### 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 ... 41
1
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Just how powerful is the sun?
« on: September 12, 2019, 08:56:57 AM »
It is 'estimated' that the sun produces ~200W/m2 of sound power at its surface. If sound could travel through space like it does our atmosphere, it would at its surface be 329dB. That's pretty frigging loud. So loud your internal organs would get messed up and you would die in an instant. Would we still hear such a sound 150,000,000 kilometres away here on Earth? Well as the 'sound' propagates outwards from the source and spreads out throughout space (of which we are pretending for the purposes of a thought experiment), the value of 200W/m2 is reduced to 5mW/m2 thanks to the inverse square law

Just imagine someone using a Jackhammer in your home. 24/7. The sun would be roaring at ~96db, all the time and the source is 150,000,000 km away!

Pretty powerful! Thank God sound doesn't travel in a vacuum!

The inverse-square law does not reduce 200W/m2 to 5mW/m2 (a factor of 40,000) at a distance of 150,000,000,000 m.

2
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Question about sphere earth
« on: September 10, 2019, 07:31:54 AM »
Given the absolute fact that all of the RE here do not know what causes terrestrial gravity, and have no answer for it, the percentage should have been much higher than 25%.

Mass.

(Oooh, he hates that. Now watch the Sandosplaining begin!)

3
##### Flat Earth General / Re: What else do Flat-Earthers believe?
« on: September 10, 2019, 07:23:13 AM »
Thanks for all the responses, that's interesting.

Well, what is most interesting about this theory is the possibility that somehow, however remote it may be, that close to 8 Billion people have been duped into believing that the earth is actually flat.

I don't believe it is personally, but I don't think it should be completely ruled out as a possibility. We are after all, pretty much conditioned to believe certain things - such as a spherical earth. It's ingrained or marinated into the public consciousness and is a part of society's fabric. Even if the earth was flat, that would be very difficult to bring the people round to believing such a thing.

OK, so it's not just a flat earth that flat-earthers believe in but a whole range of common beliefs and notions such as all the space missions having been faked too. That figures, I guess.

So you think it's inconceivable for small groups of people with an agenda to convince the majority of the population of the world that something is true with no scientific basis and utterly ridiculous by the known laws of physics, to the point where it is incorporated into their life on a daily (for some, five times daily) basis?

4
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Question about sphere earth
« on: September 10, 2019, 04:41:18 AM »
Why should we believe you are an expert when your opening statement is that 7 billion people are also experts? At least 1/4 of them can't agree if the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth. Is your level of expertise up to that excellent standard?

1/4 of world population doesnt know that the earth orbits the sun? That's saddening. Where did you get that statistic from?

5
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Question about sphere earth
« on: September 09, 2019, 07:24:10 PM »
Hello flat earthers,

I am an expert in the sphere earth (like about 7 other billion people), and I would be HAPPY to answer any question you have about the sphere earth model / observations / experiments etc. The question must be related to the shape of earth, physics, astronomy or mathematics.

I will answer in a clear and direct manner (and not like flat earthers in a evading, insulting and confusing answer).

Why should we believe you are an expert when your opening statement is that 7 billion people are also experts? At least 1/4 of them can't agree if the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth. Is your level of expertise up to that excellent standard?

OK. Here is my physics question. If you travel past me at close to the speed of light, which is the dominant effect on your arguments; that the stick up your ass is shorter from length contraction, or your stupid prattling lasts longer because of time dilation?

6
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« on: August 28, 2019, 09:54:25 AM »
Right.
Excel says i think you forgot the star.
Do you want it here?
Then you click ok amd get 16.

Not the asterisk (multiplication symbol). The equals sign.

7
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« on: August 28, 2019, 07:22:30 AM »
Excel knows:
... It wants I convert formula 8/2(2+2) to 8/2*(2+2) then equals it to= 16.

No it doesn't. Quit lying.
"lying". lol.
Please show how Excel interprets the characters on the line below:
8/2*(2+2)
Have not you an excel? Lol. Ok, don't worry. Slow understanding a general illness around globalists.

Sorry you are so slow, turdk.

I asked you to show how Excel interprets the characters on the line below:
8/2*(2+2)

Excel interprets it as:
8/2*(2+2)

You have shown me how Excel interprets:
=8/2*(2+2)

Those are two completely different things.

Details matter.

8
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« on: August 27, 2019, 11:19:09 AM »
Excel knows:
... It wants I convert formula 8/2(2+2) to 8/2*(2+2) then equals it to= 16.

No it doesn't. Quit lying.
"lying". lol.
Please show how Excel interprets the characters on the line below:
8/2*(2+2)

9
##### Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: August 27, 2019, 11:14:21 AM »
The disproofs of a round earth are so plentiful and readily available that we can show its absurdity...

[snip]

...for the matter has been suitably settled. The earth is not some whirlidirly ball dancing about the heavens in a celestial race - no it is flat as a cupboard shelf.

Trolling strategy changed -- trying to sound all friendly and folksy. You had better luck when you were being a rude jerk.

10
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« on: August 21, 2019, 08:21:18 AM »
Excel knows:
... It wants I convert formula 8/2(2+2) to 8/2*(2+2) then equals it to= 16.

No it doesn't. Quit lying.

11
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Atmoplanar lensing
« on: August 21, 2019, 08:15:13 AM »
Hello

It has been brought up that the sun and moon change shape and size due to atmoplanar lensing effects.

So the sun and moon are outside the atmoplane.

Is the atmoplane a hard shelled item or is it a bubble of air boundarying against nothingness?

Thanks

"Lensing effects" (magnification changes and anamorphic magnification changes) can occur when an object is inside a refractive medium. "So the sun and moon are outside the atmoplane," is not a valid conclusion.

12
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Declassified Government Docs CONFIRM - FLAT Non-Rotating Earth
« on: August 19, 2019, 12:06:27 PM »
Please tell me, what do others do when the dominoes fall and the writing is on the wall? Do they wonder aimlessly and thinks all is fine?

Lyrics to an Alanis Morissette song?

13
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Declassified Government Docs CONFIRM - FLAT Non-Rotating Earth
« on: August 19, 2019, 09:58:47 AM »
And this NASA publication proves that friction doesn't exist.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a307695.pdf

14
##### Flat Earth General / Re: Sun is neither a firing nor a spinning ball !
« on: August 16, 2019, 10:44:39 AM »
If sun was a firing ball like this CGI created by a national space ageny;

Nashional Space Ageny show picture of sun firing ball and they're space sattulite. Sattulite is mesured 1/8 size of sun firing ball which makes it 100,000 miles in size no one can make a sattulite that big therefore CGI pic is fake pic of fake thing they lie lie lie proof foolz (mic drop).

15
##### Flat Earth General / Re: computerized telescope aiming question
« on: August 16, 2019, 09:03:22 AM »
DE405 is based on perturbations like all other of astronomical predicting tools.

http://www.eclipsewise.com/help/jpl-de.html

"DE102 was the first numerically integrated so-called Long Ephemeris, covering much of history for which useful astronomical observations were available: 1141 BC to AD 3001. DE200, a version of DE118 rotated to the J2000.0 reference frame, was adopted as the fundamental ephemeris for the new almanacs starting in 1984. The JPL ephemerides have remained the basis of the Astronomical Almanac to the present; the current Almanac is derived from DE405. Each such ephemeris was produced by numerical integration of the equations of motion, starting from a set of initial conditions"

Perturbations = Epicycles.

See https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Does not answer the question of how the locations of celestial bodies in the International Celestial Reference Frame are converted to local coordinates when local coordinates are entered in the telescope; a key part of the OP's question.

16
##### Flat Earth General / Re: computerized telescope aiming question
« on: August 15, 2019, 04:53:40 PM »
The Mayans wrote formulas to predict where to see heavenly objects and when too. Sure, it adds another order of complexity for anywhere on the earth, but that does not necessitate that the truth of the matter is that it is round. Its a matter of tabulation and extrapolation - no model required or necessitated.

I wrote a formula, too, that tells where and when the location of the Sun is.

(1) During the day, the Sun is in the sky.
(2) During the night, the Sun is not in the sky.

Sure, it adds another level of complexity to refine the time and the azimuth/elevation, but my formula is just as valid as those clever Mayans. And them programmers.

So you think that telescope controller programs are just tabulation and extrapolation, huh? That's interesting.

17
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« on: August 14, 2019, 11:12:02 AM »
But when the single digits are replaced by variables, and the expression becomes a concatenation of longer parts, where placement of parentheses may not be obvious, knowing how your system is going to evaluate an expression is not futile.
And when that happens, the mathematician writing it is actually going to be competent. This isn't about the value of bidmas/left-to-right reading or however you want to put it. When something like this actually gets written, it'll be done as a fraction; if anything this is an illustration of the value of how expressions actually get written. You don't have to patronise me when it comes to maths.
There seriously shouldn't be controversy to the point that this isn't a realistic expression, it's one designed to be misleading by slipping into the cracks between conventional understanding. Like. That's just what it is.
That assumes it's being written by a mathematician.

I have professional experience in several industries where expression evaluation in data reduction is written by junior technicians. They are not always as careful as you assume every user is, and errors in interpreting what is intended versus what is evaluated do crop up.

Likewise, translating expressions from one mathematical evaluation system (or programming language) to another can produce similar errors if the method of expression evaluation is assumed to adhere to one set of rules, which it fails to do.

Yes, the expression is designed to be misleading by taking advantage of what people insist they know. Just like the puzzle of completing familiar quotations that everybody "knows" ("Water, water everywhere ..." or "Pride goeth before ... ") it is designed to point out that what you may think you know may not be correct. That does not mean that discussing the correct evaluation of it is futile.

18
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« on: August 11, 2019, 07:32:56 PM »
8÷2(2+2) is designed to be ambiguous. Arguing over what the correct reading is, is futile. There isn't one.

There are, however, instances where determining how it is evaluated are not futile. The ambiguity of presenting the expression to a group of people and asking them to evaluate it is based on their understanding, choice, and memory of what rules to apply.

Present the same expression to a system designed to evaluate numerical or algebraic expressions, and the result will be consistent based on the rules the programmers chose to follow.

Wolfram parses 8÷2(2+2) as (8/2)*(2+2) and returns 16. Excel evaluates =8/2*(2+2) as 16. These systems don't throw up their hands and say "there's not an answer", they return one. It behooves the user to understand the rationale behind which answer. It may seem silly and trivial when using single digits, and the dictum to "just put parentheses around everything" an obvious solution. But when the single digits are replaced by variables, and the expression becomes a concatenation of longer parts, where placement of parentheses may not be obvious, knowing how your system is going to evaluate an expression is not futile.

19
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« on: August 02, 2019, 07:04:31 PM »
Order of operations, as it is taught today, says you do parentheses & exponents, then multiplication and division, then finally addition and subtraction, and at each stop along the way you move from left to right as-needed (aka PEMDAS), making 16 the correct answer. But. That division symbol is a bitch, and to eliminate confusion, best practice is to use either an actual fraction to indicate where the division is happening or get yourself an extra set of parentheses to make your statement as clear as possible.

Where it has apparently tripped up half the internet is that to remember the order of operations:

Parentheses (brackets)
Exponents (order)
Multiplication and Division at the same hierarchical level
Addition and Subtraction at the same hierarchical level

a variety of acronyms were taught in schools. In America the most frequent is PEMDAS. In Britain the most frequent is BODMAS. They embody the same concept, the only difference being the memorability and pronounceability of the acronym.

Many people who learned PEMDAS have forgotten the fundamentals behind the acronym, though, and insist that the order in PEMDAS *must be* multiplication before division because that's what the acronym decrees. They have forgotten that multiplication and division are at the same hierarchical level and that within the level, the order is left to right.

By strict adherence to the commonly accepted rules, the answer is 16.

I suspect that the younger the person, the more they are likely to insist on 1, as they are more likely to have learned PEMDAS and are applying it by rote; misunderstanding that PEMDAS and PEDMSA are the same thing. The older the person, the more likely they learned the fundamental concept and are not adhering to the order of letters in an acronym.

Here's an interesting tidbit. One would think that Mathematica (Wolfram) would hands down get this right, right?

What's the value of 3^3^3?

By the rule, it should be (3^3)^3 = 1048576

Go to https://www.wolframalpha.com and enter 3^3^3. Their answer is 7625597484987

The reason why it does this is left as an exercise for the reader.

What gets interesting is now what do you do with the following?:

What is 2x/3y-1 if x=9 and y=2?

20
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: 8÷2(2+2)
« on: August 02, 2019, 03:48:07 PM »
100 years ago, 1. Today-16

How did you get -16?

21
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / 8÷2(2+2)
« on: August 02, 2019, 03:39:19 PM »
Since everyone here loves arguing and this seems to be the newest white/gold blue/black dress internet kerfuffle...

What is the answer (and correct way to evaluate) the expression

8÷2(2+2)

22
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: August 01, 2019, 07:16:47 PM »
Tom's trolling is particularly weak today.

What experiments are there that gravity weakens with altitude?

It has progressed from "experiment" to a standard tool that is used in a number of fields, and is the basis for a number of companies that manufacture sensors based on the principle, but go ahead and call it an experiment if you want. As an example, here is a reference. Pages 4-5 detail gravitational change with elevation.

Even mainstream science acknowledges gravity's uniformity. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and NASA says that gravity is a uniform gravitational field when tested at an altitude of 6200 miles.

Particularly lame troll. Uniform at a height. Not uniform from ground level to that height. Please, troll better.

A high altitude clock was compared with a clock on the surface, confirming the Equivalence Principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A

" Gravity Probe A (GP-A) was a space-based experiment to test the equivalence principle, a feature of Einstein's theory of relativity. It was performed jointly by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The experiment sent a hydrogen maser, a highly accurate frequency standard, into space to measure with high precision the rate at which time passes in a weaker gravitational field.

...The experiment was a test of a major fallout of Einstein's general relativity, the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle states that a reference frame in a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from a reference frame that is under uniform acceleration. Further, the equivalence principle predicts that phenomenon of different time flow rates, present in a uniformly accelerating reference frame, will also be present in a stationary reference frame that is in a uniform gravitational field.

The probe was launched on June 18, 1976 from the NASA-Wallops Flight Center in Wallops Island, Virginia. The probe was carried via a Scout rocket, and attained a height of 10,000 km (6,200 mi), while remaining in space for 1 hour and 55 minutes, as intended. It returned to Earth by splashing down into the Atlantic Ocean.

The objective of the Gravity Probe A experiment was to test the validity of the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle was a key component of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, and states that the laws of physics are the same regardless of whether you consider a uniformly accelerating reference frame or a reference frame that is acted upon by uniform gravitational field. "

And then all the slavish devotion to NASA's work when he wants to use it to support an argument.

Poor Tom. It must be tiring for you to keep arguing in this dishonest and underhanded way.

23
##### Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: August 01, 2019, 03:56:12 PM »

Equivocation fallacy: Calling two different things by the same name. The use of the word level in the National Geographic quote is not the same as the definition given.

Let's find another place where definitions of "level" is given:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level

level noun
lev·​el | \ ˈle-vəl
\
Definition of level

(Entry 1 of 3)
1 : a device for establishing a horizontal line or plane by means of a bubble in a liquid that shows adjustment to the horizontal by movement to the center of a slightly bowed glass tube
2 : a measurement of the difference of altitude of two points by means of a level
3 : horizontal condition especially : equilibrium of a fluid marked by a horizontal surface of even altitude water seeks its own level
4a : an approximately horizontal line or surface taken as an index of altitude Charts were arranged at eye level.
b : a practically horizontal surface or area (as of land) the level of the plateau
5 : a position in a scale or rank (as of achievement, significance, or value) funded at the national level the job appeals to me on many levels
6a : a line or surface that cuts perpendicularly all plumb lines that it meets and hence would everywhere coincide with a surface of still water
b : the plane of the horizon or a line in it
7 : a horizontal passage in a mine intended for regular working and transportation
8 : a concentration of a constituent especially of a body fluid (such as blood) a normal blood-sugar level
9 : the magnitude of a quantity considered in relation to an arbitrary reference value broadly : magnitude, intensity a high level of hostility
on the level
: bona fide, honest

level verb
leveled or levelled; leveling or levelling\ ˈle-​və-​liŋ
, ˈlev-​liŋ \

Definition of level (Entry 2 of 3)

transitive verb
1 : to make (a line or surface) horizontal : make flat or level level a field level off a house lot
2a : to bring to a horizontal aiming position
b : aim, direct leveled a charge of fraud
3 : to bring to a common level or plane : equalize love levels all ranks— W. S. Gilbert
4a : to lay level with or as if with the ground : raze
b : to knock down leveled him with one punch
5 : to make (something, such as color) even or uniform
6 : to find the heights of different points in (a piece of land) especially with a surveyor's level

intransitive verb
1 : to attain or come to a level the plane leveled off at 10,000 feet
2 : to aim a gun or other weapon horizontally
3 : to bring persons or things to a level
4 : to deal frankly and openly

Definition of level (Entry 3 of 3)
1a : having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface
b : parallel with the plane of the horizon : horizontal
2a : even or unvarying in height
b : equal in advantage, progression, or standing
c : proceeding monotonously or uneventfully
d(1) : steady, unwavering gave him a level look
(2) : calm, unexcited spoke in level tones
3 : reasonable, balanced arrive at a justly proportional and level judgment on this affair— Sir Winston Churchill
4 : distributed evenly level stress
5 : being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : equipotential
6 : suited to a particular rank or plane of ability or achievement top-level thinking
7 : of or relating to the spreading out of a cost or charge in even payments over a period of time
level best
: very best

I run circles around you logically.

The Issue is Sea Level.

But lets do more research into what you posted. You have 1 highlighted and how many do I have?  Who's outnumbered?

(Entry 1 of 3)
1 : a device for establishing a horizontal line or plane by means of a bubble in a liquid that shows adjustment to the horizontal by movement to the center of a slightly bowed glass tube
2 : a measurement of the difference of altitude of two points by means of a level
3 : horizontal condition especially : equilibrium of a fluid marked by a horizontal surface of even altitude water seeks its own level
4a : an approximately horizontal line or surface taken as an index of altitude Charts were arranged at eye level.
b : a practically horizontal surface or area (as of land) the level of the plateau
5 : a position in a scale or rank (as of achievement, significance, or value) funded at the national level the job appeals to me on many levels
6a : a line or surface that cuts perpendicularly all plumb lines that it meets and hence would everywhere coincide with a surface of still water
b : the plane of the horizon or a line in it
7 : a horizontal passage in a mine intended for regular working and transportation
8 : a concentration of a constituent especially of a body fluid (such as blood) a normal blood-sugar level
9 : the magnitude of a quantity considered in relation to an arbitrary reference value broadly : magnitude, intensity a high level of hostility
on the level
: bona fide, honest

level verb
leveled or levelled; leveling or levelling\ ˈle-​və-​liŋ
, ˈlev-​liŋ \

Definition of level (Entry 2 of 3)

transitive verb
1 : to make (a line or surface) horizontal : make flat or level level a field level off a house lot
2a : to bring to a horizontal aiming position
b : aim, direct leveled a charge of fraud
3 : to bring to a common level or plane: equalize love levels all ranks— W. S. Gilbert
4a : to lay level with or as if with the ground : raze
b : to knock down leveled him with one punch
5 : to make (something, such as color) even or uniform
6 : to find the heights of different points in (a piece of land) especially with a surveyor's level

intransitive verb
1 : to attain or come to a level the plane leveled off at 10,000 feet
2 : to aim a gun or other weapon horizontally
3 : to bring persons or things to a level
4 : to deal frankly and openly

Definition of level (Entry 3 of 3)
1a : having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface
b : parallel with the plane of the horizon : horizontal
2a : even or unvarying in height
b : equal in advantage, progression, or standing
c : proceeding monotonously or uneventfully
d(1) : steady, unwavering gave him a level look
(2) : calm, unexcited spoke in level tones
3 : reasonable, balanced arrive at a justly proportional and level judgment on this affair— Sir Winston Churchill
4 : distributed evenly level stress
5 : being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : equipotential
6 : suited to a particular rank or plane of ability or achievement top-level thinking
7 : of or relating to the spreading out of a cost or charge in even payments over a period of time
level best
: very best

All "outnumbering" means is that you are using a dozen inappropriate definitions instead of one appropriate one.

24
##### Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: August 01, 2019, 03:15:18 PM »

Equivocation fallacy: Calling two different things by the same name. The use of the word level in the National Geographic quote is not the same as the definition given.

Let's find another place where definitions of "level" is given:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/level

level noun
lev·​el | \ ˈle-vəl
\
Definition of level

(Entry 1 of 3)
1 : a device for establishing a horizontal line or plane by means of a bubble in a liquid that shows adjustment to the horizontal by movement to the center of a slightly bowed glass tube
2 : a measurement of the difference of altitude of two points by means of a level
3 : horizontal condition especially : equilibrium of a fluid marked by a horizontal surface of even altitude water seeks its own level
4a : an approximately horizontal line or surface taken as an index of altitude Charts were arranged at eye level.
b : a practically horizontal surface or area (as of land) the level of the plateau
5 : a position in a scale or rank (as of achievement, significance, or value) funded at the national level the job appeals to me on many levels
6a : a line or surface that cuts perpendicularly all plumb lines that it meets and hence would everywhere coincide with a surface of still water
b : the plane of the horizon or a line in it
7 : a horizontal passage in a mine intended for regular working and transportation
8 : a concentration of a constituent especially of a body fluid (such as blood) a normal blood-sugar level
9 : the magnitude of a quantity considered in relation to an arbitrary reference value broadly : magnitude, intensity a high level of hostility
on the level
: bona fide, honest

level verb
leveled or levelled; leveling or levelling\ ˈle-​və-​liŋ
, ˈlev-​liŋ \

Definition of level (Entry 2 of 3)

transitive verb
1 : to make (a line or surface) horizontal : make flat or level level a field level off a house lot
2a : to bring to a horizontal aiming position
b : aim, direct leveled a charge of fraud
3 : to bring to a common level or plane : equalize love levels all ranks— W. S. Gilbert
4a : to lay level with or as if with the ground : raze
b : to knock down leveled him with one punch
5 : to make (something, such as color) even or uniform
6 : to find the heights of different points in (a piece of land) especially with a surveyor's level

intransitive verb
1 : to attain or come to a level the plane leveled off at 10,000 feet
2 : to aim a gun or other weapon horizontally
3 : to bring persons or things to a level
4 : to deal frankly and openly

Definition of level (Entry 3 of 3)
1a : having no part higher than another : conforming to the curvature of the liquid parts of the earth's surface
b : parallel with the plane of the horizon : horizontal
2a : even or unvarying in height
b : equal in advantage, progression, or standing
c : proceeding monotonously or uneventfully
d(1) : steady, unwavering gave him a level look
(2) : calm, unexcited spoke in level tones
3 : reasonable, balanced arrive at a justly proportional and level judgment on this affair— Sir Winston Churchill
4 : distributed evenly level stress
5 : being a surface perpendicular to all lines of force in a field of force : equipotential
6 : suited to a particular rank or plane of ability or achievement top-level thinking
7 : of or relating to the spreading out of a cost or charge in even payments over a period of time
level best
: very best

I run circles around you logically.

25
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: August 01, 2019, 07:43:56 AM »
But that's not part of this experiment.
But it is very relevant to the topic, which happens to be: "Acceleration is not constant on Earth"!
And it is very relevant to at least the first part of:
FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this.

You seem to be very insistent on policing users regarding what the topic is when it deviates from what you want to talk about, but have no problem in going off topic if you want to prattle on about something.

mightyfletch commented:

Note, the scale is calibrated in the experiment.

and my subsequent notes all referred to that comment and that experiment.

So, as a first step, do you accept that "Acceleration is not constant on Earth"? Let's establish that first and then you can explain how that can be explained on a flat earth.

As a first step towards what? Listening to you go on and on when you appear to be under a terrible misconception? And when you seem to make knee-jerk assumptions and jump to unwarranted conclusions? And also repeat things over and over that you heard and would like to be true, but never bothered to check?

Doesn't sound very productive.

26
##### Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: July 30, 2019, 10:56:58 AM »
MATH
It's not for everyone!

27
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google Earth: I can see my house from here!
« on: July 30, 2019, 10:12:37 AM »
No need to get snarky.  I stand corrected but unlike some I'm not young enough to know everything.
An admonition against snark from one of the most snippy, poor-tempered, intentionally nasty users on the site; and then followed by a jab.
All I can say is that it takes one to know one!

What a nonsensical idea. One has to be incompetent to recognize, know, and understand incompetence? One has to be abusive to recognize, know, and understand abuse? One has to be evil to recognize, know, and understand evil?

But, if "it takes one to know one" is something that you believe in and stand by, thank you for admitting that you are one of the most snippy, poor-tempered, intentionally nasty users on the site.

28
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google Earth: I can see my house from here!
« on: July 29, 2019, 06:05:08 PM »
No need to get snarky.  I stand corrected but unlike some I'm not young enough to know everything.

An admonition against snark from one of the most snippy, poor-tempered, intentionally nasty users on the site; and then followed by a jab.

How typically rabinoz.

Who is apparently old enough to believe everything.

29
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google Earth: I can see my house from here!
« on: July 29, 2019, 04:59:57 PM »
So, what is the confusion here?

Satellite imagery gives locations and distances, aerial imagery is incorporated to give detailed view.

The confusion is that Rabinoz is under the impression that the limit of commercial satellite imagery resolution is on the order of 30m, so a house is visible, but with no details.

Commercial satellite imagery used for metropolitan images today is commonly available at 1-2 meter resolution, and frequently sub-meter resolution, making a reasonably detailed view of a house possible in Google Earth with just a satellite image.
Evidence?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser
It is then supplemented with aerial imagery to give imagery like the example given.

I would think that with your propensity for finding and trusting information online, you would have no trouble verifying something as simple as the resolution of high-resolution satellite imagery, once you were given the names of some of the companies and satellites with that capability.

But since you seem amazed that your speculation was called out as incorrect and are reluctant to go looking, here is just one example.

https://www.satimagingcorp.com/satellite-sensors/worldview-3/

https://content.satimagingcorp.com/static/galleryimages/Satellite-Image-2016-Olympics-Rio-De-Janeiro.jpg

(Go directly to the link for a full sized image; the included image is limited by the width of your screen)

30
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 29, 2019, 04:46:29 PM »
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with
But we aren't discussing what you work with.
We are discussing using them to measure variations in g across Earth.

You are the one who started discussing my calibration activities.

Precision scales should be calibrated in place.
Yes, if you want to correct for very small variations and also insure the mass is being reported correctly rather than the weight.
With the precision of the scales and calibration quality systems I work with, I do want to correct for very small variations, as those variations can exceed the specified tolerance of the scale. The calibration procedures I deal with require calibrating scales in place.

Yeah. That's called an inaccuracy.
Not if you are trying to use it to determine weight instead of mass.
The manufacturer states explicitly and implicitly through its calibration procedure that a 500.00g mass should read 500.00g on the scale and that a deviation from that is an inaccuracy.

That's one explanation, but not the only one. The weight *could* have remained the same and the scale read differently because of jostling during transport. Statistics showing how much the scale varied after multiple shipments would bolster the argument, as would a calculation of how much the weight was expected to change at each location. But that's not part of this experiment.
Yes, the experiment should have more than just 2 data points. But that doesn't mean that the reading in the experiment was an inaccuracy rather than simply a different measurement.
A measurement different than the one intended by the manufacturer's procedure is an inaccuracy. In this case an inaccuracy that requires recalibration. Of course a different value of g can be the cause of the inaccuracy (as can many other factors). But claiming the measurement is not an inaccuracy is just plain wrong.

However there are plenty of other such measurements.

An experiment was presented. I am commenting on the details of that experiment and no others.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41