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 - Nolhekh

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52
1
Flat Earth Debate / Relativity and Flat Earth
« on: June 16, 2014, 03:19:15 PM »
I would like to make an argument regarding John Davis' flat earth model.  In his Relativity & Flat Earth page, he says this:

Quote
Consider a theoretical object in a perfectly stable orbit around a theoretical planet in a traditional round earth manner. Remember from Newtons laws of motion: an object in motion tends to stay in motion and in the direction it is in motion. We can certainly say that the object in orbit that it feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force - which is equivalent to saying it is experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.) Remember, Einstein disillusioned our naive view of space based on the equivalence principle.

Our sight would lead us to believe this might be foolish, but if space is curved (and Relativity relies on the assumption that it is) it would be silly to not question our visual representation of space since by all accounts it appears as if our observational (and theoretical) language is ill equipped to deal with description of it.
(original page) http://theflatearthsociety.net/relativity.html

My understanding of this is that John Davis is saying that orbits are flat/straight relative to space time, and it is the curve of space time according to Einstein's theory of General Relativity which renders orbits as curved, and celestial surfaces as convex.  But in round earth terms, we don't truly consider a line drawn along the surface of a sphere to be perfectly straight, but as circles.  Inexperienced round earther's are often pedantically reminded of this fact.  It may be straight relative to the surface, but is really a geodetic curve.  Likewise, if a line in space-time is geodetic, it may be straight relative to space-time, but ultimately must be considered curved. 

Now to point out a complication with the above argument.  We can observe the true curve in a geodetic line drawn on a sphere or torus, because we observe in 3 dimensions, and our 3 dimensions are not constrained to the 2 dimensions of the surface of the sphere.  If our observation were constrained to the sphere's surface, the lines would curve differently because photons would be incapable of travelling parallel to one another.  The appearance of that curve, however would change based on our position.  The line would always appear concave, as if we were inside of it.  If you try to cross the line, the line will appear to change its bend to appear to bend around you.  If the surface was toroidal, on the other hand, geodetic lines would all appear straight, because photons could move parallel to one another in toroidal space.

If spacetime was indeed curved in such a way that the orbital paths and surface of the earth were geodetic to spacetime, for spherical space, they would appear to change magnitude relative to the 3 dimensional reference frame of our craft exploring the solar system, and for toroidal space, every orbit and planet would appear straight or flat.

The appearance of flatness of a round earth is explained easily.  The radius of a sphere can be so large compared to the distance of us, the observers, that it subtends a nearly 180 degree angle for us.  An infinite plane, coincidentally would subtend exactly 180 degrees for us.  This logically demonstrates the fallacy of assuming something is flat because it appears to be flat.

2
Indeed, without a gravitational force or an accelerating earth, the pressure on air molecules at the top of the atmosphere would be unopposed, and would fly off, leaving the next layer of molecules below with unopposed pressures from underneath, making them all fly off too.  eventually the entire atmosphere will decompress.

3

I didn't mention anything about sea level atmospheric pressure or compressed air containers. You claimed that the air molecules are held together by compression. The concept of compression in this sense inherently implies that something is pushing down on the molecules from the top with something (whether this is simply a heavier object on the top or air moving from a point of high pressure to a point of low pressure in order to equalize the air pressure). I asked you to explain how compression could occur if the top molecules are under lower pressure than the bottom molecules are.

EDIT: grammar adjustment
Which bricks on a house are under most pressure and which are under the least pressure?

Air is a gas, bricks are a solid. Gases and solids have different properties. For example, solids don't attempt to fill a given space evenly because the atoms in a solid do not move nearly as much as the atoms in gases do. In other words, if you put a brick in an small enclosed container and then put that same brick in a larger enclosed container, the brick will not change. If you put the same volume of the same type of gas in those two different-sized containers, they will fill up each container evenly because the molecules in a gas are moving much more quickly. This means that the atoms of gas in the larger container would be more spread apart than those in the smaller container.

My point is that in order for you to make your argument, you need to compare a gas to a gas, not a gas to a solid, otherwise we're comparing "apples to oranges," as the cliche goes.
You asked me why pressure happen, so me being me and thinking you would grasp the analogy, I thought I'd use bricks but of course, I shouldn't have done that because I'm dealing with another scientist who can't be simplistic.

I didn't ask why pressure happens, I asked why compression occurs if the top layer of gases is under lower pressure than the bottom layer.

I do understand your analogy. I'm saying that solids and gases behave differently, so we should be comparing gases to gases, not solids to gases.
Using bricks is actually a perfectly good analogy.  All solids (rocks and bricks included) deform slightly when a force is applied to them, and return to their original shape in a process known in engineering as elastic deformation.  Without an external force, the force on the molecules of a solid are in balance.  Once a force is applied, no matter how small, that balance is broken, and the molecule compresses into the next molecule, breaking that molecule's balance of forces, and this happens as a chain all the way through the solid like a wave.  It is the exact same thing that Sceptimatic is describing with the air in the bus.

4
Sceptimatic, what do you call the thing that causes air to compress?
Would it be a pump?
I mean as you describe in a moving bus.  When a bus accelerates, why doesn't the air just accelerate with the bus?  Why compress?
The air is stable in the bus.
Once the bus accelerates, it starts to leave the air behind, but the air compresses as the back of the bus crashes into it and compresses against the back, so as the bus moves away under acceleration, it compresses all the other air in tandem to compress into the air that was already compressed into the back of the bus and this happens all the way down, it's like a motorway pile up, only in reverse.
This leaves a low pressure at the front for a moment until it's filled, which creates more pressure in the bus and if it keeps accelerating, this will happen more and more, bit by bit as the air compresses tighter and tighter.
This is exactly right.  This is what inertia is: The tendency for the air or other matter to be "left behind" by the moving vehicle.  The same thing happens with objects in the bus too.  Let me describe it to you in your own words, and your own logic.  (which is correct here) 

"Once the bus accelerates, it starts to leave the [people inside] behind, but the [rib cage and pelvis] compress as the back of the [seat] [pushes] into [him/her] and compresses against the [seat], so as the [seat] moves away under acceleration, it compresses all the other [molecules in the chest] in tandem to compress into the [person's back] that was already compressed into the back of the [seat] and this happens all the way down, it's like a motorway pile up, only in reverse."

and once again for the head to describe the feeling of your head being pulled back:

"Once the [body] accelerates, it starts to leave the [head] behind, but the [neck] [stretches] as the [body] [pulls] [away from] [the head]"

I don't think you're stupid.  You seem to understand molecular physics as applied to air, you just need to realize that much of that same physics applies to liquids and solids too.  Your biggest problem for me, is that you say you don't accept things like "inertia" and then totally describe exactly what inertia means.

5
Sceptimatic, what do you call the thing that causes air to compress?
Would it be a pump?
I mean as you describe in a moving bus.  When a bus accelerates, why doesn't the air just accelerate with the bus?  Why compress?

6
Sceptimatic, what do you call the thing that causes air to compress?

7
Not quite.  I believe the tendency of matter to stay still or at constant speed and direction (a.k.a. interia) is what causes the high and low pressures in the first place.  So if it works, it actually proves that inertia is a real effect (though not actually a force).  Since gravity acts perpendicular to the motion of a bus, it can't affect your results, and so can't be proved or dis-proved with this experiment.
If you have to hang onto something..hang onto it for dear life. Enjoy the rest of your life, because if you can't see the truth then you don't want to, for whatever reasons.

I'm sorry, but with everything I ever see, I can identify forces and inertia.  Engineers build buildings, bridges, busses, aircraft, roller coasters and every other complex machine and structure using primarily the laws newton and other physicists described regarding forces, gravity, inertia, energy etc...  If that's not how you define truth I don't know what is.  It seems like the best bet for something to hold on to.  We've been trying to give you the knowledge of these laws free of charge, but if you just want to hold on to your own truth for whatever rebellious purpose, that's fine, just don't act as if you know everything and show some respect, please.

8

Sorry, but they are correct.  The back wall of the bus will apply force to the air molecules in front of it, causing that air to in turn apply force to the next set of molecules.  The inertia of all the molecules in the bus will resist this force and compress the molecules at the back, while leaving an area of low pressure at the front of the bus.  Indeed air can come in from outside the bus and dampen these effects, but they can't eliminate them altogether.


The "inertia" of the air mass doesn't exist as long as the bus is interconnected with the outside atmosphere
Quote
all matter has inertia.  There are no exceptions
Which it is. The air mass inside the bus does not and can not be compressed under these circumstances.  It is not a monolithic mass, but a fluid.  Air can only be compressed within a sealed container.
False.  There are high and low pressure systems in our weather.  They aren't contained in sealed containers.  Also look at the pressure waves in front of supersonic jets.  That's compressed air outside a sealed container.  Jet engines are not sealed containers, yet they can be relied upon to compress air to ignite the fuel.  If a force is applied to air, it compresses slightly.  That's all there is to it.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Advice to other Round Earthers
« on: January 11, 2014, 09:19:10 AM »
The idea of a flat earth, definitely flies in the face of everything we know and understand.  So on finding this website, it's only natural to feel like you've encountered a religious cult of closed-minded lunatics, and you might be inclined to treat them as such.  But if you have that inclination then may I direct you at this: #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Phil Plait, "Don't Be a Dick" (Part 1 of 3)

In my opinion, there are two major kinds of "Flat Earther" that could possibly exist here.  Those that actually believe the earth is flat for some reason or another, and those who don't and are just trying to troll you.  Unfortunately I don't think there is an easy way to tell these apart, but think of it this way when you are ready to engage in debate and discussion (and the next bit applies to both sides).  If the person is trying to troll you, why bait them?  Emotional posts about how stupid and arrogant you think the opposition is only get in the way of those of us who wish to make a real argument, and give the troll what they want from you.  If they really do believe the earth is flat, then they may have a legitimate reason for doing so, and it's only polite to show respect for this, and they are entitled to their beliefs.  If you want to debate with anyone, do so with all the rationality and respect that you can. 

Also keep as open a mind as you can, because most of us Round Earthers don't come here knowing nearly as much as we need to about our own side of the debate as we should, and end up making completely false arguments against the Flat Earthers.  Quite often you'll see the Universal Acceleration hypothesis attacked by clueless people who don't fully understand how newton's laws of motion work, or cite the speed of light speed limit issue, despite the fact that the very same theory actually makes it possible.  So before arguing, research the subject first!

Another thing I see a lot here is that on both sides, the physics of either model comes under fire.  This, in my mind, completely loses sight of the debate.  The debate is whether the earth is flat, or round.  This is purely a matter of geometry, which falls under observation and measurement.  The earth was decided to be round and orbit the sun long before Newton and Einstein described the laws of the system.  It was decided to be round because this was the best shape that fit the observations of the astronomers.  If observations were consistent with a flat earth, then the earth is flat.  This is where I believe the debate should be constrained to.  Debates about how the earth formed, and how gravity works, I believe, are off topic.

10

I'd love to answer what you put but I don't see the point when you actually believe that there is NO FORCE at all and things just happen.


This will possibly make little sense to you, but here goes.  I'm standing in that bus, and it's velocity is constant at 35mph, and it's travelling in a straight line.  I'm holding a tennis ball.

I throw that ball upwards a couple of feet, and catch it.

The one and ONLY force acting on that ball whilst it's in the air is the force of gravity.

(The bus could be travelling at 100mph or 5mph, or it could be accelerating or decelerating.  Doesn't make any difference to the ball.)
Absolutely WRONG!  The other force is motion.  The ball is moving at the same speed as the bus.
constant motion itself is not a force.  Force causes acceleration.  If there is no acceleration, then there is no force or balanced force.  A bouncing ball in a moving bus only has its vertical speed changing.  The horizontal speed is not.  Therefore the only net force on the ball is vertical.  The only vertical forces the ball can encounter are gravity, and a tiny bit if air resistance.  If you're a flat earther, then there are no forces at all on the ball, and the thing that's accelerating vetically is the vehicle, and the air inside it.

11

I predict that under steady acceleration, the barometric pressure at the back will increase, but stop increasing, and stay slightly higher than the pressure at the front.  the force between air molecules under acceleration will balance with the force the bus is applying to the air and the pressure will stop increasing.  Make the bus accelerate more, and the pressure will increase again, but then stop increasing fairly quickly, as the forces balance once again.  Have the bus brake suddenly, and the pressure at the front will rise and exceed the pressure at the back, since the direction of acceleration as reversed.


Sorry, but your "predictions" are totally incorrect.

The bus is not sealed form the outside air, therefore the pressure inside the bus cannot vary from normal atmospheric air pressure outside of the bus.  Additionally, you couldn't have two areas inside the busóeven if it were sealedóregistering two different pressure levels.
Sorry, but they are correct.  The back wall of the bus will apply force to the air molecules in front of it, causing that air to in turn apply force to the next set of molecules.  The inertia of all the molecules in the bus will resist this force and compress the molecules at the back, while leaving an area of low pressure at the front of the bus.  Indeed air can come in from outside the bus and dampen these effects, but they can't eliminate them altogether.

12

Until you accept that gravity and inertia are a scientific lie, you will never get to grips with reality.


Can you please post some viable evidence that supports your viewpoint that gravity and inertia do not exist?

Or, can you give us the names of any accredited scientists who also hold this view?

And what, precisely, has led you to the opinion that these two theories are "lies"?  Any documentation?  Any YouTube links?
Rottingroom and anyone else can prove it by using a barometer.

Two barometers would be better inside a car or a bus or whatever.

One on the dashboard and one at the back of the vehicle.
All that needs to be done is for someone to watch the changes in pressure.

Here's what should happen.
On immediate acceleration...the barometer at the front should register a very quick low pressure.
The one at the back should register a higher pressure.
If someone could do a steady acceleration around a track or very long road, you should see a steady increase in barometric pressure at the back of the vehicle.

Now slow down and the opposite should happen.
It's an excellent experiment.

I predict that under steady acceleration, the barometric pressure at the back will increase, but stop increasing, and stay slightly higher than the pressure at the front.  the force between air molecules under acceleration will balance with the force the bus is applying to the air and the pressure will stop increasing.  Make the bus accelerate more, and the pressure will increase again, but then stop increasing fairly quickly, as the forces balance once again.  Have the bus brake suddenly, and the pressure at the front will rise and exceed the pressure at the back, since the direction of acceleration as reversed.
Which is what Iv'e just said. Which if it works, it disproves gravity and inertia and proves that atmospheric pressure is responsible as I said it was.
Not quite.  I believe the tendency of matter to stay still or at constant speed and direction (a.k.a. interia) is what causes the high and low pressures in the first place.  So if it works, it actually proves that inertia is a real effect (though not actually a force).  Since gravity acts perpendicular to the motion of a bus, it can't affect your results, and so can't be proved or dis-proved with this experiment.

13

Until you accept that gravity and inertia are a scientific lie, you will never get to grips with reality.


Can you please post some viable evidence that supports your viewpoint that gravity and inertia do not exist?

Or, can you give us the names of any accredited scientists who also hold this view?

And what, precisely, has led you to the opinion that these two theories are "lies"?  Any documentation?  Any YouTube links?
Rottingroom and anyone else can prove it by using a barometer.

Two barometers would be better inside a car or a bus or whatever.

One on the dashboard and one at the back of the vehicle.
All that needs to be done is for someone to watch the changes in pressure.

Here's what should happen.
On immediate acceleration...the barometer at the front should register a very quick low pressure.
The one at the back should register a higher pressure.
If someone could do a steady acceleration around a track or very long road, you should see a steady increase in barometric pressure at the back of the vehicle.

Now slow down and the opposite should happen.
It's an excellent experiment.

I predict that under steady acceleration, the barometric pressure at the back will increase, but stop increasing, and stay slightly higher than the pressure at the front.  the force between air molecules under acceleration will balance with the force the bus is applying to the air and the pressure will stop increasing.  Make the bus accelerate more, and the pressure will increase again, but then stop increasing fairly quickly, as the forces balance once again.  Have the bus brake suddenly, and the pressure at the front will rise and exceed the pressure at the back, since the direction of acceleration as reversed.

14
The Earth purportedly "spins" at 1000 MPH at the equator. If I stood there and jumped in the air, I would land in the same place. Even a quick jump in the air should make a few feet pass beneath me, but it doesn't.

This is all the proof you need to know the Earth cannot possibly be spinning.

You don't stop moving when you jump for the same reason a baseball doesn't stop as soon as it leaves the pitcher's hand.  All your live you live on the spinning earth.  The earth carries you with it and as it does so you have kinetic energy.  When you jump, that kinetic energy doesn't vanish magically.  You travel at the same speed you were when you were on the ground.
You only travel at the same speed as anything as long as you are part of it, as in, in a steady moving bus.
If you jumped up, you would naturally fall back to the same spot, because you are not in the air long enough for it to make any difference to your perceived view.
If you could jump for a few seconds, you would certainly know about it and so would the back of the bus, dependent on it's speed.
You need to rethink your science.

Why would you fall back to the same spot, if there's no force making you do this?  You're kinetic energy would be magically disappearing.

15
I didn't say nothing happens.  You must have completely misunderstood.  For someone who says he's got an open mind, you certainly know how to either completely miss or dismiss things.  I even gave you an experiment to demonstrate how it works.

If you accelerate forwards, does the rest of the world not look like it's accelerating backwards relative to you?
Ok, here's how this all works.
First of all, discard this relative to this and that, stuff, because all it's going to do is cloud the real issue which is what really happens, not what looks to happen from another vantage point.
  Actually it is important.  Ignoring the concept of relative motion is causing you to invent bizarre aerodynamic effects.  As long as you do this, you can't, without hypocrisy, accuse anyone else of inventing things like gravity and inertia.

Quote
Going back to the bus:
Why do buses have strong windscreens and fronts. Why don't they just have plastic windscreens?
Obviously we know the answer to that. It's because the bus when travelling against the air will compress the air directly in front of it and put too much pressure on plastic, making the plastic PUSH back into the bus.
If this happens, you can understand how it would naturally compress the air inside of the bus as it's took a small area of the air up inside but equalized from the outside by the air being caught in the plastic windscreen outside.
Luckily bus windows are strong glass and CURVED which reduces the force/friction on the windscreen and deflects it around the bus along the sides, where it meets up with the low pressure which is created at the back and fills it, equalizing it.
  all of which is true actually.
Quote
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
interesting that you dismiss newtons first law, but have no problem invoking his third law
Quote
Inside the bus, a similar thing is happening, only this time it's in a different way to how we naturally perceive it, because this time we are sat in a container, so the acceleration of the bus will always go faster than the air inside of it
Yeah, the air has a relative speed to the bus going backwards because of this. I've basically been telling you exactly what you've said here, only this effect applies to everthing in the bus, and not just the air inside.  The air is trying to hold still as dictated by newton's first law, and the acceleration of the bus is applying force to it at the back, creating this higher air pressure in the back, making the air go with the bus.  You've made air magically special here, when there's no need.  The acceleration of the bus will "always go faster than" the people as well, which is why we feel like we're being pulled back.
Quote
as long as it keeps accelerating, but that leaves a low pressure because the air hits the back of the bus all the way up to the front of the bus, inside all following the same path because the bus is going faster than all of the air along the bus inside of it, which creates a low pressure at the front that must be equalized and is, very quickly.
If the bus keeps accelerating, then this keeps happening...but not without consequence, to us. We feel that pressure because it's building up slowly on us if we are slowly accelerating on that bus, but if the bus sets off fast, we feel a much bigger compressed air force against our bodies which jolts us back until that bus changes gear and at that point, the air will decompress or move to equalize the low pressure at the front, forcing you forward a little.
  You can't feel air pressure this way.  If air pushes on us, we feel wind, but when a bus accelerates, I don't feel any wind.  If there's more air pressure in front of you than behind, the air will just flow around you.  You're right about the existence of pressure caused by the bus's acceleration, but that's not what we're feeling.

Quote
Next time you are on a bus, take into account of all this stuff and you will see what I'm saying.
I can already identify every effect I feel on the bus, or any other vehicle.  Heck even if I go to space, I'll know exactly what the spaceship is doing based on feel alone.  Relative motion has everything to do with what forces you feel in a moving vehicle.  By the way, The equal and opposite reaction thing doesn't connect the pressure outside the bus with the pressure inside.  It just happens that the air both outside and inside the bus is trying to hold still.  The air outside can flow around the bus, but the air inside is trapped, so it has to accelerate with the bus.  People outside the bus are standing still, but people standing inside the bus need to hold on or they will be standing still too while the bus starts moving.

Here's an experiment.  Try putting a ball on a table, and give the table a good shove.  You'll see the ball rolls backwards relative to the table, but not to you or the floor.  The same thing will happen if you have that ball inside a container.

16
The Earth purportedly "spins" at 1000 MPH at the equator. If I stood there and jumped in the air, I would land in the same place. Even a quick jump in the air should make a few feet pass beneath me, but it doesn't.

This is all the proof you need to know the Earth cannot possibly be spinning.

You don't stop moving when you jump for the same reason a baseball doesn't stop as soon as it leaves the pitcher's hand.  All your live you live on the spinning earth.  The earth carries you with it and as it does so you have kinetic energy.  When you jump, that kinetic energy doesn't vanish magically.  You travel at the same speed you were when you were on the ground.

17
I didn't say nothing happens.  You must have completely misunderstood.  For someone who says he's got an open mind, you certainly know how to either completely miss or dismiss things.  I even gave you an experiment to demonstrate how it works.

If you accelerate forwards, does the rest of the world not look like it's accelerating backwards relative to you?

18

So the void is created by the air moving back, and this is what pushes you back, yet when the void gets filled up, the air doesn't push you forward at all?  Why would the air be able to push you in one direction, but not in the other?
The air being pushed back, compresses against you, forcing you back and as it does so, it creates a LOWER pressure at the very front that is immediately filled all the time the bus is accelerating. As soon as the bus stops accelerating, the compressed air equalizes which you feel as the weight coming off of you.
It's much simpler, scepti.  When a bus accelerates, it pushes on you, and you feel it.  When it stops accelerating, it stops pushing you, cause you're just moving along with it.
To disprove this, all you need to do is sit on that bus with a cup of water and as it accelerates forward, tell me which way the water swills out.
Wear waterproof trousers, because it's coming at you not being pushed forward.
You see, the water is trying to stay the way it is, and if the bus accelerates forward, it pushes me into the cup of water.  The water isn't being pushed backwards.  If you move forwards, everything around you looks like it's going backwards.  It's the same with the water.  If you are pushed fowards, the water looks like it's being pushed backwards, when it's actually trying to hold steady.
The next time you are on a bus or some kind of transport with a table that is bolted down...pour a little bit of water onto the table before the vehicle sets off.
Now you are not touching the table and the water is simply on the table, so what you will notice as the vehicle accelerates is that the water starts to head in your direction, assuming you are facing the way the vehicle is moving.
Anything not bolted down will be PUSHED in the opposite direction to which the vehicle accelerates as long as it is heavier than air.
Anything not bolted down will sit still while the vehicle accelerates.  The "opposite motion" is only relative to the vehicle accelerating.  If you were to have a glass box on wheels, and you put water, or a ball in the vehicle, and you pushed that vehicle, you'd see from the outside that the water and the ball will stay still while the vehicle moves, until friction between the ball or water causes it to slowly move in the direction of the vehicle.  Only when you're on that vehicle, will the ball and water appear to move backwards, but there is in reality, no force pulling them against the vehicles' acceleration.  This pulling force you describe, is what inertia is all about.  But as you said, if it isn't a force it isn't a word, so nothing is pulling on those objects.  The pulling is an illusion.  The "G forces" felt by pilots are also the same kind of illusion.

The reason we give names to these things, despite them not really existing, is for engineering purposes.  Because they act like real forces, we can treat them like real forces when designing machines that deal with lots of acceleration and sharp turns, like roller coasters, race tracks, airplanes etc...  and it all works out.

This all comes down to Newton's simple first law of motion:  Objects at rest or moving steadily, will stay at rest or moving steadily unless acted on by an unbalanced force.  In the case of the bus, your water on the table has no way of receiving any kind of force from the bus other than through friction.  So when the bus accelerates, the water doesn't.   With the table cloth example, the only force between the cloth and the objects on the table is friction, and if you pull the cloth out quickly enough, that force is applied only briefly.  Too quickly for the objects to react catastrophically.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Rope around the earth.
« on: January 09, 2014, 06:49:27 PM »
On a small scale it can be measured fairly accurately on things that can be physically measured, like a football for instance.
If say, by some kind of magic, the earth was a globe and the size it's said to be, then we are talking about a whole new potential for miscalculation on a big scale.

I understand it will be argued to death so that is the reason why I will simply accept it as it is but I will not follow it as a belief.

The thing about geometric shapes is that if you scale them up, all their dimensions scale up proportionally.  Iif you double the length of a triangle, the height and perimeter are doubled too.  Or with a circle, if you double the radius, the circumference doubles too.  So if you've measured a small circle accurately and found out how many times bigger the circumference is than the radius, then that same number applies no matter how big the circle is.  You're right that the bigger the circle the larger the error will be in your calculation, but that number happens to be pi, and it can be measured to a precision of dozens of decimal places.  That's easily enough decimal points to get measurements of the earth accurate at least down to the foot.

20
Nah, too complicated.  The table cloth is just pulled out too quickly for the items on the cloth to react.  Think I'm getting the hang of this simple explanation stuff.  What do you think, Scepti?
In a way you are correct because it is actually the speed which is the key to anything, but it's by agitation of matter/molecules that determines pressures, which is the key to everything from wind to everything that happens on earth no matter what it is.
No fictional forces are needed like gravity and this inertia thought. It's just not required, but it's needed to make space a reality, which it's not.

The truth is, there is something that makes things accelerate towards the ground.  Whatever it is - be it the flat earth accelerating, a particle force field, or curved accelerating space-time - it exists.  (the last two just happen to make sense when applied to round earth space as well).  We know it's not caused by air pressure, because it doesn't behave the right way.  Air pressure can't act evenly over the entire mass of an object, because it can only touch the surface of an object.  This thing we call gravity - whatever it is - does affect the entire mass.  This is how we know air pressure isn't the cause of gravity.

Inertia, by the way, isn't a force.  It's matter's resistance to force.

21

So the void is created by the air moving back, and this is what pushes you back, yet when the void gets filled up, the air doesn't push you forward at all?  Why would the air be able to push you in one direction, but not in the other?
The air being pushed back, compresses against you, forcing you back and as it does so, it creates a LOWER pressure at the very front that is immediately filled all the time the bus is accelerating. As soon as the bus stops accelerating, the compressed air equalizes which you feel as the weight coming off of you.
It's much simpler, scepti.  When a bus accelerates, it pushes on you, and you feel it.  When it stops accelerating, it stops pushing you, cause you're just moving along with it.
To disprove this, all you need to do is sit on that bus with a cup of water and as it accelerates forward, tell me which way the water swills out.
Wear waterproof trousers, because it's coming at you not being pushed forward.
You see, the water is trying to stay the way it is, and if the bus accelerates forward, it pushes me into the cup of water.  The water isn't being pushed backwards.  If you move forwards, everything around you looks like it's going backwards.  It's the same with the water.  If you are pushed fowards, the water looks like it's being pushed backwards, when it's actually trying to hold steady.

22

So the void is created by the air moving back, and this is what pushes you back, yet when the void gets filled up, the air doesn't push you forward at all?  Why would the air be able to push you in one direction, but not in the other?
The air being pushed back, compresses against you, forcing you back and as it does so, it creates a LOWER pressure at the very front that is immediately filled all the time the bus is accelerating. As soon as the bus stops accelerating, the compressed air equalizes which you feel as the weight coming off of you.
It's much simpler, scepti.  When a bus accelerates, it pushes on you, and you feel it.  When it stops accelerating, it stops pushing you, cause you're just moving along with it.


23
Nah, too complicated.  The table cloth is just pulled out too quickly for the items on the cloth to react.  Think I'm getting the hang of this simple explanation stuff.  What do you think, Scepti?

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Rope around the earth.
« on: January 08, 2014, 07:20:01 PM »
I don't know if someone has already helped you figure this out already, Sceptimatic, but I might have a simple explanation.

Consider this 1 foot you have, and compare it to the radius of the earth.  Pretty tiny, huh?  The added circumference is just as tiny by comparison.  It's just that simple.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Properties of Light
« on: July 14, 2013, 05:44:25 PM »
It certainly isn't shining from space, as light cannot move through a vacuum.

Your own wiki says the very upper edges of the atmosphere (atmolayer, whatever) ends at about 500 kilometers. That same wiki says the sun is 5,000 kilometers above the Earth. So tell me, how can we see the sun at all if the sunlight cannot travel through the 4,500 kilometers of vacuum?
If the sun was in a vacuum, it wouldn't be a sun.
Nothing moves through a vacuum unless it grows into that vacuum, like earth and maybe billions/trillions, etc of other similar cells like ours.

You know that the space between molecules is a vacuum, right?  If nothing can move through a vacuum, then our molecules can't move, and air molecules can't move.  Then nothing can move.  You should appreciate the simplicity of that reasoning.
Have you ever blown bubbles as a kid? Think about it.
An odd question, as bubbles can't exist in a vacuum.  They'd burst because the air would be rushing into the vacuum, and continue through that vacuum. 

What prevents ordinary objects, such as rockets from moving in a vacuum.  There's no air to get in the way, so no resistance whatsoever to movement.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Properties of Light
« on: July 13, 2013, 11:52:23 AM »
It certainly isn't shining from space, as light cannot move through a vacuum.

Your own wiki says the very upper edges of the atmosphere (atmolayer, whatever) ends at about 500 kilometers. That same wiki says the sun is 5,000 kilometers above the Earth. So tell me, how can we see the sun at all if the sunlight cannot travel through the 4,500 kilometers of vacuum?
If the sun was in a vacuum, it wouldn't be a sun.
Nothing moves through a vacuum unless it grows into that vacuum, like earth and maybe billions/trillions, etc of other similar cells like ours.

You know that the space between molecules is a vacuum, right?  If nothing can move through a vacuum, then our molecules can't move, and air molecules can't move.  Then nothing can move.  You should appreciate the simplicity of that reasoning.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: 100 mile view from sea-level
« on: July 13, 2013, 11:22:16 AM »
What is the height of the mountain above sea level? The drop on round earth would be 6666'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

 ::) that is not correct. it is about half that.

Lets start with EnaG. It says the horizon always rises to the eye line, due to perspective.

What is really happening is that the eye is always drawn to the horizon. It is an optical illusion. If the angle is measured it is easily shown. I live on high enough hills to of roughly verified this personally.



This is what is really what you are looking at when seeing something disappear over the horizon when standing on a globe. It is a little hard to grasp for most, but this is how it is. Of course my image is wildly exaggerated. But this may help in the future when debunking RET.

Hoppy is actually almost right with that figure.  Although I got 6675 feet.  I even went further and calculated as if the photo was taken from 10 feet up where the RE horizon is 3.87 miles away and the horizon should still cover 6167 feet.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Properties of Light
« on: July 13, 2013, 10:08:41 AM »
You are not thinking about angles.  When you look at the Sun from an angle, there is much more atmolayer than looking straight up.
The sun is visible at every angle above the horizon.  At no point does the sun fade from view while above the horizon.

Atmolayer + perspective = sunset.  You've heard it before, but refuse to believe it could be true.
Rowbothamic perpective is not mathematically supportable.  Standard mathematical perspective can't hide the sun in the Rowbothamic flat earth model without an upward bending of light.  Plus your original argument was that the atmolayer blocks the suns light from being visible at night because of its angle, when in fact the sun is visible at all angles above the horizon, from sunrise (0o) to noon (0 to 90o) to sunset (0o again).

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« on: July 11, 2013, 02:00:04 PM »
I am bypassing the 3 pages of arguing and addressing the OP.

In order to measure apparent size you need to measure the angular size.  To do this you need a focal point: that is a way to have all the light reaching your recording medium pass through the a single zero dimensional point in space.  Your hole is a 2-dimensional circle, and without a lens does not direct the light passing through it through a focal point.  As there is nothing in your experiment which uses a focal point, I submit that it is not possible to measure the apparent size of the sun using your method.

What you can do, however, is measure the fuzziness of a shadow cast by the sun.  Shadow fuzziness is caused by a light source not being a single point, and noticeable having angular size.  By measuring the extent of fuzziness and the distance from the object casting the shadow to the edge of the shadow where the fuzziness is being measured, plus some other things, which I can illustrate later, you can calculate the angular size of the sun.  So, instead of cutting a hole in paper, use the edge of the paper ;).  The shape of light shining through the hole, unfortunately, is caused by the shape of the hole, and has nothing to do with the shape of the sun.

I think I see what you're saying. Thanks for the explanation. My original post encouraged people to try it for themselves. I'm still getting the Sun distortion results, however, and I doubt it has to do with "Sun fuzziness".

The fuzziness shouldn't affect your results other than to make it difficult to get a precise measurement.  I don't know what is causing your distortion.  Even if the sun were a flat line, the light you should see cast through your hole should still be the shape of the hole, and not the sun. 

It should be noted though, that even without any fancy measuring devices, the sun can definitely be seen to not behave like a flat disc.  To demonstrate, you can hold a coin horizontally just above where you see the horizon.  this is exactly the kind of elliptical shape the sun would have if it were a disc.

Here's a site with a simple demonstration of how perspective affects a disc:http://www.artyfactory.com/perspective_drawing/perspective_6.html

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Funeral for the Round Earth Indoctrinated
« on: July 10, 2013, 08:21:03 PM »
I performed an experiment that should put to death any idea that the Sun is a consistent 93 million miles away:

Cut a hole in a piece of cardboard (mine was about the size of a quarter)
Orient your cardboard toward the location of the Sun for each time of the day
Trace an outline of the size of the Sun at dawn, 10:00, noon, 2:00, and sunset

My findings: the Sun is actually bigger and closer at noon overhead than it is at either previous times. The Sun is smaller and skinnier at dawn and sunset in perfect accordance with the laws of perspective and the flat earth model of the spotlight sun.

Try it yourself.
Quote
I used some standard wood clamps and anchored the cardboard with the hole and the cardboard for marking to an old dresser drawer 20" wide. There is a 3mm difference between the width of the Sun's image and a 4mm difference in its height.

I am bypassing the 3 pages of arguing and addressing the OP.

In order to measure apparent size you need to measure the angular size.  To do this you need a focal point: that is a way to have all the light reaching your recording medium pass through the a single zero dimensional point in space.  Your hole is a 2-dimensional circle, and without a lens does not direct the light passing through it through a focal point.  As there is nothing in your experiment which uses a focal point, I submit that it is not possible to measure the apparent size of the sun using your method.

What you can do, however, is measure the fuzziness of a shadow cast by the sun.  Shadow fuzziness is caused by a light source not being a single point, and noticeable having angular size.  By measuring the extent of fuzziness and the distance from the object casting the shadow to the edge of the shadow where the fuzziness is being measured, plus some other things, which I can illustrate later, you can calculate the angular size of the sun.  So, instead of cutting a hole in paper, use the edge of the paper ;).  The shape of light shining through the hole, unfortunately, is caused by the shape of the hole, and has nothing to do with the shape of the sun.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 52