulation does not necessarily provide an accurate image. Unless it does and you can tell me why?

Sure, because I did nothing to the image, I only rotated the canvas the image was pasted on.
If you straighten a picture hanging on the wall does that alter the picture itself?


Quote
Quote
Quote
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion.

I did not skew  the image, I rotated the canvas.  If you are holding a picture in your hands and you tilt the picture one degree does that make the picture invalid?  Try again.
I've never tried holding a digital photograph. However, if the camera was not level, there would still be distortion. The fact you had to rotate it already hints the photo was bunk in the first place, before the invalidating manipulations. How did you go about 'rotating' it?


I pasted the original image onto a blank layer, then I created a new layer and placed a horizontal line on it near the horizon to compare them.
As you can see there was very  little difference:

(https://i.imgur.com/d3MFEcn.jpg)
.
I then rotated the entire first layer parallel to horizontal line then deleted layer 2.

Quote
  The fact you had to rotate it already hints the photo was bunk in the first place, before the invalidating manipulations.

So the power line is curved because the camera was slightly tilted?
Do you know how stupid that is?
Using your logic if the camera was tilted from landscape to portrait it would make the line curve 90ー. 

Now, how about one not altered in any way?

(https://i.imgur.com/p7w3Lwm.jpg)

Sure looks like a curve to me.

Quote
Quote
Quote
How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?

See above.

Now about those water marks...
I'm not seeing any watermarks on that image. I may be misunderstanding the intent of your question here.

You know very well I am taking about this image:

(https://i.imgur.com/Fmv8JHY.jpg)

Why are the water stains curved and why do they disappear right after the horizon.

While you are at it maybe you can explain why the concrete base of the large tower is missing.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 23, 2018, 10:41:49 AM
Common JD. Even you know that you are just trying to muddy the waters. Your best defence would have been photoshop. But Soindly took care of that by live streaming the video of his taking that picture. Also anyone can go there and check it out and apparently, a lot of people have.

I would have expected a conspiracy as defence. Or even some magical science created for the purpose. Something about Euclidean or proto Euclidean or something like that.

The best thing would have been not to bring up that image in the first place.  John is smarter than that.
I'm surprised he hasn't tried Universal Electromaticatmoplanicperfaction but the day is young.


Quote
The picture simply proves a curvature. Only the blind, the deluded, the deceptive and their ilk will say otherwise. Leaving fleeing as the only resort.

Or trolling. I forgot trolling.
Pretty much sums it up.

If I thought John was actually interested in the truth I'd invite him down to see for himself.
He lives only a few hours away and it is even closer for me.
I know exactly where the power line meets the North Shore and there is a boat landing just a few minutes away.
I have a boat and the surveying  instruments required to prove to himself that the earth is curved.  We could even invite SCG and she could make  sandwiches while the men work. A recreation of the shyster ' s experiment would be very easy there.
Pity he's only interested in attention and not the truth, I'd love to see SCG in a bikini.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 23, 2018, 10:53:33 AM
As soon as you stop acting like you have any kind of fucking idea whether or not the lines you placed on the image are valid or not...

What, are you going to write, "Expert Etch-a-Sketch Designer," as part of your qualifications within your signature?

Might as well go purchase Spirograph and superimpose that crap on top of the picture for all it is worth...

One more fucking time and for the record...

You are a RE-tard.

Accept that.

Ask any other RE-tard: "Hey, fellow RE-tard! Can a person tell from Earth-bound visual evidence whether or not the Earth is flat?"

The answer will be: "No, a person cannot claim proof of the shape of the Earth based on Earth-bound visual evidence because the Earth is too big."

Of course, that argument will be utilized to its fullest extent by RE-tards when an FE proponent  states, "The Earth is flat. Look out your window."

The fact fucked-faced forgetful and hypocritical RE-tards choose to ignore that argument in instances like this only indicates the urgent need for these RE-tards to perform cranial rectalotomies as expeditiously as possible.
Translation :
All my arguments for a flat earth have been shot down and the only thing I have left is name calling and feet stomping.
Can you or can you not fucking read?

The fact of the matter, regardless of your fucking incessant whining about the matter, is this: Earth bound visual evidence is not proof one way or the other of a flat or spherical earth.

That is just a fact of life you will need to accept.

Once you accept that, perhaps you will not be so sensitive when someone calls you a RE-tard.
[/quote]

Translation:

Now that my thread about an image has backfired, images don't count.

Typical flatter.  Exceptionally stupid, but but that's par for this course.

It also seems that he learned how to quote someone the same place that he learned math.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2018, 11:31:08 AM
Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.
So you think they just magically vanish then?

If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.

Did you experience some form of blunt force trauma to the head prior to making this post/picture?
There is no indication he is claiming anything of the sort rather than providing it as a reference.
If you think the apparent curvature in that picture is just a result of lens distortion you need help.

Lense is not a spelling error, doofus...and it is lense distortion.
That has been shown to be a blatant lie.
It is not lens distortion. If it was far more would be distorted.

Demonstrates top -notch skills learned in kindergarten. But serves no useful purpose...
Nope, it demonstrates that lens distortion is not making the towers appear to follow a curved line.

Ask any fellow RE-tard and even they will tell you the Earth is TOO BIG to make an informed decision about the shape based on visual evidence obtained at ground level.
Sure, retards like you might say that, but intelligence people will not.
They will tell you it superficially appearing "flat" from ground level is not enough to conclude it is flat.
They will tell you several bits of visual evidence which can be obtained at ground level which can be used to make an informed decision about the shape of Earth.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2018, 11:42:09 AM
Well, we've seen in the past with the transatlantic cable that the length of the cable does not match up with a round earth - as well as other large structures with cable. I'd love to know that this cable length is indeed predicted by a flat earth. Of course, you'd know this if you knew enough about our beliefs to argue against them.
Are you ever able to make an honest comment?
We have seen no such thing.

There are plenty of instances where there is no significant difference between the lengths required for a flat and round earth, but I am yet to find a single instance where a length doesn't match that expected for a round earth.

So, now, lets talk about that lens huh? So this camera, including the human eye, doesn't experience barrel distortion?
No, not magical barrel distortion which just makes distant objects appear to curve over the horizon.

How do you account for the error in the peaks of the towers that would aggregate the further out we go from the source of the picture?
That was already explained to you.

How do you account for refraction?
Refraction makes objects appear higher than they are, the further away they are.
We aren't trying to measure things perfectly, just show evidence of the curvature of Earth.
Refraction can't explain away that curve.

It could be cropped or a particularity of the editing used or the lens. It could be a particularity of the weather, or any number of other variables that were not properly eliminated as causes.
No, it couldn't.
The editing would require deliberate manipulation to produce the apparent curve.
Lenses produce the most significant distortion at the edge, not the centre so there would be vastly more curves if that is the case.
Weather doesn't magically make things appear lower.

It is quite clear you are grasping at whatever straws you can to pretend your delusions are correct.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 23, 2018, 01:36:25 PM

It is quite clear you are grasping at whatever straws you can to pretend your delusions are correct.

You should trademark that.

The Flat Earth Society:   Grasping at whatever straws we can to pretend our delusions are correct.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Crutchwater on January 23, 2018, 02:23:57 PM
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?

And yet the horizon  isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!

(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)

All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.

Lackey is grasping at straws.  I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.

I


He kicked his own ass!!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 23, 2018, 02:32:49 PM
Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.
So you think they just magically vanish then?
No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane.
If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.

Did you experience some form of blunt force trauma to the head prior to making this post/picture?
There is no indication he is claiming anything of the sort rather than providing it as a reference.[/quote]
Reference to what?

According to him, it is referencing the horizon.
If you think the apparent curvature in that picture is just a result of lens distortion you need help.
Nope...

It is most definitely lense distortion.
That has been shown to be a blatant lie.
It is not lens distortion. If it was far more would be distorted.
Cue unsubstantiated, baseless, "NO U!"

Nope, it demonstrates that lens distortion is not making the towers appear to follow a curved line.
A line superimposed after the fact on top of a picture would not serve or bolster your statement

Sure, retards like you might say that, but intelligence people will not.
Of course they wouldn't!

Intelligence people do not engage in speaking the truth.

They are spooks, specifically trained to obfuscate, equivocate, and withhold accurate information.
They will tell you it superficially appearing "flat" from ground level is not enough to conclude it is flat or a sphere.
FTFY.

You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2018, 02:58:37 PM
No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane.
Yet we can magically distinguish the towers?

Reference to what?
A reference to a straight line.

According to him, it is referencing the horizon.
It is to allow you to compare the horizon to a straight line, without obstructing the horizon.

It is most definitely lense distortion.
Explain how. I have explained how we know it isn't due to lens distortion.

Cue unsubstantiated, baseless, "NO U!"
Yeah, I figured you would pull some shit like that as you are completely unable to defend your claims, so you just repeatedly assert them and say everyone else is lying.

A line superimposed after the fact on top of a picture would not serve or bolster your statement
Sure it would. These lines show that the towers are not distorted due a lens. This shows that the curve is due to the lens.

Intelligence people do not engage in speaking the truth.
Perhaps I should have said intelligent, honest people.
Is this an admission that you are intelligent but are intentionally lying?

Intelligent honest people would not say the crap you are saying.

FTFY.
No, you didn't fuck it for me, you fucked it for yourself because you are unable to honestly and rationally defend your position, so you need to lie about what others say.

You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone.
Yes you can as I have explained in numerous threads.
In fact, this thread has one such demonstration.

These towers following a curved line is one such visual observation which can be used to determine that Earth is curved.

What you can't do is say this 1m long stretch of water appears flat so Earth must be flat, because over that distance you cannot tell the difference between flat and following the curvature of Earth.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: defender_of_truth on January 23, 2018, 07:59:24 PM
Regarding the lens distortion. I tried a correction, and the pillars cannot be made to appear straight by correcting for lens distortion. The shape of the curve is different, so now it has a weird shape when I tried to correct it. Guess what? It didn't need to be corrected.

(https://i.imgur.com/bgwP3CM.jpg)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 23, 2018, 09:54:42 PM
You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone.
You really are the master of inconsistency!
Again, the position of objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below.
So "objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below"
but "the position of objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below".

But firstly, please explain exactly why,
"You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone."

So how about you prove that the earth is flat using only "ground based visual observations alone".

If you can't, we must just assume that the earth is a Globe, as that shape has been accepted for millennia and fits all our ground based observations.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 24, 2018, 10:13:33 AM
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?

And yet the horizon  isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!

(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)

All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.

Lackey is grasping at straws.  I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.

I


He kicked his own ass!!

Rumour is he's a highly paid undercover shill.

Regarding the lens distortion. I tried a correction, and the pillars cannot be made to appear straight by correcting for lens distortion. The shape of the curve is different, so now it has a weird shape when I tried to correct it. Guess what? It didn't need to be corrected.

(https://i.imgur.com/bgwP3CM.jpg)

A man true to his word...

You guys are great! I値l come ack when you need more help. For now, I値l continute to spectate.

It's  almost as if you anticipated the use of the distortion card.  Uncanny.  ;)

Could the software you used create such a curve from a  similar photo of a shorter bridge with no apparent  curve?

.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2018, 12:51:45 PM
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.  Busy with that letter?

As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal.   I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)

Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.

While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 24, 2018, 01:34:18 PM
You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone.
You really are the master of inconsistency!
Not hardly...
Again, the position of objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below.
So "objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below"
but "the position of objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below".

But firstly, please explain exactly why,
"You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone."
Because, as you RE-tards like to point out, the Earth is too big.

I say, the Earth is flat because it looks flat, you come back and say the Earth would look flat because it is a huge sphere...
So how about you prove that the earth is flat using only "ground based visual observations alone".
How about you shove that word, "prove," where the sun don't shine...
If you can't, we must just assume that the earth is a Globe, as that shape has been accepted for millennia and fits all our ground based observations.
Bullshit.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 24, 2018, 02:13:09 PM
Because, as you RE-tards like to point out, the Earth is too big.
That does not preclude all Earth based observations of things on Earth showing that Earth is not round.
It means some don't work, specially the ones where you cannot distinguish between flat and round, like trying to measure the curvature of a 1m long stretch of water.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 24, 2018, 02:17:34 PM
But firstly, please explain exactly why,
"You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone."
Because, as you RE-tards like to point out, the Earth is too big.

I say, the Earth is flat because it looks flat, you come back and say the Earth would look flat because it is a huge sphere...
Yes, the earth looks flat to a casual observer, but there are many ways of observing the curve from even a low level.

One such method is to see the curve where the distance is exaggerated by foreshortening, such as:

Then there is the measurement of the dip angle to the horizon that has been presented numerous times, as in:

Horizon not at eye level in an Airplane, fiveredpears
better enlarged to full screen.
             

Flat Earth Debunked: The Horizon Always at Eye Level, Rhetoric&Discourse

And while the horizon does look flat, there is another clue:
          The horizon from a low level is sharp and well defined, as in the left photo
          but the flat earth "horizon" would be determined by the limited visibility through the air and might be expected to be more like the photo on the right:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0thzfx6itaxum1w/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens%20-%20cropped.jpg?dl=1)
The sharp sea-air boundary is evidence of a near horizon.
      (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQNPzfo8cZE/maxresdefault.jpg)
Fuzzy Horizon from High Altitude

Yes, there are plenty of clues, if you are prepared to look.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: John Davis on January 24, 2018, 03:05:56 PM
And while the horizon does look flat, there is another clue:
          The horizon from a low level is sharp and well defined, as in the left photo
          but the flat earth "horizon" would be determined by the limited visibility through the air and might be expected to be more like the photo on the right:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0thzfx6itaxum1w/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens%20-%20cropped.jpg?dl=1)
The sharp sea-air boundary is evidence of a near horizon.
      (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQNPzfo8cZE/maxresdefault.jpg)
Fuzzy Horizon from High Altitude
[/center]

Yes, there are plenty of clues, if you are prepared to look.
Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: inquisitive on January 24, 2018, 03:20:12 PM
And while the horizon does look flat, there is another clue:
          The horizon from a low level is sharp and well defined, as in the left photo
          but the flat earth "horizon" would be determined by the limited visibility through the air and might be expected to be more like the photo on the right:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0thzfx6itaxum1w/Scarborough%20Beacon%2050%20mm%20lens%20-%20cropped.jpg?dl=1)
The sharp sea-air boundary is evidence of a near horizon.
      (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQNPzfo8cZE/maxresdefault.jpg)
Fuzzy Horizon from High Altitude
[/center]

Yes, there are plenty of clues, if you are prepared to look.
Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?
It does make sense.  There is no evidence that proves the earth is not round.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 24, 2018, 04:06:30 PM
Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?
Yes, what's your problem?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 24, 2018, 10:17:16 PM
Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?
Not sure about him, but it makes sense to me.
A sharp horizon that is not the physical edge of Earth is clear evidence that Earth is round.
The fact that is moves as you do, remaining a distance away which is based upon your height is more evidence Earth is round.

If you wish to disagree, please explain how a flat surface produces a horizon, considering the horizon is an edge (as evidenced by things disappearing behind it, and being unable to resolve past it).
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 25, 2018, 07:51:31 AM
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.  Busy with that letter?

As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal.   I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)

Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.

While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on January 25, 2018, 08:21:14 AM
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.  Busy with that letter?

As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal.   I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)

Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.

While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
I don't think you understand what "render" means.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: defender_of_truth on January 25, 2018, 09:13:19 AM
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?

And yet the horizon  isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!

(https://i.imgur.com/NwSkh5z.jpg)

All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.

Lackey is grasping at straws.  I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.

I


He kicked his own ass!!

Rumour is he's a highly paid undercover shill.

Regarding the lens distortion. I tried a correction, and the pillars cannot be made to appear straight by correcting for lens distortion. The shape of the curve is different, so now it has a weird shape when I tried to correct it. Guess what? It didn't need to be corrected.

(https://i.imgur.com/bgwP3CM.jpg)

A man true to his word...

You guys are great! I値l come ack when you need more help. For now, I値l continute to spectate.

It's  almost as if you anticipated the use of the distortion card.  Uncanny.  ;)

Could the software you used create such a curve from a  similar photo of a shorter bridge with no apparent  curve?

.

Yes, barrel distortion seems to be a recurring theme! It needs math to understand, which FE-ers cannot do (or choose not to). I found a similar photo which I believe had no barrel distortion and then applied it, and no, you can't create this shape with barrel distortion. Image credit to the Marathon, FL website.

No distortion:
(http://i67.tinypic.com/25smvjb.jpg)

Added:
(http://i65.tinypic.com/15f1veu.jpg)

Removed:
(http://i63.tinypic.com/fyj04i.jpg)

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 25, 2018, 12:21:25 PM
I don't think you understand what "render" means.
Render = provide or offer or give.

Go back to the corner, making sure that pork chop is tied firmly to your neck this time and play nicely with the dog...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2018, 02:00:54 PM
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
Do you mean the photo he added the lines and points to?
If so, yes. Do you have a reason to think it is wrong?
Do you think the red line isn't straight?/

How about you try explaining how lens distortion magically selectively distorts the image to only make the towers appear to curve to follow the curvature of Earth, with no other distortion.

What kind of lens produces this distortion?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 26, 2018, 02:16:16 AM
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.  Busy with that letter?

As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal.   I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)

Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.

While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?

Well, the person who provided the original image is a known liar and degenerate but I will be happy to discuss any and all aspects of the image once you man up and address  the issues about lens distortion you have been avoiding.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 26, 2018, 02:55:03 AM
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.  Busy with that letter?

As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal.   I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)

Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.

While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?

Yes.
Okay.

And this post of yours:

You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.

Maybe this will help...

(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)

You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.

22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.

20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').

 relative to the original image I presented is also accurate, correct?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Macarios on January 26, 2018, 04:59:35 PM
We must also take into account water's tendency to cause refraction

Why is this removed from Bedford experiment, and when Wallace added it back the experiment showed curvature?

as well as Rowbotham's Law of Nature.

If horizon raises to eye level and hides bottom parts of those poles,
then we should see bottom of poles when we lay down on the ground, so our eye level doesn't raise horizon.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 04:41:42 AM
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)

ANSWER =  Yes.

19 poles to the horizon.

Okay.

And this post of yours:
(https://i.imgur.com/a8wXCh8.jpg)
...22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.

22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.

20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
Repeating, you want the community to accept both as accurate?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 28, 2018, 08:59:48 AM
What part of this do you not understand?

I will be happy to discuss any and all aspects of the image once you man up and address  the issues about lens distortion you have been avoiding.



You had enough information to make this claim about lens distortion...

Quote
  It is most definitely lense distortion

Defend your claim.


You had enough information to make this claim about support pilings...
Quote

No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane

Now explain why the pilings drop out of view after the horizon but the towers they support are still visible.

If you had enough information to make the claims in the first place, then you have enough information to defend them.

Or were you just talking out your ass as usual?

Man up and answer the questions that other members have asked you about your claims.

AFTER you answer those questions I will be happy to answer any questions you have.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 09:15:43 AM
What part of this do you not understand?

I will be happy to discuss any and all aspects of the image once you man up and address  the issues about lens distortion you have been avoiding.



You had enough information to make this claim about lens distortion...

Quote
  It is most definitely lense distortion

Defend your claim.
When the truth about a matter is so obvious, it needs no further defense.

It is lense distortion.

You had enough information to make this claim about support pilings...
Quote

No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane

Now explain why the pilings drop out of view after the horizon but the towers they support are still visible.

If you had enough information to make the claims in the first place, then you have enough information to defend them.

Or were you just talking out your ass as usual?

Man up and answer the questions that other members have asked you about your claims.

AFTER you answer those questions I will be happy to answer any questions you have.
Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.

Questions are answered.

Now, do you expect the community to accept both photos as accurate?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 28, 2018, 09:50:48 AM
Typical flatter.
In their delusional minds repeating an unsubstantiated claim is proof of said claim.
You were asked specific questions about your claim, such as how does a lens  cause curvature in the powerline and yet leave ALL straight lines in the image straight.  What is the name of such a lens,  etc.
Simply repeating your claim is not answering those questions about your claim.

But a nice try with your foolishness about the  atmosphere. The  problem is that the atmosphere doesn't magically change thickness at 10' only past the horizon. 

Try again.

Now what is your proof that "It is most definitely lense distortion"?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: 29silhouette on January 28, 2018, 11:48:33 AM
I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.
Barrel distortion is negligible with this picture.  This is a high magnification shot.

Quote
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.
No, it will not in this case.

Quote
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion
He rotated it slightly.  Do you even understand photoshop?

Quote
How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?
I would say he understands photography and photoshop more than you.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 11:59:06 AM
Typical flatter.
In their delusional minds repeating an unsubstantiated claim is proof of said claim.
You were asked specific questions about your claim, such as how does a lens  cause curvature in the powerline and yet leave ALL straight lines in the image straight.  What is the name of such a lens,  etc.
Simply repeating your claim is not answering those questions about your claim.

But a nice try with your foolishness about the  atmosphere. The  problem is that the atmosphere doesn't magically change thickness at 10' only past the horizon. 

Try again.

Now what is your proof that "It is most definitely lense distortion"?
Here is my proof:

Start with the second photo of yours:

You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?

What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?

You are going to write me in reply that a boat, if introduced in a reshoot of the scene, was photographed sailing in a direct parallel line to the towers, would be found to be EIGHT FEET ABOVE the observer at 19 stanchions away...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 12:20:59 PM
More patting on the back, uttering "GOOD JOB!"
About to be shot down in flames...

LMMFAO!!!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: ER22 on January 28, 2018, 12:51:38 PM
We don't assume the earth is flat.
Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
...
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0

Plenty of evidence.
That's hilarious.

You use a previous post of YOURS to back up YOUR present argument.
That's hilarious.

One thing I agree with you on though.
There is no curvature to the horizon.

If you have a 360 deg view of the horizon,
And spin while looking at the horizon,
Your eyes arrive back at the point they started.

No curvature, whether it is a flat or spherical earth.
It's a bogus argument and you know it.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2018, 01:03:21 PM
19 poles to the horizon.
Where did he say that?

You seem to completely fail to understand what that image is showing.

When the truth about a matter is so obvious, it needs no further defense.
Yes, because people don't question it.
As people are questioning it, your "truth" is clearly not so obvious and thus does need further defense.
Additionally, if it was so obvious, you would easily be able to defend it, yet all you can do is assert it.
This makes the truth of the matter quite obvious, you are just baselessly asserting crap.

Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.
That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
Instead all above the water line is clearly visible, with the pylons absent.

You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?
What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?
Not sure exactly what you are asking, but it seems to be based upon more ignorance of how Earth and the curve works.

Above is relative to where on Earth you are.
Ignoring mountains and the like the Earth drops lower than you in all directions.
However, if you use a point some distance away as a reference, Earth drops in all directions from that point, making you lower, not higher.

Why would it be 3 miles?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 01:26:55 PM
19 poles to the horizon.
Where did he say that?

You seem to completely fail to understand what that image is showing.
Here:

 (http://[quote author=NAZA link=topic=73925.msg2012228#msg2012228 date=1516724383)
I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
(https://i.imgur.com/wptTGk6.jpg)

Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.
When the truth about a matter is so obvious, it needs no further defense.
Yes, because people don't question it.
As people are questioning it,...
Sorry Jack, I question your humanity...
Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.
That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
Instead all above the water line is clearly visible, with the pylons absent.
Atmoplane is more dense at sea level.
You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?
What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?
Not sure exactly what you are asking, but it seems to be based upon more ignorance of how Earth and the curve works.

Above is relative to where on Earth you are.
Ignoring mountains and the like the Earth drops lower than you in all directions.
However, if you use a point some distance away as a reference, Earth drops in all directions from that point, making you lower, not higher.

Why would it be 3 miles?
If you are not sure what it is I am asking then I believe you need to re-read the question and the supporting statements and objections. Then counter. I will post it here again:

Here is my proof:

Start with the second photo of yours:

You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?

What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?

Are you are going to write me in reply that a boat, if introduced in a reshoot of the scene, was photographed sailing in a direct parallel line to the towers, would be found to be EIGHT FEET ABOVE the observer at 19 stanchions away...???
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2018, 01:45:13 PM
Here:

  I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
 (http://[quote author=NAZA link=topic=73925.msg2012228#msg2012228 date=1516724383)
So nowhere.
Got it.

Unless you can point out how that indicates there are 19 towers to the horizon.
Just a note, "as far as I could resolved[sic] them" doesn't mean the horizon is there, nor does it mean the ones prior to it doesn't count.

Sorry Jack, I question your humanity...
Really? That is the best you can do?
Reject people as not being human rather than defend your baseless claim?

Your complete inability to defend it shows it just a baseless assertion.

Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.
That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
Instead all above the water line is clearly visible, with the pylons absent.
Atmoplane is more dense at sea level.
That does not address my issue.

Are you claiming the atmosphere has one density at sea level, which it keeps until it magically jumps to another density which it keeps?

If you are not sure what it is I am asking then I believe you need to re-read the question and the supporting statements and objections. Then counter. I will post it here again:
I don't, as they don't help clarify it.
Where are you pulling the 3 miles from?
Where are you pulling 8 feet from?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 02:07:16 PM
Here:

I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
 (http://[quote author=NAZA link=topic=73925.msg2012228#msg2012228 date=1516724383)
So nowhere. Got it.
Nope, you don't.

I placed a vertical line at the horizon...

Unless you can point out how that indicates there are 19 towers to the horizon.
Just a note, "as far as I could resolved[sic] them" doesn't mean the horizon is there, nor does it mean the ones prior to it doesn't count.
You are correct Jack.

It does indicate 19 points however within the field of the picture.

And what do you suppose the 19 points within the picture are presented to the audience for?

Evidence of curvature, correct?

And how high do those points continually rise above the self-admittedly "level," red line?

They cannot possibly represent more than the eight foot dip to the horizon by an observer at height of ten feet above see level, as the points referenced at the top commence a downward slope prior to point 19!

So, whether or not the 19 points is to the horizon or not, I DNGAS!
Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.
That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
Instead all above the water line is clearly visible, with the pylons absent.
Atmoplane is more dense at sea level.
That does not address my issue.

Are you claiming the atmosphere has one density at sea level, which it keeps until it magically jumps to another density which it keeps?
Yes.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/)
If you are not sure what it is I am asking then I believe you need to re-read the question and the supporting statements and objections. Then counter. I will post it here again:
I don't, as they don't help clarify it.
Where are you pulling the 3 miles from?
Where are you pulling 8 feet from?
I suggest you read more slowly or you have someone read it to you:
Here is my proof:

Start with the second photo of yours:

You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?

What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?

You are going to write me in reply that a boat, if introduced in a reshoot of the scene, was photographed sailing in a direct parallel line to the towers, would be found to be EIGHT FEET ABOVE the observer at 19 stanchions away...?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2018, 02:21:57 PM
Nope, you don't.
I placed a vertical line at the horizon...

Pretty sure I do.
Saying he placed a vertical line at the horizon doesn't indicate there are 19 towers to the horizon.

You are correct Jack.
It does indicate 19 points however within the field of the picture.
Yes, not to the horizon.
So how do you conclude that there are 19 points to the horizon?

And what do you suppose the 19 points within the picture are presented to the audience for?
Evidence of curvature, correct?
Yes, as was already indicating.

And how high do those points continually rise above the self-admittedly "level," yellow line?
No, not a self-level yellow line.
Above a red line connecting the first tower with enough visible to the last tower.
There is no indication that this line is level.
The tops of the towers are roughly level, following the curve of Earth; this line would only be level at one point as it doesn't follow the curve of Earth.

They cannot possibly represent more than the eight foot dip to the horizon by an observer at height of ten feet above see level, as the points referenced at the top commence a downward slope prior to point 19!
Again, where are you getting these numbers from?
Why 8 feet?
If it isn't going all the way to the horizon, why would it be to the horizon?

Again, there is still some distance to that tower.

So, whether or not the 19 points is to the horizon or not, I DNGAS!
But that changes if it should be the 8 feet to the horizon (although I still don't know where you are pulling 8 feet from) for these 19 towers, or a smaller drop based upon the distance to the 19th tower.

Are you claiming the atmosphere has one density at sea level, which it keeps until it magically jumps to another density which it keeps?
Yes.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/)
That doesn't back you up.
If there was such a density step it would be clearly measurable and produce significant effects.
Science has indicated that the density of air is a smooth gradient, as you would expect, no magic steps.

I suggest you read more slowly or you have someone read it to you:
I suggest you address the actual questions raised rather than just repeating the same nonsense.
WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE NUMBERS FROM?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 03:40:41 PM
Nope, you don't.
I placed a vertical line at the horizon...

Pretty sure I do.
Saying he placed a vertical line at the horizon doesn't indicate there are 19 towers to the horizon.
So are the steadily rising (then subtly lowering) of the 19 points he places at the top of the towers purposeful obfuscation of the issue?

Regardless, at this point in time, I no longer care...
You are correct Jack.
It does indicate 19 points however within the field of the picture.
Yes, not to the horizon.
So how do you conclude that there are 19 points to the horizon?
See above...and like I wrote there, it is no longer an issue.
And what do you suppose the 19 points within the picture are presented to the audience for?
Evidence of curvature, correct?
Yes, as was already indicating.
Good...
And how high do those points continually rise above the self-admittedly "level," yellow EDITED: red line?
No, not a self-level yellow EDITED red line.
Above a red line connecting the first tower with enough visible to the last tower.
There is no indication that this line is level.
Then take that up with NAZA:
...I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
A line of perspective on a flat surface = LEVEL!!!
The tops of the towers are roughly level, following the curve of Earth; this line would only be level at one point as it doesn't follow the curve of Earth.
They cannot possibly represent more than the eight foot dip to the horizon by an observer at height of ten feet above see level, as the points referenced at the top commence a downward slope prior to point 19!
Again, where are you getting these numbers from?
Why 8 feet?
If it isn't going all the way to the horizon, why would it be to the horizon?

Again, there is still some distance to that tower.

So, whether or not the 19 points is to the horizon or not, I DNGAS!
But that changes if it should be the 8 feet to the horizon (although I still don't know where you are pulling 8 feet from) for these 19 towers, or a smaller drop based upon the distance to the 19th tower.
I suggest you read more slowly or you have someone read it to you:
I suggest you address the actual questions raised rather than just repeating the same nonsense.
WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE NUMBERS FROM?
Google is your friend for the numbers.

10 feet is the claim made by NAZA for the height of the observer in the photos.
Are you claiming the atmosphere has one density at sea level, which it keeps until it magically jumps to another density which it keeps?
Yes.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/ (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/)
That doesn't back you up.
If there was such a density step it would be clearly measurable and produce significant effects.
Science has indicated that the density of air is a smooth gradient...
Science has never made such a statement regarding air density or clarity...if science ever claimed such, that claim would fly directly in the face of fog or smog or whatever other junk disappears as one rises in altitude...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: 29silhouette on January 28, 2018, 06:31:57 PM
Since no one has any real argument that debunks the picture showing curvature, I guess we can wrap this up.

Another globe Earth victory.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 29, 2018, 05:11:32 AM
Since no one has any real argument that debunks the picture showing curvature, I guess we can wrap this up.

Another globe Earth victory.
No, the picture does NOT show curvature.

It shows the lengths disingenuous RE-tards will go to in order to present a case.

1) He places a line he purports to be level across the waist line of the towers, then plots 19 dots at the shoulder points of the towers, supposedly increasing in curvature over the waist line of the towers!!!

2) Anyone with a shrimp (hats off to the bayou creator of this fantasy image and explanation) for a brain knows towers are not manufactured this way and every other photo of these towers in a line distinctly shows that construction of the towers is identical as far as height, shape, and dimensions.

3) NAZA states the observer is in a boat at a ten foot level for observation and shooting the photo:

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').

There is no way a person standing at a ten foot observing level on the Earth, facing any direction (even if it is a sphere), will experience an eight feet wall of "curved water" prior to the horizon line, or other construction raised an additional eight feet IN HIS LINE OF SIGHT DUE TO A SPHERICAL EARTH.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_2Tr2duLDCw/WGrsgRPuZMI/AAAAAAADHHo/ckiJAQ8WMJMDe9NH7Ms06Kxap9uF2E1HgCJoC/w871-h673/wrong%2Bcalcuation%2Bby%2BMichael%2BJ%2BKahnke%2Bet%2Bal.jpg)
The line of sight to the horizon, according to RE-TARD MATH, is dropping from OBSERVATION POINT to horizon...

So, these photos are due to lense distortion.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 29, 2018, 01:41:21 PM
So are the steadily rising (then subtly lowering) of the 19 points he places at the top of the towers purposeful obfuscation of the issue?
Who says they are rising then lowering?
Until they become too difficult to resolve, they follow the same points in the tower, unless you are going to complain that they aren't pixel perfect.

Regardless, at this point in time, I no longer care...
Of course you don't; you have been shown to be wrong and have no justification for any of your claims.
Caring would require you to admit that.

Then take that up with NAZA:
...I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
A line of perspective on a flat surface = LEVEL!!!
No, =FLAT!!!
Do you understand the difference between flat and level?

You can have objects on a hill with a smooth gradient and draw a line of perspective.
You can have objects which decrease in height in a linear manner and a draw a line of perspective.
That does not require it to be level, just straight or flat.

It is a straight line.
The towers don't need to rise up above you.
From the perspective of the camera, the line is pointing downwards and the towers go downwards. Not much at first, but significantly more near the end.

Google is your friend for the numbers.
So you have no basis and are just making up the numbers?

10 feet is the claim made by NAZA for the height of the observer in the photos.
Yes, that is one number out of the 3 you have.

Science has never made such a statement regarding air density or clarity
Yes it has, quite frequently.

For example, the numerous results you can easily find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Altitude
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-density-volume-d_195.html
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosmet.html

It is a smooth gradient, not a magic step.
This is what you would expect based upon gravity, where the air pressure increases closer to the surface of Earth as it is being compressed by the air above.

What science has never claimed is that there is magic step in the density of air.

No, the picture does NOT show curvature.
Yes it does. You are yet to provide an alternative.

It shows the lengths disingenuous RE-tards will go to in order to present a case.
Nope. But it does show the lengths you will go in order to pretend there is no case, making up strawman after strawman, baselessly asserting and then refusing to back it up and so on.

1) He places a line he purports to be level across the waist line of the towers, then plots 19 dots at the shoulder points of the towers, supposedly increasing in curvature over the waist line of the towers!!!
No he didn't.
He placed a line connecting the first and last tower.
This would only be level if Earth was flat.
If Earth is round it would only be level at one point, around the middle of the line.
Before that point (i.e. closer to the camera) it would be pointing downwards. After that point it would be pointing upwards.

Stop lying about what the line is.

2) Anyone with a shrimp (hats off to the bayou creator of this fantasy image and explanation) for a brain knows towers are not manufactured this way and every other photo of these towers in a line distinctly shows that construction of the towers is identical as far as height, shape, and dimensions.
Which just goes to show the curve observed in the photo is not due to the construction of the towers, that the tops of the towers should follow Earth and thus the curve is the curve of Earth.

There is no way a person standing at a ten foot observing level on the Earth, facing any direction (even if it is a sphere), will experience an eight feet wall of "curved water" prior to the horizon line, or other construction raised an additional eight feet IN HIS LINE OF SIGHT DUE TO A SPHERICAL EARTH.
To the horizon, you are correct.
I also wouldn't call it a wall of water.
The horizon is a smooth curve of water (in this case) following the curvature of Earth.
You can easily see it. The exact "height" will depend upon how you are trying to measure the height.

The line of sight to the horizon, according to RE-TARD MATH, is dropping from OBSERVATION POINT to horizon...
No, according to rational people math.
Is is the retards (that are FEers) that don't seem to understand.
You are measuring the "height" in completely insane ways.

The curvature of Earth obstructs the vision of objects beyond the horizon starting from the bottom up.

But the horizon is below you. It doesn't magically rise up, and you are the only one pretending it does.

Would you have referred him to draw a line connecting the first few towers in a straight line to show a clear drop instead?

Is this one better for you:
(https://i.imgur.com/OCVYDFc.png)
The magenta line is still not perfectly level. In fact it points slightly downwards. I used the first three towers to get the line.
Yet you can clearly see the towers curve away from this line, showing they get lower and lower,  as you would expect on a round Earth.
The red line IS NOT LEVEL!!! (at least not all the way alone)
It would be if Earth was flat, but that would also mean all the red dots would be on that line.

So, these photos are due to lense distortion.
No they aren't.
You have been shown that lens distortion cannot result in this image due to the numerous straight lines in the image.
If you wish to disagree you will need to provide evidence.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 29, 2018, 08:28:49 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_2Tr2duLDCw/WGrsgRPuZMI/AAAAAAADHHo/ckiJAQ8WMJMDe9NH7Ms06Kxap9uF2E1HgCJoC/w871-h673/wrong%2Bcalcuation%2Bby%2BMichael%2BJ%2BKahnke%2Bet%2Bal.jpg)
Independent observer standing at any height above point zero (point zero could occupy any radian on the sphere) can look in any direction and will not see any evidence of "upward curvature," then"downward curvature."

All of the towers in the picture (except for the last) are built to the same specs (height, width, etc.)

A person standing at one end of the towers would not see any evidence of the towers arcing upward then sloping downward.

That is impossible on a spherical surface.

They tell you clearly what the drop is on a sphere the size of the Earth.

Only an AI bot arguing with an FE would try to convince an FE that evidence of curvature could be depicted at ground level in a photo, when it cannot.

If it is flat or a sphere, you can look at the chart above and place radian point at 0 and take a look 360 degrees around you. Depending on your height, will be the typical distance to the horizon (6 foot = 3 miles, 10 foot = 4 miles).

What you will not see (no matter your height) between you and the horizon is a curve of water or a string of towers with the tops arcing upwards and then down to the horizon.

Just won't happen.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 29, 2018, 09:56:08 PM
Independent observer standing at any height above point zero (point zero could occupy any radian on the sphere) can look in any direction and will not see any evidence of "upward curvature," then"downward curvature."
So far the only person suggesting any magic "upwards curvature" is you.

All of the towers in the picture (except for the last) are built to the same specs (height, width, etc.)
A person standing at one end of the towers would not see any evidence of the towers arcing upward then sloping downward.
That is impossible on a spherical surface.
That's right. Instead they see the towers arcing down, following the curve of Earth line in that photo.

Only an AI bot arguing with an FE would try to convince an FE that evidence of curvature could be depicted at ground level in a photo, when it cannot.
Except it can easily be depicted in a photo, as this photo clearly shows.

Now care to address what is actually being said rather than your pathetic strawman?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 30, 2018, 02:43:44 AM
So far the only person suggesting any magic "upwards curvature" is you.
Incorrect.

The dots at the tops of the towers were placed at the tops of the towers to present the illusion of an upward rising arc. Those dots at the tops of the towers are increasing distance over the height of the red line.

All of the towers in the picture (except for the last) are built to the same specs (height, width, etc.)
A person standing at one end of the towers would not see any evidence of the towers arcing upward then sloping downward.
That is impossible on a spherical surface.
That's right. Instead they see the towers arcing down, following the curve of Earth line in that photo.[/quote]
Incorrect.

Only an AI bot arguing with an FE would try to convince an FE that evidence of curvature could be depicted at ground level in a photo, when it cannot.
Except it can easily be depicted in a photo, as this photo clearly shows.

Now care to address what is actually being said rather than your pathetic strawman?
[/quote]
Like I wrote earlier, you are being disingenuous, dishonest, and I am placing all AI bots on ignore from this post forward.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 30, 2018, 02:57:03 AM
So far the only person suggesting any magic "upwards curvature" is you.
Incorrect.

The dots at the tops of the towers were placed at the tops of the towers to present the illusion of an upward rising arc. Those dots at the tops of the towers are increasing distance over the height of the red line.
Nope, I'm correct. Here you are again suggesting it, yet no one else does.
The dots at the top of the towers were placed to show they are not in a straight line.
Yes, their position above the red line increases, but the red line goes down more than they go up relative to it, meaning the towers still go down.

Like I wrote earlier, you are being disingenuous, dishonest, and I am placing all AI bots on ignore from this post forward.
i.e. you have been shown to be a blatant liar and are now coming up with whatever BS you can to justify your delusions of grandeur.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 30, 2018, 08:43:55 PM

Like I wrote earlier, you are being disingenuous, dishonest, and I am placing all AI bots on ignore from this post forward.



Let's put a couple of more nails in the coffin.

On this page you will find a model of the powerline
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Curvature+App%3A+Simulation+of+Globe-Earth+and+Flat-Earth&state=~~3~2000%211-0.055553412%2110%2141~9~4~128~38820~90~1%21231.875~-85.3125~-54.246909%212122.834~1%2110.17060685~-0.0065000004~0~1012.8897~14.9805%213#App

Click on Trsmline

You can see what it would look like if the earth were flat:

(https://i.imgur.com/fZiaNhm.png)
And curved:

(https://i.imgur.com/iPjD8O4.png)

And compare them:

(https://i.imgur.com/Pr1VAzJ.png)

Not enough?
Notice the large tower:

(https://i.imgur.com/axykbRb.png)

The base of the tower is missing in the round earth model but present in the flat earth model.

Here is a picture of that tower with the power line in the background:

(https://i.imgur.com/arbWbGC.png)

And a picture of it with the power line to our backs:

(https://i.imgur.com/TcGcxgZ.png)

There is a strip of land in front of the tower not visible in the photo:

(https://i.imgur.com/IOYGulj.jpg)

Where is the bottom of the tower and the land?

(https://i.imgur.com/GXxTkkt.jpg)

It's behind the curve of course.

To summarize there are FIVE proofs of curvature in the image.

1.  The nearby distinct horizon.
2.  The powerline is curved and not because  of any distortion.
3.  The bottom of the large tower is below the horizon.
4.  The concrete pilings are curved and disappear after the horizon while the towers that they support are still visible.
5.  The waterline stains are curved and disappear after the horizon while the tops of the pilings are still visible.
 
Five proofs one pic.

Flat earth 0
Reality 5

Victory for round earth compliments of Lackey.


(https://i.imgur.com/h09xxMH.gif)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: 29silhouette on January 30, 2018, 09:09:50 PM
Doesn't know what going on in the picture.
You've been shot down in flames.  Deal with it. 
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 31, 2018, 03:34:47 AM
A person standing on a sphere will not see any evidence of curvature (confirmed by simple math)  prior to the horizon.

Earlier in the thread, the now proven liar, NAZA, stated there were 22 towers to the horizon in OP photo.

Now look at the drawing he presents as evidence: Count the number of brown stanchions in the drawing allegedly reflecting curvature...looks like more than 22 to me!

Notice how the tops of the towers are reflecting an upward arc to the horizon and then sloping downwards...

If we were indeed on a ball of any size, an observer would not see this...

Go get bent, AI bot...disingenuous claptrap artist!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 31, 2018, 03:40:27 AM
A person standing on a sphere will not see any evidence of curvature (confirmed by simple math)  prior to the horizon.
Why not?
You are yet to justify this

Notice how the tops of the towers are reflecting an upward arc to the horizon and then sloping downwards...
STOP REPEATING THE SAME BS AGAIN AND AGAIN!!
This has been explained to be crap to you repeatedly.

It isn't curving up. The red line is pointing down. The towers curve down.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 31, 2018, 08:46:39 AM
A person standing on a sphere will not see any evidence of curvature (confirmed by simple math)  prior to the horizon.
Why not?
You are yet to justify this

Notice how the tops of the towers are reflecting an upward arc to the horizon and then sloping downwards...
STOP REPEATING THE SAME BS AGAIN AND AGAIN!!
This has been explained to be crap to you repeatedly.

It isn't curving up. The red line is pointing down. The towers curve down.

Lackey knows that the red line is pointing down.
He also knows what this means, and he'd rather look dumb than admit the truth.

For anyone who is in doubt a level line can be created by extending a line that intersects two adjacent towers
(https://i.imgur.com/5QZRPN5.jpg)

The green line is a level line that intersects the first 2  towers. 
It can be ANY 2  adjacent towers:

(https://i.imgur.com/NxTsJRu.jpg)

The powerline curves DOWN from any level line you create. 

The red line points down because the top of the distant tower is LOWER than the first, proof of a globe earth.


An interesting side note:
Lackey is in another thread demanding an accurate scale model of solar system's movement thru the galaxy and ignores an accurate scale model of this powerline.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on January 31, 2018, 09:09:40 AM
Any photograph which is provided for debate has to include the following: source of the photograph, altitude of the observer (if it is not specified then we take the worst case scenario, just as I have done with some of the images which featured lake Ontario as seen from Grimsby), distance to the desired visual target.

Now, here are real time videos which do not show any kind of a curvature across Lake Pontchartrain:






Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 31, 2018, 09:25:15 AM
Any photograph which is provided for debate has to include the following: source of the photograph, altitude of the observer (if it is not specified then we take the worst case scenario, just as I have done with some of the images which featured lake Ontario as seen from Grimsby), distance to the desired visual target.

Now, here real time videos which do not show any kind of a curvature across Lake Pontchartrain:






Why do you continually post things that have been debunked?

I've already debunked one of those  debunks about this powerline so I won't even bother looking at your other crap.

The last video uses the WRONG powerline.

In other words, like you and your ilk he is deceitful.

He is using the shorter east/west line, not the north/south line in the images.

https://goo.gl/maps/W6hhGV5Y1PB2

Open in maps and you can see "street" view
(https://i.imgur.com/aeWuKTl.png)

You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane. 

https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2

(https://i.imgur.com/rGQSfUc.png)

He is plotting the powerline that branches off to the right not the one in the picture.

The correct line goes from the above link to here :

https://goo.gl/maps/CvhQPVi3hZK2

(https://i.imgur.com/UK5wsg7.png)
 
It is perpendicular to the interstate not parallel like in his video.
Check it out for yourself, it's perfectly straight for 15 miles.

Now how about discussing these issues instead of posting videos that you know are deceitful?

1.  The nearby distinct horizon.
2.  The powerline is curved and not because  of any distortion.
3.  The bottom of the large tower is below the horizon.
4.  The concrete pilings are curved and disappear after the horizon while the towers that they support are still visible.
5.  The waterline stains are curved and disappear after the horizon while the tops of the pilings are still visible.

What did you think about the scale model I linked to?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on January 31, 2018, 09:31:18 AM
Please provide the following (if you have done that already, just list the link):

-original source for the photograph
-altitude of the observer (does the photographer mention that, or is it your estimate)
-distance to the desired visual target

Yes, the fourth video has the wrong powerline, no problem, that much is obvious, however I included it for the information it provides.

Now, here are the other three videos, real time images which no curvature at all across lake Pontchartrain:



Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 31, 2018, 10:31:23 AM
Please provide the following (if you have done that already, just list the link):

-original source for the photograph
-altitude of the observer (does the photographer mention that, or is it your estimate)
-distance to the desired visual target

Yes, the fourth video has the wrong powerline, no problem, that much is obvious, however I included it for the information it provides.

Exactly.
The information you provide is full of lies and deceit,  the backbone of the flat earth society.

Quote
Now, here are the other three videos, real time images which no curvature at all across lake Pontchartrain:





Do you even view the things that you post?

He are some screen grabs from the first video:

(https://i.imgur.com/mBdp44L.png)

Where are the first floors of the houses?

(https://i.imgur.com/lgThVBn.png)

Sure does look like that barge is sinking behind the horizon!

Spoiler: It's a video DEBUNKING flat earth.

You link to one video proving that the earth is flat and one proving that flatters are deceitful.

Perhaps you should bookmark this thread for reference for when you start whining again about being called an idiot.

We need an award for Flatters when they shoot themselves in the foot.
We can call it The Lackey.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on January 31, 2018, 10:42:28 AM
I don't think the RE have done their homework on this very well.

Here is the alleged video (soundly):



Now read the captions.

The user IS CHALLENGED BY THE RE themselves as to the origin of the video.


Here are some of the comments:

just curious - - why can we see that last transmission tower at 16 miles away (assuming picture taken from car on I-10 south end of lake where it crosses train tracks) almost in its entirety (over 100 ft shouldn't be visible).  seems that tower is exempt from the curve.  please check the math and maps for yourself.  that last wine bottle tower is indeed part of this chain. . . this picture is neither here nor there and proves nothing.  if you have a good answer please be polite and respectful.  i really am just curious and
would appreciate a good scientific explanation of what the heck is going on with this photo.  thanks.

JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE, MAYBE ITS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN...........OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????
WHY ARE THE FOOTINGS MOVING AT THE BASE? THIS IS VERY BIZARRE IS IT ABOUT TO FALL OVER? COMPLETE FAKE. ABOUT 10 SECONDS IN WATCH THE FIRST 3 OR 4 BASES AND THEY WOBBLE AND MOVE.
IM ACTUALLY A PHOTOGRAPHER, AND KNOW ALL ABOUT EDITING, ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME YOUR HAND WAS SHAKING........HAHA, A SHAKEY HAND DOES NOT MAKE THE BOTTOM OF THE POSTS MOVE INDEPENDANT OF ONE ANOTHER, SORRY TO SPOT THAT BIT AND DRAW ATTENTION TO IT. FAKE AS F**K,  SO JUST TO BE CLEAR TO EVERYONE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE FOOTINGS OR BASE OF EACH POST ESPECIALLY THE 3
OR 4 CLOSEST TO THE CAMERA THEY MOVE VERY FUNNY IT IS AN OBVIOUS SIGN OF FAKERY, (NOW WHY WOULD ANYONE TRY TO FOOL YOU THE EARTH IS ROUND?????)

If that water looks real to you, you are insane, it moves along in slabs, obvious trickery, my eyes no longer can be fooled by fake shit.

The bridge curls downwards in a spiral into the water. BAD fake footage.

just ran it thru video forensics and it is clearly 100 percent manipulated, so again why would you have to fake the truth?

If you look really closely you can see where the photoshop was used to make it appear as the transmission lines are "curving" #NOTTODAYSCIENCE

Corhen , are you kidding ? Have you ever played a video game?  That is as CGI as it gets, with the the added ocean sounds and even birds in some.... No way is that a real video.

NO curvature across lake Pontchartrain:



Soundly accused of fakery by multiple users:




Where are the first floors of the houses?

You don't stand a chance with me on this one.

Here is the video:



Here is the caption:

nope....i can see the first floors. check out my video of the 15ft causeway bridge from 12 miles away...the tides are obscuring the shore...no curvature...should be hidden by at least 24 ft of water (the first video in this message)

SOUNDLY FAKED THE ORIGINAL VIDEO.

JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE, MAYBE ITS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN...........OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????


Only you Naza could have been had by obvious CGI, is it now?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on January 31, 2018, 11:01:57 AM
totallackey, can you download the first video of my previous message, so that it can be kept as a reference in any future debates.

The fake photograph comes FROM A FAKE VIDEO.

JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE, MAYBE ITS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN...........OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 31, 2018, 12:22:07 PM
Now, here are real time videos which do not show any kind of a curvature across Lake Pontchartrain:
Except they quote clearly do.
The first video shows a distant view of what is on a shore, with the bottoms missing, hidden behind the curve.

Good job proving the curve.

Unless the tides flood the houses, the tide can't explain it.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on January 31, 2018, 01:04:26 PM
The photograph in this thread is fake.

It comes from a fake video.

As for the video I provided the data is very clear.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_2Tr2duLDCw/WGrsgRPuZMI/AAAAAAADHHo/ckiJAQ8WMJMDe9NH7Ms06Kxap9uF2E1HgCJoC/w871-h673/wrong%2Bcalcuation%2Bby%2BMichael%2BJ%2BKahnke%2Bet%2Bal.jpg)

Curvature drop = 30 ft (on top of that we add the waves as well)

height of observer = 2 ft

At 6.8 miles you shouldn't even see the houses.

With an even better camera the entire shoreline would appear from top to bottom.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on January 31, 2018, 01:16:18 PM
totallackey, can you download the first video of my previous message, so that it can be kept as a reference in any future debates.
Yes.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on January 31, 2018, 01:43:00 PM
Any photograph which is provided for debate has to include the following: source of the photograph, altitude of the observer (if it is not specified then we take the worst case scenario, just as I have done with some of the images which featured lake Ontario as seen from Grimsby), distance to the desired visual target.

Now, here are real time videos which do not show any kind of a curvature across Lake Pontchartrain:



How desperate are you to use a video with blatant miraging?.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on January 31, 2018, 01:47:47 PM
The meaning of desperation will become very clear to you once I bring into our discussion the photographs across the English Channel, across the strait of Gibraltar, across lake Ontario, and of course the Tunguska explosion.

Now, all of the RE have been had on a grand scale: the photograph is a fake, it comes from a fake video.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on January 31, 2018, 01:53:05 PM
The meaning of desperation will becomes very clear to you once I bring into our discussion the photographs across the English Channel, across the strait of Gibraltar, across lake Ontario, and of course the Tunguska explosion.

Now, all of the RE have been had on a grand scale: the photograph is a fake, it comes from a fake video.

We of course covered Tunguska explosion already. It was an meteor.
You can bring those pictures here if you want. They have also already been covered. Then I will bring in the mirages across the great lakes that happen 3 times a year instead of everyday like a FET predicts.
Also this:
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on January 31, 2018, 01:59:29 PM
We have been discussing sokarul for quite some time and have concluded that Sokarul is a chemist who collects urine.

Here are some quotes from sokarul, so that everybody can understand what is going on:

"You have to get over the fact that two things can be equal and not be the same thing.

A dead particle does not equal an alive particle.

It it theories water came from asteroids.

So the ground accelerates them, then why do they not leave the ground?

I wasn't thinking about the other type of acceleration."


Yet, he is allowed to post in the upper forums...


Meteor

No, it certainly could not have been a meteor.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995521#msg1995521
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 31, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
The photograph in this thread is fake.
Nope, its real and can be verified in reality.

But thanks for showing the best you can do is reject the evidence as you have no rational argument.

height of observer = 2 ft
Where are you pulling this shit from?

With an even better camera the entire shoreline would appear from top to bottom.
Prove it. I am yet to a single instance of a better camera magically being able to undo the curve.

The meaning of desperation will become very clear to you once I bring into our discussion the photographs across the English Channel, across the strait of Gibraltar, across lake Ontario, and of course the Tunguska explosion.
Yes, as you get desparate and continually bring up irrelavent crap rather than try to discsus the topic at hand, as you are desparate to pretend your FE delusions are correct and simply can't face reality.

Quit with the irrelavent BS and discuss the topic at hand.

If you have nothing to offer regarding the photo in the OP then leave.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on January 31, 2018, 03:47:56 PM
We have been discussing sokarul for quite some time and have concluded that Sokarul is a chemist who collects urine.

Ypu believe in fake newstoo much. Explains alot.

Quote
Here are some quotes from sokarul, so that everybody can understand what is going on:

"You have to get over the fact that two things can be equal and not be the same thing.

A dead particle does not equal an alive particle.

It it theories water came from asteroids.

So the ground accelerates them, then why do they not leave the ground?

I wasn't thinking about the other type of acceleration."


Yet, he is allowed to post in the upper forums...
Have anything from the last 7 years?

Quote
Meteor

No, it certainly could not have been a meteor.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995521#msg1995521

Yes, it was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 31, 2018, 03:53:24 PM
The meaning of desperation will become very clear to you once I bring into our discussion the photographs across the English Channel, across the strait of Gibraltar, across lake Ontario, and of course the Tunguska explosion.

Now, all of the RE have been had on a grand scale: the photograph is a fake, it comes from a fake video.
;D ;D ;D Oh sure, says the man who claims:  ;D ;D ;D
The information in my messages is correct, as always.
Really? Justify these to any rational person !
Quote from: Sandokhan
Advanced Flat Earth Theory ォ Reply #410 on: August 09, 2017, 06:07:14 AM サ (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818)
EARTH - SUN DISTANCE: 15-20 KILOMETERS
The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The distance from Earth to the Sun is some 15-20 km.
and
Quote from: sandokhan, Flat Earth Believers / Advanced Flat Earth Theory on July 14, 2009, 11:59:41 PM
Flat Earth Theory is a subset of a larger topic: the new radical chronology of history.
The new chronology of history: the correct chronology starts in the year 1000 AD, nothing is known prior to 800 AD.

The new radical chronology of history: each and every event assumed to have taken place prior to 1780 AD has been totally forged/invented/falsified. History is just some 365 years old (I started with a figure of 500 years, and slowly reduced the period to 364-365 years).

Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.
The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier, after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.

I wouldn't waste my time replying to the trash you write!
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 31, 2018, 05:53:32 PM
When all else fails play the CGI card.

Sandokhan,  did none of the voices in your head question why nobody else claimed  fake or CGI?

It is because unlike you, they are not total idiots and they did their homework.
As did Soundly.
You see Sandokhan,  Soundly is aware that the flat earth society is polluted with deceitful degenerates  like you that would lie about the video.

So he live streamed himself making the video, then driving to an internet cafe, then uploading the video.



So kindly take your fake CGI card and shove it back up your ass whence it came.

Now for a little salt for your foot wound.

Here is the image of the house from your video.

(https://i.imgur.com/zz4Gu1x.png)

Where is the bottom of the house?

Since I am very familiar with the North Shore the house was easy for me to find.
https://goo.gl/maps/WWQ9nQLfv6K2

(https://i.imgur.com/8s5szYP.png)

Here is a Google Street image of the house:

(https://i.imgur.com/GVaKxie.png)

Notice that like most houses there is it is built on pilings to avoid flooding?
You can see daylight under the house, and it is elevated enough to park vehicles under it.

Where is the bottom of the house?

(https://i.imgur.com/zz4Gu1x.png)

And while you are avoiding that question:

(https://i.imgur.com/mb3aAf4.jpg)

Where is the pier and the 2 story deck that is behind the house?

(https://i.imgur.com/zz4Gu1x.png)

So thank you once again  for providing evidence that the earth is a globe.

Idiot child.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on January 31, 2018, 07:02:15 PM
Where is the pier and the 2 story deck that is behind the house?
;) ;) Probably a flood in Lake Pontchartrain and it's all underwater - like all the sinking ships over the horizon! ;) ;)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on January 31, 2018, 07:58:09 PM
Where is the pier and the 2 story deck that is behind the house?
;) ;) Probably a flood in Lake Pontchartrain and it's all underwater - like all the sinking ships over the horizon! ;) ;)

Dammit there goes New Orleans again!   :-[

The storm surge for hurricane Katrina wasn't near that high in the lake for what it's worth.

But as the levees get higher around NO the houses get higher on the North Shore.  Codes were raised to 17' elevations post Katrina if i recall correctly.





Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: 29silhouette on January 31, 2018, 08:25:40 PM
... altitude of the observer...
And we all know how bad you are at estimating that factor.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on January 31, 2018, 10:24:42 PM
In the well established tradition which started with Kepler (who faked all of the entries in his tables), the REtards are resorting to fake videos.

The following video is a complete fake (it doesn't matter where it was loaded from, livestream can be faked as well, please read: https://theoutline.com/post/3082/youtube-is-overrun-with-fake-livestreams?zd=1 and https://www.makeuseof.com/answers/create-fake-live-video/ ):



JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE, MAYBE ITS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN...........OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????
WHY ARE THE FOOTINGS MOVING AT THE BASE? THIS IS VERY BIZARRE IS IT ABOUT TO FALL OVER? COMPLETE FAKE. ABOUT 10 SECONDS IN WATCH THE FIRST 3 OR 4 BASES AND THEY WOBBLE AND MOVE.
IM ACTUALLY A PHOTOGRAPHER, AND KNOW ALL ABOUT EDITING, ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME YOUR HAND WAS SHAKING........HAHA, A SHAKEY HAND DOES NOT MAKE THE BOTTOM OF THE POSTS MOVE INDEPENDANT OF ONE ANOTHER, SORRY TO SPOT THAT BIT AND DRAW ATTENTION TO IT. FAKE AS F**K,  SO JUST TO BE CLEAR TO EVERYONE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE FOOTINGS OR BASE OF EACH POST ESPECIALLY THE 3
OR 4 CLOSEST TO THE CAMERA THEY MOVE VERY FUNNY IT IS AN OBVIOUS SIGN OF FAKERY, (NOW WHY WOULD ANYONE TRY TO FOOL YOU THE EARTH IS ROUND?????)


Soundly faked the damn videos.

The footings are moving at the base.

An obvious CGI.

Only someone like Naza who cannot discern a plainly faked/forged video, could argue that the shape of the Earth is round, while using A FAKE PHOTOGRAPH.

A total fakery on the part of the RE.


Where is the bottom of the house?

For that particular distance (6.8 miles) and the altitude of the observer (2 ft. as told by the author of the photograph) you get a drop of 30 ft. If we add the waves, then you get some 32 ft.

The entire house should not be seen in the photograph.

A total victory for the FE.

In fact here is the exact formula:

(https://web.archive.org/web/20090901193137im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/topographer.gif)

Pluggin in the numbers, we get 30.44 ft for the drop. No house could have been seen on a spherical Earth at all.


NOW HERE IS ANOTHER VIDEO SHOT BY THE SAME PERSON:



Distance 10.4 miles.

Drop = 66 ft.

https://www.aaroads.com/guides/lake-pontchartrain-cswy/

The bridge system travels at an average height of 15 and 16 feet over the brackish waters of Lake Pontchartrain. Incorporated into the design are three main ship passes, where the bridges elevate to a height of 25 feet.

On a spherical Earth, the Causeway bridge could not have been seen at all.


This thread is over.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 31, 2018, 10:48:43 PM
In the well established tradition which started with Kepler (who faked all of the entries in his tables), the REtards are resorting to fake videos.
Nope, it is a well established tradition that you will do whatever BS you can to avoid admitting your delusions are BS.

The following video is a complete fake
Nope. It's real and you can verify it yourself by going there.

JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE
Nope. They seem just as stationary as the rest.

The fact that you can't decide how many it is shows you are just making shit up.

An obvious CGI.
Nope. CGI wouldn't have that problem.

Where is the bottom of the house?
For that particular distance (6.8 miles) and the altitude of the observer (2 ft. as told by the author of the photograph) you get a drop of 30 ft. If we add the waves, then you get some 32 ft.
That does not answer the question. ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!
WHERE IS THE BOTTOM OF THE HOUSE!!
It not being there refutes FE.
It is abysmal failure for FE, not a victory.

This thread is over.
Yes, you lose, repeatedly.
You have successfully proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Earth is in fact round, as evidenced by the missing sections of these objects.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on January 31, 2018, 10:55:14 PM
The following video is a complete fake (it doesn't matter where it was loaded from, livestream can be faked as well, please read: https://theoutline.com/post/3082/youtube-is-overrun-with-fake-livestreams?zd=1 and https://www.makeuseof.com/answers/create-fake-live-video/ ):



JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE, MAYBE ITS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN...........OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????
WHY ARE THE FOOTINGS MOVING AT THE BASE? THIS IS VERY BIZARRE IS IT ABOUT TO FALL OVER? COMPLETE FAKE. ABOUT 10 SECONDS IN WATCH THE FIRST 3 OR 4 BASES AND THEY WOBBLE AND MOVE.
IM ACTUALLY A PHOTOGRAPHER, AND KNOW ALL ABOUT EDITING, ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME YOUR HAND WAS SHAKING........HAHA, A SHAKEY HAND DOES NOT MAKE THE BOTTOM OF THE POSTS MOVE INDEPENDANT OF ONE ANOTHER, SORRY TO SPOT THAT BIT AND DRAW ATTENTION TO IT. FAKE AS F**K,  SO JUST TO BE CLEAR TO EVERYONE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE FOOTINGS OR BASE OF EACH POST ESPECIALLY THE 3
OR 4 CLOSEST TO THE CAMERA THEY MOVE VERY FUNNY IT IS AN OBVIOUS SIGN OF FAKERY, (NOW WHY WOULD ANYONE TRY TO FOOL YOU THE EARTH IS ROUND?????)


Soundly faked the damn videos.

The three-four footings closest to the camera are moving at the base, while the others are not. A sure sign of fakery.


An obvious CGI.




Distance 10.4 miles.

Drop = 66 ft.

https://www.aaroads.com/guides/lake-pontchartrain-cswy/

The bridge system travels at an average height of 15 and 16 feet over the brackish waters of Lake Pontchartrain. Incorporated into the design are three main ship passes, where the bridges elevate to a height of 25 feet.

On a spherical Earth, the Causeway bridge could not have been seen at all.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on January 31, 2018, 10:59:27 PM
Sandy, repeating the same refuted BS again doesn't magically make it true.
Either respond to what has been said, or get lost.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on February 01, 2018, 05:41:55 AM
More lies fom Sandokhan the Lying King.

He is purposely using the wrong formula in the same post that he accuses others of impossible fakery.

Here is the truth:


Distance = 6.8 Miles (35904 Feet), View Height = 2 Feet (24 Inches) Radius = 3959 Miles (20903520 Feet)


Results ignoring refraction

Horizon = 1.73 Miles (9144.07 Feet)

Bulge = 7.71 Feet (92.5 Inches)

Drop = 30.83 Feet (370.01 Inches)

Hidden= 17.13 Feet (205.54 Inches)

Horizon Dip = 0.025 Degrees, (0.0004 Radians)


With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)

Refracted Horizon = 1.87 Miles (9876.73 Feet)

Refracted Drop= 26.43 Feet (317.15 Inches)

Refracted Hidden= 13.89 Feet (166.66 Inches)

Refracted Dip = 0.023 Degrees, (0.0004 Radians)


Thirty feet is the drop from a horizontal tangent it is NOT what is hidden behind the horizon.
His 30' lie is the green line the red line is the truth.
(https://i.imgur.com/3BNvLhv.jpg)

So, 14' should be hidden, just as we see.

 (https://i.imgur.com/zz4Gu1x.png)

So we've caught The Lying King being deceitful once  again and these lies have once again helped prove that the earth is a globe.

We may have to rename that award The Sandy.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 01, 2018, 06:01:39 AM
What the frell is this?

With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)

The formula you use is an innacurate one.

You cannot increase the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83 just off the top of your head.


Refracted Drop= 26.43 Feet (317.15 Inches)

Refracted Hidden= 13.89 Feet (166.66 Inches)


Your innacurate assessment leads to an irrational result: where you are able to delete 13.89 ft from the correct value (30.44 ft).

So, 14' should be hidden, just as we see.

Not at all. In fact on that day the video was made both the atmospheric pressure and the temperature could have contributed to just 1 ft in hidden refraction, and not your bs 14 ft value. You are not fooling anyone here. Remember, I have been involved in many more debates than you involving terrestrial refraction. The main component is the QUALITY OF THE CAMERA, not the refraction. With a better quality camera, you could capture the entirety of the visual target. The refraction term could be small, it is the quality of the camera which counts.

Here is an example.

Three successive photographs, each using a better quality camera, thus capturing more details.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

The refraction term is very small, perhaps a few ft, it is the quality of the camera which contributes most to the final result. That is why you cannot blindly apply a general/standard formula to a particular situation, without knowing more details.



What is needed is another video which could settle the entire debate.

This is just what that user on youtube did.

Here is the final video:



Distance 10.4 miles.

Drop = 66 ft.

https://www.aaroads.com/guides/lake-pontchartrain-cswy/

The bridge system travels at an average height of 15 and 16 feet over the brackish waters of Lake Pontchartrain. Incorporated into the design are three main ship passes, where the bridges elevate to a height of 25 feet.

On a spherical Earth, the Causeway bridge could not have been seen at all.

This is how easy it is to prove that Lake Pontchartrain is actually flat.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 01, 2018, 12:22:58 PM
What the frell is this?
With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
The formula you use is an innacurate one.
You cannot increase the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83 just off the top of your head.
Good thing it isn't just off the top of his head.
As many people know, a phenomenon associated with light is refraction.
This has the effect of curving light downwards. This means you see furhter than you should if you go based upon a spherical Earth with no atmosphere.
Given the nature of Earth's atmosphere, a good approximation to account for standard refraction is to increase the radius by a factor of 1/6.

Before you go making up any BS saying that is too good to be true, as it is just increasing the numerator by 1, it isn't. It is adding some factor of the radius. If refraction was less significant it would be a larger denominator, e.g. 1/20, giving a "corrected radius" of 21/20*r.

There is a discussion of it here:
https://www.metabunk.org/standard-atmospheric-refraction-empirical-evidence-and-derivation.t8703/#post-205947

The simple fact that you need to ignore refraction to pretend Earth isn't round, shows your dishonesty.
Especially when even though large portions are still hidden, you foolishly claim it as a victory for FE.

If Earth was flat, refraction wouldn't come into it nor would any be hidden.
So all you have done is proven Earth is round and proven the dishonesty of FEers.

Your innacurate assessment leads to an irrational result: where you are able to delete 13.89 ft from the correct value (30.44 ft).
And there you go misunderstanding it yet again.
The correct value was never 30.44 ft.
That is only the value you expect if your head was at water level.
But you said 2 feet.
That is not 0.

So this is just another example of your dishonesty, where you need to blatantly lie about the situation to pretend there is a problem with a RE, while you continue to ignore the problems with the FE.

Remember, I have been involved in many more debates
I am yet to see you engage in any debate on this site. You continually ignore what has been said and just repeat the same refuted BS.
That isn't debate.

The main component is the QUALITY OF THE CAMERA
No it is not.
If the camera was an issue for why you couldn't see the bottom of the houses you would see the water line, a blur where the botom of the houses should be, then the top of the houses.
A camera cannot magically make a section of a house disappear as if hidden by the curve.

Three successive photographs, each using a better quality camera, thus capturing more details.
Nope. Three photos taken from completley different locations with completely different conditions.


What is needed is another video which could settle the entire debate.
It has already been settled. On a FE the towers should appear to be in a straight line and the bottom of the houses should be clearly visible, as should Toronto's shore.
Instead it is hidden by the water. Clear proof of the curvature of Earth.
Good job refuting yourself yet again.

This is just what that user on youtube did.
Here is the final video:

Distance 10.4 miles.
Drop = 66 ft.
Drop, not how much should be hidden. Try again.


And yet again, it is wonderful proof of the curve.
At first, you can't see the bridge at all. Then after panning right far enough it appears to rise from behind the water, with the bottom pylons disappearing long before the rest of the bridge.
Clear evidence of the curvature of Earth.

This is how easy it is to prove that Lake Pontchartrain is actually flat.
Nope, you just proved it is curved.

That is how hard it is to prove it is flat; when trying to you end up proving it is curved.


Now quit with this irrelevant BS (or would you prefer them to be called lies, as that is what they are) and deal with the OP.
What causes the curve?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 01, 2018, 12:40:04 PM
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.

I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Google maps shows this to about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
The image seems to be taken from about 1000' from the first tower in the straight line, where it splits.

If you actually took the time to learn a little bit about surveying  you would realize just how stupid your comment is and how delusional your flat earth claims are.

This is why there are no surveyors who believe your BS and also why you accuse them of being dishonest members of the  grand conspiracy.

Btw, why do you use perspective in instances where it is patently  false yet refuse to consider forced perspective making the curve look more exaggerated exactly as it should?

Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.

What can NOT be explained by perspective is the water line on the towers.
Notice how they disappear right at the horizon yet you still see the white base of the towers?

Why are you obsessed with the peaks yet ignore the 800 pounds gorilla  in the room, the rest of the tower?  Spoiler: I know the answer.
I explained to you that that the towers are all not space evenly and I explained the reason why this is.

1. Why are the water stains curved?

Has water now joined with light and air in conspiring to make the earth look round?

2.  Why do the water stains disappear after the horizon yet the tops of the pilings are still visible?

You owe your supporters answers before you post your letter.

Now explain why the pilings drop out of view after the horizon but the towers they support are still visible.

If you had enough information to make the claims in the first place, then you have enough information to defend them.

Or were you just talking out your ass as usual?

Man up and answer the questions that other members have asked you about your claims.

AFTER you answer those questions I will be happy to answer any questions you have.

To summarize there are FIVE proofs of curvature in the image.

1.  The nearby distinct horizon.
2.  The powerline is curved and not because  of any distortion.
3.  The bottom of the large tower is below the horizon.
4.  The concrete pilings are curved and disappear after the horizon while the towers that they support are still visible.
5.  The waterline stains are curved and disappear after the horizon while the tops of the pilings are still visible.
 
Five proofs one pic.

Flat earth 0
Reality 5


And yet reality struck back: the video turned out to be a miserable hoax.


Let us increase the distance to 13 km.

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip (The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Gilliam)

38:28 to 38:35

(http://image.ibb.co/n3bHw6/gib.jpg)

(https://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#


From the same spot, a splendid photograph:
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on February 01, 2018, 01:01:46 PM
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.
Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.
That is the funniest line uttered in support of Soundly's shit I have ever seen!!!

LMMFAO!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 01, 2018, 01:08:13 PM
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.
Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.
That is the funniest line uttered in support of Soundly's shit I have ever seen!!!

LMMFAO!

Perhaps Naza is Soundly's alt. Only he knew that the first three or four bases wobble and move around.

That is a funny line indeed.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 01, 2018, 01:34:53 PM
Well that was incredible easy to disprove what you claim.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c3/72/38/c372388ba57aede6af248fb3b140284c.jpg)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 01, 2018, 01:38:40 PM
Even the Toronto sign has the drop taken into account.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3MA-VRdnM8/maxresdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on February 01, 2018, 02:03:42 PM
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.
Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.
That is the funniest line uttered in support of Soundly's shit I have ever seen!!!

LMMFAO!

Perhaps Naza is Soundly's alt. Only he knew that the first three or four bases wobble and move around.

That is a funny line indeed.
Would not surprise me in the least...

Already has 950 feet of distance "compressed," into a range of a few pixels...

Then tries to pull out the word "perspective," as if it can be legitimately represented by the OP photo...

Here is another claim he made about the Pontchartrain power lines in Soundly productions:

NAZA: "It is perpendicular to the interstate not parallel like in his video.
Check it out for yourself, it's perfectly straight for 15 miles.'

If you go to Google, you can test for yourself whether any Pontchartrain power lines are plotted "perfectly straight." (HINT - They are not)

NAZA listed a whole bunch of reasons why he is here on this forum...

Reads like a Carrie Nation brochure...

"My father this...," or "my family that..." Hell, let us take a look:
But let's (be)entertained (by) that for the moment.
I would argue that I was insulted first, before I made my first post.
I have installed many satellite antennas so I am part of the conspiracy or I am too stupid to notice it is fake.  I find this insulting.

My father was a surveyor, I find it very insulting that you guys accuse him of being a conspirator.
As does the family of every person that has been or DIED in space travel, every scientist, every airline pilot, every ship captain,  every teacher, etc.  I could go on but you get my point.
Not too mention the billions of people who are indoctrinated.

So Sandokhan,  you can never claimed that you were insulted first.
And do not be surprised if people are quick to insult, YOU choose a belief that is insulting to billions.
Finds the whole concept of FE stupid and "insulting."

Yet, needs to spend time seeking out the stupid and insulting perps to hang with them!

LMMFAO!!!

Hoists the poniard of the entire human race above his head, shouting, "I will save you from the FE!!! I will save you from the FE!!!"

What a fucking joke!!!

LMMFAO!!!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 01, 2018, 02:15:53 PM
The RE have been debating a fake video and photograph for six pages.
No. You have been desparately trying to dismiss it as fake because you know you have no rational defence against it.
It is clear proof that Earth is round.

And yet reality struck back: the video turned out to be a miserable hoax.
Nope. You attempting to dismiss it as one doesn't magically make it into one.

Let us increase the distance to 13 km.
i.e. lets try and change the topic yet again to avoid your miserable defeat.

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:
Citation needed.
Understanding also needed.
Why would there be an ascending slope?
Relative to the observer, Earth curves downwards. This is made more clear by the horizon always being observed below eye level.
And there is has never been any recorded instance of a perfectly flat surface of water.

From the same spot, a splendid photograph:
Which once again shows this curvature with the botom of the mountain hidden by the water instead of the shoreline and objects near the shore being visible like you would expect if Earth was flat.
So thanks for once again proving that Earth is round.
Now how about you deal with the photo in the OP.
What is causing the curve?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 01, 2018, 02:18:16 PM
If you go to Google, you can test for yourself whether the power lines are plotted "perfectly straight."
I wouldn't say perfect, but it is pretty darn straight, when you use the correct powerline rather than the one your lying video used.

"My father this...," or "my family that..." Hell, let us take a look:
i.e. lets follow in the footsteps of Sandy and try to avoid the topic at any cost.

What is causing the curve in the image?
It has been established it is not lens distortion, nor is it due to the powerline curving to the left or right.
What explanations are left other than the curve of Earth?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 01, 2018, 09:39:00 PM
In this photograph there is no hidden portion: a perfectly flat surface of the strait all the way to the other shoreline.

(https://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)

And a professionally produced video, which shows the very same thing:

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip (The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Gilliam)

38:28 to 38:35

In both images THERE IS NO ASCENDING SLOPE AND NO MIDPOINT 3.5 METERS VISUAL OBSTACLE.


Again, here is the fake video:



JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE, MAYBE ITS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN...........OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????
WHY ARE THE FOOTINGS MOVING AT THE BASE? THIS IS VERY BIZARRE IS IT ABOUT TO FALL OVER? COMPLETE FAKE. ABOUT 10 SECONDS IN WATCH THE FIRST 3 OR 4 BASES AND THEY WOBBLE AND MOVE.
IM ACTUALLY A PHOTOGRAPHER, AND KNOW ALL ABOUT EDITING, ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME YOUR HAND WAS SHAKING........HAHA, A SHAKEY HAND DOES NOT MAKE THE BOTTOM OF THE POSTS MOVE INDEPENDANT OF ONE ANOTHER, SORRY TO SPOT THAT BIT AND DRAW ATTENTION TO IT. FAKE AS F**K,  SO JUST TO BE CLEAR TO EVERYONE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE FOOTINGS OR BASE OF EACH POST ESPECIALLY THE 3
OR 4 CLOSEST TO THE CAMERA THEY MOVE VERY FUNNY IT IS AN OBVIOUS SIGN OF FAKERY, (NOW WHY WOULD ANYONE TRY TO FOOL YOU THE EARTH IS ROUND?????)



Soundly faked the damn videos.

The footings are moving at the base.

An obvious CGI.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 02, 2018, 12:03:40 AM
What the frell is this?

With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)

The formula you use is an innacurate one.
Incorrect!
Quote from: sandokhan
You cannot increase the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83 just off the top of your head.
No-one is increasing the radius from 3959 miles to 4618.83!

Are you totally ignorant or do you just pretend to be?
Quote from: The Free Dictionary
standard refraction
(electromagnetism)
Refraction which would occur in an idealized atmosphere in which the index of refraction decreases uniformly with height at a rate of 39 ラ 106 per kilometer; standard refraction may be included in ground wave calculations by use of an effective earth radius of 8.5 ラ 106 meters, or 4/3 the geometrical radius of the earth.

From: The  Free Dictionary, Standard Refraction (https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/standard+refraction)
The 4/3 the geometrical radius of the earth is a rough approximation for radio and radar signals.
For optical frequencies refraction is a little less and 7/6 the geometrical radius of the earth is usually used.

It might not be your favourite site, but there's more detail in: Standard Atmospheric Refraction: Empirical Evidence and Derivation (http://Standard Atmospheric Refraction: Empirical Evidence and Derivation)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2018, 12:18:22 AM
Let us increase the distance to 34 km.

The English Channel: 34 km distance from Cap Gris Nez to Dover, a curvature of some 22.4 meters on a round earth.

(https://s16.postimg.org/jznqhanrp/dover1.jpg)

(https://s16.postimg.org/lf9aqof4l/dover2.jpg)


The original webpages, as they were posted on flickr.com


The photographers located between Cap Blanc Nez and Cap Gris Nez: we will ascend to 30 meters.

(http://image.ibb.co/cmTkZR/doverbest2.jpg)

And now the photograph itself: no curvature whatsoever, all the way to the other shoreline, the Dover cliffs seen in their entirety (on a round earth, from 30 meters, we could not see anything under 16.5 meters from the other side), the ships are not part of an ascending/descending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.4 meters:

(https://s9.postimg.org/ptymv8ltb/doverbest_zpse4522974.jpg)


Another photograph taken right on the beach of Cap Gris Nez: no curvature over a distance of 34 km:

(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)



Dover cliffs:

(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4070/4521816996_2971e62065.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1051/4726849923_389dba2176.jpg)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: kikael on February 02, 2018, 12:48:19 AM
Let us increase the distance to 34 km.

The English Channel: 34 km distance from Cap Gris Nez to Dover, a curvature of some 22.4 meters on a round earth.

https://s16.postimg.org/jznqhanrp/dover1.jpg (https://s16.postimg.org/jznqhanrp/dover1.jpg)

https://s16.postimg.org/lf9aqof4l/dover2.jpg (https://s16.postimg.org/lf9aqof4l/dover2.jpg)


The original webpages, as they were posted on flickr.com


The photographers located between Cap Blanc Nez and Cap Gris Nez: we will ascend to 30 meters.

http://image.ibb.co/cmTkZR/doverbest2.jpg (http://image.ibb.co/cmTkZR/doverbest2.jpg)

And now the photograph itself: no curvature whatsoever, all the way to the other shoreline, the Dover cliffs seen in their entirety (on a round earth, from 30 meters, we could not see anything under 16.5 meters from the other side), the ships are not part of an ascending/descending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.4 meters:

https://s9.postimg.org/ptymv8ltb/doverbest_zpse4522974.jpg (https://s9.postimg.org/ptymv8ltb/doverbest_zpse4522974.jpg)


Another photograph taken right on the beach of Cap Gris Nez: no curvature over a distance of 34 km:

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg (http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)



Dover cliffs:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4070/4521816996_2971e62065.jpg (http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4070/4521816996_2971e62065.jpg)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1051/4726849923_389dba2176.jpg (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1051/4726849923_389dba2176.jpg)

Amazing, suck it RE, there's no coming back from this, you have been utterly defeated! Great job mr sandokhan, another great victory!

Do you by any chance have more pictures to recommend? Preferably even smaller and lower quality if possible, maybe even some more with the horizon mostly blocked by nearby objects or structures like this one you posted before https://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg (https://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg). Lets finish these dumb and deceitful round earthers once and for all!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 02, 2018, 01:05:34 AM
In this photograph there is no hidden portion: a perfectly flat surface of the strait all the way to the other shoreline.
(https://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)
You give no details as to the height the photo was taken from, so it's useless as evidence. But
So your Gibraltar photo is meaningless.

Quote from: sandokhan
And a professionally produced video, which shows the very same thing:

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip (The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Gilliam)
38:28 to 38:35
In both images THERE IS NO ASCENDING SLOPE AND NO MIDPOINT 3.5 METERS VISUAL OBSTACLE.
You're joking! There us no way to see a "MIDPOINT 3.5 METERS VISUAL OBSTACLE" that's about 7 km away. That's a fraction of a pixel on either image.

Quote from: sandokhan
Again, here is the fake video:



JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE, MAYBE ITS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN...........OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????
WHY ARE THE FOOTINGS MOVING AT THE BASE?
Rubbish! But there is no need to shout.
Soundly stabilised some of the videos and the stabilisation is imperfect in some parts - end of story.
If you object see some earlier ones.

Quote from: sandokhan
Soundly faked the damn videos.
The footings are moving at the base.
An obvious CGI.
Really?

Lake Pontchartrain West Side Transmission Lines Raw
 - (Debunk Flat Earth), Soundly
     
DSCN1121 - Flatearth Game, Set, Match
 - (Flat Earth Debunked), Soundly
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Lonegranger on February 02, 2018, 01:18:21 AM
Let us increase the distance to 34 km.

The English Channel: 34 km distance from Cap Gris Nez to Dover, a curvature of some 22.4 meters on a round earth.

(https://s16.postimg.org/jznqhanrp/dover1.jpg)

(https://s16.postimg.org/lf9aqof4l/dover2.jpg)


The original webpages, as they were posted on flickr.com


The photographers located between Cap Blanc Nez and Cap Gris Nez: we will ascend to 30 meters.

(http://image.ibb.co/cmTkZR/doverbest2.jpg)

And now the photograph itself: no curvature whatsoever, all the way to the other shoreline, the Dover cliffs seen in their entirety (on a round earth, from 30 meters, we could not see anything under 16.5 meters from the other side), the ships are not part of an ascending/descending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.4 meters:

(https://s9.postimg.org/ptymv8ltb/doverbest_zpse4522974.jpg)


Another photograph taken right on the beach of Cap Gris Nez: no curvature over a distance of 34 km:

(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)



Dover cliffs:

(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4070/4521816996_2971e62065.jpg)

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1051/4726849923_389dba2176.jpg)

These images are totally fake! Along with the claims made.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Lonegranger on February 02, 2018, 01:35:19 AM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7576/15602023044_54205df976_b.jpg)

(https://loneswimmer.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/english-channel-from-iss.jpg)

There you go some proper unfakery images of the Chanel  from space. If you can claim images prove your point then so can I.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 02, 2018, 01:41:44 AM
In this photograph there is no hidden portion: a perfectly flat surface of the strait all the way to the other shoreline.
Unless you are going to lie and claim the trees grow underwater, there is stuff hidden.
The shoreline is missing.

There is no perfectly flat surface.

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:
If there is no curvature, what is hiding the shoreline?
Why would there be an ascending slope?

In both images THERE IS NO ASCENDING SLOPE AND NO MIDPOINT 3.5 METERS VISUAL OBSTACLE.
Again, WHY WOULD THERE BE A MAGIC ASCENDING SLOPE?

Why must you continually argue against strawmen?

\
Again, here is the fake video:
You mean the real video you are yet to refute?

JUST KEEP YOU EYES PEELED TO THE BASE OF THE FIRST 3-4 STUMPS
Which is it? 3 or 4?
How can you make such confident claims about them when you can't even decide which ones it effects.

AT AROUND 10 SECONDS ONWARDS, THEY ARE MOVING AROUND A LITTLE AND NONE OF THE OTHERS ARE
Just like the last time you said it, this remains pure bullshit.

OR SOMEONE HAS TRIED TO FAKE IT LOOKING CURVED?????????
Why would someone trying to fake it looking curved magically make them wobble around?

There are plenty of videos showing this, not just this one, and it can be observed in real life.
Now stop with the pathetic BS and explain the curve, which is visible in reality.

Soundly faked the damn videos.
The footings are moving at the base.
An obvious CGI.
Nope, not obvious.
There is no reason to have them move around if they were CGI and no evidence that it is CGI.
What is obvious is that you are grasping at whatever pathetic BS you can to avoid this proof of Earth's curvature.

Deal with the photo in the OP, explaining what is causing the curve which can be observed in relaity before moving on to other pathetic BS.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on February 02, 2018, 08:47:56 AM
Anyway, to recap:

NAZA is on some kind of special sauce, claiming he and his father have been personally insulted by the FE crowd since day one of his life...

Well, I have never personally insulted him yet...

But, hey NAZA!

You and your father?

Take the time to try more various and in-depth activities with the sand around the shorelines in Louisiana.

Perspective in the OP photo?

Short down in flames...

Curved right to left layout of the entire length of the power lines depicted in the OP...

PLUS

Distances of 950 feet between stanchions compressed into several pixels...

LMMFAO at NAZA!!!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 02, 2018, 10:18:56 AM
An actual recap of the thread would be:

Two flat earthers inadvertently prove the Earth is a sphere with several pictures that definitively demonstrate curvature.

Good job guys, it's always fun watching you hang yourselves with your own rope!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 02, 2018, 11:41:55 AM
Anyway, to recap:
Actual recap:
A photo is provided which clearly shows the curvature of Earth.
FEers continually spout pure garbage to try and ignore it and are repeatedly refuted.
One FEer goes the extra mile providing more photos and videos to further prove that Earth is in fact curved.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Cartog on February 04, 2018, 11:21:31 PM
Comparing drawings designed to show lines of perspective with an actual photo of powerlines disappearing over the horizon is a lame sort of argument.

We don't have to rely on this particular photo, nor assume that all the powerline structures are equally tall or anything of that sort.   If you were to go to the southernmost tip of Florida, you could see the causeway leading to Key West disappear over the horizon.  And it is significant that we would say OVER the horizon, as if it were on the far side of a hill, because, as with a hill, there is a characteristic of curvature involved.  If the earth were flat, we could see those powerlines or the Key West causeway disappear in the distance - visible but so small because of the distance that we can no longer make it out - but we could continue to see it to the very end with a strong enough telescope because, on a flat earth, its end point would never be concealed from us.  But the end point is concealed from us in the real world and even the strongest telescope can't enable us to see it - because it disappears from view over the curve of the earth.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 09, 2018, 04:06:42 AM
totallacky, take a look at this:

WE HAVE BEEN DEBATING A PHYSICS ILLITERATE!!!!

THE JACKBOT IS A PHYSICS ILLITERATE.

It used A VARIABLE RADIUS TO DERIVE A SAGNAC FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2021997#msg2021997

But the Sagnac features only one radius, and it is constant.


The jackbot is an semi-analphabetic physics illiterate!!!

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 09, 2018, 05:13:45 AM
totallacky, take a look at this:

WE HAVE BEEN DEBATING A PHYSICS ILLITERATE!!!!

THE JACKBOT IS A PHYSICS ILLITERATE.

It used A VARIABLE RADIUS TO DERIVE A SAGNAC FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72601.msg2021997#msg2021997

But the Sagnac features only one radius, and it is constant.

The jackbot is an semi-analphabetic physics illiterate!!!
And you are a total ignoramous!

Stop spamming the whole site and proving your total panic and total confusion on the Sagnac delay.

What do you think Totally Lacking would know about fyzix?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 09, 2018, 05:19:32 AM
We have in the upper forums TWO PHYSICS ILLITERATES: the jackbot and rabbibot.

Both USED A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.

A SURE SIGN OF PHYSICS ILLITERACY.

The Sagnac has a CONSTANT RADIUS.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 09, 2018, 09:02:47 AM
jackbot and rabbibot.
I'm sorry if I was supposed to have caught on to this sooner, but is it common knowledge that Sandokhan and Papa Legba are characters played by the same person?  Or did he just get caught up in his "bot" schtick and forgot he was posting from Sandokhan?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on February 09, 2018, 03:46:56 PM
Comparing drawings designed to show lines of perspective with an actual photo of powerlines disappearing over the horizon is a lame sort of argument.

We don't have to rely on this particular photo, nor assume that all the powerline structures are equally tall or anything of that sort.   If you were to go to the southernmost tip of Florida, you could see the causeway leading to Key West disappear over the horizon.  And it is significant that we would say OVER the horizon, as if it were on the far side of a hill, because, as with a hill, there is a characteristic of curvature involved.  If the earth were flat, we could see those powerlines or the Key West causeway disappear in the distance - visible but so small because of the distance that we can no longer make it out - but we could continue to see it to the very end with a strong enough telescope because, on a flat earth, its end point would never be concealed from us.  But the end point is concealed from us in the real world and even the strongest telescope can't enable us to see it - because it disappears from view over the curve of the earth.
It disappears simply because it is unable to be resolved by the human eye any further.
I'm sorry if I was supposed to have caught on to this sooner, but is it common knowledge that Sandokhan and Papa Legba are characters played by the same person?  Or did he just get caught up in his "bot" schtick and forgot he was posting from Sandokhan?
You think papa and sandokhan are the same persona?

I think you are full of crap.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 09, 2018, 04:44:38 PM
We have in the upper forums TWO PHYSICS ILLITERATES: the jackbot and rabbibot.

Both USED A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.

A SURE SIGN OF PHYSICS ILLITERACY.

The Sagnac has a CONSTANT RADIUS.
No, SandyBot, they did not USE A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.
JackBlack used two fixed radii in the derivation and
      at the end simplified the Sagnac delay to dt = 4 A ω/c2, which agrees with the references that you gave for any velocities << c.

You might read: Let's finalise the Sagnac delay for Sector Shaped Loop ォ on: Today at 08:37:47 AM サ (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74235.msg2022284#msg2022284)

I can't help it if you suffer from total ILLITERACY,
but the Sagnac has no RADIUS in the final expression, unless you choose to leave the circular loop radius in.
Now,  please run away and see if you can get your partner-in-ignorance, PapaBot, to hold your hand while you do your homework.
Of course, going to  PapaBot for instruction in physics is a bit like going to Lucifer for religious instruction.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 09, 2018, 10:21:04 PM
I locked the thread, also. It's just a repetitive flame fest anyway. It would be so helpful if you didn't respond to him and spam other threads he posts in with off topic stuff.

Agreed.

However, take a look at the previous message signed rabinoz.

they did not USE A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.
JackBlack used two fixed radii in the derivation and



Quote from: JackBlack on June 03, 2017, 04:10:29 PM

For the system we are discussing, the interferometer is on Earth (or quite close to it), and thus R CANNOT be constant. Instead R MUST CHANGE AS IT GOES ALONG THE LOOP!

Then, this person is bending the rules of physics to suit his own purposes. This is called scientific illiteracy.

The Sagnac effect features a single term, one single constant radius.

The Earth does not use TWO RADII to orbit the Sun in the heliocentrical version.

Sagnac did not use TWO RADII to perform the experiment.

The hypotheses of the Sagnac effect stipulate clearly: one single constant radius, one final term, one speed. Nothing else.

If the hypotheses are defied, then we are no longer talking about the Sagnac effect.

That is why obtaining two final terms and two final terms, and having used a variable radius to start with, means a total scientific disaster.

Such a person, including rabinoz, should not be allowed to post in the upper forums.

It is as simple as this.

If someone is willing to construct his own laws of physics and drastically modify the hypotheses of the Sagnac effect to suit his own purposes, then this is more than trolling, it is also called scientific illiteracy, and certainly has no place in the upper forums. Once something like this happens, that person has to be placed on probation, and allowed the privilege to post only in the Lounge, or CN, or AR. If the hypotheses of the Sagnac stipulate clearly that the radius is constant, that the final term is a single term and includes only one speed, and someone comes along and says that the radius now becomes a variable and can modify the Sagnac experiment to suit his own purposes, then this is more than not debating in good faith, it is trolling the upper forums using scientific illiterate arguments.

Again, everyone, including the moderators, should take notice:

rabinoz
ォ on: Today at 04:44:38 PM

but the Sagnac has no RADIUS in the final expression, unless you choose to leave the circular loop radius in.

But the Sagnac ALWAYS will feature the single radius of the loop, many times included in in the linear velocity term (radius x angular velocity).

Again, we have a user, the rabinoz, who is willing to MODIFY at will certain well established scientific experiments, which include certain hypotheses, to suit his own purposes.

This is called not only trolling, or not debating in good faith, but also scientific illiteracy.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 09, 2018, 10:39:48 PM
I locked the thread, also. It's just a repetitive flame fest anyway. It would be so helpful if you didn't respond to him and spam other threads he posts in with off topic stuff.

Agreed.

However, take a look at the previous two messages signed rabinoz.

they did not USE A VARIABLE RADIUS FOR THE SAGNAC PHASE SHIFT.
JackBlack used two fixed radii in the derivation and



Quote from: JackBlack on June 03, 2017, 04:10:29 PM

For the system we are discussing, the interferometer is on Earth (or quite close to it), and thus R CANNOT be constant. Instead R MUST CHANGE AS IT GOES ALONG THE LOOP!

Sure two fixed radii come into the derivation.
How else can you define the dimensions of a portion of a sector, other than by two radii!
Please answer actual detail,  don't just rant and rave about generalities.

Please actually read the derivation and if you disagree with it, show exactly where it is wrong!
The end result of that derivation leads to the same result that your own references give, but you simply cannot face facts and cannot face being wrong!

Of you disagree with that derivation, please post your own for a Sagnac loop in the form of a sector extending from say R1 to R2[/i].

If you are unable to do that, then just admit that you are a failure!

Because, you are wrong!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 09, 2018, 10:44:03 PM
Each and every user should take a long look at this.

Two users are modifying the hypotheses of a well known and established experiment, the Sagnac, to suit their own purposes.

This is more than just trolling, or not debating in good faith: it is called scientific illiteracy.

rabinoz deserves a long ban for this: after the moderator stipulated clearly that she locked the thread, he opens a new thread and also comments here, using the same scientific illiterate arguments.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 10, 2018, 01:41:22 AM
Each and every user should take a long look at this.

Two users are modifying the hypotheses of a well known and established experiment, the Sagnac, to suit their own purposes.
You are totally incorrect, Mr Sandokhan, the results that I have been presenting are exactly in agreement with the accepted ideas on the Sagnac delay.

Read again!
Sagnac Effect, E. J. POST, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 475 (1967) Published 1 April 1967 (http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Post1967.pdf) we have
Section III. General Aspects of the Theory, near end p. 478
Quote
Summarizing, the experiments of Sagnac, Pogany and Michelson-Gale and the results of Harress, as re-interpreted by Harzer, demonstrate beyond doubt the following features  of the Sagnac effect. The observed fringe shift
a) obeys formula (1);
b) does not depend on the shape of the surface A;
c) does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;
d) does not depend on the presence of a comoving refracting medium in the path of the beam.

Please note that E. J. POST specifically states,
          "does not depend on the shape of the surface A;"
          "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation;"
Care to explain in your own words what 
"does not depend on the shape of the surface A" and  "does not depend on the location of the centre of rotation" mean?

Quote from: sandokhan
This is more than just trolling, or not debating in good faith: it is called scientific illiteracy.
Just who is trolling? Much of what I present is from papers, many that YOU sourced.
You are the one showing totally scientific illiteracy.

I am debating with 100% good faith,
but you are denying what has been known and proven experimentally right from Sagnac himself on!

Quote from: sandokhan
rabinoz deserves a long ban for this: after the moderator stipulated clearly that she locked the thread, he opens a new thread and also comments here, using the same scientific illiterate arguments.
Please show just what "scientific illiterate arguments" I have presented.

And while you are at it read: The Scaling Theory VIII: The Sagnac's Interference and Michelson and Gale Experiment. (http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/1957)
In that paper, in 14.5. Rotation About an Arbitrary Point, you will find the derivation for the Sagnac delay of an arbitrarily shaped polygon rotating about an arbitrary point and look at the result:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/i6r1l674zdk6snn/The%20Scaling%20Theory%20VIII%20The%20Sagnac%27s%20Interference%20and%20Michelson%20and%20Gale%20Experiment%20-%20eqn%20%2814.14%29.png?dl=1)
Yes, exactly what JackBlack, I and all the references say.

Do you want me to repeat all the quotes again that say over and over that all say:
Quote
In most textbooks result (5) is expressed by the fringe shift in units of the wavelength λ0
∆Z = 4 A キ Ω/(c λ0)
where, in general, the scalar product of the oriented area A enclosed by the light path with the vector angular velocity Ω enters. One can show that the fringe shift is independent of the shape of A and of the position of the rotational axis, but depends on the cosine of the angle between A and .

Just face facts, all the references say, the fringe shift is independent of the shape of A and of the position of the rotational axis.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 10, 2018, 01:51:17 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752

"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"

Have difficulty counting, don't you, rabbibot?

Here's a definition of the the term physical object that will prevent you squirming out of your shocking blunder:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body

Not looking good for you, is it?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 10, 2018, 02:45:39 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V. And over 3,000,000 litres of fuel.
Looks like you fail again!

Quote from: Papa Legba
Have difficulty counting, don't you, rabbibot?
I do take a while to get to 3,000,000!

Quote from: Papa Legba
Here's a definition of the the term physical object that will prevent you squirming out of your shocking blunder:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body
I made no blunder, but what is the relevance of your link?
So what?
When a rocket comprises numerous components, and a tremendous mass of fuel that can be burnt and ejected a very high velocity.

Quote from: Papa Legba
Not looking good for you, is it?
It's looking fine for me, you're the one that didn't do his homework.

I guess you didn't read and understand this bit
No Mr PapaBot, you are not correct! And you simply can't understand, Momentum Conservation in Explosions. (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-in-Explosions)
If you did, you might understand rockets.
But, make sure you read it all! Right down to the bits on the cannon and the carts.

So stand in the corner till you have learned all your homework!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 10, 2018, 03:08:02 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.

New number of objects a rocket is according to the rabbibot: 3,000,000...

kek

Definition of physical object:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body

What will the rabbibot do next?

Strip the 3,000,000 parts down to their constituent molecules and count them?

It is busted...

But will it give up?

No .

That would violate its shillgorithm programming.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 10, 2018, 03:37:39 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.
New number of objects a rocket is according to the rabbibot: 3,000,000...
PapaBot the Voodoo Priest cannot read, I said "over 3,000,000 parts" not "number of objects (in) a rocket . . . . . 3,000,000".

So once again you fail miserably and I told you to stand in the corner till you learned all your homework.
Now you have to include a remedial reading course.
Here this seems right up your alley! An Introductory Course In Haitian Creole. (http://www.startersriverport.com/ann-pale-kreyol-an-introductory-course-in-haitian-creole-revised.pdf)
Now you take care that you sit in that corner till you learn every word!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 10, 2018, 07:28:01 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.
New number of objects a rocket is according to the rabbibot: 3,000,000...
PapaBot the Voodoo Priest cannot read, I said "over 3,000,000 parts" not "number of objects (in) a rocket . . . . . 3,000,000".

It's pretty clear what you said, rabbibot.

As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.

And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.

Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:

https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun

Clue there for you maybe?


Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 10, 2018, 08:20:01 AM
Looks like you have zero reading comprehension. And I wouldn't say anything about physics if I was you.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 10, 2018, 05:42:03 PM
As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
Nope, all totally irrelevant.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 11, 2018, 01:07:25 AM
As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
Nope, all totally irrelevant.

So the fact that you are a proven liar is irrelevant?

I'd say it invalidates every single thing you write.

Your shillgorithm army will doubtless disagree...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Mainframes on February 11, 2018, 03:32:03 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66748.msg1790752#msg1790752
"Number of objects a rocket is - TWO"
No, you are nowhere near the right number, there were over 3,000,000 parts in even the Saturn V.
New number of objects a rocket is according to the rabbibot: 3,000,000...
PapaBot the Voodoo Priest cannot read, I said "over 3,000,000 parts" not "number of objects (in) a rocket . . . . . 3,000,000".

It's pretty clear what you said, rabbibot.

As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.

And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.

Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:

https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun

Clue there for you maybe?

A singular noun often describes an object that comprises of multiple other objects under a collective description. For example:

鄭 loaded gun describes a single object consisting of a gun and one or more pieces of ammunition. Would you argue that a loaded gun could be unloaded or fired and thus the separate parts would then be described as a gun and some ammunition as discrete objects.

The same applies to a rocket.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 11, 2018, 03:45:58 AM
As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
Nope, all totally irrelevant.

So the fact that you are a proven liar is irrelevant?
And where did I say that, Mr Arch Deceiver? I could suggest that:
Quote from: Papa Legba
I'd say it invalidates every single thing you write.
Your shillgorithm army will doubtless disagree...
And I could remind you that we know
Quote
Legba is the promoter of verbal facility, of double talk, the arch deceiver, not malicious, but a jokester, a prankster--the preeminent trickster god様ike John the Conqueror, the guileful scourge of the Louisiana and Mississippi plantation owners葉he trickster who will make a fool of you or scare the hell out of you, either just for laughs, or to teach you a lesson about life.
So we are prepared for your deceptive antics Mr Voodoo Priest!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 11, 2018, 09:48:43 AM
As sandokhan pointed out, you are a physics illiterate.
And, as dutchy pointed out, you are falling apart.
Btw, rabbibot, the word 'rocket' is a singular noun:
https://writingexplained.org/grammar-dictionary/singular-noun
Clue there for you maybe?
Nope, all totally irrelevant.

So the fact that you are a proven liar is irrelevant?
And where did I say that, Mr Arch Deceiver? I could suggest that:
  • Sandokhan was lashing out to cover his total failure.
  • dutchy is known for his totally incorect "on-line" assessments.
  • The Voodoo Priest's claim was totally irrelevant!

Quote from: Papa Legba
I'd say it invalidates every single thing you write.
Your shillgorithm army will doubtless disagree...
And I could remind you that we know
Quote
Legba is the promoter of verbal facility, of double talk, the arch deceiver, not malicious, but a jokester, a prankster--the preeminent trickster god様ike John the Conqueror, the guileful scourge of the Louisiana and Mississippi plantation owners葉he trickster who will make a fool of you or scare the hell out of you, either just for laughs, or to teach you a lesson about life.
So we are prepared for your deceptive antics Mr Voodoo Priest!

You were proven to be a liar when you stated that a rocket represents 3,000,000 separate objects within a Newton's third law scenario, psycho.

Which is why you cut that part out of my post when you quoted it.

You started off with a rocket being two objects, which was bad enough, but then you went full retard and now everyone knows you are a mad liar.

If you don't like that fact, then stop spamming mad lies.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 11, 2018, 10:05:31 AM
You are one to talk. You provide sources that disagree with you.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on February 11, 2018, 11:00:05 AM
A singular noun often describes an object that comprises of multiple other objects under a collective description. For example:

鄭 loaded gun describes a single object consisting of a gun and one or more pieces of ammunition. Would you argue that a loaded gun could be unloaded or fired and thus the separate parts would then be described as a gun and some ammunition as discrete objects.

The same applies to a rocket.
Only an idiot RE-tard would write "rocket," = "loaded gun."

God, you RE-tards are fucking desperate!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 11, 2018, 11:02:21 AM
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 11, 2018, 03:29:39 PM
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.

Incorrect:

http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 11, 2018, 04:07:32 PM
Wat?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 11, 2018, 06:50:29 PM
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.

Incorrect:

http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
Incorrect!
Quote
The system of this invention reduces the recoil.
Yes, reduces the recoil, but does not eliminate it!

Even a blank will have some recoil from the gases and wadding and the above patented mechanism could eliminate much of that recoil.
But it can have no effect on the recoil caused by the momentum of the projectile.

I realise that the PapaBot AI never has the intelligence to pursue the rest of these topics.
Just like going only half-way with thermodynamics and conservation of momentum.

I know that the PapaBot AI uses very dated and primitive AI algotithms, so it's understandable that it gets confused about advanced topics, like Rocket Science.

But, really, PapaBot AI, you would be stable AI if you just kept within your design parameters and stuck to Voodoo Rituals.
Carrying on this way risks permanent damage to your positronic brain - and we can't allow that.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 12:51:44 AM
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.

Incorrect:

http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
Incorrect!

More lies from the madman.

The patent states quite clearly that the main cause of recoil in a gun is from atmospheric gasses re-entering the evacuated barrel after the bullet has left.

You claim that shpayze rokkitz work by the same mechanism.

You are wrong, and now you are lying about the matter.

Again...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 12, 2018, 04:42:35 AM
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.

Incorrect:

http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
Incorrect!


The patent states quite clearly that the main cause of recoil in a gun is from atmospheric gasses re-entering the evacuated barrel after the bullet has left.


And you claim that a Patent Application is necessarily scientifically correct? Pull the other one!

There have been numerous patent applications for Perpetual Motion Machines.

And you might read
Quote
Over-unity energy motor-generator, EP 1821391 A1
ABSTRACT
An over-unity motor-generator is provided. The over-unity motor-generator includes a motor circuit unit, a motor-generator unit for generating an electric energy by rotating by an electric energy, and a generator circuit unit for commutating an alternating current generated from the motor-generator unit and outputting a direct current. The motor-generator unit includes a stator including a motor winding having n-phases, the motor winding being magnetized by receiving an electric power from the motor circuit unit and wound in an independent, multi-phase parallel distribution manner of an n-phase and a generator winding having 2n-phases and supplying the electric energy to the generator circuit unit, the generator winding being wound in an independent, multi-phase parallel distribution manner, a rotor having stacked silicon plates, flat permanent magnets buried in the stacked silicon plate and arranged in a radial direction, and a shaft located on a center of the stacked silicon plates, a commutation encoder having detection regions and non-detection regions and disposed on an end of the shaft of the rotor, and 2n-number photo sensors for transmitting an optical sensor signal to the motor circuit unit by, when the commutation encoder rotates together with the shaft, being turned on at the detection regions and off at the non-detection regions. . . . .

Read the rest in: Over-unity energy motor-generator, EP 1821391 A1 (https://www.google.com/patents/EP1821391A1?cl=en)
No Mr Demented Voodoo Priest, there is nothing necessarily scientific about a Patent Application. A good shonky lawyer, like our Mr Deceiving Voodoo Priest can manage to patent almost alything.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 12, 2018, 05:08:58 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil)

"Recoil (often called knockback, kickback or simply kick) is the backward movement of a gun when it is discharged. In technical terms, the recoil momentum acquired by the gun exactly balances the forward momentum of the projectile and exhaust gases (ejecta), according to Newton's third law, known as conservation of momentum."
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 05:21:17 AM
Watch:



The gun does not recoil until ten bullet is well out of the barrel.

So, yet another lie from the rabbibot and his sockpuppet Chum.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 12, 2018, 05:25:51 AM
So now you are questioning what causes recoil?

Yeah, I'm out of here.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 07:31:52 AM
Yeah, run away from the evidence...

See ya!

Now for another Lie from the rabbibot...

This time it is claiming that satellites will not be in free fall because they are sitting on a table or something:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523

It is mental.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: inquisitive on February 12, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
Yeah, run away from the evidence...

See ya!

Now for another Lie from the rabbibot...

This time it is claiming that satellites will not be in free fall because they are sitting on a table or something:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523

It is mental.
Yet satellites provide us with broadcast tv and navigation.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 12, 2018, 07:58:43 AM
The RE should not be mentioning guns at all, especially rail guns.

In the one of the most famous experiments of the 20th century, Dr. Graneau proved that energy efficiency equation of the rail gun disproves the theory of relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1993276#msg1993276
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 12, 2018, 08:04:55 AM
Actually the principle behind the recoil of a gun is the same principle of how a rocket moves.

Incorrect:

http://www.patents.com/us-4126077.html
Incorrect!

More lies from the madman.

The patent states quite clearly that the main cause of recoil in a gun is from atmospheric gasses re-entering the evacuated barrel after the bullet has left.

You claim that shpayze rokkitz work by the same mechanism.

You are wrong, and now you are lying about the matter.

Again...
They will claim whatever they want to get the patent.
If air caused recoil then different grain bullets would recoil the same. Gunpowder amount would also not matter.

Can you just think for once. Please?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 12, 2018, 08:06:05 AM
The RE should not be mentioning guns at all, especially rail guns.

In the one of the most famous experiments of the 20th century, Dr. Graneau proved that energy efficiency equation of the rail gun disproves the theory of relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1993276#msg1993276
Why do you show face here? You ran away from the moon bounce thread.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on February 12, 2018, 08:11:33 AM
They will claim whatever they want to get the patent.
If air caused recoil then different grain bullets would recoil the same. Gunpowder amount would also not matter.

Can you just think for once. Please?
Wait a minute...

You are claiming the amount of air displaced is the same for a .44 Magnum bullet as it is for a .22 Long Rifle bullet?

Please elucidate the audience!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 12, 2018, 08:13:54 AM
They will claim whatever they want to get the patent.
If air caused recoil then different grain bullets would recoil the same. Gunpowder amount would also not matter.

Can you just think for once. Please?
Wait a minute...

You are claiming the amount of air displaced is the same for a .44 Magnum bullet as it is for a .22 Long Rifle bullet?

Please elucidate the audience!
Did I just tell you not to jump to stupid conclusions? 
I was talking about the same gun, to keep the barrel the same, will have different recoil if different grain bullet or amount of gunpowder is used.

Understand?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 12, 2018, 08:35:53 AM
I don't think he does.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 09:11:36 AM
The RE should not be mentioning guns at all, especially rail guns.

In the one of the most famous experiments of the 20th century, Dr. Graneau proved that energy efficiency equation of the rail gun disproves the theory of relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1993276#msg1993276

See, that was a great post, sandokhan.

I learned something from it.

Which I have never done from any post, by any REtard, on any subject, on this entire forum, ever...

Which is why I won't sit back when I see them trying to troll you off the forum.

Well, until my next unjustified ban, anyway.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 12, 2018, 09:18:26 AM
You've been banned? Nice!

Actually, had you read or checked the links many have shown you, you would have learned many things. So don't blame us for not being willing to educate yourself.

EDIT: The railgun issue is intriguing, in any case.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 09:35:31 AM
Actually, had you read or checked the links many have shown you, you would have learned many things.

O rly?

Here's a link showing that the rabbibot thinks satellites sit on tables:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523

All I'll learn from that is that the rabbibot is mental.

So yeah - learning every day, creepy weirdo Paul!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 12, 2018, 09:39:47 AM
Even though you despise Rabinoz, there are others.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 10:01:22 AM
Rabinoz claiming gravity does not force things downwards, as well as several other mad things:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg1968575#msg1968575

Oh, I am learning so MANY mad, mad facts from these REtards!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 12, 2018, 02:23:18 PM
Einstein said gravity is not a force. So take it up with him.

Did you learn what causes a gun to recoil yet?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 12, 2018, 03:01:41 PM
Actually, had you read or checked the links many have shown you, you would have learned many things.
O rly?

Here's a link showing that the rabbibot thinks satellites sit on tables:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523

Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1d1.gif)
Gravity not forcing Physics Book down.
          (http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/_Media/iss_discovery_110226_med.jpeg)
Gravity not forcing Satellite in orbit down!

I knew the Demented Voodoo Priest was an ignorant idiot, but I assumed that even he might know the difference between a Physics Book and a Satellite.

Rabinoz claiming gravity does not force things downwards, as well as several other mad things:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg1968575#msg1968575

I had thought that even a Demented Voodoo Priest might realise that gravity is not forcing the book on a chair any further down and
gravity is not forcing the ISS down, as it has been in orbit for 19 years, 2 months, 23 days as of 12 February 2018.

It looks as though our poor Demented Voodoo Priest is in need of either remedial education or psychiatric care.

I can't believe that any real person could come up with your stupidity, but then I won't argue with what old Albert did not say:

典wo things are infinite: the universe and Papa Legba's stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
                                                           ―  ;D ;D Not said by Albert Einstein, but had he known Pap Legba, he probably would have.  ;D ;D

You just have to look all Papa's posts to realise the truth in that.

Bye bye whoever is the controller for this obvious alt troll we call Papa Legba because there is no way any real person could be as stupid as he!
Oh wait, there is also  ;) Mr So and So and Mr What's 'is Name ;) - let's not leave them out!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 12, 2018, 03:20:59 PM
Watch:

The gun does not recoil until ten bullet is well out of the barrel.
So, yet another lie from the rabbibot and his sockpuppet Chum.
The initial recoil is captured by the slide of the gun. That uses the recoil to eject the empty cartridge and load the next round.
But it can only move so far, and the springs start transferring force to the rest of the pistol and by extension the hand.
If you watch the video, you notice the main body of the pistol starts moving backwards before the gasses finish exiting the barrel, showing quite conclusively that gasses reentering the barrel is not required to produce recoil.

As for gravity, rab said it doesn't always accelerate things down. Regarding satellites, that depends on what you mean by "down".
As the acceleration due to gravity keeps them in an orbit, it can be said that it doesn't accelerate them down.
This is a combination of their inertia and the curvature of Earth (more technically the curvature of their orbital path). Their inertia would take them off to the side, with the curvature of Earth resulting in the distance to Earth increasing and thus apparently making them go up (aka the apparent centrifugal force). Gravity combats this and keeps the roughly the same distance from Earth.

If it was in a sub-orbital trajectory, gravity would win and pull them down to Earth.
If they were in an escape trajectory, the curvature of Earth wins and they go flying off, with the acceleration due to gravity being too weak to bring them back down to Earth.
For an elliptical orbit, it oscillates between the 2. At one stage their forward (equivalent to the horizontal component for a circular orbit) velocity is greater than that for a circular orbit and the curvature of Earth wins and they get higher, slowing down in the process. At other stages (i.e. after they slow down enough) their forward component is too small, and gravity wins pulling them down accelerating them in the process until their forwards speed is too great.
The reason gravity can affect their forwards velocity is because their path is no tangential to gravity at all times.

And all of this is irrelevant to the OP.
Can you explain why the towers appear to follow the curvature of a round Earth if Earth was flat?
Lens distortion as well as the towers curving left or right have already been ruled out as possible contributors.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 12:03:13 AM
Actually, had you read or checked the links many have shown you, you would have learned many things.
O rly?

Here's a link showing that the rabbibot thinks satellites sit on tables:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523

Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1d1.gif)
Gravity not forcing Physics Book down.
          (http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/_Media/iss_discovery_110226_med.jpeg)
Gravity not forcing Satellite in orbit down!

I knew the Demented Voodoo Priest was an ignorant idiot, but I assumed that even he might know the difference between a Physics Book and a Satellite.

Where's the imaginary table you claim the satellite is sitting on, rabbibot?

Or is it in free fall, like I claim and you lie about, repeatedly?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 12:47:57 AM
What about recoil, and the fact you were proven wrong?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2018, 01:06:59 AM
Actually, had you read or checked the links many have shown you, you would have learned many things.
O rly?

Here's a link showing that the rabbibot thinks satellites sit on tables:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2020523#msg2020523

Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1d1.gif)
Gravity not forcing Physics Book down.
          (http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/_Media/iss_discovery_110226_med.jpeg)
Gravity not forcing Satellite in orbit down!

I knew the Demented Voodoo Priest was an ignorant idiot, but I assumed that even he might know the difference between a Physics Book and a Satellite.

Where's the imaginary table you claim the satellite is sitting on, rabbibot?

Or is it in free fall, like I claim repeatedly?
As I thought! The Demented Voodoo Priest can't even read.

I never mentioned any satellite is sitting on any table, unless the Demented Voodoo Priest thinks that this is a satellite sitting on and table:
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1d1.gif)
Gravity not accelerating Physics Book.
That,  Mr Demented Voodoo Priest, is a Physics book sitting on the table. Only an idiot could confuse a Physics book with a satellite.

But, I will agree with you in one point, a satellite is in free fall (though following a geodesic in curved spacetime might be a more precise way to describe it) but somehow manages to miss the earth all the time.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 01:09:32 AM
What about recoil, and the fact you were proven wrong?

That never happened.

The jackbot wrote some mad post that I never read and the rest of you just shitposted. 

But as long as you derail from the rabbibot's mad ramblings, job done I guess?

Love the little fella, don't you?

That is because you are all bots working together.

And oh, look - the rabbibot snuck in a post as I was writing this...

Every time you do that it proves this forum is run by bots btw...

But everyone knows that, so meh.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 01:14:14 AM
Gravity does not always accelerate things. Gravity will only accelerate an object at g when no other force is involved.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1d1.gif)
Gravity not forcing Physics Book down.
          (http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/_Media/iss_discovery_110226_med.jpeg)
Gravity not forcing Satellite in orbit down!

Only an idiot could confuse a Physics book with a satellite.

Seems you're arguing with yourself now, rabbibot...

Shall I just leave you to it?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 01:17:48 AM
What about recoil, and the fact you were proven wrong?

That never happened.

The jackbot wrote some mad post that I never read and the rest of you just shitposted.

"The initial recoil is captured by the slide of the gun. That uses the recoil to eject the empty cartridge and load the next round. But it can only move so far, and the springs start transferring force to the rest of the pistol and by extension the hand.

If you watch the video, you notice the main body of the pistol starts moving backwards before the gasses finish exiting the barrel, showing quite conclusively that gasses reentering the barrel is not required to produce recoil."


How is that false?

EDIT: Oh yeah, you never read it. Figures.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 01:29:18 AM
What about recoil, and the fact you were proven wrong?

That never happened.

The jackbot wrote some mad post that I never read and the rest of you just shitposted.

"The initial recoil is captured by the slide of the gun. That uses the recoil to eject the empty cartridge and load the next round. But it can only move so far, and the springs start transferring force to the rest of the pistol and by extension the hand.

If you watch the video, you notice the main body of the pistol starts moving backwards before the gasses finish exiting the barrel, showing quite conclusively that gasses reentering the barrel is not required to produce recoil."


How is that false?

EDIT: Oh yeah, you never read it. Figures.

That does not address my claim.

Perhaps you should go back and read the patent before lying to me again?

But as long as you distract from the rabbibot's lies, job done I guess?

Quite the habit with you, eh?

Lying to protect liars...

I wonder why?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 01:32:25 AM
Where does it say the patent is the authority here?

Like one of us bots wrote, there are patent applications for perpetual motion machines, too. So a patent application makes those things real?

Fucking hell, Jerry. You can't be that dense.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 13, 2018, 01:34:38 AM
What about recoil, and the fact you were proven wrong?
That never happened.
The jackbot wrote some mad post that I never read and the rest of you just shitposted.
i.e. you just ignore when people prove you wrong.

But as long as you derail
If you want to stop derailing, how about you address the pic in the OP?
What causes the curve?

Perhaps you should go back and read the patent before lying to me again?
Perhaps you should watch the video you provided before trying to use a patent as fact.
Guess what? Patents can be filled with whatever crap you want.
Something appearing in a patent doesn't mean it is true.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 02:07:35 AM
Yawn!

Another video for you to lie about, Debunkatron:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=w4iraJVSdTA

Still, you redefined Newton's second law as Force equals Mass times Deceleration in another thread, so God only knows where your AI madness will lead next...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 13, 2018, 02:24:55 AM
Another video for you to lie about, Debunkatron:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=w4iraJVSdTA

Still, you redefined Newton's second law as Force equals Mass times Deceleration in another thread, so God only knows where your AI madness will lead next...
Are you capable of making a post which isn't full of lies?
This is just another video showing recoil caused by the gun, just like the last.
And so far, you are the only one to suggest force is mass times deceleration.

Now address the OP. What causes the curve?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 02:25:36 AM


I can YouTube, too!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 02:37:57 AM
The rabbibot plainly states it is here to waste my time:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2024715#msg2024715

How many other member's time is it wasting?

Sandokhan and dutchy for sure...

Not looking Rosy for the rabbibot, is it?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 02:39:02 AM
What about the video explaining recoil?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 02:46:27 AM
What about the video explaining recoil?

The one that agreed with me you mean?

Or did you not watch it?

Lol of course you didn't - you can't because you are a bot.

SECONDARY RECOIL, botty boy.

Damn you're failing hard today.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 02:51:39 AM
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

The specimen exhibits super selective behaviour, only choosing sources which agree with it. The less scientific the better.

EDIT: Which part of the video was false? And how?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 03:00:32 AM
Which part of the video was false? And how?

The video agreed with me.

You clearly haven't watched it.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 03:06:01 AM
How do you calculate recoil based on the non-model in the video you linked? You know, in our world, based on laws of physics, it can be done. Not sure about your bizarro world.

You choose to accept a collection of slo-mo over physics?

When you were hit over the head with a bowling ball, did your head move the instant it struck?

EDIT: The thing here is you know what you said is completely wrong, and it torments you. But you cannot back away, as you have to keep up the facade. This thing is somewhat different from the FE nonsense you defend, as you are not that clueless it comes to physics. You are willing to believe missing flights and conspiracies, and all that drivel, but this you know is wrong.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 03:28:45 AM
More mad lies from the rabbibot:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2024750#msg2024750

They're piling up thick and fast!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 03:32:38 AM
Not sure what that has to do with recoil?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 03:37:39 AM
Enormous string of mad lies from the rabbibot:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2017797#msg2017797

kek
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 03:46:00 AM
So just like that, you handily forget about recoil as you were wrong.

On to spew some other nonsense! Never say die!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 04:04:24 AM
Rvlvrbot now also wasting my time with lies, exactly the same as the rabbibot openly admits to doing:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2024715#msg2024715

What a coincidence!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 04:08:37 AM
You are pathetic. You cannot even admit you were wrong.

Who do you think you are fooling by evading the topic?

And what lies?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2018, 04:10:56 AM
Rvlvrbot now also wasting my time with lies, exactly the same as the rabbibot openly admits to doing:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2024715#msg2024715
What a coincidence!
The only lies I can see in there are yours, Mr Voodoo Priest, but then Papa Legba is The Deity of Deception and Trikeration, so we expect nothing else.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 04:15:23 AM
Rvlvrbot now also wasting my time with lies, exactly the same as the rabbibot openly admits to doing:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2024715#msg2024715
What a coincidence!
The only lies I can see in there are yours

The rabbibot lies about lying about its lies, all the while wasting my time:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2024750#msg2024750

It is a technological marvel!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 04:17:08 AM
Shouldn't you be banned again?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 04:20:14 AM
Shouldn't you be banned again?

Well it's the only way to save you from the utter disaster here, so it'll happen soon enough I bet, Botty boy!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 04:25:38 AM
Last I checked I did not claim recoil is caused by air rushing back in the barrel of a gun.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 05:23:29 AM
Last I checked I did not claim recoil is caused by air rushing back in the barrel of a gun.

Last I checked you were not human, so it is unsurprising you know nothing about physical reality.

There are actually three causes of gun recoil.

The bullet is the least of them.

You won't know that because you are an inhuman lying machine.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 05:34:31 AM
Now we are getting somewhere! Could you tell us what those are, please?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 13, 2018, 05:38:32 AM
Only papa could try a rag on someone for what they claimed while claiming rockets push off air and recoil is from air entering the barrel.

Such an idiot.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 05:44:18 AM
Now we are getting somewhere! Could you tell us what those are, please?

It's all in the videos and articles already cited.

You just didn't watch or read them.

Because you can't, because you are a bot designed to lie and say NO U and nothing more.

Kinda sucks, but meh...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 05:48:28 AM
No, you dumb fuck, own up.

List the things here, and prove us wrong. You know what they are, it should not be a tremendous burden even for you to write those down. The only one I remember you referring to was a collection of slow motion clips showing a gun being fired.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 05:53:04 AM
No, you dumb fuck, own up.

List the things here, and prove us wrong. You know what they are, it should not be a tremendous burden even for you to write those down. The only one I remember you referring to was a collection of slow motion clips showing a gun being fired.

I get it - you cannot process information that goes against your programming and now you are lashing out.

Don't blame me, blame your mad creator.

He probably works for NASA so go hate on them instead, okay?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 06:02:28 AM
Yes, our masters pay us good money to catch idiots like you from spreading their misinformation without anyone debunking it. (I have no idea how you pay your bills after being declared bankrupt. I guess welfare does work.)

Still, it would appear, again, you are not able to provide us the things you claim you know. You really think people believe any of the things you say as you are never able to follow through?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 06:10:14 AM
Yes, our masters pay us good money to catch idiots like you from spreading their misinformation without anyone debunking it. (I have no idea how you pay your bills after being declared bankrupt. I guess welfare does work.)

Still, it would appear, again, you are not able to provide us the things you claim you know. You really think people believe any of the things you say as you are never able to follow through?

You don't get paid anything.  You're a bot.

And I've already provided the information, but you can't process it.

Keep telling you this, but you can't process my answer either...

Some funny shit going down right now...

But you won't be able to process that, either.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 06:28:20 AM
Try me.

You can provide the links, right?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 06:40:17 AM
Try me.

You can provide the links, right?

The Markov chain finally snaps...

The bot now demands links he himself posted and which are already on this thread.

Back on ignore you go, until the rabbibot comes up with more mad lies for me to post.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 06:46:54 AM
You said you have provided the information, and I asked you for said links.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 13, 2018, 07:58:00 AM
Actually, "Papa Legba", you are the shill here. You do the bidding of your flat Earth masters.

You have not once said anything to criticize them, even though you claim you do not believe in a flat Earth. They use your lack of intellect to their advantage, and you do their bidding like the lowly serf you are.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 13, 2018, 02:08:33 PM
The one that agreed with me you mean?
No the one that disagreed with you.

SECONDARY RECOIL, botty boy.
Yes, one of 2 types of recoil experienced by the gun.
The primary recoil from the bullet itself and then from all the gasses escaping, with the gun "pushed back much like a rocket."
So it sure sounds like a comparison to rockets is valid.

Completely different to your claim that it is magically the air coming back into the chamber which causes recoil.

Now care to address the OP and explain the curve?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 13, 2018, 05:06:46 PM
SECONDARY RECOIL, botty boy.
Yes, one of 2 types of recoil experienced by the gun.
The primary recoil from the bullet itself and then from all the gasses escaping, with the gun pushed back "much like a rocket".

But the primary recoil was caused by the gasses pushing against both the gun and the bullet.

When the bullet is out of the barrel, what are the gasses pushing on then?

Another mass must take the place of the bullet, and that mass can only be the mass of the atmosphere.

So rockets must push on air.

kek

Oh and btw the third cause of recoil is the inrush of atmosphere into the evacuated barrel.

So you see I was right and all sources were provided, thus rvlvr is a liar.

Mighty victories for legba, as usual.

You can thank me for the physics lesson too, as I know you are ignorant in that department...

That would be polite.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 13, 2018, 05:18:54 PM
The mass of the exhaust is what a rocket uses. You have no mechanism to transfer a force from two gas molecules hitting each other.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 13, 2018, 09:45:27 PM
But the primary recoil was caused by the gasses pushing against both the gun and the bullet.
You could see it that way.
In reality, the primary recoil is pressure of the gas forcing the gun back as it forces the bullet forward.
The simpler way is to see it as the bullet is being projected from the gun, which pushes the gun back.

When the bullet is out of the barrel, what are the gasses pushing on then?
Another mass must take the place of the bullet, and that mass can only be the mass of the atmosphere.
Nope. It doesn't really matter what they push against.
The only reason the pushing against the bullet was an issue was because the gas was contained between the bullet and the chamber.
Once that is no longer the case you have the gun being forced backwards by the air pressure, that is all.
There is no need for the gas to push on anything.

So rockets must push on air.
Yes, the "air" which is the exhaust that is propelled from them.

Oh and btw the third cause of recoil is the inrush of atmosphere into the evacuated barrel.
Pure garbage.
The inrush of atmosphere into the evacuated barrel would suck the gun forwards and then stop it.

So you see I was right and all sources were provided, thus rvlvr is a liar.
Nope, you were wrong just like normal.

That would be polite.
You might want to get a dictionary and find out what polite is.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2018, 10:51:23 PM
Actually, "Papa Legba", you are the shill here. You do the bidding of your flat Earth masters.

They use your lack of intellect to their advantage, and you do their bidding like the lowly serf you are.
How can a puppet, completely under control of its masters ever be said to have any intelligence?

I believe that Papa Legba's master is the smart one here.
Just enough correct theory is let out to make Puppet Legba's arguments look legitimate, but the important bits about CoM or satellite orbits are hidden from the puppet.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 01:12:23 AM
When the bullet is out of the barrel, what are the gasses pushing on then?
Another mass must take the place of the bullet, and that mass can only be the mass of the atmosphere.
There is no need for the gas to push on anything.

Oh and btw the third cause of recoil is the inrush of atmosphere into the evacuated barrel.
Pure garbage.
The inrush of atmosphere into the evacuated barrel would suck the gun forwards and then stop it.

The jackblack AI algorithm has not been programmed to understand Newton's third law..

Force pairings are unnecessary to it, and force vectors can be reversed as needed to fit whatever mad bullshit it is spamming.

Total physics illiterate.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 03:35:51 AM
The jackblack AI algorithm has not been programmed to understand Newton's third law..

Force pairings are unnecessary to it, and force vectors can be reversed as needed to fit whatever mad bullshit it is spamming.

Total physics illiterate.
Are you ever able to honestly respond to a post?

There is still force pairing.
The force on the gun causing the recoil from the gasses exiting the barrel is balanced by the equal and opposite force acting on the gas.

You are the one wanting to discard Newton's third law and pretend the gas needs to push of something, and that if the gas was just "released" it wouldn't push the rocket at all.

Now, can you explain the curve in the OP?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 03:47:26 AM
The jackblack AI algorithm has not been programmed to understand Newton's third law..

Force pairings are unnecessary to it, and force vectors can be reversed as needed to fit whatever mad bullshit it is spamming.

Total physics illiterate.
You are the one wanting to discard Newton's third law and pretend the gas needs to push of something,

The need for something extrinsic to push off is the totality of Newton's third law.

Total physics illiterate...

And obvious AI algorithm.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 14, 2018, 04:10:18 AM
The jackblack AI algorithm has not been programmed to understand Newton's third law..

Force pairings are unnecessary to it, and force vectors can be reversed as needed to fit whatever mad bullshit it is spamming.

Total physics illiterate.
You are the one wanting to discard Newton's third law and pretend the gas needs to push of something,

The need for something extrinsic to push off is the totality of Newton's third law.

Looks like the Confused Voodoo Priest still doesn't understand the totality of Newton's third law.

It could be said that once the burnt fuel reaches the bell of the rocket it is "extrinsic" to the rest of the rocket!

Though where did Newton mention "extrinsic" anyway? An object can split in two and one half can push off the other.

So the Deceptive Voodoo Priest fails again!  ;D ;D So sorry about that. ;D ;D
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 14, 2018, 04:12:27 AM
How many here are not bots? Totallackey? Are there others?

And don't you think it is funny your FE masters banned you? I mean does that not mean they consider you unfit to represent them?

The recoil topic is less interesting than the railgun issue. Still, how do recoil compensators fit in this "air rushing back in the barrel" scenario? They open up more airways. Shouldn't that mean, by the model you follow, the recoil effect is stronger as the air gets in faster? Or am I completely wrong here?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:19:27 AM
The jackblack AI algorithm has not been programmed to understand Newton's third law..

Force pairings are unnecessary to it, and force vectors can be reversed as needed to fit whatever mad bullshit it is spamming.

Total physics illiterate.
You are the one wanting to discard Newton's third law and pretend the gas needs to push of something,

The need for something extrinsic to push off is the totality of Newton's third law.

Looks like the Confused Voodoo Priest still doesn't understand the totality of Newton's third law.

It could be said that once the burnt fuel reaches the bell of the rocket it is "extrinsic" to the rest of the rocket!

Though where did Newton mention "extrinsic" anyway? An object can split in two and one half can push off the other.

So the Deceptive Voodoo Priest fails again!  ;D ;D So sorry about that. ;D ;D

The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.

Therefore it will require a body extrinsic to the rocket for it to create a force pairing and thus produce motion.

Well, according to Newton's third law it will, anyway...

Physics illiterates like the jackblack and rabbibot AI algorithms are not programmed to understand this.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 14, 2018, 04:59:44 AM
The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.
Once it has left rocket it is not,  just as the bullet is not part of the gun.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 05:16:04 AM
The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.
Once it has left rocket it is not,  just as the bullet is not part of the gun.

So rocket exhausts do not exert a force then?

And the exhaust propels solid metal bullets out the back to get to space instead?

And the rocket does all this without exerting a force, somehow?

Yeah, you don't understand anything, let alone Newton's third law.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 12:55:12 PM
The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself.
Therefore it will require a body extrinsic to the rocket for it to create a force pairing and thus produce motion.
Maybe according to Papa's imaginary laws of physics, not according to Newton.

According to Newton (and reality), there exists a force pairing between the rocket and the exhaust.
The rocket pushes the exhaust backwards while the exhaust pushes the rocket forwards.
No external entity required.

If you like, you can consider the exhaust the "extrinsic body".

So rocket exhausts do not exert a force then?
No, they do exert a force, on the rocket.
What happens later is fairly irrelevant for a rocket.
Just like when the bullet hits it's target and is slowed down, the gun doesn't magically recoil as if there is some magic connection between the bullet and gun; the same is true for the rocket. The rocket's exhaust pushing against something wont magically make the rocket go more, at least not once it has left the rocket.


Yeah, you don't understand anything, let alone Newton's third law.
There you go projecting again.


Here are a few nice simple questions for you:
You are out in space, you have the rocket and the "exhaust" trapped together.
The exhaust then starts moving out the back of the rocket.
What force causes the exhaust to accelerate?
What is the equal and opposite force required by Newton's third law?
What is accelerated by this latter force?

Or even simpler, just one question:
What causes the curve in the photo in the OP?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 01:40:32 PM
If you like, you can consider the exhaust the "extrinsic body".

If you're mental you can

A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects.

The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards.

This rearwards force vector creates a force pairing with the mass of the atmosphere, thus propelling the rocket in the opposite direction, i.e. forwards.

This accords with Newton's third law i.e. f1=-f2.

Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:



It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.

If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 02:04:55 PM
And yet you have no mechanism to transfer a force to the rocket.

Also you will notice no change in acceleration as the rocket leaves the launchpad. The ground should accelerate the rocket way more than air in you fantasy model.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 14, 2018, 02:20:49 PM
Yeah, you don't understand anything, let alone Newton's third law.
Who doesn't understand anything again, Mr Delusional Voodoo Priest Controlled Puppet?

Here go and read about someone whose theories predated NASA by over 50 years, The Tsiolkovsky formula (http://www.astrosurf.com/levavasseur/tsiolkovsky/tsiolkovsky_fichiers/Tsiolkovsky.pdf).

But Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's theories have sums and thingos that would completely mystify a Delusional Voodoo Priest Controlled Puppet.
(http://www.antimatterdrive.org/images/rocket_equation.gif)
Out of his work comes the all important "Rocket Equation", ΔV=ve⋅ln(Minitial/Mfinal).

This time Mr Deluded Voodoo Priest, go and do your homework!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 14, 2018, 02:33:32 PM
Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:



It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.

If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
I don't take orders from a Delusional Voodoo Priest.

Incorrect! All it proves is "that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch" - big deal!

The exhaust velocity far exceeds the velocity of sound, so no influence can be transmitted back up the exhaust column.  So there is no way for the ground forces to be transmitted back up to the rocket.

Ever actually looked at where the exhaust gases go during a shuttle launch?

IMAX // Shuttle launch (Hubble 2010 - STS 125), FalkoJ89
See from 0:55 to 1:05 where the exhaust is deflected to the side.

Go and read a bit of elementary stuff on it: Compressible flow. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressible_flow#Converging-diverging_Laval_nozzles).
Then a bit on: High Speed Aerodynamics. (https://www.slideshare.net/lccmechanics/high-speed-aerodynamics?next_slideshow=1)

Until you understand that, you will never properly understand rocket engines and De Laval nozzles so run away and play with the only thing you understand:
Voodoo Fetishes.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 02:47:07 PM
Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:



It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.

If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
I don't take orders from a Delusional Voodoo Priest.

So you could not provide similar visual evidence as I did that the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket and chose to launch into a mad tirade of abuse instead?

That is so unlike you, rabbibot!

Anyhoo, neither forces exerted by the body nor forces internal to the body can be included in any consideration of how said body creates force pairings, rabbibot...

So your de laval nozzle is irrelevant, as any forces therein would be internal.

So, please make a free body diagram of a rocket that includes neither the exhaust nor the combustion chamber/nozzle, so we can finally see where the force pairings are created.

You know, do something an engineer might?

Kthxbai!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 02:52:23 PM

I notice you cut it from my reply, as if you did not want anyone to watch it...



Chatbot fail.  Don't cut his post where he is addressing you, Especially when you call out others doing it.

lol

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 02:55:38 PM
I notice you cut it from my reply, as if you did not want anyone to watch it...
Chatbot fail.  Don't cut his post where he... (rest of mad bot shitpost cut out)

Sorry what was that again, botty boy?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 02:59:30 PM
When you have nothing, post in the style of papa legba to continue to drag the thread on.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 03:50:17 PM
If you like, you can consider the exhaust the "extrinsic body".
If you're mental you can
No. If you are sane you can.

A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects.
Considering they separate, they are quite demonstrably two (or more) separate objects.

The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards.
Nope.
The exhaust leaves the rocket. This means it needs a force vector pushing it rearwards.
This needs to be balanced by a force vector pushing forward, and the only thing to push forward on is the rocket.
This is quite simple physics.

This accords with Newton's third law i.e. f1=-f2.
My analysis does. Your analysis does not.
Your analysis has the exhaust rocket magically fly backwards with no force at all.

Explain what is the origin of the exhausts backwards movement.
Where does the force come from which pushes the exhaust backwards?
What is it paired to?

Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:
Nope.
The exhaust is thrown backwards and leaves the rocket. New exhaust comes out from it.
It doesn't carry its exhaust with it.

Try to find a rocket that is no longer powered with its exhaust still moving with it.

If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
i.e. you will completely ignore the arguments presented.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:15:07 PM
No not Nope not no Nope doesn't no ignore

Cut out all your mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience and just left the negativity...

Cos that's what you're all about really isn't it?

Just a massive downer...

I'll call you Negatron from now on.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 14, 2018, 05:04:17 PM
Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:



It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.

If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
I don't take orders from a Delusional Voodoo Priest.

So you could not provide similar visual evidence as I did that the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket and chose to launch into a mad tirade of abuse instead?

That is so unlike you, rabbibot!

Anyhoo, neither forces exerted by the body nor forces internal to the body can be included in any consideration of how said body creates force pairings, rabbibot...

So your de laval nozzle is irrelevant, as any forces therein would be internal.
Incorrect! In the de Laval nozzle soninc flow in the throat and supersonic flow in the bell prevents any outside forces, such as from the exhaust hitting the ground affecting the thrust.

Quote from: Papa Legba
So, please make a free body diagram of a rocket that includes neither the exhaust nor the combustion chamber/nozzle, so we can finally see where the force pairings are created.
No free body diagram is necessary! if you want one, go scribble one out yourself.

Quote from: Papa Legba
You know, do something an engineer might?
Read about supersonic flow again and again till you understand it!

The exhaust velocity far exceeds the velocity of sound, so no influence can be transmitted back up the exhaust column. 
So there is no way for the ground forces to be transmitted back up to the rocket.

Ever actually looked at where the exhaust gases go during a shuttle launch?

IMAX // Shuttle launch (Hubble 2010 - STS 125), FalkoJ89
See from 0:55 to 1:05 where the exhaust is deflected to the side so could not affect the thrust anyway..

Go and read a bit of elementary stuff on it: Compressible flow. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressible_flow#Converging-diverging_Laval_nozzles).
Then a bit on: High Speed Aerodynamics. (https://www.slideshare.net/lccmechanics/high-speed-aerodynamics?next_slideshow=1)

Until you understand that, you will never properly understand rocket enginess and De Laval nozzles.

And Mr P. Legba, you are no more than a Deluded Voodoo Priest if you refuse to understand concepts like supersonic flow.

Here's a little present for your delectation and enjoyment:
Quote from: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif)
On this slide, we show a schematic of a rocket engine. In a rocket engine, stored fuel and stored oxidizer are ignited in a combustion chamber. The combustion produces great amounts of exhaust gas at high temperature and pressure. The hot exhaust is passed through a nozzle which accelerates the flow. Thrust is produced according to Newton's third law of motion.

The amount of thrust produced by the rocket depends on the mass flow rate through the engine, the exit velocity of the exhaust, and the pressure at the nozzle exit. All of these variables depend on the design of the nozzle. The smallest cross-sectional area of the nozzle is called the throat of the nozzle. The hot exhaust flow is choked at the throat, which means that the Mach number is equal to 1.0 in the throat and the mass flow rate m dot is determined by the throat area. The area ratio from the throat to the exit Ae sets the exit velocity Ve
and the exit pressure pe. You can explore the design and operation  of a rocket nozzle with our interactive thrust simulator (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/ienzl.html) program which runs on your browser.

The exit pressure is only equal to free stream pressure at some design condition. We must, therefore, use the longer version of the generalized thrust equation to describethe thrust of the system. If the free stream pressure is given by p0, the thrust F equation becomes:

F = m dot * Ve + (pe - p0) * Ae

Notice that there is no free stream mass times free stream velocity term in the thrust equation because no external air is brought on board. Since the oxidizer is carried on board the rocket, rockets can generate thrust in a vacuum where there is no other source of oxygen. That's why a rocket will work in space, where there is no surrounding air, and a gas turbine or propeller will not work. Turbine engines and propellers rely on the atmosphere to provide air as the working fluid for propulsion and oxygen in the air as oxidizer for combustion.

The thrust equation shown above works for both liquid rocket and solid rocket. engines. There is also an efficiency parameter called the specific impulse (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/specimp.html) which works for both  types of rockets and greatly simplifies the performance analysis for rockets.

From: NASA Rocket Thrust Equation. (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/rockth.html)

Now, if you disagree, please provide your own thrust equation which shows what thrust a rocket would generate at various altitudes up to 100 km.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 14, 2018, 05:19:27 PM
Cut out all your mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience and just left the negativity...
You mean cut out all the rational arguments showing you to be wrong.

Now why don't you try answering one of 2 simple questions:
What causes the exhaust to move backwards?
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 14, 2018, 10:46:09 PM
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-today-s-scientists-have-substituted-mathematics-for-experiments-and-they-wander-off-through-nikola-tesla-183687.jpg)

Nasa has never sent a single rocket into outer space: the experimental data simply does not exist to support the free stream pressure equation.

It is very easy to prove that each and every NASA space mission was faked.


A design as revolutionary as the phase conjugate mirror for the Sagnac effect, in the field of rocket design science, has been been published: it shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that rockets cannot work in full vacuum:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1740524#msg1740524

(https://s24.postimg.org/f9ukuvpk5/bu2.jpg)

The ring shaped exhaust will use only ETHER WAVES to propel the rocket: without the ether, no thrust is possible.

In full vacuum, no thrust is possible.

That is, the ring shaped exhaust will use the potential in Whittaker's proven equations, and not the vector fields to provide the thrust in the form of double torsion ether waves.

If Nasa did have a secret space program, then that program must have been based totally on the Biefeld-Brown effect which uses ether waves for propulsion.

The Nasa equation has never been tested in real life experiments in the assumed outer space vacuum: each and every space mission was faked. If there was a secret space program, then electrogravity must have been used; electrogravity = ether waves.


Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 14, 2018, 11:00:14 PM
Let's now take a closer look at the equation provided by Nasa:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rockth.html

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif

The first term says Force = Mass x Velocity whereas NASA web sites say that
Force = Mass x Acceleration (Newton痴 2nd law of motion):

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/journey_newtona2.htm

"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.

The second term (Pressure Difference between inside the rocket and the vacuum of space) x Nozzle Area violates the 吐ree expansion effect, part of the first law of thermodynamics by which pressurized gas moves into a vacuum without any work being done. It does not matter how highly pressured the gas is inside the rocket nor how fast it comes out. Because it is going into a vacuum the gas makes the trip 吐or free and does not do any work, does not expend any energy and does not create any force or thrust.

The NASA space rocket equation has two terms the first of which is incorrect and so is the second."

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/momntm.html

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/f.html
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 11:03:39 PM
You show up late, ignoring everything previously posted, and ignored all the other threads on the topic. Cool. If you scroll up you will find the real thrust equations.

So now there is no ether in a vacuum? Better tell Biefeld and Brown.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 12:28:14 AM
Cut out all your mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience and just left the negativity...
You mean cut out all the rational arguments showing you to be wrong.

I meant cutting out all the mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience that violates both Newton's laws of motion and the laws of Thermodynamics, Negatron:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67626.0
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 15, 2018, 04:10:30 AM
Let's now take a closer look at the equation provided by Nasa:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rockth.html

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif

The first term says Force = Mass x Velocity
No it does not! The first term is m dot and it the mass flow rate of exhaust gases.
Please read the fuller explanation in: NASARocket Thrust Equation. (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rockth.html)

Quote from: sandokhan

whereas NASA web sites say that
Force = Mass x Acceleration (Newton痴 2nd law of motion):

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/journey_newtona2.htm

"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something.
Incorrect!
Your claim would mean that a fired artillery round would not cause any recoil until the round stiles some object,  which is clearly ridiculous.

Quote from: sandokhan
Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space.
That is again is totally baseless. There is absolutely nothing in either Newton's 3rd law or Conservation of Momentum to suggest that.
CoM states that the total momentum of an isolated system is conserved. Here the "isolated system" can be taken as the rocket and any expelled exhaust gasses.

Your requirement of hitting something violates this isolated system premise.

Quote from: sandokhan
It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.
And the high momentum of this gas has to be matched by the same magnitude momentum change in the rocket.

Quote from: sandokhan
The second term (Pressure Difference between inside the rocket and the vacuum of space) x Nozzle Area violates the 吐ree expansion effect, part of the first law of thermodynamics by which pressurized gas moves into a vacuum without any work being done. It does not matter how highly pressured the gas is inside the rocket nor how fast it comes out. Because it is going into a vacuum the gas makes the trip 吐or free and does not do any work, does not expend any energy and does not create any force or thrust.
No, you need to ask just what the system that has no work done on it.

Quote
Joule-Thomson Expansion - Free Expansion of a Gas
Imagine a gas confined within an insulated container as shown in fig 1. The gas is initially confined to a volume V1 at pressure P1 and temperature T1. The gas then is allowed to expand into another insulated chamber with volume V2 that is initially evacuated. What happens? Let痴 apply the first law.

We know from the first law for a closed system that the change in internal energy of the gas will be equal to the heat transferred plus the amount of work the gas does, or ∆U = Q + W. Since the gas expands freely (the volume change of the system is zero), we know that no work will be done, so W=0. Since both chambers are insulated, we also know that Q=0. Thus, the internal energy of the gas does not change during this process.
     (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ziz3fq8l3zs8vvg/Expansion%20into%20box.png?dl=1)
Fig 1 Expansion into box
from reference below

From: Joule Thomson (http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html)



Now, how does this relate to a rocket in space?
For an ideal gas, free expansion does no work, but what does this mean?  It is simply that the temperature of the gas is unchanged during the expansion.  But, the upper diagram does not represent our rocket in free space.  The right half of this should be replaced by "the infinite vacuum of space", more as in fig 2.

Joule-Thomson expansion simply says that the temperature of an (ideal) gas does not change, but this in no way affects Newton's Laws of motion.  The whole system is the rocket plus the "near-infinite vacuum of space".
There is nothing in the Joule-Thomson free expansion to "countermand" the momentum of the gas heading right (in the lower diagram) imparting like momentum to the rocket heading left.

As obviously expected there is no conflict between Newton's Laws and the Joule-Thomson free expansion.
     (https://www.dropbox.com/s/t54sznbrf2agpqi/Expansion%20into%20space.png?dl=1)
Fig 2 Expansion into space
modofied from reference

Quote from: sandokhan
The NASA space rocket equation has two terms the first of which is incorrect and so is the second."

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/momntm.html

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/f.html
No, neither term is incorrect. Not only that, but it is hardly "The NASA space rocket equation".

The simple version (without the pressure term) formed the basis of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's "rocket equation", (http://fourthmillenniumfoundation.org/images/RocketEquation.png).

Maybe you should read up on both Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in say Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935) (http://www.nointrigue.com/docs/notes/physics/phys_y12tsiolkovsky.pdf)
and Robert Goddard in Robert Goddard and His Rockets (https://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgoddard.htm)
  or in Rocket Fundamentals (https://application.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/3527406859_c01.pdf).
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 15, 2018, 04:22:03 AM

Nasa has never sent a single rocket into outer space: the experimental data simply does not exist to support the free stream pressure equation.
Totally incorrect!

Quote from: sandokhan
It is very easy to prove that each and every NASA space mission was faked.

Really? NASA was not the first to launch space mission and there are now many other countries that have launched them.

Well, you prove that none of the
Soviet Union, United States of America (NASA, Space X or Blue Origin), France, Europe (ESA, Ariane), Japan, China, Britain, India, Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Iran and North Korea
have ever launched any space missions.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 15, 2018, 04:34:33 AM
Nasa has put this equation in front of its readers:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rockth.html

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif

The first term says Force = Mass x Velocity

It is being described as the mass flow rate, but the terms in the m dot expression are: mass and velocity.

whereas NASA web sites say that

Force = Mass x Acceleration (Newton痴 2nd law of motion):

https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/journey_newtona2.htm

A clear contradiction.

As for Nasa having faked all of its space missions, it is very simply to prove this: the Allais effect, the DePalma spinning ball experiment, the Biefeld-Brown effect show that there is no such thing as the law of universal gravitation, supposedly used by Nasa to compute the trajectories.

Dark flow totally disproves Newtonian gravitation.

Please explain how the Nasa space missions took place without using the law of universal gravitation.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 05:10:40 AM
Lol the rabbibot thinks that an object moving in one direction solely due to momentum is somehow imparting a force in the opposite direction at the same time...

It is mental.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 15, 2018, 05:16:36 AM
"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.
A rock has momentum after you throw it, which is not a force.  Why are you conveniently forgetting the force being applied to the rock when you throw it?  The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working.  Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.

Looking at the rock's momentum after the throwing action is complete would be comparable to looking at the rocket's momentum after engine shutdown, and yes, at that point there is no longer any force acting on the rocket. 

Are you intentionally confusing an unpowered object (the rock) with a powered object (the rocket with it's engine working) or do you actually not understand the difference?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 15, 2018, 05:56:59 AM
If gas has an effect on objects in a vacuum we would expect to find an example in nature.

"Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM into space. The diameter of the moon itself is only 500 KM. Does this jet have any effect? No. The jet as tall as the moon is wide goes harmlessly off into space."

https://www.space.com/22181-saturn-moon-enceladus-water-geysers.html

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/enceladus/

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/False_color_Cassini_image_of_jets_in_the_southern_hemisphere_of_Enceladus.jpg)

(https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/5803_PIA14658.jpg)

(https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/061108encelladusjets.jpg)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 15, 2018, 06:04:25 AM
If gas has an effect on objects in a vacuum we would expect to find an example in nature.

"Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM into space. The diameter of the moon itself is only 500 KM. Does this jet have any effect? No. The jet as tall as the moon is wide goes harmlessly off into space."

https://www.space.com/22181-saturn-moon-enceladus-water-geysers.html

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/enceladus/

Okay?  Does Force still equal Mass x Acceleration?  If so, who cares how tall the plume is or what the diameter of the moon is?  I don't see height or diameter in the only relevant equation.  What is the mass of the water being expelled, what is the acceleration, and what is the mass of the moon?  Once you have those numbers, plug them in and calculate just how much force you think should be applied to the moon and what the resulting movement should be.  If after all that, you still think something is wrong, let us know and we can discuss that. 

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 06:21:45 AM
"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.
The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working.  Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.

The force vector of the exhaust is opposite to the force vector of a hand throwing an object.

So your analogy is the opposite of the truth.

kek
 
The rocket and exhaust are ONE object, creating ONE force vector, rearwards.

When this one force vector strikes the second object of the atmosphere, a second force vector is created in the opposite direction, thus propelling the rocket in that direction, i.e. forwards.

Newton's third law - f1=-f2, two objects, equal and opposite,  action/reaction.

Simple enough...

You're not programmed to understand that though, so on we slog, forever...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 15, 2018, 08:00:59 AM
"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.
The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working.  Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.

The force vector of the exhaust is opposite to the force vector of a hand throwing an object.

So your analogy is the opposite of the truth.

kek
 
The rocket and exhaust are ONE object, creating ONE force vector, rearwards.

When this one force vector strikes the second object of the atmosphere, a second force vector is created in the opposite direction, thus propelling the rocket in that direction, i.e. forwards.

Newton's third law - f1=-f2, two objects, equal and opposite,  action/reaction.

Simple enough...

You're not programmed to understand that though, so on we slog, forever...
The force vector of the exhaust is away from the rocket, so the force vector of the rocket is away from the exhaust.
F1=-F2. 

Simple enough...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Mvene on February 15, 2018, 08:02:30 AM
Try to read this  https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html (https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/rocket-physics.html) and understand it, then we can talk about how rockets work.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 09:07:10 AM
"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.
The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working.  Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.

The force vector of the exhaust is opposite to the force vector of a hand throwing an object.

So your analogy is the opposite of the truth.

kek
 
The rocket and exhaust are ONE object, creating ONE force vector, rearwards.

When this one force vector strikes the second object of the atmosphere, a second force vector is created in the opposite direction, thus propelling the rocket in that direction, i.e. forwards.

Newton's third law - f1=-f2, two objects, equal and opposite,  action/reaction.

Simple enough...

You're not programmed to understand that though, so on we slog, forever...
The force vector of the exhaust is away from the rocket, so the force vector of the rocket is away from the exhaust.
F1=-F1

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 15, 2018, 09:10:46 AM
"NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with something, which it never does in the vacuum of space. It remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to do work but never getting the chance.
The act of throwing is analogous to the rocket engine working.  Both are applying force to their respective projectile to move it forward.

The force vector of the exhaust is opposite to the force vector of a hand throwing an object.

So your analogy is the opposite of the truth.

kek
 
The rocket and exhaust are ONE object, creating ONE force vector, rearwards.

When this one force vector strikes the second object of the atmosphere, a second force vector is created in the opposite direction, thus propelling the rocket in that direction, i.e. forwards.

Newton's third law - f1=-f2, two objects, equal and opposite,  action/reaction.

Simple enough...

You're not programmed to understand that though, so on we slog, forever...
The force vector of the exhaust is away from the rocket, so the force vector of the rocket is away from the exhaust.
F1=-F1

Fixed that for you.
So the issue here is that you are under the mistaken impression that a rocket and its exhaust, moving in 2 different directions, are somehow the exact same object?  That would certainly complicate things if it were remotely accurate...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 09:18:30 AM
Lol round and round we go in the mad shillgorithm waltz...

A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects.

The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards.

This rearwards force vector creates a force pairing with the mass of the atmosphere, thus propelling the rocket in the opposite direction, i.e. forwards.

This accords with Newton's third law i.e. f1=-f2.

Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:



It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.

If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 10:21:25 AM
Lol round and round we go in the mad shillgorithm waltz...

A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects. Because both the rocket an exhaust are clearly both gasses

The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards. Wait no, the rocket would diffuse in all directions because it's a gas

This accords with Newton's third law i.e. everything is a gas

Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that the rocket is a gas



It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.

If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
My visual evidence is that the rocket in the video is not a gas.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 15, 2018, 10:28:19 AM
Lol round and round we go in the mad shillgorithm waltz...

A rocket and it's exhaust are demonstrably not two separate objects.

The rocket and the exhaust are part of the same system, exerting a force vector rearwards.

This rearwards force vector creates a force pairing with the mass of the atmosphere, thus propelling the rocket in the opposite direction, i.e. forwards.

This accords with Newton's third law i.e. f1=-f2.

Proof that the rocket and exhaust are part of the same system can be attained through simple observation, where it is seen that they both move together at all times:



It will also be noted that the rocket exhaust forces up huge clouds of dirt at launch, proving that the exhaust is creating a powerful force pairing with its external environment.

If you cannot provide similar visual evidence for your mad model, using a rocket, do not reply.
So if a handheld sink sprayer was being held up by the water it is pushing out, I say it is the force of the water leaving the nozzle pushing it upward.  You would believe that the water is pushing off the bottom of the sink and holding the sprayer up.

So if someone put another solid object halfway between the sprayer and the sink, I believe nothing would happen, because the force is applied when the water exits and everything else is irrelevant.  If you are correct, the sprayer would jump up because what it's pushing off of is so much closer.

Let's see what happens...

Okay then...and we're done here.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 10:41:57 AM
A rocket is not a tap.

And water is an incompressible fluid.

So much fail it would be hard for a human to bear...

Good thing you're an AI algorithm then, eh?

Lucky you!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 15, 2018, 11:25:42 AM
A rocket is not a tap.
But they are both being influenced by Newton's 3rd law, the relevant part of the problem.  It's called an analogy.  Look it up if you're not sure how it works.

And water is an incompressible fluid.
Mostly incompressible, which should make the sprayer go even higher without any ability of the water to flex, so you're losing even more ground with that observation...

So much fail it would be hard for a human to bear...
That is painfully true, just not the way you think.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 12:08:06 PM
A rocket is not a tap.
It's called an analogy.

I'd prefer it to be called physics.

Sadly you are not programmed to understand that, so your silly clown-dance false analogy fest continues...

Interesting double spacing between your sentences btw...

Kinda familiar looking.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 12:34:42 PM
Water is an incompressible fluid.
So water being incompressible makes it harder for it to transfer a force, lollolololololololol. You dumb.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 12:58:54 PM
Water is an incompressible fluid.
So water being incompressible makes it harder for it to transfer a force, lollolololololololol. You dumb.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy

Meanwhile, this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67626.msg2021475#msg2021475
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Lakinjake@gmail.com on February 15, 2018, 01:01:17 PM
Lately, this image:
(https://i.imgur.com/AGV3xiF.png)
Has been presented quite a bit in support of RE.

Time to discuss this particular image and a couple questions follow:

RE-tards, what is the measured distance of the photographer from the subject matter at hand?

What is the measured distance between each tower in the image?

I've got a cheap project for you that can answer your questions. Wal-Mart's online store sells a little rocket that can reach over 1000 feet. It has an ejectable camera that will parachute down the rocket will just fall and need to be replaced. It runs about 120 bucks and through the images you get from the camera if you can find it again will clearly show the curve of the earth. This method doesn't prove the earth is a speher but will clearly show you the earth is not flat. Now unless you think that this camera somehow gets tampered with magically during flight or somehow developed a Wi-Fi transponder to download a faked video and pics of your area then it is rather hard to say the earth is flat after you see what you see. Good luck and have fun, those rockets are rather wild.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 15, 2018, 04:14:34 PM
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-today-s-scientists-have-substituted-mathematics-for-experiments-and-they-wander-off-through-nikola-tesla-183687.jpg)
Nasa has never sent a single rocket into outer space: the experimental data simply does not exist to support the free stream pressure equation.
Good job providing a quote which shows the problem with yourself.
Forget all the math.
There is plenty of evidence that NASA has sent a rocket into space, such as the funcitoning GPS system, based upon satellites in space, sat phones, and numerous satellite photos of Earth.

It is very easy to prove that each and every NASA space mission was faked.
Yet you have been completely unable to do so.


it shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that rockets cannot work in full vacuum:

It shows no such thing.
The ring shaped exhaust will use only ETHER WAVES to propel the rocket: without the ether, no thrust is possible.
No. The exhaust is leaving the rocket. This requires a force to push it out the back of the rocket, even in a vacuum. This needs to be balanced by an equal and opposite force which is pushing the rocket forwards.

For rockets to not work in a vacuum you need to be capable of magically having gasses trapped with nothing holding them in place.

The Nasa equation has never been tested in real life experiments in the assumed outer space vacuum: each and every space mission was faked.
No, all the evidence indicates it is real, and you are substituting math and nonsense in the place of experiment.

Let's now take a closer look at the equation provided by Nasa:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rockth.html
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/rockth.gif
The first term says Force = Mass x Velocity whereas NASA web sites say that
Force = Mass x Acceleration (Newton痴 2nd law of motion):
No it doesn't.
Perhaps you should try reading again.
The first term in the force equation is mass flow rate times velocity.

There are numerous relations linking force to other variables, not just Newton's second law.
Impulse is force times time, which equates to a momentum change.
The exhaust needs a certain impulse to reach a certain velocity.
Each unit of time, a certain amount of exhaust is reaching this velocity.
This is why they use the mass flow rate.

The second term (Pressure Difference between inside the rocket and the vacuum of space) x Nozzle Area violates the 吐ree expansion effect, part of the first law of thermodynamics by which pressurized gas moves into a vacuum without any work being done.
No it doesn't.
The gas does no work on the vacuum.
What this is actually looking at is the pressure of the exhaust and the pressure at the front of the rocket.
If the 2 are equal, there is no pressure differential across the rocket and thus no force due to the pressure differential.
However, if the pressure is not equal, then the pressure of the exhaust exerts a force on the rocket while the pressure of the "atmosphere" exerts a different force. This results in a net force which is proportional to the pressure differential times the area of the rocket exhaust  (specifically the area it is pressing against the rocket, in a direction parallel to the rocket/not cancelled out by the exhaust).

The NASA space rocket equation has two terms the first of which is incorrect and so is the second."
No, as per usual, both terms are correct and you have no idea what you are talking about.

It is being described as the mass flow rate, but the terms in the m dot expression are: mass and velocity.
Stop lying.
You have clearly indicated you know it is saying MASS FLOW RATE!!
This means the terms are not mass and velocity, they are mass flow rate (i.e. mass per unit time) and velocity.

A clear contradiction.
Yes, by you.
You clearly accept it says mass flow rate, but then claim it says mass.

As for Nasa having faked all of its space missions, it is very simply to prove this: the Allais effect, the DePalma spinning ball experiment, the Biefeld-Brown effect show that there is no such thing as the law of universal gravitation, supposedly used by Nasa to compute the trajectories.
So you have nothing showing that NASA faked anything. Got it.

Please explain how the Nasa space missions took place without using the law of universal gravitation.
Who cares how they took place? You provided quote complaining about using math instead of experiment.
We have plenty of experiments which show that space travel is real.

Now perhaps you can address the OP and explain what causes the curve in the image?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 15, 2018, 04:19:09 PM
Cut out all your mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience and just left the negativity...
You mean cut out all the rational arguments showing you to be wrong.
I meant cutting out all the mad AI algorithm Pseudoscience that violates both Newton's laws of motion and the laws of Thermodynamics, Negatron:
Which is not what you did at all.
Instead you cut out the rational arguments which clearly showed you to be wrong.

A rocket and its exhaust do not move as a single entity.
Your visual evidence proves this beyond any sane doubt
At the start, you see the rocket blowing outwards, taking a bunch of dust with it, rather than staying with the rocket.
The rocket, during the ascent stage, continually generates exhaust, yet only a fairly constant amount stays with the rocket.
This shows that the rocket is generating exhaust and throwing it behind it with the exhaust no longer with the rocket.

Now then, answer one of these 2 questions:
What causes the exhaust to move backwards?
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 04:26:42 PM
More gish gallop Pseudoscience and NO U from blatant AI algorithm jackblack...

It says the exhaust requires a force to push it out the back of the rocket.

Nonsense.

The combusting gas of the exhaust is the force.

And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.

No pushing required.

It is a physics illiterate.

And its posts are physically repulsive to read.

Which is its entire point.

To disgust people into silence.

Therefore giving the impression it won.

Mental sickness personified in AI form.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Empirical on February 15, 2018, 04:31:30 PM
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 04:56:42 PM
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 15, 2018, 05:02:10 PM
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-today-s-scientists-have-substituted-mathematics-for-experiments-and-they-wander-off-through-nikola-tesla-183687.jpg)
I do find it amusing that you and so many other flat earthers treat Nikola Tesla as some sort of Flat Earth Folk Hero but Tesla certainly did not believe the earth to be either flat or stationary!


Read:
                      HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1915-02-07.htm) also in
How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915 (https://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art10.html)  in which he states:
Quote from: Nicola Tesla
NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount

Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.

The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.
Sure, Nikola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.

Then look at,
Quote from: Frank G. Carpenter
INVENTIONS OF TESLA

Mother Earth Put to Work.
釘y this invention every live part of Mother Earth's body would be brought into action. Energy will be collected all over the globe in amounts small or large, as it may exist, ranging from a fraction of one to a few horse power or more. Every water fall can be utilized, every coal field made to produce energy to be transmitted to vast distances, and every place on earth can have power at small cost. One of the minor uses might be the illumination of isolated homes. We could light houses all over the country by means of vacuum tubes operated by high frequency currents. We could keep the clocks of the United States going and give everyone exact time; we could turn factories, machine shops and mills, small or large, anywhere, and I believe could also navigate the air."

Transmission of Intelligence.

One of the most important features of this invention, said Mr. Tesla, 努ill be the transmission of intelligence. It will convert the entire earth into a huge brain, capable of responding in every one of its parts. By the employment of a number of plants, each of which can transmit signals to all parts of the world, the news of the globe will be flashed to all points. A cheap and simple receiving device, which might be carried in one's pocket, can be set up anywhere on sea or land, and it will record the world's news as it occurs, or take such special messages as are intended for it.

From: tesla universe INVENTIONS OF TESLA (https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/inventions-tesla)

No, Tesla most certainly did not believe that the earth was stationary and flat.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 05:08:59 PM
A rocket and its exhaust do not move as a single entity.

The mad AI algorithm lies blatantly.

The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself and moves with the rocket at all times.

The simplest of observations proves this.

Look:



No further communication is possible with the mad lying AI algorithm.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 15, 2018, 05:42:55 PM
More gish gallop Pseudoscience and NO U from blatant AI algorithm [Papa Legba]
You keep mistyping names for some reason.

It says the exhaust requires a force to push it out the back of the rocket.
Yes, because it does.
If it didn't, it would stay inside the rocket rather than leave the rocket.

The combusting gas of the exhaust is the force.
But as per Newton's third law, you can't have a force in isolation.
Combusting gas would expand outwards, equally in all directions.
This is where it acts as a multitude of objects, all pushing against each other, providing force pairings pushing them all outwards.
But to have a controlled direction of the flow, i.e. out the exhaust nozzle, you need to provide a force to push it out.
The only entity capable of providing that force (and thus having the other side of the force pair apply to it) is the rocket itself.

As such, the rocket forces the exhaust backwards while the exhaust forces the rocket forwards.

And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.

No pushing required.
I don't think you understand pressure.
Pressure is force per unit area.
The body of the rocket exerts a force on the gas. If it didn't, that would be a region of 0 pressure and the gas would flow to it.

It is a physics illiterate.
You certainly are.

The mad AI algorithm lies blatantly.
Yes, you do lie blatantly don't you.

Look:

Yes, look.
While the rocket is continually burning its fuel generating more exhaust, the exhaust remains relatively constant, indicating that the exhaust is being thrown away (backwards) as new exhaust is made; clearly showing you to be wrong.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 15, 2018, 10:12:10 PM
The rocket and satellite equations of motion are much more complex than the thrust formula.

Here is the equation of motion describing the librational motion of an arbitrarily shaped satellite in a planar, elliptical orbit:

(1 + εμcosθ)ψ" - 2εμsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3Kisinψcosψ = 0

ψ' = δψ/δθ

Ki = (Ixx - Izz)/Iyy

εμ = eccentricity of the orbit

For small ε, and using 1/(1 + εμcosθ) = 1 - εμcosθ + O(ε2), we obtain


ψ" + 3Kisinψcosψ = ε[2μsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3μKisinψcosψcosθ] + O(ε2)

This is a fully nonlinear ordinary differential equation (initial condition). For weakly nonlinear ODE, we can use methods such as multiple scaling and averaging.

For a fully nonlinear ODE, we need very advanced perturbation techniques: the Melnikov method.


Even for a simpler version of this fully nonlinear differential equation, the orbit of a tethered satellite system, we will get chaotical motions for realistic/real flight parameters:

http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/ifme/zeitschrift_tm/1996_Heft4/Peng.pdf (http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/ifme/zeitschrift_tm/1996_Heft4/Peng.pdf)

In theory, time delay feedback control methods are used to try to minimize the chaotical motion; however, in real time flight, parameters values can and will exceed the data used in the theorized version.


It is very easy to show that the gravitational escape velocity equation is false.

ve = − √[2GM/(r + h)]

Rocket science tells us that the gravitational potential energy between two objects is:

PEi = −GMm/Ri

(https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/images/gravitation_escape_velocity_derivation_factors.gif)

Therefore, the general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of attractive gravity.

(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/images/Uint.gif)

It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.

There is no such thing as the law of universal gravitation: it follows that the gravitational escape velocity equation is completely false.

The Allais effect defies the law of universal gravitation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

The Biefeld-Brown effect defies the law of universal gravitation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935

E.T. Whittaker has proven that the potential is represented by pairs of longitudinal bidirectional scalar waves (ether):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

The ether is a force of PRESSURE and is not attractive.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 15, 2018, 10:21:02 PM
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.  A pressure on an object will add a force to the object. This force will depend on the objects area. The acceleration of the object will depend on this force and the mass of the object.. This is not see by objects in freefall.  Objects in freefall fall at the same rate regardless of mass or shape.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 15, 2018, 10:24:38 PM
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.
None other than your idol, I. Newton made it very clear that he believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES at work: terrestrial gravity and planetary/stellar gravity. One is a force of pressure, the other one a force of rotation.

As such, you need some kind of barrier/shield between the two: that is the dome.

Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'



I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

A letter to Bentley: 典hat gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.


Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.


Ionic

Ion wind/excess ions/heavy ions cannot be responsible for the Biefeld-Brown effect:

(https://s1.postimg.org/4p74pzl0xb/bb1.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/1no02xq6zz/bb2.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/1yatw3n7kv/bb3.jpg)

The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).
In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.

VIDEO: BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, balancing a condenser on a beam balance

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/elghatv1.htm (includes three videos of the experiment)

(http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/elghatab.jpg)
Do you actually know anything about thrust? Why would you look at one atom or electron? It's a combination of all of them. Please note this before you claim air cannot be responsible.


...

You incorrectly claimed Biefeld-Brown does not rely on air by providing the force created by one molecule, rather than the actual mass flow.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 15, 2018, 10:28:19 PM
Here is Newton proving you wrong:

http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.


典his implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth痴 gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth痴 gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.


Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 15, 2018, 10:31:33 PM
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.
Here is Newton proving you wrong:
...

Newtonian gravity is no longer the accepted theory for gravitation. You need to advance a few years.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 15, 2018, 10:34:42 PM
The Biefeld-Brown effect has been tested in VACUUM:

VACUUM TEST #1

http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.


VACUUM TEST #2

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html (includes technical information and video)


VACUUM TEST #3

https://web.archive.org/web/20070212193741/http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm (includes technical information and video)


MULTIPLE TESTS PERFORMED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT ION WIND COULD NOT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON THE EXPERIMENTS THEMSELVES:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifteriw.htm


VACUUM TEST #4: PROJECT MONTGOLFIER

https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Soci騁 National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .

In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg:

(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg)

The report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire. 

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon. 

PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).



BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT: NEW VIDEO

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909


Then, you are going to have to explain the fact that the output energy for the Tesla bifilar coil is much greater than the input energy:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2018999#msg2018999
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 15, 2018, 10:36:19 PM
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.
Here is Newton proving you wrong:
...

Newtonian gravity is no longer the accepted theory for gravitation. You need to advance a few years.

The gravitational potential energy equation for rockets is based totally on Newtonian gravity.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026412#msg2026412
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 15, 2018, 10:46:35 PM
When the experiment is preformed in air, it's super easy to do. You don't need that massive setup. Do you wonder why?



Quote
Then, you are going to have to explain the fact that the output energy for the Tesla bifilar coil is much greater than the input energy:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2018999#msg2018999

"There is no free energy."


It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.
Here is Newton proving you wrong:
...

Newtonian gravity is no longer the accepted theory for gravitation. You need to advance a few years.

The gravitational potential energy equation for rockets is based totally on Newtonian gravity.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026412#msg2026412

AND?
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.  A pressure on an object will add a force to the object. This force will depend on the objects area. The acceleration of the object will depend on this force and the mass of the object.. This is not see by objects in freefall.  Objects in freefall fall at the same rate regardless of mass or shape.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: dess58 on February 15, 2018, 11:06:12 PM
Thanks for the good information. Introduce new knowledge with me. สมัครufabet (http://www.ufa007.com)


ufabet (http://www.ufa007.com/ufabet)

ทางเข้าufabet (http://www.ufa007.com/ufabet)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sandokhan on February 15, 2018, 11:56:59 PM
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.  A pressure on an object will add a force to the object. This force will depend on the objects area. The acceleration of the object will depend on this force and the mass of the object.. This is not see by objects in freefall.  Objects in freefall fall at the same rate regardless of mass or shape.

Your assertion has been debunked right here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026418#msg2026418

Which means you are trolling the upper forums as usual.


典his implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth痴 gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth痴 gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 12:44:27 AM
Here is Newton proving you wrong:
Newton can't prove anybody wrong. No theory is dependent on the words of any one person. Newton was also an alchemist.
And Tesla certainly believed that the earth was a rotating Globe,
Quote from: Nikola Tesla
NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount

Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.

The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
But for some reason you disagree with Tesla - was  Nikola Tesla wrong about the shape and motions of the earth?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 12:56:37 AM
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.  A pressure on an object will add a force to the object. This force will depend on the objects area. The acceleration of the object will depend on this force and the mass of the object.. This is not see by objects in freefall.  Objects in freefall fall at the same rate regardless of mass or shape.
You really need to learn how to use the "Quote facility" so that you  ;D victim  ;D is identified.
Quote from: sandokhan
Your assertion has been debunked right here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026418#msg2026418
Rubbish, of course  "Objects in freefall fall at the same rate regardless of mass or shape".
Try dropping objects dense enough to be negligibly affected by air resistance.
Or dropping any objects in an extremely low pressure chamber.
Quote from: sandokhan
Which means you are trolling the upper forums as usual.
Incorrect, that would be your presenting arguments totally contrary to well accepted physical laws.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 01:14:21 AM
Lol check out the rabbibot claiming satellites sit on tables then calling himself an idiot for saying so:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2024656#msg2024656

The rabbibot just spams anything to keep wasting honest human beings time...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 02:03:09 AM
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.
Here is Newton proving you wrong:
...

Newtonian gravity is no longer the accepted theory for gravitation. You need to advance a few years.
What is interesting is that Einstein's GR can be solved using the Schwarzschild metric[1] for the case of a small object (say a rocket, a satellite, an aircraft, a car, you, I or a ball) travelling at a velocity much less than "c" near the surface of a massive object (say the earth).

This solution then ends up with simply Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation, and includes even centripetal acceleration and the Coriolis effect.

Hence Newtonian solutions are perfectly acceptable for velocities up to at least c/1000 and even for masses well above the earth's mass, though this depends on the precision one needs for the answer.

Quote from: sandokhan
The gravitational potential energy equation for rockets is based totally on Newtonian gravity.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026412#msg2026412
That's no problem! For all practical purposes GR and Newtonian Gravitation end up with the same result.

[1] See Wikipedia, Schwarzschild metric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric).
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 02:12:12 AM
The rabbibot doesn't think gravity forces things downwards:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2017797#msg2017797

It loves wasting peoples time with waffle...
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 02:17:03 AM
Lol check out the rab claiming satellites sit on tables then calling himself an idiot for saying so:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2024656#msg2024656
If you think that post says anything about "claiming satellites sit on tables" you reading comprehension score is about -5 out of 10.

Just check out that post to see the Ignorant Deceptive Voodoo Priest again trying to deceive everybody, as it always does.

But what can we expect? Papa Legba is well known for being a trickster and deceiver.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 02:41:20 AM
The rab doesn't think gravity forces things downwards:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2017797#msg2017797

Gravity does not force anything down! Look at this again.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l1d1.gif)
Gravity not forcing Physics Book down.
          (http://www.learnastronomyhq.com/_Media/iss_discovery_110226_med.jpeg)
Gravity not forcing Satellite in orbit down!

So gravity does not force things down but just applies a downward force to books on chairs and to satellites in orbit.

But an Ignorant Deceptive Voodoo Priest could not be expected to understand the difference.

So, run away and attend to the Voodoo Priestly rituals that you've been neglecting while trolling here.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Empirical on February 16, 2018, 02:44:43 AM
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 02:46:31 AM
Lol check out the rab claiming satellites sit on tables then calling himself an idiot for saying so:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2024656#msg2024656
If you think that post says anything about "claiming satellites sit on tables" you reading comprehension score is about -5 out of 10.

Just check out that post to see the Ignorant Deceptive Voodoo Priest again trying to deceive everybody, as it always does.

But what can we expect? Papa Legba is well known for being a trickster and deceiver!

The posts prove that you lie and contradict yourself about the most obvious and provable effects of gravitation.

Yet here you are, pontificating about its causes...

You are a timewasting AI algorithm.

And, as usual, you posted another reply whilst I was writing this one.

You did this to waste yet more of my time.

You also contradicted yourself again in it.

Case proven.

Oh, and another reply from empirical whilst I was writing this...

Funny how you know I am online and writing replies, is it not?

Something a bot would be perfect for.

Case proven again.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 02:47:23 AM
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Empirical on February 16, 2018, 02:49:42 AM
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 03:06:01 AM
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.

Wtf?

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 04:41:53 AM
Lol check out the rab claiming satellites sit on tables then calling himself an idiot for saying so:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2024656#msg2024656
If you think that post says anything about "claiming satellites sit on tables" you reading comprehension score is about -5 out of 10.

Just check out that post to see the Ignorant Deceptive Voodoo Priest again trying to deceive everybody, as it always does.

But what can we expect? Papa Legba is well known for being a trickster and deceiver!
The posts prove that you lie and contradict yourself about the most obvious and provable effects of gravitation.
Yet here you are, pontificating about its causes...
Incorrect as usual!
Quote from: Papa Legba
You are a timewasting AI algorithm.
And, as usual, you posted another reply whilst I was writing this one.
How was I supposed to know that the Idiotic Paranoic Delusional Voodoo Priest was writing a post?

Quote from: Papa Legba
You did this to waste yet more of my time.
You also contradicted yourself again in it.
Incorrect as usual!
Quote from: Papa Legba
Case proven.
Incorrect as usual!
Quote from: Papa Legba
Oh, and another reply from empirical whilst I was writing this...
Funny how you know I am online and writing replies, is it not?
Something a bot would be perfect for.
Case proven again.

I have no idea whether you are writing posts or practising your usual Voodoo Witchcraft. Though it's rather obvious now that you really are an Psychotic Paranoic Delusional Voodoo Priest.

A Psychiatrist would probably decide that his professional diagnosis was that you were "Stark Starin' Bonkers".

Should we pass the hat around to pay for some professional help to assist your recovery from this Paranoic Delusional Psychosis you now seem to be suffering from?

Just trying to help!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 08:44:08 AM
Lol check out the rab claiming satellites sit on tables then calling himself an idiot for saying so:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2024656#msg2024656
If you think that post says anything about "claiming satellites sit on tables" you reading comprehension score is about -5 out of 10.

Just check out that post to see the Ignorant Deceptive Voodoo Priest again trying to deceive everybody, as it always does.

But what can we expect? Papa Legba is well known for being a trickster and deceiver!
The posts prove that you lie and contradict yourself about the most obvious and provable effects of gravitation.
Yet here you are, pontificating about its causes...
Incorrect as usual!
Quote from: Papa Legba
You are a timewasting AI algorithm.
And, as usual, you posted another reply whilst I was writing this one.
How was I supposed to know that the Idiotic Paranoic Delusional Voodoo Priest was writing a post?

Quote from: Papa Legba
You did this to waste yet more of my time.
You also contradicted yourself again in it.
Incorrect as usual!
Quote from: Papa Legba
Case proven.
Incorrect as usual!
Quote from: Papa Legba
Oh, and another reply from empirical whilst I was writing this...
Funny how you know I am online and writing replies, is it not?
Something a bot would be perfect for.
Case proven again.

I have no idea whether you are writing posts or practising your usual Voodoo Witchcraft. Though it's rather obvious now that you really are an Psychotic Paranoic Delusional Voodoo Priest.

A Psychiatrist would probably decide that his professional diagnosis was that you were "Stark Starin' Bonkers".

Should we pass the hat around to pay for some professional help to assist your recovery from this Paranoic Delusional Psychosis you now seem to be suffering from?

Just trying to help!

The usual time wasting waffle and personal abuse from an obvious AI algorithm that contradicts itself in the space of one post and does not know gravity forces things down.

This is all it is programmed to do.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 16, 2018, 11:54:54 AM
The rocket and satellite equations of motion are much more complex than the thrust formula.
How about you deal with your earlier failures before moving on.

Do you accept you were wrong regarding the thrust equations?
If so, are you going to admit that?
If not, are you going to defend your claims?

Or better yet, quit with this off topic tangent (which is just you spamming now, leading the thread further off topic) and deal with the OP.

WHAT CAUSES THE CURVE??
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 16, 2018, 12:00:00 PM
The usual time wasting waffle and personal abuse from an obvious AI algorithm that contradicts itself in the space of one post and does not know gravity forces things down.

This is all it is programmed to do.
Yes, that does seem to be all you are capable of doing.
Now how about you address my posts explaining why you are wrong (I see you completely ignored it this time, did you run out of excuses?), or better yet, tell us what causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 01:01:42 PM
Now how about you address my posts explaining why you are wrong

How about you stop wasting my time asking me to repeat things I already did?

Oh, you will never do that, because you are a time wasting AI algorithm.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 04:25:51 PM
<< Off-topic ramblings of Puppet Legba deleted  >>
Now that we know you only do your flat-earth puppeteers' bidding, you've lost all your :P credibility ::),  Mr Puppet Legba 
(http://cliparts101.com/files/436/D70D91B7EF610CC201493CE120349FB9/Puppeteer_1.png)
Poor Pathetic Papa controlled by FE strings.

PS You never had any ::P credibility  ::), so I guess it's no loss to  Mr Puppet Legba. You're a joke  Mr Legless Legba.
      And don't accuse me of ad hominem attacks or personal abuse, it's about all you do except for a little Voodoo fyzix.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 16, 2018, 09:19:32 PM
Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.

Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.


The vegetables have spoken.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 09:39:20 PM
Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.

Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.


The vegetables have spoken.
I didn't realise that the lettuce and cucumber we so closely related, one would almost think they were con-joined twins, or just cons?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 16, 2018, 10:19:04 PM
Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.

Thanks for the good advice. New knowledge more. I have a lot of ideas.


The vegetables have spoken.
I didn't realise that the lettuce and cucumber we so closely related, one would almost think they were con-joined twins, or just cons?

One is technically a fruit, but, he needs to work that out on his own.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rvlvr on February 16, 2018, 10:25:35 PM
Here is hoping moderators are on the job. Check the IP, too.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 16, 2018, 10:36:00 PM
Hint: It's D1
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 12:45:48 AM
<< Off-topic ramblings of Puppet Legba deleted  >>
Now that we know you only do your flat-earth puppeteers' bidding, you've lost all your :P credibility ::),  Mr Puppet Legba 
(http://cliparts101.com/files/436/D70D91B7EF610CC201493CE120349FB9/Puppeteer_1.png)
Poor Pathetic Papa controlled by FE strings.

PS You never had any ::P credibility  ::), so I guess it's no loss to  Mr Puppet Legba. You're a joke  Mr Legless Legba.
      And don't accuse me of ad hominem attacks or personal abuse, it's about all you do except for a little Voodoo fyzix.

I'm trying to imagine the kind of human being that would write such an insane post.

But I can't, hence my persuasion that you are an AI algorithm.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 17, 2018, 02:13:33 AM
How about you stop wasting my time asking me to repeat things I already did?
I'm not.
I'm asking you to actually address what has been said rather than repeating the same refuted crap.

Since you seem to have no interest in discussing the prior tangent after you have been shown to be wrong beyond any sane doubt, perhaps you can address the image in the OP.
WHAT CAUSES THE CURVE??
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 02:19:56 AM
How about you stop wasting my time asking me to repeat things I already did?
I'm not.

You are.

It's all you are programmed to do.

Everyone knows this, botty boy.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 17, 2018, 02:27:44 AM
You are.
No, I'm not.
You continually repeating the same pathetic crap instead of answering the question doesn't mean I am asking you to do so.

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?

If you can't, then get lost.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2018, 02:34:20 AM
I'm not.
You are.
The Idiot Voodoo Puppet on a String could save everybody's time by just not replying.
That would be make sense, something that seems totally lacking in the Idiot Voodoo Puppet on a String.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 02:37:45 AM
Incorrect.

Here is where I answered your mad AI question:

A rocket and its exhaust do not move as a single entity.

The mad AI algorithm lies blatantly.

The exhaust of a rocket is a force exerted by the rocket itself and moves with the rocket at all times.

The simplest of observations proves this.

Look:



No further communication is possible with the mad lying AI algorithm.

Since then you have gone mental, as you know you have no plausible response.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 17, 2018, 02:40:06 AM
Incorrect.

Here is where I answered your mad AI question:
No. That is where you avoided it yet again and provided more evidence that you are wrong.
The rockets are burning fuel, producing exhaust, yet the same amount "stays" with the rocket, indicating the rocket is continually ejecting that exhaust.

In order for you to provide a video showing me to be wrong, you need to show the rocket after it has burnt all its fuel, with all of its exhaust, still attached.
But you will never do that because it doesn't happen in reality.

Now as you are not interesting in any honest response to that and it is already in another thread, deal with the image in the OP.

WHAT CAUSES THE CURVE?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 02:48:19 AM
Incorrect.

Here is where I answered your mad AI question:
No. That is where you avoided it yet again and provided more evidence that you are wrong.
The rockets are burning fuel, producing exhaust, yet the same amount "stays" with the rocket, indicating the rocket is continually ejecting that exhaust.

The jackblack AI algorithm admits I am correct that the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket and moves with it at all times, whilst somehow insisting I am also wrong at the same time.

It is a mental lying machine: proven fact.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 17, 2018, 03:08:53 AM
The jackblack AI algorithm admits I am correct that the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket and moves with it at all times, whilst somehow insisting I am also wrong at the same time.

It is a mental lying machine: proven fact.
The only one you are showing to be a mental lying machine is yourself.

I have never admitted the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket, nor that it moves with the rocket.
Now leave your ignorance regarding how rockets work to the other thread and answer the question:

What causes the curve?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Empirical on February 17, 2018, 03:49:22 AM
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.

Wtf?

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Quote
The center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?
https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492

If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 17, 2018, 07:45:22 AM
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.  A pressure on an object will add a force to the object. This force will depend on the objects area. The acceleration of the object will depend on this force and the mass of the object.. This is not see by objects in freefall.  Objects in freefall fall at the same rate regardless of mass or shape.

Your assertion has been debunked right here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2026418#msg2026418
Actually no. You called your version gravity a pressure, not just a force but a pressure.

Quote
Which means you are trolling the upper forums as usual.
Once again, people aren't trolling because they disagree with you.

Quote
典his implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.
Yes, in RE science this is true. In RE science aether plays no part in gravity and it's now understood that gravity is not a force. 

Quote
Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth痴 gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth痴 gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.
See above

Quote
Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.
Forcing out ether like that will not lead to one single down direction. No accepted theory uses this.

Quote
The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.

How much ether is forced out of light?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 08:00:03 AM
The jackblack AI algorithm admits I am correct that the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket and moves with it at all times, whilst somehow insisting I am also wrong at the same time.

It is a mental lying machine: proven fact.
I have never admitted the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket, nor that it moves with the rocket.

Yes you did.

Which is why you cut it out of your post.

Here it is again:

The rockets are burning fuel, producing exhaust, yet the same amount "stays" with the rocket, indicating the rocket is continually ejecting that exhaust.

And if the exhaust is not producing a force, then do please tell us what is?

Because I can think of no other means for a rocket to create force than via its exhaust.

You really are a mental lying machine, aren't you?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 08:12:44 AM
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.

Wtf?

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Quote
The center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?
https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492

If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?

Wtf?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Empirical on February 17, 2018, 11:33:58 AM
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.

Wtf?

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Quote
The center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?
https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492

If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?

Wtf?
An object remains stationary unless acted on by a force? Ever heard of that law?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 11:43:22 AM
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.

Wtf?

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Quote
The center of mass of the gas was initially in one corner and finally in the center. What was its trajectory and its velocity in the intervening period?
https://journals.aps.org/pra/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.35.3492

If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?

Wtf?
An object remains stationary unless acted on by a force? Ever heard of that law?

Wtf?

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/chemical.php
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: sokarul on February 17, 2018, 12:15:27 PM
No air necessary.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Mvene on February 17, 2018, 12:20:43 PM
Quote
If the centre of mass is initially stationary, then starting moving once free expansion begins, what does newtons 2nd law tell us?

Quote
An object remains stationary unless acted on by a force? Ever heard of that law?

I think you are referring to Newtons first law

Quote
Newton's first law: An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force


And papa your reference was about the second law of thermodynamics which is a complete and different topic

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 12:33:15 PM
And papa your reference was about the second law of thermodynamics which is a complete and different topic

Wtf?

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/chemical.php
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 17, 2018, 12:33:22 PM
To piggy back on on sokarul's video on the reaction mass


If you set yourself up on a skateboard and threw


a small 10kg mass; such as a lead ball

 --- vs ---

a light 1kg mass with a large surface area; such as a pillow






which one would push you further back?


If the a small heavy object pushes you further back further, it shows that the mass itself is throwing you back


if the object with a large surface area pushes you back further, it shows that reaction against air is throwing you back


Just felt like adding this to the mix of arguements


If your still think you can change Papa's view point then you have officially been trolled and should declare yourself an idiot, get up, leave your chair, go have a drink at the closest pub, and rethink your life. . .


Maybe meet a girl or something while your at it
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 12:46:41 PM
To piggy back on on sokarul's video on the reaction mass
If you set yourself up on a skateboard and threw
a small 10kg mass; such as a lead ball
--- vs ---
a light 1kg mass with a large surface area; such as a pillow
which one would push you further back?
If the a small heavy object pushes you further back further, it shows that the mass itself is throwing you back
if the object with a large surface area pushes you back further, it shows that reaction against air is throwing you back
Just felt like adding this to the mix of arguements
If your still think you can change Papa's view point then you have officially been trolled and should declare yourself an idiot, get up, leave your chair, go have a drink at the closest pub, and rethink your life. . .
Maybe meet a girl or something while your at it

A gas is not a solid.

https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/character.html

Only mad AI algorithms compare the two.

AI algorithms cannot get laid btw.

kek
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 17, 2018, 12:55:50 PM
Quote
A gas is not a solid.

Gas does not have mass??? You should write a book about that
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 17, 2018, 01:04:10 PM
I have never admitted the exhaust is a force exerted by the rocket, nor that it moves with the rocket.
Yes you did.
Here it is again:
The rockets are burning fuel, producing exhaust, yet the same amount "stays" with the rocket, indicating the rocket is continually ejecting that exhaust.
No I didn't.
Notice how that is nothing like what you claim I said.
I said the rocket is continually generating new exhaust to replace the exhaust which leaves the rocket.
That is why the "stay" was in quote marks, because it isn't actually staying with the rocket, instead it just superficially appears to be.

And if the exhaust is not producing a force, then do please tell us what is?
And there you go changing your question/claim.
I said the exhaust exerts a force on the rocket.

Now can you address the image in the OP?
WHAT CAUSES THE CURVE?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 01:20:22 PM
Gas does not have mass

Wtf?

http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/GasDensity.html
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 17, 2018, 01:44:28 PM
Gas does not have mass
Wtf?
http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/GasDensity.html

There you go blatantly misrepresenting people yet again.

He had lots of question marks, indicating it was a question.

Do you think gas has mass? Yes or no?
If yes, then his simple test shows if it is the mass of the exhaust or the air pushing causing the thrust.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 01:51:30 PM
Gas does not have mass
Wtf?
http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/GasDensity.html
There you go blatantly misrepresenting people yet again.

Incorrect.

Gas has mass.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071204203241AA98UOs

Please stop lying about this fact.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2018, 03:26:32 PM
<< Irrelevant and off-topic >>
The topic is the curvature that is shown in  Soundly's powerline videos and photos:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7c33oqcoezqtsrj/Lake%20Pontchartrain%20Transmission%20Lines%20Nikon%20P900%20.jpg?dl=1)
Lake Pontchartrain Transmission Lines Nikon P900
The powerlines are shown on Google Earth, so anyone can easily find out exactly where they are.
Look up the YouTube channel Soundly, YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCDXr2cbK7WlfeYEtJxC9i3w) for details.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 03:42:49 PM
The topic is...

The topic is you having your mad AI algorithm ass kicked six ways from  Sunday, and you know it.

Hence the desperate backpedaling.

Trying to claim a gas doesn't have mass...

Pathetic.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2018, 03:53:19 PM
I've got a cheap project for you that can answer your questions. Wal-Mart's online store sells a little rocket that can reach over 1000 feet. It has an ejectable camera that will parachute down the rocket will just fall and need to be replaced. It runs about 120 bucks and through the images you get from the camera if you can find it again will clearly show the curve of the earth. This method doesn't prove the earth is a speher but will clearly show you the earth is not flat. Now unless you think that this camera somehow gets tampered with magically during flight or somehow developed a Wi-Fi transponder to download a faked video and pics of your area then it is rather hard to say the earth is flat after you see what you see. Good luck and have fun, those rockets are rather wild.
Sorry, 1000 feet does not cut the mustard.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: DavidOrJohn on February 17, 2018, 04:58:47 PM
I'm probably the most respected of the RET posters here and I must admit this is damning evidence against any and all FET models.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 17, 2018, 05:19:26 PM
Incorrect.
Gas has mass.
No, I am quite correct.
That is what he was indicating.
Meanwhile you act like he is indicating the opposite.

Now quit with the bullshit and answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2018, 06:20:31 PM
And gasses follow the path of least resistance from higher to lower pressure.
Why do gasses move from higher to lower pressure.
Hint: It has something to do with forces acting on the gas.
Extra Hint: If a force acts on the gas, what does newtons third law tell us?

Wtf?
Extra extra hint: For anything to move away from something containing it, it has to accelerate away.

Wtf?
If something is sitting stationery, then it moves away from something, clearly it has gained velocity.
I'm practically telling you the answer, come on.

Wtf?

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node33.html
Are you totally ignorant of all the "Laws of Motion"?
Just look at the illustration from your own reference (you did read it?).
(http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/fig6FreeExpansion3Boxes_web.jpg)
Between the first and third diagram, the gas clearly moved, as shown by the arrows in the middle diagram.

Now, as you have asserted, gas has mass, so the centre-of-mass of the gas moved to the right, from the centre of the left box to the centre of the pair of boxes.

Hence, to keep the centre-of-mass of the whole system unchanged, the centre-of-mass of the pair of boxes has to move left.

Therefore Joule-Expansion or free-expansion can cause motion.

Now here, the whole system was just the isolated boxes but for a rocket the system can include as much of your infinite-vacuum-of-space as you like. As in this previous post:
Quote
Joule-Thomson Expansion - Free Expansion of a Gas
Imagine a gas confined within an insulated container as shown in fig 1. The gas is initially confined to a volume V1 at pressure P1 and temperature T1. The gas then is allowed to expand into another insulated chamber with volume V2 that is initially evacuated. What happens? Let痴 apply the first law.

We know from the first law for a closed system that the change in internal energy of the gas will be equal to the heat transferred plus the amount of work the gas does, or ∆U = Q + W. Since the gas expands freely (the volume change of the system is zero), we know that no work will be done, so W=0. Since both chambers are insulated, we also know that Q=0. Thus, the internal energy of the gas does not change during this process.
     (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ziz3fq8l3zs8vvg/Expansion%20into%20box.png?dl=1)
Fig 1 Expansion into box
from reference below

From: Joule Thomson (http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html)



Now, how does this relate to a rocket in space?
For an ideal gas, free expansion does no work, but what does this mean?  It is simply that the temperature of the gas is unchanged during the expansion.  But, the upper diagram does not represent our rocket in free space.  The right half of this should be replaced by "the infinite vacuum of space", more as in fig 2.

Joule-Thomson expansion simply says that the temperature of an (ideal) gas does not change, but this in no way affects Newton's Laws of motion.  The whole system is the rocket plus the "near-infinite vacuum of space".
There is nothing in the Joule-Thomson free expansion to "countermand" the momentum of the gas heading right (in the lower diagram) imparting like momentum to the rocket heading left.

As obviously expected there is no conflict between Newton's Laws and the Joule-Thomson free expansion.
     (https://www.dropbox.com/s/t54sznbrf2agpqi/Expansion%20into%20space.png?dl=1)
Fig 2 Expansion into space
modified from reference
The gas in these illustrations would have very little mass, but the Saturn V exhaust flow rate averaged over 12,800 kg/s at a velocity of about 2400 m/s.

Now this might be impossible for one like Poor Pathetic Puppet Papa to comprehend, but real people might cotton onto the
;D fact that rockets really do work in the infinite vacuum of space. ;D
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 17, 2018, 08:45:35 PM
For anyone wondering how much of a Troll Papa is, this is what he does to conversations

Gas does not have mass??? You should write a book about that

to

Gas does not have mass

Wtf?

http://www.chemteam.info/GasLaw/GasDensity.html

I am not sure he is worth engaging with.
He can answer
Quote

If you set yourself up on a skateboard and threw

          a small 10kg mass; such as a lead ball

                                 --- vs ---

          a light 1kg mass with a large surface area; such as a pillow

which one would push you further back?

he just wont, because he is a troll
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 01:13:58 AM
Incorrect.
Gas has mass.
No, I am quite correct.

Do you think a gas has mass or not?

You are all being very obscure on this simple matter.

Maybe you shouldn't lie about what people say in the first place, then you wouldn't get yourselves in these pickles...

Of course, if the jackblack AI algorithm was not programmed to begin every sentence with the word 'no' it would be less likely to happen as well.

But it is, so it does, and it's pretty amusing too.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 18, 2018, 01:48:29 AM
Do you think a gas has mass or not?
Yes. I know gas has mass.
As I have indicated before, with the conservation of momentum equation I used, which used the mass of the burnt fuel (i.e. exhaust).
The only one pretending anyone doesn't think gas has a mass is you.

Maybe you shouldn't lie about what people say in the first place, then you wouldn't get yourselves in these pickles...
Good advice, you should follow it.
It seems the only way you can even come close to making an argument is either by lying about reality or lying about what people say.

Now how about you answer the question:
WHAT CAUSES THE CURVE IN THE IMAGE IN THE OP?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 01:52:43 AM
As I have indicated before, with the conservation of momentum equation I used

The equation you admitted you made up and began from false premises anyway?

Yeah, that was real convincing.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 18, 2018, 02:17:18 AM
The equation you admitted you made up and began from false premises anyway?
No, the equation that was based upon the conservation of momentum, which was not false in any way.

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 02:56:34 AM
The equation you admitted you made up and began from false premises anyway?
No.

Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.

Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2018, 03:59:12 AM
No, the equation that was based upon the conservation of momentum, which was not false in any way.

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".
But, your only sentence started with "Not", so Not starting all your sentences with the word 'Not' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Not much less, though!

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 04:06:23 AM
No.
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".
But, your only sentence started with "Not", so Not starting all your sentences with the word 'Not' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Not much less, though!

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?


Mad lying AI algorithm discovers sophism whilst desperately trying to change the subject from its string of mad lies...

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sophism

Nobody surprised.

P.s. I notice the rabbibot altered my quote here, so I edited it back to how it was.

Bad bot!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on February 18, 2018, 04:15:30 AM
No, the equation that was based upon the conservation of momentum, which was not false in any way.

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".
But, your only sentence started with "Not", so Not starting all your sentences with the word 'Not' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Not much less, though!

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?


Mad lying AI algorithm discovers sophism whilst desperately trying to change the subject from its string of mad lies...

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sophism

Nobody surprised.

Why are you too cowardly to address the subject of this thread?

What causes the curve?
(https://i.imgur.com/rI3i2Me.jpg)

You have proven your ignorance on rocketry now stop changing the subject to avoid answering the question pussy.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 04:23:01 AM
No, the equation that was based upon the conservation of momentum, which was not false in any way.

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".
But, your only sentence started with "Not", so Not starting all your sentences with the word 'Not' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Not much less, though!

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?


Mad lying AI algorithm discovers sophism whilst desperately trying to change the subject from its string of mad lies...

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sophism

Nobody surprised.
stop changing the subject to avoid answering the question pussy.

What is a 'question pussy'?

Some kind of lol-cat?

Are you a question pussy?

Perhaps you are one of these:

http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furfag

Are you yiffing as we speak?

If so please stop.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on February 18, 2018, 04:34:18 AM
Too much of a coward to even address your fear of the original subject I see.

Why is this powerline curved coward?

(https://i.imgur.com/rI3i2Me.jpg)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on February 18, 2018, 04:41:34 AM
A quick review:

John Davis thinks the bottom of the lake causes the curve.

Lackey claims magical lenses.

Spamdokhan provided even more evidence for the curve.

Papa Moron is too much of a pussy to even attempt an answer so he derails the thread.

This is the best the FES can do?

No wonder they are the laughing stock of the world.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2018, 04:46:19 AM
No.
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".
But, your only sentence started with "Not", so Not starting all your sentences with the word 'Not' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Not much less, though!

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?


Mad lying AI algorithm discovers sophism whilst desperately trying to change the subject from its string of mad lies...
You mean, while I vainly tried to return the debate to the OP that YOU had derailed it from with, Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image... ォ Reply #212 on: February 10, 2018, 07:51:17 PM サ (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2022557#msg2022557)

So, let's delete the rest of your trash and get back to the OP!
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 06:08:16 AM
No.
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Irrelevant as JackBlack only started one sentence with "No".
But, your only sentence started with "Not", so Not starting all your sentences with the word 'Not' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Not much less, though!

Now answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?


Mad lying AI algorithm discovers sophism whilst desperately trying to change the subject from its string of mad lies...
So, let's delete the rest of your trash and get back to the OP!

I am sure you would love to delete all the many posts on this thread that prove you are a mad lying AI algorithm.

Kind of a theme with you...

Deletion, censorship, lying, madness, time wasting, computerised ranting...

Or do you really think sane people cannot recognise this?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 18, 2018, 12:31:30 PM
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Meanwhile continually stripping out large sections of a post which show you to be completley wrong would make you look like a pathetic troll that needs to repeatedly lie.

In that post there were 3 sentences. One started with no.
In the prior post of mine there were 7 sentences, none of which started with no.


lying, madness, time wasting, computerised ranting...
Or do you really think sane people cannot recognise this?
Those last few describe you quite well.

Now quit with the BS and answer the question:
What causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 01:45:10 PM
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Meanwhile continually stripping out large sections of a post which show you to be completley wrong would make you look like a pathetic troll that needs to repeatedly lie.

In that post there were 3 sentences. One started with no.
In the prior post of mine there were 7 sentences, none of which started with no.


lying, madness, time wasting, computerised ranting...
Or do you really think sane people cannot recognise this?
Those last few describe you quite well.

Now quit with the BS and answer the question:
What causes the  curve in the image in the OP?

Don't care.

You protect paedos:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932

You are scum.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on February 18, 2018, 01:53:11 PM
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Meanwhile continually stripping out large sections of a post which show you to be completley wrong would make you look like a pathetic troll that needs to repeatedly lie.

In that post there were 3 sentences. One started with no.
In the prior post of mine there were 7 sentences, none of which started with no.


lying, madness, time wasting, computerised ranting...
Or do you really think sane people cannot recognise this?
Those last few describe you quite well.

Now quit with the BS and answer the question:
What causes the  curve in the image in the OP?

Don't care.

You protect paedos:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932

You are scum.



Translation: He is a pussified troll too cowardly to address the topic of this thread.

Why is this powerline curved?

(https://i.imgur.com/rI3i2Me.jpg)


Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 02:00:33 PM
Not starting all your sentences with the word 'no' would make you look less like a mad lying AI algorithm, Negatron.
Meanwhile continually stripping out large sections of a post which show you to be completley wrong would make you look like a pathetic troll that needs to repeatedly lie.

In that post there were 3 sentences. One started with no.
In the prior post of mine there were 7 sentences, none of which started with no.


lying, madness, time wasting, computerised ranting...
Or do you really think sane people cannot recognise this?
Those last few describe you quite well.

Now quit with the BS and answer the question:
What causes the  curve in the image in the OP?

Don't care.

You protect paedos:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932

You are scum.
Translation: He is a pussified troll too cowardly to address the topic of this thread.

Translation: you protect paedos:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932

If you were human you would agree the above comment is vile.

You are not, so you don't.

QED.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: NAZA on February 18, 2018, 02:18:09 PM
Why is this powerline curved moron?

(https://i.imgur.com/rI3i2Me.jpg)
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: gotham on February 18, 2018, 02:37:33 PM
Oh, this photo again.

Sorry to inform round Earth believers but the OP image has nothing to do with Earth shape but it is most amusing to see attempts at making the connection.

The why...atmospheric arcing is just the beginning but already blows your claim out of the water and fyi, the arcing angle that day is quite severe and your ball would end up being less than a few hundred meters if you continued its path in a full circle. 

If you want some attention with such a fantasy image I recommend you show it to Disney. They would perhaps be interested in making an Earth amusement ride using your model.       
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 18, 2018, 03:14:23 PM
Don't care.
You protect paedos:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932
You are scum.
No I don't. You just lie about people. You are the scum here.

Now tell me what causes the curve in the image in the OP?
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: JackBlack on February 18, 2018, 03:15:44 PM
The why...atmospheric arcing is just the beginning but already blows your claim out of the water and fyi, the arcing angle that day is quite severe and your ball would end up being less than a few hundred meters if you continued its path in a full circle.
Care to elaborate on this magical atmospheric arcing?
What is it?
What causes it?

Also, it is quite clear your claim is pure garbage.
The power lines are already several km, so it would be impossible to have Earth magically be a ball that is a few hundred meters or less.
Title: Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 03:19:30 PM
Why is this powerline curved moron?

What's a curved moron?

Is it like a question pussy?

Or a paedo REtard?

You seem to love all three.