Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Curiouser and Curiouser

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Quick Question
« on: March 24, 2019, 06:44:32 PM »
@Curiouser and Curiouser,
Have you noticed that when you drive, the wheels on your car go round and round. That my friend is a revolution. The wheels on your car revolve, and that's what gives the force to drive you forward. And a revolution of 100mph is the speed at which our Earth spins. Exactly like a wheel, it spins on its own axis but way faster than a wheel could ever spin.

Angular speed is measured in units of angle per time. Examples are degrees per hour, radians per second, revolutions per minute.

Linear speed is measured in units of length per time, such as feet per second or miles per hour.

Using units of linear speed to describe the rate of angular change is incorrect.

Also, there is a distiction between revolve and rotate. Revolve means "go around" and rotate means "turns or spins" contrary to your example above. The earth rotates daily, and revolves around the sun yearly.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: SMOKING GUN
« on: March 23, 2019, 06:13:36 PM »
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
But as has been pointed out TO YOU numerous times your claim that the sidereal day is NOT always exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds." IS FALSE.

Wait, wut?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: SMOKING GUN
« on: March 22, 2019, 10:12:02 AM »
The average length of a Martian sidereal day is 24 h 37 m 22.663 s (88,642.663 seconds based on SI units).
The source of a citation above : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timekeeping_on_Mars

Question : Can anyone find (anywhere) such phrase ("the average") within the text that pertains Earth's sidereal time???

Since Earth's sidereal time is a constant, it would be nonsensical to use such phrase in the context of a text which deals with Earth's "rotational" period, wouldn't it?

Feel free to supply us with a phrase like this :

The average length of Earth's sidereal day is ....

So, we have to conclude that Martian sidereal time is not a constant (as it is the case with Earth's sidereal time)!!!


Earth's sidereal day is not constant.



from

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Measurement-of-the-Earth's-rotation%3A-720-BC-to-AD-Stephenson-Morrison/2d3cc830044c6bfeac9871103a9e2f1e8d6e3beb

It varies by milliseconds.

Additional data is available at

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Science/EarthRotation/EarthRotation.html

When it matters to the precision of the measurement, one would state the average and variance.

When it doesn't, one wouldn't.

Also remember that reports of either Earth's or Mars' sidereal day may or may not include averages caused by unavoidable measurement errors.

Parsing a Wikipedia entry and drawing a conclusion based on whether or not the word "average" is used in an entry is not a credible argument.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: March Equinox
« on: March 21, 2019, 05:13:38 PM »

Lasers can be projected onto the atmoplane:

https://1.cdn.edl.io/j0sI4j37O0GzogzPZrQpGzTsz9A9gJ4KB2KB74iPkNDRRhzg.pdf


It's funny how Tom picks one sentence out of an entire document (a poorly worded sentence at that), declares it to be gospel, and misinterprets it to weave an entire fantasy; yet ignores everything else in the document that is contrary to his previously stated beliefs.

It's almost as if he went searching for "laser beam" "projected on the atmosphere" and pulled the first hit he got.

Nice cherry picking.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Quick Question
« on: March 21, 2019, 04:20:20 PM »
... and it's own revolution of 100 mph is what gives us our beautifully different seasons.


What's a revolution of 100 mph?

6
Flat Earth General / Re: If FE was accepted
« on: March 21, 2019, 01:28:00 PM »

Let's go to, say, Warsaw. At Equinox the noon sun is not at 12.00 and day length is not 12 hours. Why is it??

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/poland/warsaw


Hmmm. Let's see.

First, the equinox in 2019 falls on March 20, not March 21. You've highlighted the wrong day.

Second, the page you link to has a link titled "Why is the day and night not exactly 12 hours on Equinox?"

I guess inattentiveness is your strong suit.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Technology and the...!
« on: March 20, 2019, 12:46:15 PM »
For a Muslim to go to heaven they must murder?

No, they must not to. But they must have brain.

Too bad for you, then.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Comparing Stellar and Lunar Spectra
« on: March 20, 2019, 08:10:23 AM »

I have only two questions:

Do you disagree that light is red-shifted by reflection?

Do you believe that the spectra of cold moonlight being emitted by a self-illuminated Moon should be very similar to the spectra of the hot Sun?


The concept regarding the transfer of momentum from a photon to an object upon reflection is correct.
However, your example relies on conservation of momentum between a photon and the moon.
The change in wavelength of the photon exists, but is so small that it can be treated as zero.

And, as has been replied previously, while this would theoretically move the wavelength towards the red end of the spectrum, this is not what is generally meant as common understanding of the term red-shift.

Since "cold moonlight being emitted by a self-illuminated Moon" does not exist, one would have to make some assumptions. If the Moon was a blackbody at 5800K, then the overall profile of the spectra would be very similar. If there were atomic absorbers of similar types, then the absorption dips would be similar. But the difference between so-called "cold" moonlight and "hot" sunlight is intensity, not spectra.

(To clarify: If the moon was a blackbody at 5800K, and it subtended the same angle in the sky as it does now - approximately equal to that of the sun - the light from it would be equal in spectra and intensity to that from the sun. You wouldn't call it "cold" moonlight.)

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Comparing Stellar and Lunar Spectra
« on: March 20, 2019, 07:27:42 AM »

If moonlight is reflected sunlight ...


It's not. The moon is not a mirror.

"Moonlight is reflected sunlight" is a shorthand way to describe one aspect of the phenomenon. Is is not complete nor accurate enough to convey the level of detail you're interested in.

To question the difference in spectra between sunlight and moonlight is similar to asking "When I look out the window of a darkened room and see the red painted wall of the building next to me illuminated by sunlight, why is the spectra of the light coming into the room from that wall different than that of sunlight?"

Moonlight is a combination of reflection, absorbance, scattering,and re-emission (if you're going out as far as mid-IR) of sunlight, and then to a much lesser extent a small component of earthlight.

10

since 99.999% of the population believes (right or wrong) in a round earth


[Citation required]

11
Flat Earth General / Re: zetetic analysis of the faq
« on: March 19, 2019, 11:08:56 AM »

... zetetic dismisses all that is not direct evidence of your own eyes.


Welcome back from your vacation,  jimster.

Nice to see your new topic count is now less than half of your post count. Keep it up!

Your idea of zeteticism is not correct. Zeteticism does not forbid observations made by someone else. Maybe read up on the topic before you next post about what it is and isn't.

12
Again for idiots; there is nothing rules as "swear". You are forcing the rules as how you want. You are changing the words because you need an excuse for your crimes. It is clear; it has to be insult, as how you did it.

You are not doing your obvious job against insults, because you are insulters too. But you are forcing rules, "swearing to your topic" that has no sense, but you need it. Because your decision has no sense.

You might care to reread the initial sentence of the forum rules.

"The site administration has final say over the interpretation and enforcement of these rules."

Bored now.

13
Suggestions & Concerns / Acceptable / unacceptable avatar images
« on: March 18, 2019, 08:25:38 AM »
Is SkepticMike's avatar image, which is visible in upper fora posts, and which can be seen prominently in public by bystanders even if I am scrolling through posts at a reasonable speed on my phone, considered acceptable or unacceptable?

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Leak information
« on: March 18, 2019, 07:55:24 AM »


As well, sheer numbers mean little. It is likely that the guy in a back room performing mathematical calculations for a "rocket launch" would never know.

You have a very interesting perception about how an industry (of which you have no personal knowledge) works.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Experiment to Prove the Flat Earth Model
« on: March 13, 2019, 07:42:31 PM »
How do you measure straight lines in specific directions over long distances?

16
Flat Earth General / Re: software engineering and FE
« on: March 12, 2019, 01:06:10 PM »
An object moving in a circle is accelerating.

Interesting approach.


It's not an approach, it's the definition of acceleration. Change in velocity (velocity being both speed and direction) with time.

You are 100% correct - in a Newtonian universe. It certainly is changing direction in a Newtonian universe, even in Newtonian space-time.


Great. Just what I've been saying. It's a wonder that's there was any disagreement.


However, the discussion isn't about Newton's view of the universe.


Hmm. That's odd. Your tangent off into talking about satellites in perfect orbit was:

Let's say you are on a satellite then. Let's say it is in a perfect orbit above the earth, which is to say it's altitude is constant, and those on board feel no acceleration. In other words, its in an inertial frame of reference.

We know from Newton that must mean that it is traveling a straight line at a constant speed through space time, or that it is not moving at all. We can safely enough assume it is traveling at a constant speed and not accelerating. Can you agree with this?

You discussed Newtonian physics. I replied to Newtonian physics.


Newton's laws of motion apply to relativity.

Newtonian space time does not apply to relativistic space time.

It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about, and are now back peddling. Can the grown ups talk now? There is no doubt that we were talking about relativity.

Keep pretending. That imagination of yours will do you wonders.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration
« on: March 12, 2019, 09:13:42 AM »
There's no issue with UA continually accelerating the Flat Earth until it reaches the speed of light. Duh!

Everybody knows the process resets and starts from zero every night while everyone is asleep.

 :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

18
Flat Earth General / Re: software engineering and FE
« on: March 12, 2019, 07:59:16 AM »
An object moving in a circle is accelerating.

Interesting approach.


It's not an approach, it's the definition of acceleration. Change in velocity (velocity being both speed and direction) with time.

You are 100% correct - in a Newtonian universe. It certainly is changing direction in a Newtonian universe, even in Newtonian space-time.


Great. Just what I've been saying. It's a wonder that's there was any disagreement.


However, the discussion isn't about Newton's view of the universe.


Hmm. That's odd. Your tangent off into talking about satellites in perfect orbit was:

Let's say you are on a satellite then. Let's say it is in a perfect orbit above the earth, which is to say it's altitude is constant, and those on board feel no acceleration. In other words, its in an inertial frame of reference.

We know from Newton that must mean that it is traveling a straight line at a constant speed through space time, or that it is not moving at all. We can safely enough assume it is traveling at a constant speed and not accelerating. Can you agree with this?

You discussed Newtonian physics. I replied to Newtonian physics.


19
Flat Earth General / Re: software engineering and FE
« on: March 11, 2019, 05:02:25 PM »
An object moving in a circle is accelerating.
Interesting approach.
It's not an approach, it's the definition of acceleration. Change in velocity (velocity being both speed and direction) with time.
But if that centripetal acceleration is supplied by another acceleration, such as gravity, is the object still accelerating?
It, eg the ISS, and objects inside it feel (almost) no acceleration.

"Feeling" no acceleration does not imply no acceleration.

Passengers inside the "Vomit Comet" or similar aircraft on the downward leg of the parabola are accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 downward, yet they "feel" weightless.

Consider the common thought experiment of a man in a box in a 1-g field, and a man in a box accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 which are said to be indistinguishable. A distinction rarely made is that the box in a 1-g field is supported and not moving.

Extrapolate to a man in a box in a 1-g field where the box is not supported (i.e., a free-falling elevator). The man will "feel" weightless, yet be accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2.

It's common to say one "feels" acceleration. You don't. You feel the forces act on you as a result of acceleration.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: software engineering and FE
« on: March 11, 2019, 02:14:10 PM »
An object moving in a circle is accelerating.

Interesting approach.


It's not an approach, it's the definition of acceleration. Change in velocity (velocity being both speed and direction) with time.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: software engineering and FE
« on: March 11, 2019, 01:55:00 PM »

Ok, so if you agree such a perfect satellite is not experiencing acceleration ...


I don't. It is.

An object moving in a circle at constant speed experiences a change in the direction of its velocity vector over time. Change of velocity with time is the definition of acceleration.

That you choose to think otherwise, or pretend to think otherwise, is telling.
I'm not talking to you. I'm not here to teach you relativity.

Yeah, but I am talking to you. Deal with it.

An object moving in a circle is accelerating.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Elon Musk Space X launches person to ISS
« on: March 11, 2019, 12:41:23 PM »

Temperature is the speed at which the electrons orbit in their atoms.



23
Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
« on: March 11, 2019, 08:23:21 AM »
I thought Bob said that the 15 degrees per hour was after correcting for latitude.

But, if you tipped the gyro up to point its sensitive axis toward the north pole, wouldn't it read the 15 degrees per hour regardless of your location?

What is the rationale for "correcting for latitude" on a flat earth?

24
Flat Earth General / Re: software engineering and FE
« on: March 10, 2019, 07:02:18 PM »

Ok, so if you agree such a perfect satellite is not experiencing acceleration ...


I don't. It is.

An object moving in a circle at constant speed experiences a change in the direction of its velocity vector over time. Change of velocity with time is the definition of acceleration.

That you choose to think otherwise, or pretend to think otherwise, is telling.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
« on: March 10, 2019, 05:52:22 PM »
So no one has yet addressed the issue that a single axis RLG or FOG as shown in stills during Behind the Curve could not possibly measure a rotation of 15 deg/hr?

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
« on: March 10, 2019, 05:28:38 PM »
Does anyone have any information about the ring laser gyroscope tests mentioned in "Behind the Curve" other than the trivial amount shown?

I was concerned about a potential error (way back in the second post of this thread) which I don't think anyone here has yet brought up, so I'm looking for any other info about the experiment itself.

Thanks!

27
The Lounge / Re: Bob Knodel a.k.a the engineer
« on: March 09, 2019, 10:31:59 PM »
I have no doubt there are "programmers" who are not engineers. I've certainly been on both sides of the fence. To say all that develop software are not engineers is ludicrous and shows both a huge amount of hubris and a huge amount of ignorance of the domain.

If you'd like to present an argument CaC, do so. I don't have time to sort through someone else's argument to try to find out what you are trying to get at. In my experience, most arguments to this line are extremely poorly thought out and in general very weak to even cursory inspection.

Some people who claim to be engineers aren't.
Sure. Some people who claim to be astronauts aren't either. Or physics professors. We've had a few of both over the years stop by. What's your point?

If you'd like to present an argument CaC, do so.

Some people who claim to be engineers aren't.

That.

28
Flat Earth General / Re: proof of the location ISS
« on: March 09, 2019, 05:31:36 PM »
These guys used telescopes, the angles they pointed, and the known distance between each other to find the height of the ISS as it passed in front of the Moon


they found it to be about 400 km up.

At least narrator of the second video isn't a douchenozzle like the narrator of the first.

There are limited opportunities to do lunar transit observations, and part of what they're doing requires some specialized equipment. It may not be something that many people are willing to invest that amount of time or money.

I've previously outlined a simpler method
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78484.msg2118276#msg2118276

29
Flat Earth General / Re: proof of the location ISS
« on: March 09, 2019, 05:07:39 PM »

I would suspect that the content of the videos might be far more important that "Where's Wally jimster?"


Not really, since the content of the videos doesn't address my request if it's the experience of other people.

Which may also answer:


Why do flat-earthers completely ignore evidence like this "proof of the location ISS" presented by Jimster?


It may be that people are tired of, and perfectly happy to ignore anything presented by jimster because of his "I'm right, you're wrong; I'm smart, you're stupid; explain that, flat-earther" attitude.

I find it amusing that we had to wait three whole hours in yet another one of "Start-another-topic-jimster"'s easily ignorable threads for someone to complain about why no one was responding to it.


30
Flat Earth General / Re: proof of the location ISS
« on: March 09, 2019, 02:35:51 PM »

Okay, guess which one is me?


I don't really have an hour to watch all those just to play a guessing game. I'll guess you're tricky and the answer is none of them.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 34