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 - andrews

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: August 03, 2007, 12:21:06 PM »
In FE, rhumb lines are always geodesics. In real life, rhumb lines are not always geodesics. Hence, the Earth is not flat.

Can anyone refute this?

You've never proven that Rhumb lines are always geodesics on FE. Common sense says that even on an FE, Rhumb lines would still not always be geodesics.

And as for your constant "direction" changing to keep going East, have you read the FAQ? It's pretty self-explanatory.

This is getting quite technical! I don't think that right now I can put up much of an argument. Maybe I'll think about this a little more...

I did read the FAQ but I can't recall this topic right now. I'll have a look through it again later.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: August 02, 2007, 11:53:43 AM »
I'm asking again:

1) Why, on a flat Earth, do you have to constantly change your "bearing" in order to keep a constant Eastwards "bearing"

You don't.  An Eastwards bearing is an Eastwards bearing...nice try at a trick question though.

Yeah yeah... Okay:
1) Why, on a flat Earth, do you have to constantly change your direction in order to keep a constant Eastwards bearing?

It's the same for RE...

No, it's not. (At least if you think of the Earth's surface as a manifold...)

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: August 02, 2007, 11:52:06 AM »
I'm no expert, but I'm gonna guess it's because east and west go in circles on a flat earth.  ::)

That's the point. I'm asking for an explanation.

Anyhow, this point isn't the main point of the thread. The question still remains:

In FE, rhumb lines are always geodesics. In real life, rhumb lines are not always geodesics. Hence, the Earth is not flat.

Can anyone refute this?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sketipical Physics
« on: August 02, 2007, 11:50:28 AM »
oi this thread has been busy,  well there was recently a satellite (or weather balloon for you FE er's) that map the changes in gravity across the entire globe.  I'll try and find the article on it later.

again distance does play an effect on gravitational pull between two objects, for instance jupiter does not accelerate towards us at 9.81 m/s^2 even though it is still attracted by the Earth's gravitational pull.  Like mentioned before with the sheet analogy space flattens out the further you get away from the bowling ball.

and as for the idea of space bend, space-time does bend.  The Earth's rotation causes twists in space-time due to the earth's mass, there have been experiments to prove that.

Someone also said that there maybe other forces bending light.  This is a possibility but those theories have yet to be fully tested so I cannot say whether or not those are true, but there's an incredible amount of data supporting Einstein's theory. 

Another known effect is the Gravitational Faraday Effect which is incredible small but is still there.   

I'm pretty sure the FE'ers don't think Jupiter is a big gas giant... I think it's really small, so a lot of things would be different.


so Jupiter doesn't accelerate towards us cause it's really small then?  that's just ludicrous, Jupiter is massive!  I'm not even going to argue that one, do FE'ers suppose the sun is small too?

Yes, and it's only 3000 miles overhead. And it's a spotlight. And it can sustain it's height (even though nothing else can, other than the moon, and stars, and ...)

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: August 02, 2007, 11:46:15 AM »
I'm asking again:

1) Why, on a flat Earth, do you have to constantly change your "bearing" in order to keep a constant Eastwards "bearing"

You don't.  An Eastwards bearing is an Eastwards bearing...nice try at a trick question though.

Yeah yeah... Okay:
1) Why, on a flat Earth, do you have to constantly change your direction in order to keep a constant Eastwards bearing?

6
Through not considered science Math has proven Einsteins theory.

The General Theory of Relativity was originally derived from Mathematical theories!  Einstein used mathematical derivation to come up with the General Theory of Relativity.  He took something he knew and learned something new.  He's hailed for his great contributions to Math as well as Physics because of his work in Tensor Calculus.

I've done the proofs and derived the equations (with obvious help from a professor, I'm still an undergrad) I saw the proof first hand the evidence to support it.

This stuff just didn't come out of nowhere, it came from what we already knew.  Grounded in Math, Physics takes those principles and applies them to the real world.

I think the conspiracy is feeding us the math. I mean, at least in Canada, most math research is funded by the government (NSERC).
*Sarcasm*

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: August 02, 2007, 06:56:59 AM »
I'm asking again:

1) Why, on a flat Earth, do you have to constantly change your "bearing" in order to keep a constant Eastwards "bearing"

You don't.  An Eastwards bearing is an Eastwards bearing...nice try at a trick question though.

East-to-West on flat Earth is a circle. Do you agree?

If you agree, then you must change bearings to go East-to-West...

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sketipical Physics
« on: August 02, 2007, 06:55:28 AM »
oi this thread has been busy,  well there was recently a satellite (or weather balloon for you FE er's) that map the changes in gravity across the entire globe.  I'll try and find the article on it later.

again distance does play an effect on gravitational pull between two objects, for instance jupiter does not accelerate towards us at 9.81 m/s^2 even though it is still attracted by the Earth's gravitational pull.  Like mentioned before with the sheet analogy space flattens out the further you get away from the bowling ball.

and as for the idea of space bend, space-time does bend.  The Earth's rotation causes twists in space-time due to the earth's mass, there have been experiments to prove that.

Someone also said that there maybe other forces bending light.  This is a possibility but those theories have yet to be fully tested so I cannot say whether or not those are true, but there's an incredible amount of data supporting Einstein's theory. 

Another known effect is the Gravitational Faraday Effect which is incredible small but is still there.   

I'm pretty sure the FE'ers don't think Jupiter is a big gas giant... I think it's really small, so a lot of things would be different.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ice Wall Gaurded
« on: August 02, 2007, 03:31:01 AM »
How do you all know that the Ice Wall is guarded if none of you have been to it before?

We know because no one has ever been there.

Please take a course in logic.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sketipical Physics
« on: August 02, 2007, 03:30:02 AM »
Quote
Follow the links, pal. There's more than enough USGS data on gravity measurements. And we've already had this discussion and you left the thread in your usual cowardly manner.

There are no links in the PDF you've provided. Ergo, we see that the evidence for different levels of g at different altitudes is non-existent. A myth like so many other myths.

Please take a course in logic.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: August 02, 2007, 01:18:25 AM »
I'm asking again:

1) Why, on a flat Earth, do you have to constantly change your "bearing" in order to keep a constant Eastwards "bearing"

2) Why, on a flat Earth, do rhumb lines turn out to be geodesics, when in real life, they are not geodesics?

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: August 01, 2007, 01:23:44 PM »
I'll tell you the implications:

The earth is flat.

Please explain why.

Also, please explain why, on a flat Earth, you would have to change direction in order to travel directly East.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why is Atmoplane Locked?? (Or Why Can't I Post?)
« on: August 01, 2007, 01:21:14 PM »
Maybe the thread starter locked it?

I guess so. Is there an etiquette for this? (I'm new to forums.)

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: August 01, 2007, 01:20:27 PM »
East to west are circles on FE, therefore just travel in straight line and there's your rhumb line.



Yup.. But these rhumb lines are also geodesics.

I never thought about this before, but going from East to West on FE would require changing your bearing! East-to-West motion is a circle, and rhumb lines are straight lines... This is a rather strange idea, and I haven't yet thought of the implications.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Helium...
« on: August 01, 2007, 01:18:08 PM »
If the equivalence principle is what I think it is, then Helium would rise in FE for the same reason it rises in RE, so this test is inconclusive.

Hmm.

Yes?

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Why is Atmoplane Locked?? (Or Why Can't I Post?)
« on: August 01, 2007, 01:17:26 PM »
I'm not sure why the thread is locked, or why I can't post.

Anyhow, in response to Dogplatter, you are probably correct.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Helium...
« on: July 31, 2007, 06:32:02 PM »
If the equivalence principle is what I think it is, then Helium would rise in FE for the same reason it rises in RE, so this test is inconclusive.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Helium...
« on: July 31, 2007, 06:29:27 PM »
if we are falling then why does helium rise.... or fall faster

Why does it rise in RE?

Gravity is pulling down heavier gases with more force, so something's gotta give: the helium is pushed out of the way and the only way out is up.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: July 31, 2007, 06:28:05 PM »
Hit the print screen button on your keyboard. Then open paint or another graphics program you have and paste it in, save and upload.

I already have the picture, but I couldn't figure out how to download it.

*Shuffles noobishly away*

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Helium...
« on: July 31, 2007, 05:53:10 PM »
Remember the Equivalence Principle?
I don't know the equivalence principle...

Edit: Is it the thing I know from special relativity?

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: July 31, 2007, 05:52:09 PM »
I don't quite understand this. In general, curves are not straight lines (on a general manifold, what is a straight line?), but in a Euclidean space, straight lines are curves. So I don't quite understand your statement.

"In mathematics, the concept of a curve tries to capture the intuitive idea of a geometrical one-dimensional and continuous object. A simple example is the circle. In everyday use of the term "curve", a straight line is not curved, but in mathematical parlance curves include straight lines and line segments."


I'm acknowledging that the there is more than one definition and use of the word; even if you may or may not be taking it out of context in your transitive property that you used. I'm still not convinced all Rhumb lines are geodesics on a plane.

A rhumb line is a line of constant bearing. Hence, in $\bf{R}^3$, the equation of a rhumb line is
$$\overline{x}(t) = t \cdot \overline{x}_0 + \overline{x_1}$$ where $\overline{x}_1$ is the position at time $t = 0$ and $\overline{x}_0$ is the tangent vector at any time. This is the equation of a straight line.

(To be rigorous, there are a few steps in between (solving simple vector DE's) that I proved in my differential geometry class.)
Sorry, but that's gibberish. cdot is undefined, for example.

Opps.. I'm writing in LaTeX. I'd post a picture of it, but I can't figure out how...
cdot means center dot.. It's just a dot. Overline puts a line over everything; it should be overrightarrow which will put a right arrow over everything, which most people use to denote vectors. Dollar signs are for math mode.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Helium...
« on: July 31, 2007, 05:32:23 PM »
Helium is less dense than air, and rises through a form of buoyancy.

Explain buoyancy without this "magical, never observed force of gravity" on your FE.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: July 31, 2007, 05:24:05 PM »
You copy pasted all that and it still does not disprove the great circle. 

Actually, it does.

Please summarize what this work says in relation to the topic in question...

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles
« on: July 31, 2007, 05:15:03 PM »
I don't quite understand this. In general, curves are not straight lines (on a general manifold, what is a straight line?), but in a Euclidean space, straight lines are curves. So I don't quite understand your statement.

"In mathematics, the concept of a curve tries to capture the intuitive idea of a geometrical one-dimensional and continuous object. A simple example is the circle. In everyday use of the term "curve", a straight line is not curved, but in mathematical parlance curves include straight lines and line segments."


I'm acknowledging that the there is more than one definition and use of the word; even if you may or may not be taking it out of context in your transitive property that you used. I'm still not convinced all Rhumb lines are geodesics on a plane.

A rhumb line is a line of constant bearing. Hence, in $\bf{R}^3$, the equation of a rhumb line is
$$\overline{x}(t) = t \cdot \overline{x}_0 + \overline{x_1}$$ where $\overline{x}_1$ is the position at time $t = 0$ and $\overline{x}_0$ is the tangent vector at any time. This is the equation of a straight line.

(To be rigorous, there are a few steps in between (solving simple vector DE's) that I proved in my differential geometry class.)

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Atmoplane
« on: July 31, 2007, 05:07:44 PM »
It's 8 pages long, but based on the first page I'd say that the REers are failing to take into account two important facts -

1: The Ice Wall is as tall or taller than the atmolayer.

2: Universal Acceleration acts to negate the diffusion of matter (in this case that of the atmolayer). In order for the atmolayer to leak over the Ice Wall, its particles would have to sustain a hypothetical speed greater than that of the Earth, which is a logical impossibility.

Given perfect conditions, this would be true, but there are local disturbances (weather) which may allow some air to leak out.

Think about this argument: In order for water to evaporate, it has to boil. Hence, it has to be at 100 degrees Celsius (at 1 atmospheric pressure unit). Whence, water at room temperature cannot evaporate, because it doesn't reach 100 degrees Celsius.

26
Then you have created a pseudo force based on your frame of reference.  That is what you consider to be gravity.

Suits me.

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheist Politicians
« on: July 30, 2007, 07:31:03 PM »
Aside atheist politicians, most people don't realize that various scientists considered by many to believe in a god were actually atheist:
  • Albert Einstein (above all)
  • Enrico Fermi
  • Niels Bohr
  • Werner Heisenberg
  • Paul Dirac
  • Wolfgang Pauli
  • Ashoke Sen
  • Edward Witten
  • James Clerk Maxwell
  • Steven Hawking
  • Max Planck
  • Prince Louis-Victor Pierre Raymond de Broglie
  • Erwin Schrödinger
  • Hideki Yukawa
  • Sheldon Lee Glashow
  • Abdus Salam
  • Steven Weinberg
  • Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
To name only a few offhand.

Do you do physics? lol...

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The RE sun, bombs, and you!
« on: July 30, 2007, 07:27:47 PM »
So, about this force of gravity which doesn't exist:

A) With small speeds, Newton's theory of gravity is CORRECT. Newton's theory of gravity contains a force called GRAVITY or the GRAVITATIONAL FORCE. There is nothing wrong with using the word GRAVITY.1
B) At high speeds, Newton's theory of gravity is WRONG. There IS no force of gravity because it would create contradictions. Then we cannot use the word "gravity" (pertaining to the force of gravity).

If our geologist friend here is measuring how large mountains are (which aren't very big, and aren't moving very fast), he is certainly able to use Newton's theory of gravitation, in which there exists a force called (gasp!) gravity!

1: By correct I mean agrees with experimental evidence to any detectable precision.

Generally, when something doesn't work, it's not used anymore. GR works just fine with gravitation, and in GR, gravity as a force does not exist. That's the entire point.

I agree that GR is a better theory in terms of range of applicability, and that a force called gravity doesn't make sense (actually I'm trusting you guys to be right!), but for some (most) purposes, it is unnecessarily complicated (face it, who here actually understands GR?). What I am saying is that Newton's theory works just fine in most cases. That's my point.

29
Is there something wrong with this? (Perhaps there is still a contradiction with the whole "force acting at a distance" business, but I don't know.)

Not really wrong, just gravity as a force doesn't exist according to GR.

But what if we're doing business according to Newton's theory? (IE measuring the mass of a mountain)

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The RE sun, bombs, and you!
« on: July 30, 2007, 06:44:54 PM »
I think it is clear by now that the RE sun theory just doesn't work.

With those refutations of awesomeness, you are 100% cough**in**cough correct.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5