91

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer

« on: July 23, 2007, 04:31:07 PM »

This reminds me of something I heard about modern submarines: "How do you find a U.S. Nuklear (Seawolf klass) submarine? you look for the QUIET spot in the osean."
...
How do you find a blak hole? You look for the nothing in the kosmos.

You kannot SEE a blak hole, but you kan see that there IS a blak hole present. Remember the hole itself is, put simply, nothing; The stuff AROUND the hole makes it very konspikuous.

No one ever denied that you can see the effects of the black hole. But you can't directly view the black hole, that's the point.

And this is why I would say that a black hole doesn't really have a colour. I mean, if we're going to argue about what colour a black hole is, we first have to define a colour! Is colour defined by how it is perceived by human eyes? By a computer detector? By wavelength?

92

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 23, 2007, 12:24:48 PM »

However, we have diect observational evidence as well, along with so much experimental evidence (something FE lacks). The direct observational evidence includes ships dissapearing over the horizon, sunsets, architectural modifications to buildings and bridges, high altitude observations, astronomical observations, and innumerable others. We have experimental proof with solar and celestial events, focault's pendulum, the cavendish experiment, the goddamn Apollo missions (despite that you believe them to be conspiracy), and far more experimental evidence.

FE offers NO experimental evidence and stumbles at the mere mention of some natural phenomena. The observational evidence is easily and has easily been explained countless times.

I wouldn't go that far. RE has certain explanations for their observations and of observed phenomena. FE simply needs alternate explanations to explain them in accordance with a flat Earth that are within the bounds of science. Some of their explanations have merit, but there definitely needs to be more complexity in regards to some issues and I think that is a little beyond what anyone would be willing to venture to create.

This is a good point. Before we cast away explanations for phenomena in FE, we first have to find out if they can hold up, given a rigid setting. For example, observing that rhumb lines and geodesics are not the same on a sphere requires some complex (even though it's elementary) mathematics.

I still think that FE is BS

93

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer

« on: July 22, 2007, 08:00:31 PM »

It's interesting to note that new research in relativity suggests that we are able to see inside a black hole somehow!

Then it wouldn't be very...black.

This is a very silly point.

A "great circle" is not very great. It's the smallest path between two points on the Earth! A black hole isn't necessarily black.

Unless you're making a joke

94

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles

« on: July 22, 2007, 07:59:03 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.

I'm sorry but you said that "curves are straight lines" which is what confused me. I think what you meant is "straight lines are curves"...

95

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles

« on: July 22, 2007, 10:33:23 AM »

Geodesics on a plane are straight lines. (Straight lines are curves too.) Rhumb lines on a plane are straight lines, and so are always geodesics.

Yes, curves are straight lines in math.

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.

96

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles

« on: July 22, 2007, 10:27:11 AM »

Geodesics on a plane are straight lines. (Straight lines are curves too.) Rhumb lines on a plane are straight lines, and so are always geodesics.

Yes, curves are straight lines in math.

I am saying three things here:
F1: Geodesics on a plane are equivalent to (the same as) straight lines.
F2: Rhumb lines on a plane are straight lines.
F3: Hence, Rhumb lines, on a plane are always geodesics. (This is a logical consequence of F1 and F2.)

In real life, sailors and pilots have noticed that rhumb lines are not always geodesics. This is evidence that the Earth is not flat.

Why are you thinking it'd be any different on a flat Earth?

Now I say another three things:
R1: Geodesics on a sphere are equivalent to (the same as) great circles.
R2: Rhumb lines on a sphere are SOMETIMES great circles, and SOMETIMES spirals.
R3: Hence, Rhumb lines, on a sphere are NOT always geodesics. (This is a logical consequence of R1 and R2.)

Now, the penultimate step is:
P: On Earth, Rhumb lines are not ALWAYS geodesics. Hence, the Earth cannot be flat. (This is the contrapositive of the statement "The Earth is flat --> Rhumb lines are always geodesics".)

Note that I did NOT prove that the Earth is spherical, but I did prove that it is not flat.

97

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles

« on: July 22, 2007, 09:55:00 AM »

Geodesics are paths of (locally) shortest length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic

Then they would be curves as stated in the article you posted. Therefore they are not the same, and still both not possible on a flat Earth just like a spherical one.

Geodesics on a plane are straight lines. (Straight lines are curves too.) Rhumb lines on a plane are straight lines, and so are always geodesics.

Geodesics on a sphere are great circles. Rhumb lines are sometimes great circles (the equator and lines of longitude are the only ones), but are more generally spirals. Hence they are not always geodesics.

In real life, sailors and pilots have noticed that rhumb lines are not always geodesics. This is evidence that the Earth is not flat.

Do you understand the initial post? Please let me know if you do not and I can send it to you as a message, so that the thread doesn't get clogged.

98

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles

« on: July 22, 2007, 09:20:43 AM »

Rhumb lines and geodesics are different on spherical Earth but the same on flat Earth. Evidence shows that they are different. This suggests that the Earth is round. That is the point I am making.

There are geodesics on a flat Earth?

Geodesics are paths of (locally) shortest length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic

99

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 22, 2007, 06:24:42 AM »

Wikipedia maintains that the earth is a sphere. Wikipedia once maintained that the population of elephants on earth had tripled within a timespan of six months. Therefore, Wikipedia is a biased and unreliable source with zero peer review.

In stark contrast, we have Earth Not a Globe; a peer reviewed work; a work which after its publication spawned several recurring scientific publications dedicated to investigating the sphere issue (Earth Not a Globe Review & the publication Earth); a work which has inspired several independent authors to investigate the shape of the earth:

Ergo, we see that your Wikipedia quote is unsubstantiated heresy.  Non-Evidence.

Non-evidence does not imply non-truth. Wikipedia says that clouds are in the sky. Don't tell me clouds aren't in the sky!

Not only that, but I did not quote Wikipedia. I made a statement about evidence of a round Earth, and you are not refuting this evidence!

100

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Relativity Question *waves at TheEngineer*

« on: July 22, 2007, 06:10:41 AM »

gravity and gravitationare interchangeable just like we can say kilograms or pounds when we really mean Newtons or Slugs, I really do not see you guys going to the butcher and ordering 2 Newtons of beef, and no gravity(gravitation) is not a force but it is a cause of a force.

"In scientific terminology gravitation and gravity are distinct." - Source

This is a useless argument. I'm sorry if I didn't use the word gravitation when I meant gravity. While reading/writing this forum, I don't really think much about scientific terminology as it is not particularly scientifically accurate.

101

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer

« on: July 22, 2007, 06:08:31 AM »

It's interesting to note that new research in relativity suggests that we are able to see inside a black hole somehow! I don't exactly know how, and since I am not a relativist, I will not try to explain it. I also don't have any sources

I think that some of Stephen Hawkings' new work was about this.

Are you talking Hawking Radiation perhaps?

This is probably what I'm talking about. One of my professors was telling me about it (he's a relativist).

102

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Relativity Question *waves at TheEngineer*

« on: July 22, 2007, 06:07:00 AM »

Typically, physicists will look at photons as waves for your thought argument. This allows them to ignore their mass. They will then look at them as particles when they need them to have mass. Basically we have the newtonian vs quantum laws that we pick and choose from. This is evidence that we have a flaw in our model at a more elementary level.

Photons do not have mass. They have momentum...

103

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles

« on: July 22, 2007, 06:04:36 AM »

You want an explanation on why they are the same in both FE and RE?

Rhumb lines and geodesics are different on spherical Earth but the same on flat Earth. Evidence shows that they are different. This suggests that the Earth is round. That is the point I am making.

104

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: For theEngineer

« on: July 22, 2007, 01:51:14 AM »

It's interesting to note that new research in relativity suggests that we are able to see inside a black hole somehow! I don't exactly know how, and since I am not a relativist, I will not try to explain it. I also don't have any sources

I think that some of Stephen Hawkings' new work was about this.

105

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles

« on: July 22, 2007, 01:45:09 AM »

Would some FE'ers please reply to this?

106

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The RE sun, bombs, and you!

« on: July 22, 2007, 01:41:26 AM »

So you are all saying the bomb is too big to explode. Got it.

We are all saying that the bomb is so big that it takes billions of years to explode

107

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The RE sun, bombs, and you!

« on: July 22, 2007, 01:38:11 AM »

You aren't even talking on the same scale of gravitational magnitude. The Sun is SO much more massive than us, and its gravitational field holds the nuclear explosion in place.

The RE model's sun:
The equivelant of 183,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds of TNT explodes per second. And you're worried about gravity? How does this not ignite the rest of the fuel instantaneously?

The sun does not ignite. It changes to a different substance. It isn't like pouring gasoline over a fire...

108

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 22, 2007, 01:31:12 AM »

If we were to shrink you down to a very small size and put you on, oh say, a basketball (let's forget gravitation for a second here), it would seem, at that perspective, a plane.

If we were to shrink you to a very small size and put you on a plane, the world would seem, at that perspective, a plane.

And these two statements in conjunction with each other prove that you cannot prove that the Earth is flat (or round!) by looking out the window!

109

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Relativity Question *waves at TheEngineer*

« on: July 22, 2007, 01:20:49 AM »

Gravity is the reason that objects fall to the Earths surface

Gravitation is the reason objects fall to the Earth's surface.  This is not a force, in GR.

This is exactly what I said, so I am done arguing this point.

110

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Relativity Question *waves at TheEngineer*

« on: July 21, 2007, 04:13:24 PM »

I think that 99% of the posters on here referring do GR do not understand GR as well as they claim. (I'm not claiming that I understand it either, as I do not!)

How can these two statements go together?

I am not a physicist, and I have not read books or papers on GR, but I have taken a course in Differential Geometry, I am soon to take a course in GR, and I know a relativist quite well, and we talk about GR a little bit. I am not a stupid person!

Gravity is the reason that objects fall to the Earths surface, whether it is a force or not. To my understanding, the theory of GR assumes that the universe is a 4D manifold which is curved by mass, and objects follow geodesics on this manifold, which happen to cause them to move towards sources of mass. Either way, it pulls things downwards, so it is irrelevant to us whether it is a force or not.

111

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Relativity Question *waves at TheEngineer*

« on: July 21, 2007, 02:26:13 PM »

So are you saying superliminal particles like tachyons cannot be distorted nor decelerated to  or lower than c when transversing through a medium?

Yes.

I think I disagree, on a technicality. (This is really hypothetical stuff.) c[/c] is the speed of light in a vacuum. A very energetic tachyon traveling through a very dense medium could very well travel more slowly than c[/c], but never as slow as light would travel in the same medium (which is what I think Fritz meant).

Thank you.  This simple demonstration shows that the current GR theory needs revisions in its definitions.

The current GR theory needs more revisions than that. It is simply a model of gravitation which is better able to predict the effects of gravity than Newton's gravity. In this model, there are many problems (things which happen on a very small scale do not agree with GR).

I think that 99% of the posters on here referring do GR do not understand GR as well as they claim. (I'm not claiming that I understand it either, as I do not!)

112

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Artillery

« on: July 21, 2007, 02:22:23 PM »

Why would they need to determine Earth's curvature.  They should be concentrating on wind resistance, air pressure, and humdiity (which does affect air pressure).  These three variables along with others would produce greater margins of error compared to curvature.

Their artillery became consistently more accurate after taking into account of (what they thought was) the Earth's curvature. I am saying that this is evidence that the Earth has non-zero curvature.

Obviously wind resistance and air pressure affects the trajectory as well, but the point is, again, that the artillery became more consistent while only changing the calculations involving curvature. In science this is standard evidence.

113

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which way is up again?

« on: July 21, 2007, 07:03:22 AM »

[

In fact, it's impossible for the earth to be flat.

Ok...why?

In the Discussion & Debate section, I have made two new posts on phenomena which I believe is unexplained by a flat Earth. Please comment on them.

I see a lot of FE'ers giving a scenario which is possible but highly unlikely (ie. an ice wall kept secret, a government conspiracy, et cetera). This doesn't disprove the FE theory, it just makes it unlikely and a weak, though possible, theory. However, if I can provide phenomena which cannot be explained by FE theory, then it becomes practically impossible. Do you agree?

114

Flat Earth Debate / Artillery

« on: July 21, 2007, 06:59:08 AM »

When long-range artillery was invented, people at first could not accurately used them because of what we call the curvature of the earth.

We could assume that the path of the shells would travel in a parabola. Now if the Earth were flat, we could simply use high school mathematics to predict where the shells would land given an initial velocity and angle of attack. When engineers realized that they had to take into account the curvature of the Earth, the artillery became MUCH more accurate. How would FE'ers explain this phenomenon?

115

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rhumb Lines and Great Circles

« on: July 20, 2007, 10:34:11 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhumb_line

yay wikipedia clarification!

Sorry, I totally forgot about this. I even found this link to put here...

116

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Relativity Question *waves at TheEngineer*

« on: July 20, 2007, 03:12:03 AM »

I think just quoting wikipedia just shows that you lack a solid understanding of the subject, if you had a good working knowledge of the subject then it see,s that you should be able to properly explain it yourself, I think the only links should be to where actual studies have been done so we can read them ourselves.

The main point of my argument was not to use Wikipedia as a source. I agree with you 100%. But in in previous post, FE'ers cited Wikipedia and also said that it was a credible source. If they are willing to accept this, then I have refuted their beliefs.

117

Flat Earth Debate / Rhumb Lines and Great Circles

« on: July 19, 2007, 10:15:54 PM »

Since sailors have been using map and compass, they have known that (except in very special cases) you cannot hold a constant bearing (travel on a rhumb line, or loxodrome) while traveling on a geodesic (path of least distance). On a flat Earth, rhumb lines and geodesics would be the same. How do the FE'ers explain this?

118

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Global Warning Causes Falling Sea Levels

« on: July 19, 2007, 08:54:19 PM »

Proof why CO2 isn't all what scientisitst are porposing it could do:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Why do we want to produce more CO2?: Increased plant life, especially since certain parts of the world are suffering from famine.

If carbon monoxide is supposedly acting as an insulator to trap radiated heat from the sun, a greater temperature differential will exist between the atmosphere and space.  With a increase in temperature differential, an increase in the flow rate of radiated heat from the atmosphere into space ensues (thus a more stabilized temperature).  This is proof that temperature increase is not significantly linked to carbon dioxide, as GW proponents believe.  Also, the ensuing plant growth do to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide will absorb more of this carbon dioxide and produce more oxygen (so we can breath and burn more stuff) and fuel (also burn more stuff).  Also, such high predictions of carbon dioxide concentrations in the by GW would result large quantities of fuel (via more plant life) and thus gradually decreasing fuel prices (which are not occurring).

Presumably you haven't actually solved the heat equation. Presumably also, you don't actually know much about dynamical systems. Or logic. Let's simplify your argument:
-CO2 reduces heat loss, causing less heat to be transferred from Earth to space
-Hence, more heat will be transferred from Earth to space

119

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Relativity Question *waves at TheEngineer*

« on: July 19, 2007, 08:03:08 PM »

Oh, and please ratchet up the quality of your references. Wikipedia just pales so much against APL, don't you think?

No.

If what you are saying is that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, then

The Earth's shape is very close to an oblate spheroid—a rounded shape with a bulge around the equator—although the precise shape (the geoid) varies from this by up to 100 metres (327 ft).[18]

and the Earth is round.

120

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration 101

« on: July 19, 2007, 07:09:28 PM »

Well, RE'ers have poked enough holes into FE that it'd never fly. Problem is, once an FE'er senses imminent defeat, he flees the thread after posting his final argument, never to return, and proclaims it a "victory," despite the numerous objections and refutations provided by RE'ers.