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 - Scintific Method

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48
1
Flat Earth Debate / DIY Coriolis demo
« on: June 03, 2015, 05:06:45 PM »
Check out this site for a DIY Coriolis demo that anyone can do to prove the effect exists:

http://www.smartereveryday.com/toiletswirl

I would be interested to see how many FE supporters actually get off their potties and go do this! Post your results below!

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« on: February 25, 2015, 12:38:02 AM »
Gravity = air pressure? Okay, simple question: a helium balloon weighs less than the volume of air it displaces. If air pressure presses things (like cars) to the ground, why does air pressure cause the balloon to rise?
Because the gases inside that balloon are more expanded, as in helium. The air pressure at sea level os compressed, meaning the molecules are very small and condensed. Anything more expanded will be PUSHED into the sky, which is why tehre is a dome.
I've told you time and time again that air pressure isn't pushing down. It's mass pushing into it that compresses it to resist that and push back.
Air is simply stacked all the way to the top by push on push which is why helium ends up near the top due to it being more expanded.

I take it a hot air balloon work the same way, despite the fact it is filled with plain old air, from ground level, just heated slightly?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity = Air Pressure
« on: February 25, 2015, 12:10:41 AM »
Gravity = air pressure? Okay, simple question: a helium balloon weighs less than the volume of air it displaces. If air pressure presses things (like cars) to the ground, why does air pressure cause the balloon to rise?

4
Actually, if the helicopter were able to maintain the exact angular momentum it had when it was on the ground for the entire time it was in the air, it would appear to move approximately 6.3x it's altitude in a Westward direction over 24 hours.

Before anyone makes themselves look like a total idiot by asking "why?" have a go at working it out yourself.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: ISS in front of a daytime moon.
« on: August 23, 2014, 06:41:19 PM »
Can you prove it is genuine?

Get a decent pair of binoculars, or a telescope, and watch the ISS fly over for yourself. It may not pass in front of the moon, but you will be able to see it, which pretty much proves that it is real. If you happen to have any friends living approx 1-200km away, get them to view the ISS at the same time, then both of you can compare angles of elevation and determine the ISS's actual altitude by triangulation. That's assuming you are sufficiently intelligent to perform basic trigonometric calculations...

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Inertial navigation
« on: August 21, 2014, 04:17:51 PM »
Air Dragging. Due to the fact that it's always daylight at the equator of true north (on a concave Earth that we live inside) then it only makes sense that air will always be the most stable at true north thus all other air is slightly less stable so when you spin a top with only 1 possible axis of movement it will naturally stop on the path of most resistance. And due to the fact that the sky is moving on an axis inside the Earth then it would be natural to have the point of axis which is the North Star naturally cast have a line of resonant drag. (Another fact is that it is easier to spin a top clockwise then it is counter-clockwise, this is also due to air dragging and because momentum always follows momentum if the Earth were spinning counter-clockwise it would be easier to spin counter-clockwise in tops but that simply is not true)

(If this theory is correct it would also explain why there is more hurricanes, cyclones and tornadoes near the equator)

Ooookay...

I'm with Macpie:

This seems to be straight up bullshit.

Could we have something vaguely credible please?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Inertial navigation
« on: August 12, 2014, 11:54:09 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrocompass

So, a gyrocompass axis will align exactly north-south. In the real world, this is because the earth is rotating and the gyrocompass uses this rotation to align itself with the axis of the earths rotation. What could possibly be the cause on a flat earth? Plausible (testable) explanations please.

No answers so far have satisfied the one criterion I set. Oh well...

Still nothin' I see. Gee, I've given you lot plenty of time, surely you could have made something up by now? I guess, in the absence of any alternative, I'll have to stick with the tested and proven explanation then: the earth is roughly spherical and rotates about it's axis.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 25, 2014, 02:36:48 AM »
Charles, two questions:

1. How large would your rectangular pan for measuring curvature be?

and, back on topic,

2. Have you ever succeeded in making a pendulum's plane of swing rotate in a direction and at a rate of your choosing without actually touching the bob?

9
We know the Earth is flat because of the overwhelming amount of evidence.

As soon as someone on here provides one piece of reproducible evidence which is unambiguous in the way it supports FEH, I will take this kind of statement more seriously.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE explanation of the sun on the horizon.
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:57:31 PM »
Here's a better drawing:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

That image is only representative for the equinoxes. At other times of year (the other 363 days) the sun is visible for either more or less than half of the day.

This is a scenario that has been done to death. It has more holes in it than your average colander. For example, in summer, I should see the sun set in a NNW direction, but in reality, it sets in a SW direction (I live in Australia). Also, in summer it is 'setting' much further away from me than in winter, yet the angular size remains the same. I could go on, but it has all been covered before, so I won't.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:49:05 PM »
Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Care to tell us all where that kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.

If I thought for a second that you would be capable of following the explanation, I'd give it, but given your apparent inability to comprehend fairly simple physics, I'm not going to bother. Your best bet would probably be some remedial classes of some kind to at least get you up to a high-school level of understanding.
More insults  :'( lol .I'm only asking you to show me where the kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.  Here's an example so you can get your head around what a torque is & how it has a relationship with pivot point's
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Oh, nice, a video on gyroscopic precession! Well, that's close enough to being on-topic I suppose...

Ok, some pendulum basics, since it seems the bleedingly obvious needs to be pointed out: at it's starting position, a pendulum has no kinetic energy, but a certain amount of potential energy (depending on how high it is above it's "rest" position, and how much it weighs). As it swings down to the lowest point of it's swing, all this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. As it is swinging up again to the other high point, the kinetic energy it had is converted back into potential energy, with a small amount having been lost along the way as heat and sound.

And a little more in-depth: the tension in the wire at the top of the swing is equal to the weight of the bob multiplied by the cosine of the angle the wire makes with the vertical (mg.cosθ). At the lowest point of the swing, the tension is equal to the weight of the bob, plus the mass of the bob multiplied by it's tangential velocity squared and divided by the length of the wire (mg+mv2/r).

The tension always acts along the wire, as does the centripetal force. There is no torque in the system.
Fantasy land.
What happen to the force of momentum. go on holidays did it ?

Like I said, waste of time. Momentum is not a force.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: No solar visor on helmet ON THE MOON
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:46:29 PM »
Show me how they actually measured it?

What I don't want to see you write, is, " oh, they saw this planet move and calculated this and came up with that", because you know what I think of your planets.

What I want to know, is how they measured the speed of light on Earth. On Earth; not by space in any way, shape of form. Ok, over to you.

Since you don't want any astronomical methods, here's an earth-based method that has been discussed before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Time_of_flight_techniques
Would you like to explain it briefly in your own words?

As has been made clear between the quoted post and now, explaining this to you in my own words would be utterly pointless. You would simply slip straight into name-calling/conspiracy/fantasy/bullshit mode like you always do.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: No solar visor on helmet ON THE MOON
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:18:28 AM »
Show me how they actually measured it?

What I don't want to see you write, is, " oh, they saw this planet move and calculated this and came up with that", because you know what I think of your planets.

What I want to know, is how they measured the speed of light on Earth. On Earth; not by space in any way, shape of form. Ok, over to you.

Since you don't want any astronomical methods, here's an earth-based method that has been discussed before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Time_of_flight_techniques

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 10, 2014, 02:55:04 AM »
Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Care to tell us all where that kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.

If I thought for a second that you would be capable of following the explanation, I'd give it, but given your apparent inability to comprehend fairly simple physics, I'm not going to bother. Your best bet would probably be some remedial classes of some kind to at least get you up to a high-school level of understanding.
More insults  :'( lol .I'm only asking you to show me where the kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.  Here's an example so you can get your head around what a torque is & how it has a relationship with pivot point's
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Oh, nice, a video on gyroscopic precession! Well, that's close enough to being on-topic I suppose...

Ok, some pendulum basics, since it seems the bleedingly obvious needs to be pointed out: at it's starting position, a pendulum has no kinetic energy, but a certain amount of potential energy (depending on how high it is above it's "rest" position, and how much it weighs). As it swings down to the lowest point of it's swing, all this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. As it is swinging up again to the other high point, the kinetic energy it had is converted back into potential energy, with a small amount having been lost along the way as heat and sound.

And a little more in-depth: the tension in the wire at the top of the swing is equal to the weight of the bob multiplied by the cosine of the angle the wire makes with the vertical (mg.cosθ). At the lowest point of the swing, the tension is equal to the weight of the bob, plus the mass of the bob multiplied by it's tangential velocity squared and divided by the length of the wire (mg+mv2/r).

The tension always acts along the wire, as does the centripetal force. There is no torque in the system.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 09, 2014, 09:30:44 PM »
Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Care to tell us all where that kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.

If I thought for a second that you would be capable of following the explanation, I'd give it, but given your apparent inability to comprehend fairly simple physics, I'm not going to bother. Your best bet would probably be some remedial classes of some kind to at least get you up to a high-school level of understanding.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE explanation of the sun on the horizon.
« on: June 08, 2014, 01:52:13 AM »
Some very simple geometry (which you could do on a sheet of paper, or using a model) shows that the sun can never be lower than 10 above the horizon at the absolute farthest possible distance from an observer on a flat earth. 10 is about the apparent width of your hand at arms length from your eye, and about 20x the apparent diameter of the sun itself.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 08, 2014, 01:44:20 AM »
...it doesn't change the fact that Foucault pendulums don't operate without some sort of technological assistance; be it motors or magnets, it could even be someone at the top of the pendulim manipulating it manually. GE probably funds the whole operation.

Someone hasn't been paying attention. The pendulum at the School of Physics at the University of New South Wales has no drive to keep it swinging, and must be hand-started if you want to see it in action. Visitors are encouraged to do this themselves, and yet, with no mechanical control whatsoever, and with random people hand-starting it, this pendulum still precesses at a rate of about 9/hr. Note: because of it's mass, it will continue to swing for several hours once started.

18
Is this seriously even a question?
Commercial aircraft fly at around 30k ft..
Everest is 29,029 feet max.
The guy is also above clouds.
Use your head.
We are just using the Zetetic method:  the earth looks curved, therefore it is.
In this case, direct observation has conflicted with direct observation.
One of the observations is wrong, or misunderstood.
I've been in more planes than the number of times I've been on Everest's peak, so I'm inclined to say that the man was mistaken.
Is that all you can do when you've been backed into a corner?

The difference being, on a plane your field of view is somewhat restricted, so you can only see a small portion of the horizon; on the summit of Everest, your view is panoramic to say the least. Besides which, none of this makes any difference anyway, the horizon on a flat earth (assuming it somehow has a horizon, and not just an edge) would still appear to curve (left to right) in the same manner.

19
If you stand on the shore of any ocean and look toward the ocean, the horizon is always the same distance from the observer.  This is true whether you are looking with the naked eye, with low-power binoculars, or with high-power binoculars.  If the earth is round, this phenomenon is explained very easily.  How do flat earthers explain it?  In other words, if the earth is flat, why can't you see farther with more powerful binoculars?

You can only see through so much air. Binoculars won't make the air in front of you more clear.

Which would be why there was a photo posted a while back of mountains 100km (or was it 100 miles?) away from the observer, clearly visible, although slightly washed out looking. Also, I can see a TV mast 40km away, even on a misty/hazy day. I honestly don't think that "you can only see through so much air" is anywhere near good enough to explain this:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">The earth is round DERP

How is it that I can make out ripples in the water on the horizon, and the yards on the ship as they sink out of view, if the air is "too thick to see through" at this distance? And for goodness sake, don't even for a second suggest that a 2-3ft swell can hide 10ft worth of hull from an observer who's ~20ft above the water.
If you insist on bringing up that dodgy DERP video again, then this video will have to go up again.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Proof the Earth is Flat, NASA lies! Part 3

Well that was a waste of nearly 7 minutes, and it failed to address my post. The horizon in the DERP video is quite well defined, and the ship quite clearly 'sinks' substantially before it fades much. Oh, and even if the camera has been lowered (which I doubt, looked more like it had just been tilted down slightly), it still wouldn't explain how so much of the tall ship had been hidden by the horizon (read my previous post).

The video at the beach actually shows a similar thing happening. It shows two other boats either side of the tanker when he walks up out of the water. They were out of sight from the lower vantage point.

20
If you stand on the shore of any ocean and look toward the ocean, the horizon is always the same distance from the observer.  This is true whether you are looking with the naked eye, with low-power binoculars, or with high-power binoculars.  If the earth is round, this phenomenon is explained very easily.  How do flat earthers explain it?  In other words, if the earth is flat, why can't you see farther with more powerful binoculars?

You can only see through so much air. Binoculars won't make the air in front of you more clear.

Which would be why there was a photo posted a while back of mountains 100km (or was it 100 miles?) away from the observer, clearly visible, although slightly washed out looking. Also, I can see a TV mast 40km away, even on a misty/hazy day. I honestly don't think that "you can only see through so much air" is anywhere near good enough to explain this:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">The earth is round DERP

How is it that I can make out ripples in the water on the horizon, and the yards on the ship as they sink out of view, if the air is "too thick to see through" at this distance? And for goodness sake, don't even for a second suggest that a 2-3ft swell can hide 10ft worth of hull from an observer who's ~20ft above the water.

21
When are y'all gonna realise that the horizon would still appear curved even if the earth were flat? That is, provided there's some magical property of light or the atmosphere that creates the appearance of a sharply defined horizon in the first place...

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 04, 2014, 04:05:44 PM »
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook  A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.     

Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something! ;D
Try setting  up two pendulums with bobs of differing weight & simultaneously set them in motion.
Then assess the result  :)

Their period of swing would be different, but if all else were equal, they would precess at the same rate. What's your point?
t = 2 pi sqr (l/g).  Weight does not affect period.

Quite right, my bad...  :-[

23
It IS an optical illusion because the sun is not going "down".  It's just reached the lowest possible angle to be seen by your eyes before the horizon gets in the way and blocks it.

The lowest possible angle the sun could ever be viewed at on a flat earth (assuming the monopole disc model w/ 3,000 mile high sun) is 8.7 above eye line. Given that the horizon for someone standing on a beach is roughly 0.3 below their eye line, this leaves 9 (about the visual width of your hand at arms length from your eye) between the sun and the horizon at the minimum. So I'm sorry EarthIsASpaceship, but your 'explanation' isn't good enough.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 04, 2014, 03:54:04 AM »
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook  A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.     

Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something! ;D
Try setting  up two pendulums with bobs of differing weight & simultaneously set them in motion.
Then assess the result  :)

Their period of swing would be different, but if all else were equal, they would precess at the same rate. What's your point?

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 04, 2014, 01:49:47 AM »
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook  A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.     

Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something! ;D

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 04, 2014, 12:48:58 AM »
To date you haven't tended the method used to prolong the pendulums swing & seem to be avoiding its forth coming. a slight nudge doesn't cut it. Method used please.     

If you could be bothered to comprehend any of what has been posted prior, or to go and look it up yourself, you would know that the pendulums which have a mechanism to sustain their swing use a simple electromagnet at the pivot, which gives a small vertical tug each time the pendulum reaches the lowest point of its swing. This is sufficient to maintain the pendulums swing, and does not influence it's precession.

Gravity accelerates falling objects at a constant rate (on Earth, it's 9.8 m/s/s) lets leave out the air resistance & concentrate on the energy required to stop a pendulum if we wanted to stop it at its lowest point of fall. Then the energy required to stop it at its full swing of travel & reverse that travel so it travels back in the opposite direction. Now lets apply inertia, support base & configuration of bob mass, direction of momentum to fall of 9.8 m/s/s. conclusion. Inertia is not constant during a full swing.Once the bob  passes the lowest gravitational fall point, there is undue force. Conclusion. pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory.

My conclusion after reading that is that you have no idea why the pendulums rotate. Also, either English is not your native language, or you are nowhere near as smart as you pretend to be.

So, when are you going to replicate the 160 year old tech that could cause a lead bob to precess as it swings? Given that it must have existed in Foucault's time, it should be easy enough to put together, and cost next to nothing too.

27
All this talk about the left-to-right curvature of the horizon is pretty much irrelevant anyway. Why is there a horizon in the first place?

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 03, 2014, 12:26:17 AM »
Even if you provide a full arrangement that would mimic the observed rotation of the pendulum, you still provided just a possibility, and not actual proof that's how they work.

Just as your explanation of how a Foucault Pendulum works is simply a possibility? I see no difference.

So in your mind, the possibility that they could be faked, raised by some vague references to magnets and reed switches, is equal to several video recordings demonstrating how they actually work as predicted by a formula that gives their rotation rate for any given latitude?

Absolutely.

So, when are you going to prove that it can be faked? Remember, you only have to be able to replicate 160 year old tech, so it should cost next to nothing. Oh, and it has to work on wood too.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 02, 2014, 03:51:35 PM »
On this page you will find a couple of looped videos of what appears to be a polished wood pendulum at the University of New South Wales: http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au//jw/foucault_pendulum.html

If you read the article, you will see that this pendulum has no mechanism to maintain it's swing, and is simply 'hand started' by anyone who wants to see it in action. It consistently rotates anti-clockwise at a rate of about 9/hr, and appears to be quite capable of continuing to swing for a couple of hours at least.

No magnets, no motors, nothing to influence it other than the motion of the earth itself.

edit: Just thought I should include a quote from the page.

Quote
The Foucault Pendulum at the School of Physics of The University of New South Wales is a "hands-on" version. There is no electromagnetic drive but, because of its size once it is started it will swing for several hours. Visitors are invited to start it swinging in a plane that is accurately defined by a fixed vertical wire and a vertical line on the wall. The pendulum takes seven minutes to precess one degree, but even smaller angles than this can be seen by sighting along the reference plane.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulums
« on: June 02, 2014, 02:57:53 AM »
Vauxhaull, not only have you failed to explain how Foucault pendulums work, you've never even shown convincingly how they could be faked.

^^^ This has given me an idea. If anyone on this forum can create a Foucault pendulum where the rotation of the plane of the pendulum's swing can be controlled by the user, then I'll give claims of fakery some credit. For example, if you live in the Northern hemisphere and you can make a pendulum rotate anti-clockwise at a controllable rate (say, once an hour), then I'll believe it can be faked. And there's no point claiming that it would be too expensive to do, if they could do it 150 years ago, then it should be easy as pie to do it now. Oh, and it doesn't need to be huge, a small model (1-2ft tall) would suffice.

That's ridiculous. It would be extremely expensive to even start developing such a pendulum. Since you seem to think it would be no big deal, how about you donate money to one of us to start it? I'm too busy to do it now, so I'd recommend finding someone other than myself who is willing to exert the time and effort into making such a thing.

Or, hey I have an idea, why don't you do it yourself? I've seen it work in action, I don't need to prove it to myself.

So you're saying that replicating something that was first put on public display 160 years ago would be prohibitively expensive to do now? How can that be? The required technology should be easily cobbled together for pennies in this day and age.

Unless, of course, there is no feasible way to fake it, and the pendulum rotates for the reason given: as a result of the rotation of the earth.

Besides, why should I put effort into supporting your claim? It's your claim, you back it up. Prove it would have been possible to fake the results 160 years ago, using technology available at the time.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48