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.

Topics - JackBlack

Pages: [1]
Technical Support / Overzealous spam protection
« on: June 19, 2023, 04:30:57 AM »
I know it is great to have anti-spam filter, but if it has false positives it can make the site unusable; as well as causing ethical concerns for collecting emails and falsely claiming they are spam.

I have tried posting and it says:
"CleanTalk: *** Forbidden. Please enable JavaScript. Message seems to be spam. ***"

Why was I banned with the pathetic reason of:
trouble making, boring harassment, insults. Take your pick.
Simply for responding to someone who was repeatedly lying about me to point out why those lies were wrong?

Has this site really gotten to the point that if you refute someone, they can decide they don't want to talk to you, repeatedly lie about you, strawmanning your position and insulting you; and then if you explain why those lies are wrong you get banned?

Suggestions & Concerns / Why was I banned without warning
« on: June 12, 2020, 09:34:05 PM »
I would like to know why I was banned without any warning at all, just for posting crap in Angry ranting to piss off 1 person.
I wasn't being racist or calling for genocide or anything of the like. I was just posting crap to piss off one person, who clearly shouldn't be in Angry ranting, and if I got a warning for it I would have stopped.

Due to the many biassed (or otherwise problematic, such as ignoring options) polls popping up, I thought I would make a nice simple honest, unbiased poll that everyone can participate in without worrying about bias in the answers or no answers applying.

Note: Knowledge is a subset of belief. So you if you claim to know X, you still believe X.

Suggestions & Concerns / Strange demand from mod
« on: May 07, 2020, 04:02:00 AM »
A mod has recently told me to stop reporting posts.
The only posts I have reported recently that are still visible are those made by Sandokhan, like this one here:

In a thread on the Tunguska event, rather than address the issues raised by his "opponents" he instead spams the thread with irrelevant nonsense on the Sagnac effect and other unrelated things.

How are these posts not a violation of rule 8?
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.

What is wrong with reporting these clearly spam posts?
And if there is nothing wrong with it, why has a moderator told me to stop reporting posts?

His model is literally the RE model, with Earth defined as flat, "justified" by using an axiom of Euclidean geometry in a space he claims is non-Euclidean.
No it's not, and you know it.
If it isn't I certainly don't know that. If anything I know that it is.
The article on this cite used to prop up the non-Euclidean "flat" Earth starts with the current model of a satellite orbitting the round Earth.
Consider a theoretical object in a perfectly stable orbit around a theoretical planet in a traditional round earth manner.
It then uses relativity to say the satellite is following a geodesic path in spacetime (equivalent to a straight path in Euclidean space, and the blog post calls it straight, and which it completely ignores the time aspect ignoring the distintion between a geodesic through space and one through spacetime).
It then uses an axiom/postulate of Euclidean geometry, specifically the parallel postulate or one which relates to it (the exact phrasing can vary), which can be stated in many ways, but the most relavent way I think is this:
If the sum of the two interior angles equals 180°, then the lines are parallel.
As well as noting that a line parallel to a straight line must be straight.

To try and show a path on the surface of Earth would be a straight line as well and thus the surface of Earth is flat.

That sure seems to be taking the current RE model and redefining Earth to be flat and trying to use an axiom of Euclidean geometry in a space you claim is non-Euclidean (in fact it is in a spacetime which is non-Euclidean.

The big problem is that by discarding Euclidean geometry you discard the postulates of Euclidean geometry. You would need to idependently justify them, which you fail to do.
In non-Euclidean geometry, you don't always get the same result.
For example, with spherical geometry, if you were to take a parallel line from the first "pod", then further along, the next pod would not meet at a right angle. In fact, eventually the 2 lines would intersect.
In hyperbolic geometry the lines would get further apart.

Or should I have gone further, such as pointing out how you appeal to gravity to "show" that the path of a satellite is "straight", but then need to ignore it to get a ball to not fall to Earth to pretend that the surface of Earth is "flat"?

If you hold a ball close to the surface of Earth, (but still above as you need space for it to fall), moving at the same rotational velocity of Earth, and then let it go; the fact it falls to Earth shows that the surface of Earth is NOT a geodesic in space time and thus cannot honestly be considered flat, nor can a line on it be considered straight.
Likewise, the fact that you feel the Earth pushing you upwards shows that you are not following a geodesic in space time and thus your path cannot be considered straight.
It is only by travelling very very fast (roughly 8 km/s if I recall correctly) that you can follow the surface of Earth in space while following a geodesic in space time.

It is only by restricting yourself to the 2D, curved, surface of Earth that you can start to say that lines on it could be "straight".

And of course, your blog post doesn't even mention time and thus makes no distinction between a path being "straight" in space or space-time. The path of a satellite is a geodesic in space-time, not space.
This can be seen by imagining what would happen if gravity was removed, so there was no distortion of the time part of space-time. Then it just flies off into space, parallel to a line tangent to the surface of Earth.
Likewise, the same thing happens to the ball without gravity. It doesn't travel remaining the same height above the surface, it travels along a line parallel to a tangent to the surface of Earth. It is just that for a small section of Earth, the 2 are basically the same.

So no, I'm pretty sure that your non-Euclidian "flat" Earth model is just the RE model with the surface of Earth falsely defined as flat, using relativity and falsely using an axiom of Euclidean geometry in non-Euclidean spacetime to pretend to justify it.

So which part am I wrong on?

Suggestions & Concerns / Unclear instructions from mods/mod abuse.
« on: July 06, 2019, 03:20:11 PM »
In this thread:

I was trying to clarify that the point of the thread wasn't for people to just give answers from reality but to explain it from a FE model.

When I repeatedly pushed this, I was threatened by Boydster to just shut up and/or make a new thread as he believed just talking about the real horizon rather than trying to provide an explanation from the FE model was sufficient to answer the questions in the OP.

So I did just that, I shut up in that thread and made a new one, making it clear that I wanted explanations from a FE model.
This thread was then locked with the post moved to Angry ranting.

Why is a mod threatening me and demanding I start my own thread if I want to continue a path on inquiry just to delete the post when I do?

Suggestions & Concerns / Shortcut keys.
« on: June 13, 2019, 02:27:24 PM »
I know that I can just highlight the text I want to change and click the buttons to change the text, however I would find it a lot easier if there were shortcut keys like some sites offer.

Would it be possible to implement shortcut keys for superscript & subscript.
While ctrl++ would likely be intercepted by browers, other combinations could be used.
Google Docs has ctrl+, and ctrl+. (on numpad), but for some reason doesn't like ctrl+.(on main keyboard).

Edit: removed unnecessary requests.

THEREALDILL23, you have indicated you are willing to provide information on the real flat Earth theory, in which case I would like some answers to several questions which have led me to cast aside FE models as things which will never work.
Rather than dump them all in at once, I will discuss one issue at a time.

The first issue is why do things fall.
You have claimed in the other thread:
The law of Buoyance and Electro Magnetic fields and many other laws all can be the reason we experience things "falling" to the earth. Anything heavier than the gases found in the air, falls, anything lighter rises.
But that alone is not an explanation.
You appeal to buoyancy but have no cause.
Why should a heavy thing fall?
Why shouldn't it rise? Why shouldn't it go sideways?
What results in a preferred direction?
Why should it move at all?
Why is there a pressure gradient in the atmosphere?

I fail to see an explanation for any of it under FE with a rejection of gravity.

Meanwhile RE with gravity explains it quite well.
Rather than leave that as an assertion, I will explain it here:

Gravity results in masses attracting one another, which results in a downwards acceleration for free-falling objects and a weight for supported objects.
This weight (W) is given by:

Importantly, this has directionality. The force (either weight or acceleration) is directed towards the other mass (e.g. the centre of Earth).

This then relates directly to buoyancy.

If you have a column of air (or any fluid), there will be some pressure at the top forcing it down. This force acts on the entire column below that point.
However, further down, the weight of the fluid also pushes down which results in a pressure gradient.

If you have a segment of a column of area A and height h, then its total volume will be V=A*h.
If it has a density of p, then its total mass will be m=V*p.
This, from above gives a weight of:
Now this acts on the fluid below, across the same area A, and thus exerts a pressure:

Thus for a column of fluid, a pressure gradient is established such that if you go down by a height h, the pressure increases by h*p*g.

Also, due how fluids work, this applies regardless of the shape of the column. This is due to pressure acting on the interface between layers and thus it would be a series of infinite slices.

So now what happens if we place an object in this column?
Again, for simplicity we will a prismatic object (i.e. a column) and have the object have an area of A and a height of h.
Well this height of h means the pressure at the bottom will be h*p*g greater than the pressure at the top. (note, p here is still the density of the fluid).
This would result in a net force on the object in the upwards direction.
This upwards (or buoyant force) is given by:

Not that this is the formula for the buoyant force.
It is the volume displaced (which is the volume of the object when fully submerged) times the density of the displaced fluid, times "g" the gravitational acceleration (or whatever apparent gravitational acceleration).

So RE, with gravity, explains buoyancy just fine, including the directionality and where there is the buoyant force in the first place.

Now can you either show something wrong with that explanation, or provide an explanation for FE without gravity?

Flat Earth Debate / sandokhan lies regarding the Sagnac effect
« on: October 30, 2017, 03:08:32 PM »
sandokhan, considering you seem intent on repeatedly bringing it up, here is a chance for you to try and prove your BS once and for all (or be shown to be full of shit once and for all).

You claim Earth's orbital Sagnac effect is much greater than Earth's rotational Sagnac effect, but all the evidence contradicts you.

The Sagnac effect is observed for any loop which contains 2 counterpropagating beams of light, which is rotating.
before you start claiming otherwise, no one has ever built an interferometer which spans the entirety of Earth, nor the entirety of Earth's orbit. As such, claiming the loop needs to be centred on the centre of rotation is pure garbage as it would mean no Sagnac effect could have ever been observed. However, you can treat a non-centred interferometer as parts of multiple centered interferometers to determine the result.

Assuming the rotational speed is not massive (i.e. it is significant less than the speed of light), then the formula to determine the Sagnac effect is quite simple:
With this formula directly indicating that the orbital sagnac effect will be 1/365 times that of the rotational one due to the significantly reduced value of ω.

So now then, here is your chance.
Explicitly derive the Sagnac effect due to Earth's orbit and Earth's rotation on a ring interferometer constructed as in the following (very much not to scale) diagram:

The Earth is shown in blue.
The sun is shown in red.
This has a square loop interferometer, of side length l, which is sitting on the surface of Earth (which has a radius of r, and is following a circular orbit of radius R), at the equator.
This is taken on the equinox, simplified to a perfectly circular orbit of 365 days for simplicity (so it will just be an approximation).
The lengths of the interferometer are straight, but are sufficiently short enough to be approximated as axial spokes or as sections of a circular arc centred on either the centre of Earth or the centre of Earth's orbit.
Also note that the interferometer stands vertically, that is one arm is on the ground, and another is l above the ground.

Now then, derive the expected Sagnac effect for this loop based upon Earth's orbital motion, and separately derive it for Earth's rotation, and then compare the 2.
Be explicit in your derivation, don't skip any steps and explain why things must be the case.

Using the simple formula above is also acceptable.
The area of the loop is lē, as it is a square of side length l.
That means Δt=4lēω/cē
And as Earth's rotational motion (measured as angular velocity or ω) is 365 times as fast as Earth's orbital motion, that means the rotational sagnac effect will be 365 times that of the orbital sagnac effect.

Once you have tried to show a derivation I can do the more complex derivation (which I already had before).

Pages: [1]