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.
You will find there is no hostile FE'er on this forum. Only hostile RE'ers. It is like a classroom environment. We are gentle, calm teachers trying to teach a horde of unruly students. This does not make us enemies, unless you consider every teacher you have ever had to be your enemy. The only difference is that we are a science teacher in a church, full of brainwashed kids which will defend their ridiculous ideas to the very last inch.
This thread is quite chaotic.
This thread is a representation of RET.
Isn't it slightly ironic that the FE'ers consistently complain about photo quality and lack of information on where said photo was taken, how high it was, ect; and yet: This photo of which I can hardly make out anything is somehow "proof", and that the quality doesn't matter?
If this experiment is a success, please run it again with proper documentation and photographs.
The main reason FET is complicated is because some of the alleged FE'ers here keep operating under the assumption that RET is true.
If no assumptions are made about continental drift, the positon of the sun, gravity, etc, then there is no need for FE models which account for such occurrences.
It is wrongly assumed, for example, that gravity is "tested and true" with the Cavendish Experiment and the variances of g at different altitudes, when the subject matter is highly contested. In the Cavendish Experiment at the levels of the experiment the Static Force is much more powerful than the alleged force of gravity. The Static Force is not accounted for and could very easily be causing the movement (read more).
Hence, any FE model which tries to shoehorn gravity into it is completely superfluous. It should not be assumed that RET is true when creating models. There is no reason to create a model to account for something unfounded in RET.
If the world was round, I could drop a marble on the floor and it would roll downhill. Forever.
Are you saying that there is no difference between a hill and a sphere?Quotedown·hill (dounhl)
adv.
1. Down the slope of a hill.
2. Toward a lower or worse condition: The alcoholic's health went downhill fast.
adj. (dounhl)
1. Sloping downward; descending.
"The more you know!"
Wow being ignored when you're right is just delicious lol
Not quite as delicious as you thinking you are right.
If the world was round, I could drop a marble on the floor and it would roll downhill. Forever.
Are you saying that there is no difference between a hill and a sphere?Quotedown·hill (dounhl)
adv.
1. Down the slope of a hill.
2. Toward a lower or worse condition: The alcoholic's health went downhill fast.
adj. (dounhl)
1. Sloping downward; descending.
"The more you know!"
Oh, another one of these posts. It is always sad to see a RE'er admit they will never understand the complexity of FET.
Which version of FET are you referring to?
All of them at the same time. Quite complicated.
Wrong. It is you REers who deem him so.The OP's question has already been addressed, and Tom himself is neither skeptical nor an outcast (presumably).
I think the outcast aspect of that statement is still heavily under question.
If the world was round, I could drop a marble on the floor and it would roll downhill. Forever. Seeing as how marbles don't do that, the earth must be flat.
If you are referring to the experiment that was done to try and prove a flat world, that happened quite a while ago, and has been repeated by multiple other experimenters with no success.
The above picture is photographic evidence of its success. You can see the white calico sheet positioned on the other side of the canal 6 miles away, and even its reflection on the water below.
Obviously fake.
I see it just fine. The earth is flat. It is sad the the extreme that you RE'ers continue on your sordid path of denial even when photographic evidence is right there staring you in the face.
The conspiracy makes little "magic" to mislead people. Referencing is easy because everything comes from a source that believes in the conspiracy. I want to see a concrete proof that all this technology exists.Picture in this case.
The OP's question has already been addressed, and Tom himself is neither skeptical nor an outcast (presumably).
Hmmm current scientific theories about the word are obviously apart of the conspiracy, so lets take something that makes sense and try to come up with an excuse of why its wrong.
Well... the reason FE works over RE is the fact that.... FE uses magi- i mean Aether! and Superfluids! and nonkinetic winds that no one on the planet can notice!
The conspiracy makes little "magic" to mislead people. Referencing is easy because everything comes from a source that believes in the conspiracy. I want to see a concrete proof that all this technology exists.
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
I'm not sure about other posters you have encountered, but I assure you that I have beaten no bushes or around them for that matter.
I see what you did there, cool story bro, how about a quality post retorting his comment?
Look out your window your five senses are the supreme beings of understanding the truth of the universe around you, we can't see air so its obviously not there, we see in color so its obvious that objects in reality are colored and their colors arent based off the reflected light that goes into and get processed by our eyes.
Look outside and the world look flat therefore it is flat. As Bill O'Rielly would say to RE'rs: You can't explain that!
Stop with the "it looks flat" phrase, because it doesn't. If it looked flat it would not ever have a sharp horizon and celestial objects would not be obscured by the horizon. It doesn't even look f*cking flat. The horizon prevents it from having the appearance of a flat plane. Anyone who babbles "it looks flat" ought to compare it with any other flat surface and note the difference in appearance.
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
I'm not sure about other posters you have encountered, but I assure you that I have beaten no bushes or around them for that matter.
We've been a couple of years away from private spaceflight for the last fifty years.
I don't think Ichi really has much interest in the shape of the earth, he just comes here to make himself feel special and like he's someplace's "leading scientist".
as an earth shape agnostic, and therefore not a fe'er, think ichis research is BEYOND your understanding!!!
Fixed.Fixed.Fixed.np, debate partners are not my advasaries
I wish more RE'ers were like you.
thx, but im not that old, so i dont have much stress on me yet
Have you had the delight to meet Parsifal yet? Believe me, You will become like us.... Join the Rage side.
The only2 peoplepersonrobot that hasvevexed meareis parsec/andParsifal.
"A bit" and "six months at a time" are two very different things.
Incorrect.
A bit is the smallest binary value. It can hold one of two values. Nominally 0 and 1.
"Six months at a time" represents half a year. Therefore the change in correctness over time of TFES clock can be represented by "a bit".
np, debate partners are not my advasaries
I wish more RE'ers were like you.
thx, but im not that old, so i dont have much stress on me yet
You brought up spinning and how it would curve, I was simply stating that it could only curve if it's angular momentum was offcenter, or there were "seams" that distorted the air flow around the spinning bullet, much like what a pitcher does when throwing a curveball.
This is out of the question now, lets get back to the actual question at play here.
okay.... so other than trying to compare munition physics to a ball being thrown a few yards... Has anyone ever actually shot a target that far taking account every possible complication other than the Coriolis effect?
Like I said, lets get back the the actual question and not the analogy. Oh and yes, there have been numerous shots a mile or longer. Also, artillery shells go beyond tens of miles, and they follow the same principle of firing a gun.
figure in the seconds of firing, to the actual bullet hitting the target. Over 1000 yrds that's for sure. Oh and here.
ignore the music, its god awful
. And none of the videos prove that they account for the Coriolis effect specifically. The first video was very impressive. I wish my eyes were good enough to do that lol
You brought up spinning and how it would curve, I was simply stating that it could only curve if it's angular momentum was offcenter, or there were "seams" that distorted the air flow around the spinning bullet, much like what a pitcher does when throwing a curveball.
This is out of the question now, lets get back to the actual question at play here.
A bullet also curves because it is spinning as it leaves the barrel from the grooves if im not mistaken, any professional sniper must take the Coriolis Effect into account as well, but It is worth noting that a bullet rotates on its own which can cause some of that to occur.The rifling, the groves in the barrel, causes the spinning. The spinning prevents, though not entirely, the bullet from curving--due to the conservation of angular momentum. I think that's the opposite of your claim. --but I'm not a expert on rifles.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling
I don't claim I am either, but I highly doubt over longer ranges when the spin becomes dramatically slower that it will still allow it to keep a significantly straight path.Ok, then lets take modern (USA) artillery for example, which doesn't have rifling. They still need to account for SOME effect that magically makes the shell miss its target.
And in actuality, the spin is consistent, so curving due to rifling does not happen. Think of it this way, a pitchers pitch moves because of the airflow around the seams when he puts a certain spin on it, the bullet has no "seams" to speak of.
There we go, clocktower backed me up.
I agree with the effect as well but I'm just saying what FE'rs might say so we can get it out of the way and laugh when they bring it up.
I didn't know pitchers have to throw their balls through the grooving of a barrel in order to gain spin, thanks for the analogy 0.o?
I said when they pitch/throw the ball, the reason it curves is because of the airflow over the seams... I wasn't making an analogy to the barrel, I was making an analogy to the in flight rotation an object has.
A bullet also curves because it is spinning as it leaves the barrel from the grooves if im not mistaken, any professional sniper must take the Coriolis Effect into account as well, but It is worth noting that a bullet rotates on its own which can cause some of that to occur.The rifling, the groves in the barrel, causes the spinning. The spinning prevents, though not entirely, the bullet from curving--due to the conservation of angular momentum. I think that's the opposite of your claim. --but I'm not a expert on rifles.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling
Ok, then lets take modern (USA) artillery for example, which doesn't have rifling. They still need to account for SOME effect that magically makes the shell miss its target.
And in actuality, the spin is consistent, so curving due to rifling does not happen. Think of it this way, a pitchers pitch moves because of the airflow around the seams when he puts a certain spin on it, the bullet has no "seams" to speak of.
There we go, clocktower backed me up.
.And a quick question, do FE'ers believe the Earth rotates, or doesn't rotate?
One of the few things that FE'ers agree on is that the flat earth does not rotate. There seems to be a difference of opinion on almost all other aspects of the flat earth, however.
Than please explain to me firing a rifle from long range (lets say 1 mile ~1760 yards). You don't account for anything (lets leave wind, humidity and all that junk out), your crosshairs in your scope are dead center between the eyes. You fire and the bullet not only misses below your crosshairs, but to the right (or left in the southern hemisphere). What makes that bullet miss to the right in the FET? The only possible explanation is that the Earth rotates, so when firing from a long distance, your target will be rotating ever so slightly as well. Talk to any number of professional long range marksman, they can tell you the exact same thing.
On another note, artillery has the same exact problem, but because they fire at longer distances it's much more apparent.
