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 - Copper Knickers

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature
« on: November 10, 2021, 03:55:08 PM »
If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.
Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?
The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.
So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?
Because there isn't a hump ? Show me the hump.

As explained, the 'hump' is in front of you and all around. The top of the hump is the horizon. Stuff far behind the hump (e.g. ships) can't be seen.

Your lack of engagement with what I've written suggests you're trolling. Good luck.
So why is the horizon pretty much horizontal? I can't see any hump looking to the horizon at all .

Over water, the horizon is the same distance away in all directions. It is therefore the same height in all directions. Hence it is horizontal. This is exactly what would be expected on a round earth.
You have contradicted yourself,  how can the horizon be horizontal if there is a hump?

I've never said there was a hump in the horizon. I've been very consistent in saying that the curvature is along the line of sight, not along the horizon.

Fairly sure you're trolling here. That's a shame, but I won't be replying further.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature
« on: November 10, 2021, 03:42:56 PM »
If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.
Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?
The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.
So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?
Because there isn't a hump ? Show me the hump.

As explained, the 'hump' is in front of you and all around. The top of the hump is the horizon. Stuff far behind the hump (e.g. ships) can't be seen.

Your lack of engagement with what I've written suggests you're trolling. Good luck.
So why is the horizon pretty much horizontal? I can't see any hump looking to the horizon at all .

Over water, the horizon is the same distance away in all directions. It is therefore the same height in all directions. Hence it is horizontal. This is exactly what would be expected on a round earth.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature
« on: November 10, 2021, 03:30:00 PM »
If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.
Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?
The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.
So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?
Because there isn't a hump ? Show me the hump.

As explained, the 'hump' is in front of you and all around. The top of the hump is the horizon. Stuff far behind the hump (e.g. ships) can't be seen.

Your lack of engagement with what I've written suggests you're trolling. Good luck.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature
« on: November 10, 2021, 03:08:07 PM »
If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.
Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?
The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.
So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature
« on: November 10, 2021, 02:57:45 PM »
If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.
Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?
The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature
« on: November 10, 2021, 02:18:42 PM »
If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment
« on: August 26, 2019, 02:09:29 AM »
If John's 'experiment' is capable of showing anything it is that roundies are too easily trolled..

8
Flat Earth General / 'Globe Lie' convention UK
« on: August 18, 2019, 02:07:18 AM »
https://feconvention.com/kidderminster/

13-15 September. Is anyone from here planning to go?

I'm thinking about dropping by. Very curious to see some genuine flat-earthists 'in action'. I suspect it may not always be easy to keep a straight face, but we'll see...

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA
« on: July 09, 2019, 12:46:20 AM »
The point is that the accelerometer would show that objects on the ground are being accelerated at approx. 9.8 ms-2 upwards.

Now you know that’s not quite true as the reading would depend on where you happened to be standing.

That's why I wrote approx.

However what has that got to do with UA on a flat disc. The problem is the two are interwoven and have to be taken together. SR GR, Newtonian physics and any other law of physics you care to mention would not apply on a disc world either finite or infinite.

The Question is what evidence is there for UA on a flat plane.

Fair enough, and apologies. My thought experiment didn't concern a flat plane, but the real world.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA
« on: July 08, 2019, 03:04:14 PM »
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.

I wasn't really asking for a precise figure. It's the direction that is relevant.

If you would like to make a point please go ahead.

The point is that the accelerometer would show that objects on the ground are being accelerated at approx. 9.8 ms-2 upwards.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA
« on: July 08, 2019, 11:37:43 AM »
Yeah, I get what you're saying, the flat earth is effectively a rocket accelerating at 1g. So what do you imagine is under the flat earth accelerating it? Why doesn't the sun and moon fall down? Are they being individually accelerated at exactly the same rate? How is that synchronised rate maintained? Why can't we see what is accelerating them? Are all the stars and planets being accelerated in the same way?

Sorry if I've misled you but, no, I don't go along with the whole UA thing or a flat earth etc. I'm just pointing out that the idea of the ground accelerating upwards isn't so silly, in fact it's mainstream science, allowing for the fact that it needs to be thought of in terms of spacetime and not just space. It's part of what makes gravitation, so planets, stars etc behave in the same way as earth.

If you haven't already, have a look at that second video I posted. It's quite good at explaining this.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA
« on: July 08, 2019, 10:06:15 AM »
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.

You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.

Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:



Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.

Yes, so why isn't the UA accelerating me at the same rate as the ground below me?

Well, briefly, because it's not really UA that's going on here. Sure, everything on earth is being pushed upwards but that's because the curving of spacetime by the earth's mass means that 'standing still' would mean moving downwards relative to the ground (like the ball and feather in the video). So the physicality of the earth pushes everything out of the way.

A falling object has no force on it so it obeys Newton's 1st law and doesn't accelerate. An object on the ground does experience a force from the ground and accelerates upwards.

Edit: This video is quite a good intro to this stuff:

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA
« on: July 08, 2019, 07:54:57 AM »
If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.

You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.

Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:



Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA
« on: July 08, 2019, 07:41:57 AM »
It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.

I wasn't really asking for a precise figure. It's the direction that is relevant.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA
« on: July 07, 2019, 03:05:47 PM »
Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.

Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.

It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

Firstly while thought experiments can be useful to help visualise an idea, for it to have any real value the the elements within the thought experiment should be known to the thinker and based on some previous work. What you are suggestion is not a thought experiment, itís more idle speculation.
Have you been into space? How do you know how an accelerometer would function in space, all you could do is guess, and itís hardly a practical experiment.
I fail to see how this would throw any light on UA, but then again idle speculation is about all there is as far as flat earth experimentation goes.

It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA
« on: July 07, 2019, 02:01:36 PM »
Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.

Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.

It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: What's the deal with REers here?
« on: July 07, 2019, 03:25:53 AM »
I've been wondering lately: Why do round-Earthers (REers) come to the Flat-Earth Society? A quote commonly attributed to Einstein (probably incorrectly) says that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. REers come here (which is fine, it's an open forum) where they know they will find FEers, and they present the same old arguments over and over again. I don't think I've ever seen an original or new argument in favor of a RE. And I doubt that any FEer has ever been swayed over to the RE camp by these arguments. So why do they bother? I know why I'm here: To find like-minded people to have friendly chats with. But a REer on these forums must feel awfully frustrated. Why do they subject themselves to this? There must be more enjoyable ways to pass their free time than arguing with us incessantly. And yet they trudge on, never converting anyone, but keep up the same old Arguments day after day; year after year. I don't understand it.

A question that gets asked a fair bit. I suspect most come here because, like me, they were curious as to how these people could think the earth is flat. It turns out, with one or two possible exceptions, that they don't. Most 'FEers' here are role-playing, here for the debate. That's why they're not chatting to themselves in the FE only forum. You could argue that the REers are here for the same reason, i.e. debate. Though I suspect quite a few are fooled by the 'FEers'.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA
« on: July 07, 2019, 03:06:16 AM »
Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

19
Flat Earth General / Flat Earth FC
« on: July 03, 2019, 08:36:14 AM »
Spanish football club renamed Flat Earth FC
Quote
It is yet to be seen if this name change will stand the test of time or will gain the club new followers from around the globe.

Only a small club but quite funny nonetheless.

20
I'd love to know why I'm mistaken.

Well I haven't followed your reasoning in great detail, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to rely on a geodesic in spacetime translating to a straight line in space (or, similarly, to a geodesic in curved space). This isn't generally the case. Satellites follow elliptical orbits even after allowing for the curvature of space under GR.

21
I'll tell you how the satellite is accelerating, John, but first you have to specify the model you are working with, a dome or not, a vacuum, altitude, etc., and type of satellite.

Under General Relativity (which it seems is the basis for John's argument), an orbiting satellite is not accelerating as no force is acting on it. It's following a geodesic in spacetime.

Where John is mistaken is in thinking this implies a flat earth.

22
I will let this theory die the day I know that the satellite is accelerating. Happily.

Of course the satellite is not accelerating. No force is acting on it. That's not a reason to keep your theory alive.

23
Yes I gave it his name. No, it has next to nothing to do with him except for a specious similarity to a quote I read once by him in an isolated interview.

Nonetheless, it is a fine tribute to the kind of disingenuity his arguments displayed and to which your own seem to aspire.  ;)

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What do RE and FE agree on?
« on: March 12, 2019, 12:53:14 PM »
It doesn't look flat though, does it?

Sure, on land it can be hard to tell because of all the bumps and stuff, but at sea it visibly curves away in all directions. How is that flat?
Sorry to disagree but from near sea-level (here about 2 m above) in the transverse direction the horizon is so close to straight that you could ignore any curve:

And that photo was with a good camera and normal, 50 mm equiv, lens.

So it looks ;) flat . . . . but:

I wasn't referring to a curving horizon, but the fact that there is a horizon! The transverse curvature is imperceptible, of course, but the longitudinal curvature is plain to see!

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What do RE and FE agree on?
« on: March 12, 2019, 12:04:38 AM »
It doesn't look flat though, does it?

Sure, on land it can be hard to tell because of all the bumps and stuff, but at sea it visibly curves away in all directions. How is that flat?

26
Flat Earth General / Re: The mysteries of calculus
« on: February 05, 2019, 01:28:35 PM »
Supposedly NASA has sent people into space to observe directly but are NASA and all the other space agencies in the world honest?

Do you have any examples of them lying?

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Why is it round?
« on: January 18, 2019, 01:17:46 PM »
Here is a real shot from the cupola of the ISS SHOWING THE ENTIRE EARTH!
[/sarcasm]
Quite laughable really!

That image is a creation by ESO.org, as part of a planetarium presentation using what they call "fulldome" imagery. It's 'fake', if you will, and never intended to not be. It's part of planetarium presentations they have to aid in displaying the wonders of the cosmos, as planetariums tend to do.

Is it really all that 'fake'? Isn't it essentially just a wide angle lens?

The video of it looks quite cool. Would be great in a planetarium:

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« on: January 14, 2019, 06:03:11 AM »
It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.

No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !

Well, let's see:

... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Given that your case against the moon landings is that they 'don't look real' then I can only conclude you do believe the Red Sea parting by the same criterion.
....the little section ended with...But what seemed real during it's generation, looks fake in 2019.
What year are we in ? Exactly in 2019 and all things i mentioned look fake now. Furthermore being born in 1967 i did not even saw most of the things i mentioned in their perspetive era's.
Do i really have to explain this to you ?

It's okay, I think I get it.

What you're saying is that had you been around in 1956 then you would have believed that Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea. And had you been old enough in 1969 you would have believed the moon landings.

Is that correct?

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« on: January 13, 2019, 12:47:00 PM »
It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.

No, i did not say or claim that at all you fool !

Well, let's see:

... in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Given that your case against the moon landings is that they 'don't look real' then I can only conclude you do believe the Red Sea parting by the same criterion.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« on: January 13, 2019, 12:29:21 PM »
Look at it this way,..when we saw the ''ten commandments'' in 1956, the splitting of the ''red sea'' looked very real...

Of course it did..



No, it certainly did NOT look real!

Well dutchy thinks it was real.

It seems dutchy thinks Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea in 1956, but the moon landings were faked. Go figure.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29