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 - Crouton

Pages: 1 ... 264 265 [266] 267 268 ... 275
7951
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm a globe earth believer, AMA!
« on: September 06, 2016, 09:07:44 PM »
It amazes me how this forum, intended for people who seek understanding of FET, seems to have more round earth believers than FET believers.  ::)

I hope I get access to the believers section soon. Gees..

It has always been this way. The angry globularists usually post like they've overdosed on their adderall for a few months, then they settle down or leave forever.

That's not fair.  Some of us like to overdose on homeopathic male enhancement pills and post on this forum.

You're not supposed to type with your dong  :-[

What a wonderful thing it must be to live in the world of Space Cowgirl where keyboards that aren't dong operate flow like wine.

I'm not a one-percenter.  I live in the real where the vast majority of the population has to live on powdered milk and can only afford dong based communication devices.

7952
Inertial effects here are influenced by mass there. The local is influenced by the observed in the absence of an absolute reference frame. So in the northern hemiplane the movement of the stars creates a corresponding inertial (pseudo) force. Likewise for the southern hemiplane. At the equator the vector sum of the two fictitious forces produce a null result.

I don't think that quite works.  We would have to have an amount of mass centered over the earth equal to the amount of mass affecting the southern hemiplane. 

Celestial bodies not having mass in your estimation, I see.

Maybe i was unclear about my objection. And I think I had it backwards. For the Mach principal, which is obsolete, to create something resembling the coriolis effect, you would need a very uniform ring of celestial mass above the equator.  Such a celestial body would stick out like a sore thumb.

Now that I think of it. I think  I can calculate where that celestial donut would have to be if I dust off some of my trigonometry.

Or am I misunderstanding this?

Side note; you ever try to mix Machs principle with ua? You might have something  interesting there. Or a total mess. Probably the latter.

7953
Flat Earth General / Re: Will a baby rocket in a vacuum help anyone?
« on: September 06, 2016, 05:06:39 PM »
God I hate to wake this thread up..but I said I would do this, and it is looking like I will have a little down time in the coming weeks. So....

Do I need to build an actual "rocket" the hybrid design I have already designed? Or is just a pressurized gas release "rocket" ok?

To prove your point all I think you'd need is just a party popper loosely zip tied to a pole inside the vacuum chamber.

Of course a rocket with a little more flare would be cool too.

7954
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Challenge to Round Earthers
« on: September 06, 2016, 04:58:12 PM »
You'll find no disagreement from me on this.  Challenge accepted.

On a separate note, do you still need help with that weather balloon?

7955
Inertial effects here are influenced by mass there. The local is influenced by the observed in the absence of an absolute reference frame. So in the northern hemiplane the movement of the stars creates a corresponding inertial (pseudo) force. Likewise for the southern hemiplane. At the equator the vector sum of the two fictitious forces produce a null result.



Quote from: Albert Einstein, quoted by Pais
"It is justified to consider Mach as the precursor of the general theory of relativity.
Quote from: Albert Einstein, Mach Obituary, 1916
It is not improbable that Mach would have hit upon relativity theory if, in the time that he was of young and fresh spirit, physicists would already have been moved by the question of the meaning of the constancy of the speed of light.

I don't think that quite works.  We would have to have an amount of mass centered over the earth equal to the amount of mass affecting the southern hemiplane.  This mass would have to be stationary relative to Earth and completely undetectable.  Even dark matter introduces gravitation lensing.  If we had two chunks of mass like that I'd think it would be obvious to anyone with a telescope. 

And again, while Einstein was inspired by Mach, he moved onto better ideas for explaining the universe.

7956
Flat Earth General / Re: I'm a globe earth believer, AMA!
« on: September 06, 2016, 03:42:21 PM »
It amazes me how this forum, intended for people who seek understanding of FET, seems to have more round earth believers than FET believers.  ::)

I hope I get access to the believers section soon. Gees..

It has always been this way. The angry globularists usually post like they've overdosed on their adderall for a few months, then they settle down or leave forever.

That's not fair.  Some of us like to overdose on homeopathic male enhancement pills and post on this forum.

7957
I think I've read up enough on Mach's principle now to say that it doesn't seem to do much to support a flat earth.

First while Einstein was a big fan of Mach, Mach's principle was abandoned by Einstein. https://www.britannica.com/science/Machs-principle

Second, it's irrelevant to the heart of the issue, a different of angular momentum between two points along  a longitudinal line that that decreases when one approaches the equator and switches polarity as one starts to leave the equator.  On a stationary flat earth, there should never be a difference of angular momentum.  On a rotating plate flat earth there should be a difference but approaching the equator shouldn't cause it to decrease.  Mach's effect can sort of explain the angular momentum, inertia just does a better job though.  Neither would explain why the equator would cause a gyrocompass to behave like it would on a flat earth.

7958
I'm going to have to do some more reading on the Woodward effect but I don't think it has much to do with the Coriolis effect, I could be wrong though.  It seems to be more of a foundation for a theoretical propulsion technology.  Also it seems to have been proposed in 1990 whereas a gyrocompass was first proposed in 1885.

I don't know anything about Woodward other than he interprets his claimed results in propulsion in the context of Mach.  I couldn't tell you anything more about it, and I don't have enough time to look into it especially as it doesn't seem to me at all relevant.
Mach's principle has nothing to do with propulsion (at least intrinsically), and Ernst Mach is widely regarded as a genius. Einstein considered him a direct predecessor of general relativity. I highly recommend "The Science of Mechanics", and I think one would find his approach zetetic.

Alright, back on track reading what I'm pretty sure is the correct article this time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle.  I'm still combing through it but it seems that at best it could provide an alternate explanation to the Coriolis effect on a round Earth.  I see nothing in here that could explain what seems to be the Coriolis effect on a flat earth.  Nor do I see anything that does a better job of describing how a gyrocompass works than conventional physics.

Correct me if I'm wrong.  I'll keep reading it though.

7959
I'm going to have to do some more reading on the Woodward effect but I don't think it has much to do with the Coriolis effect, I could be wrong though.  It seems to be more of a foundation for a theoretical propulsion technology.  Also it seems to have been proposed in 1990 whereas a gyrocompass was first proposed in 1885.

I don't know anything about Woodward other than he interprets his claimed results in propulsion in the context of Mach.  I couldn't tell you anything more about it, and I don't have enough time to look into it especially as it doesn't seem to me at all relevant.
Mach's principle has nothing to do with propulsion (at least intrinsically), and Ernst Mach is widely regarded as a genius. Einstein considered him a direct predecessor of general relativity. I highly recommend "The Science of Mechanics", and I think one would find his approach zetetic.

Gah!!! I looked up the wrong thing.  Sorry about the confusion.  I'll read up on Mach's principle...

7960
Machs principle as explained on Wiki is just the creation of somebody unfamiliar with physics - unless I just do not get it.   
Do you want me to pick an option?
It's quite serious, and many modern globularists are studying varying attempts to incorporate it in a comprehensive model.

Yeah, they're studying it.  The thing is is that it's very theoretical stuff, to put it charitably.  Whereas a gyrocompass is based on well established principles and you can buy one right now.

I'm still at a loss to see how it explains how a gyrocompass works better than "the official story".

7961
The Coriolis effect is simply Mach's principle in action. I see no reason a gyrocompass would not work on the flat earth.

I'm going to have to do some more reading on the Woodward effect but I don't think it has much to do with the Coriolis effect, I could be wrong though.  It seems to be more of a foundation for a theoretical propulsion technology.  Also it seems to have been proposed in 1990 whereas a gyrocompass was first proposed in 1885.

Crutonius,  I looked at wiki for machs principle but it seems like a joke.   Is there anything to that of a serious nature?

In case you missed my last posted I'll sum it up in two words, "Ancient Aliens".

Machs principle seems to be something serious but is to do with acceleration?   What has that got to do with a gyrocompass on a stationary flat earth??

Hopefully Ski can give us an answer.

I might study it more later.  The thing is if I see things in it's wikipedia article like "Ancient Aliens" and "unreproduce-able", it's like plugging in a brand new TV and the TV explodes.  I'm not going to bother reading the instruction manual because I'm pretty sure a TV is never supposed to explode.

7962
The Coriolis effect is simply Mach's principle in action. I see no reason a gyrocompass would not work on the flat earth.

I'm going to have to do some more reading on the Woodward effect but I don't think it has much to do with the Coriolis effect, I could be wrong though.  It seems to be more of a foundation for a theoretical propulsion technology.  Also it seems to have been proposed in 1990 whereas a gyrocompass was first proposed in 1885.

Crutonius,  I looked at wiki for machs principle but it seems like a joke.   Is there anything to that of a serious nature?

In case you missed my last posted I'll sum it up in two words, "Ancient Aliens".

7963
The Coriolis effect is simply Mach's principle in action. I see no reason a gyrocompass would not work on the flat earth.

Yikes!  This guy was on Ancient Aliens.  It seems to be a hypothesis which no one but Woodward can recreate, which is a polite way of saying pseudoscience. I'm pretty sure it's not reasonable to attribute the operation of a gyrocompass to the Woodward effect. 

7964
The Coriolis effect is simply Mach's principle in action. I see no reason a gyrocompass would not work on the flat earth.

I'm going to have to do some more reading on the Woodward effect but I don't think it has much to do with the Coriolis effect, I could be wrong though.  It seems to be more of a foundation for a theoretical propulsion technology.  Also it seems to have been proposed in 1990 whereas a gyrocompass was first proposed in 1885.

7965
Can you detail to me why you think an INS unit wouldn't work on a flat earth?

It uses the same principles that a gyrocompass uses to detect the north pole.  Inertial and Coriolis.

Come to think of it is there a FE explanation for a gyrocompass?

7966
I think Deism is the term you're looking for. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Whether or not it makes sense to you depends on your concept of God and the nature of life.

7967
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'm a Glober AMA!
« on: September 05, 2016, 02:02:08 PM »
If the earth is really a globe then why does it burn when I pee?

7968
Flat Earth Debate / Re: astounding easy to disprove flat earth
« on: September 05, 2016, 01:36:51 PM »
Just reminding the flatties that they still have no answer to this thread.
Plus added a new video

New here from the Netherlands.

Your last vid is weak proof for objects falling behind the curve, because the water in between the observer and the objects is obscuring the bottom first when the distance of the observer increases and the objects become ''smaller'' towards the horizon.
It is these kind of weak arguments from ball earthers (btw, i am no flatty) that keep me thinking.
It is obvious in the footage that the longer the distance the more the rough waters nearer to the observer obscure the bottom of far away objects.
Simply draw a scetch and see how the horizontal lines of a tower (top and bottom) enter our eye / retina.
It is easy to see when and how a bulge of water could easily obscure the bottom end of objects over large distances over water when our object is observed from increasing distances.

What the...?  Does the link go to a totally different video for you or something?  The bulge of water? Do you mean the curvature of the Earth?

I haven't this video but wow great job whoever made it. There just isn't a lot of wiggle room for flat earth apologetics here. I almost think it should be banned on this site because how the hell are flat earthers supposed to argue with that?

7969
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'm a Glober AMA!
« on: September 05, 2016, 08:54:38 AM »
Create balance with an equation between the weight of the particles, the air pressure and the centrifugal forces according as altitude from ground level, then prove how the particles not thrown to the space under the effect of the most one of largest physical power that "diffusion" only there on the edge of the atmospher.
That's easy! We don't need any new equations.

At the altitude of geostationary satellites, 35,786 km, the centripetal acceleration exactly matches the gravitational acceleration.

So, if the atmosphere at that altitude rotated at the same angular velocity as the earth (I don't believe it would, but just assume it does) there would no longer be any nett attraction to keep it on the earth.

But, at that altitude, the mean density of the atmosphere is only 4.04 x 10-19 kg/m3 compared to 1.225 kg/m3 at sea level.

That density would be far better than an extreme high vacuum.

In other words even if the atmosphere at that altitude were rotating with the earth there is simply not enough there for diffusion to matter.

Actually at that altitude an insignificant amount of atmosphere is lost but some gases are also collected from the Solar Wind.

Create balance with an equation between the weight of the particles, the air pressure and the centrifugal forces according as altitude from ground level, then prove how the particles not thrown to the space under the effect of the most one of largest physical power that "diffusion" only there on the edge of the atmospher.

Intikam, I did this for you ages ago, remember? I drew you pictures and everything!

ma = Σ F
0 = Fgravity + Fcentrifugal + ∮P dA
0 = (agravity + acentrifugal) ρair + dP/dz

ρ = density
P = pressure
z = altitude

Create balance with an equation between the weight of the particles, the air pressure and the centrifugal forces according as altitude from ground level, then prove how the particles not thrown to the space under the effect of the most one of largest physical power that "diffusion" only there on the edge of the atmospher.

Not an expert but I think this has to be asked in the form of a question.

Ignored by interrupting a conversation. This is a disrespecting and i can't tolerate it. So good bye.

The owner of the topic said us that "ask me questions" and i asked "him" a question. He challenged and i accept. No interruption in the challenge!

I'm still waiting for an answer for the owner of the topic. After see "his own answer" then i'll tell "my own idea".

I forgive you Initkam.

See to me Initkam is like seeing a deer in the forest, if that deer randomly spouted hilariously bizarre nonsense about a flat earth.  One does not try to pet the deer or disturb it in anyway, lest the deer get spooked and add it to its ignore list.

7970
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 'Murican Politics thread.
« on: September 05, 2016, 08:41:11 AM »
For the sake of a good discussion I propose that all following posts by Jroa in this particular topic will be ignored by all serious participants of the debate.

Well that goes without saying no matter what the situation is.

7971
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'm a Glober AMA!
« on: September 05, 2016, 01:30:42 AM »
I'm someone who believes in what makes sense to them. Try to convert, ridicule (keep it relevant) or ask any questions you have about the round earth!

What would it take to change your mind?

7972
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'm a Glober AMA!
« on: September 05, 2016, 01:23:47 AM »
Create balance with an equation between the weight of the particles, the air pressure and the centrifugal forces according as altitude from ground level, then prove how the particles not thrown to the space under the effect of the most one of largest physical power that "diffusion" only there on the edge of the atmospher.

Not an expert but I think this has to be asked in the form of a question.

7973
Flat Earth General / Re: I'd like to talk about Earth as a Globe-Earther.
« on: September 04, 2016, 09:55:59 PM »
Hi Aaurra,

I'll see what I can do to answer a few of your questions.  I'm not a flat earther but I like to study it.  I can see that you're a reasonable person and that you're just trying to get a feel for how it works here so I'm going to try to resist the urge to join an anti FE slug fest.

Gravity:  I have to say I don't understand why gravity is a problem here.  FE tends to disregard anything more than 10 miles above the earth, which seems to me that it would be easy to assume the Earth has whatever specific size and density you need to fit with gravity.  Two of the alternate theories are;
UA, which as you noted can't work by itself and so you'd need to at the very least hybridize it with gravity. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67515.0.
Denspressure, the idea that air pressure keeps us stuck to the ground.  There's a lengthy debate on this one.  https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.0

The NASA conspiracy: I'd like to give you a satisfying answer on this one but I have yet to receive one myself. 

The Ice Wall:  There doesn't seem to be any consensus about what's beyond it.  I've heard, infinite ice, the edge of the world, even more continents that NASA is hiding from us and that the world goes on infinitely.

Can a Flat Earther disprove a spherical Earth:  Hear me out.  No.  But it's lots of fun reading up on their arguments.  For example, http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html.  Not a single item on this list holds up to any scrutiny however you will learn so much about the world and the universe by figuring out exactly how each point is wrong.

Looking across Lake Michigan and seeing Chicago:  This is a close cousin to the whole ship sinking when it crosses the horizon thing.  To understand the FE explanation for this you have to start with Samuel Rowbotham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham and read Earth Is Not a Globe http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/ .  Basically Rowbotham argues that this effect is an illusion caused by "perspective" and that by using a telescope with sufficiently powerful optical zoom you can "restore" the entire shape of whatever object has disappeared over the horizon.  I don't want to pass judgement on this here but there's lots of videos on Youtube covering this. 

Hope that helps.

7974
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why FE believers never will show you a perfect map?
« on: September 04, 2016, 02:21:39 PM »
Here's the thing, at this point it's pretty safe to say that jroa doesn't buy into any of this flat earth nonsense and just likes to troll. So his posts are just noise.

Also, congratulations on getting on getting married jroa!

Unless...he DIDN'T get married, and this is his most masterful derailment yet, derailing us from his earlier derailment?!?  :o :o

In either case, Congratulations to you, Jroa!  ;D

Claiming to have gotten married just to derail a thread would be particularly loathsome.  It's possible I guess but if he wants to debase himself that way it's on him not us so still I say congratulations.

7975
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A challenge that I hope is debated honestly
« on: September 04, 2016, 10:54:44 AM »

I'm familiar with it, yes. But hey why no stick a go pro on it while I'm at it for some extra science.
You might damage someone's roof  :o

I know, that was hilarious. I can't rule out catastrophic failure but I do have some skill and experience in these matters.

7976
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A challenge that I hope is debated honestly
« on: September 04, 2016, 09:35:12 AM »
Dear forum dwellers

Describe to me an experiment that can disprove the Earth is flat.

I am not asking you to prove it is flat, nor am I asking you to 'consider the other side of the argument'.

I am asking the following:

You say "the Earth is flat. I am sure of it. If it wasn't flat then..."

The '...' is the experiment. You describe the experiment and the evidence required to convince YOU that the earth is in fact not flat. It has to be testable and repeatable.

Have you spoken with JRowe? I think he had something along those lines. Not sure if it's what you're looking for, technically it only tests for a consequence of his model of FE, but generally speaking it seems about right. Technology required is a balloon and a gravimeter.

If he wishes to buy me the equipment I'd be happy to run that test for him. I actually live relatively close to the Bonneville salt flats  and launching a weather balloon there sounds like a lot of fun.

I don't think we're talking about the same experiment. The one he's always been talking about is watching a gravimeter as you ascend in a balloon, and trying to find sudden jumps.

I'm familiar with it, yes. But hey why no stick a go pro on it while I'm at it for some extra science.

7977
Flat Earth General / Re: Evidences Of The Flat Earth (On Going)
« on: September 03, 2016, 10:53:43 PM »
Thanks for taking the time to post this John.  Would it be possible to edit this to label the individual points with numbers or letters?  It would make it easier to discuss each point.

7978
Flat Earth General / Re: Shills or Sincere
« on: September 03, 2016, 07:26:50 PM »
What I am wondering what percentage of people on the forum are shills and what percentage really what the truth?
Roughly 42.345% are shills and 72.9888% are truth seekers.

Thanks; that probably is accurate, but it was fun to throw a piece of bread on the water and watch all the little shills nibble on it, but it does get a little boring after awhile if you aren't studying their types.
However it; reminds me of these verses about the kingdom of heaven:
Matthew 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
48
Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

You asked, we answered.  We're actually authorized to be honest in situations like this.  I can only speculate why.

Also, FYI, the Bible is very out of date.  Here, you should read this https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng instead.

It clears up all of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible.  You can keep reading the Bible if you want just know that the perfect restored gospel of Jesus Christ is now contained in the Book of Mormon.

thanks

I can understand your resistance to flat earth, is does destroy all of the Mormon doctrine; anyway if you want to hang on to Mormonism over the truth you get too, just know that the consequence will be more than anyone can bear.

Personally being raised in the LDS religion I know all the facts about it and there is many many books and videos that show the error of Mormonism and flat earth is just one more think on the pile.

That's very interesting. Because if you were raised lds then surely you're aware that the restored gospel of Jesus christ is the most perfect book ever written.

If you doubt this now then I can only assume that you're either angry at God or you've broken the covenants and that the voice of the holy spirit is now weaker in your mind as a consequence.

My advice to you would be think about how you might have transgressed against our heavenly father and pray for forgiveness.

7979
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A challenge that I hope is debated honestly
« on: September 03, 2016, 07:07:45 PM »
Dear forum dwellers

Describe to me an experiment that can disprove the Earth is flat.

I am not asking you to prove it is flat, nor am I asking you to 'consider the other side of the argument'.

I am asking the following:

You say "the Earth is flat. I am sure of it. If it wasn't flat then..."

The '...' is the experiment. You describe the experiment and the evidence required to convince YOU that the earth is in fact not flat. It has to be testable and repeatable.

Have you spoken with JRowe? I think he had something along those lines. Not sure if it's what you're looking for, technically it only tests for a consequence of his model of FE, but generally speaking it seems about right. Technology required is a balloon and a gravimeter.

If he wishes to buy me the equipment I'd be happy to run that test for him. I actually live relatively close to the Bonneville salt flats  and launching a weather balloon there sounds like a lot of fun.

7980
So this is near my house and I have been using this video on The NASA Channel to prove flat earth. Then this other guy comes in and proved it wrong or debunks it or whatever you call it. and now I look like a fool. Can someoen see if he is right or not. I tried and not good with numbers.



Just let me know if I can go bak with any mistak he makes. The guy ia a jerk

I'm not going to lie. You're in a bad situation here. First things first, you absolutely have to get the debate out of the realm of logic and reason. All evidence points towards  a globe so if you let him stick to the facts you're going to get massacred. So you're going to need to steer the debate to an area which is immune to critical thinking.  Here's a few suggestions ;

A. Religion. Are you a Christian? If not lie and say you are. Then make up some verses that clearly state a flat earth. If he actually checks the Bible, then say that he's checking the wrong translation. If he keeps pressing you on it then attribute the verse to one of the lost gospels.

B. Conspiracy. Watch a few moon landing conspiracy videos. They don't stand up to any scrutiny but that's not important. If he brings up nasa you'll need to throw as many arguments against nasa at him at the same time as possible. If he fails to disprove any of them instantly then claim victory. It's called a gish gallop.

If he brings up trigonometry or any ancient Greek expirement, find anybody connected to this argument and counter it with an ad hominem attack. Anybody from a culture that old has a wildly different moral standard than we do so this should be easy.

Good luck!

Pages: 1 ... 264 265 [266] 267 268 ... 275