121

Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

« on: April 06, 2017, 10:44:48 AM »

Ok, you're making yourself look ignorant and stupid.

The ignorance you can do something about with a bit of effort.

People are politely spoon feeding you answers but to not even look at the resources people are providing you is just plain rude.

122

Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

« on: April 06, 2017, 10:12:40 AM »

I give up.

Ah go on, one more go....

Did you look up Newton's Laws of motion? Have you tried to understand them - you must have done them at school. They explain all you misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Edit to add...

I'm doing forces/acceleration etc with my kids at the moment. I've been looking at that website I linked earlier. It really is excellent so thanks!

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Physics-Tutorial/Newton-s-Laws

123

Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

« on: April 06, 2017, 09:52:53 AM »

"Did you look at the physical condition of the earth"

Yes, it's round. I can tell it's not flat because the sun sets below a clear horizon. (Not some wishy-washy fading away atmosphere bollocks). That horizon recedes if I gain altitude. The earth and sea do measurably bulge a bit at the equator due to centrifugal force.

Ok, did you look up Newton's laws?

Do you ever answer a question?

124

Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

« on: April 06, 2017, 09:07:32 AM »

Physical Observer

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been explained to you over and over again. The resultant force on the water at the equator is still down as the centrifugal force (acting in the opposite directition to gravity) is tiny.

All the waters you see ARE curved. It's just that it's impossible to see as the radius of curvature is 6400 kilometres!

I'm beginning to think that this just one big wind up.

Did you look up Newton's laws?

125

Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

« on: April 06, 2017, 04:22:03 AM »

Objects don't "obey" forces, they are subject to forces and and move according to Newton's laws. Forces are vector quantities and can be summed accordingly.

So, the water at the equator is being pulled towards centre of the earth by gravity, AND being flung out by centrifugal force. As has been said countless times gravity is a lot stronger so the water doesn't fly off. Nor do you fly off.

Newton's laws don't change just because they are on Wikipedia. Look them up and try to understand them. You must surely have covered them at school?

Please try to understand or there is little point entering into a discussion.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Physics-Tutorial/Newton-s-Laws

126

Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Ask Me Anything] Will explain every observation using round earth model

« on: April 06, 2017, 02:10:32 AM »

Physical Observer

I'm sorry but you are displaying astonishing scientific illiteracy. Of course multiple forces can act on an object at the same time. Does gravity just say "ok centrifugal force, your turn - I'll just nip out for a smoke and a pancake whilst you carry on"?

If you pick something up off the floor gravity doesn't look the other way for a bit. You just apply a greater force. The net vector addition has the resultant going up so the object moves upwards.

To be honest if you don't get this then there's pretty much no point debating anything with you.

Newton's laws are clearly laid out here...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

127

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Does a so called space rocket accelerate?

« on: April 06, 2017, 12:07:27 AM »

Scepti

Please please please take the time to study Newton's laws of motion. They answer all of your questions and clear up all of your misunderstandings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

128

Flat Earth General / Re: Where are 'Space Ships' really headed?

« on: April 02, 2017, 12:40:46 AM »

This thought experiment was developed by Isaac Newton.

Obviously you'll need a spherical earth and some kind of force acting at right angles to the direction of motion! Gravity maybe!

The image is from this excellent article on gravity, which includes a paragraph explaining orbits. http://www.aplusphysics.com/courses/regents/circmotion/regents-gravity.html

129

Flat Earth Q&A / Sunset

« on: March 31, 2017, 03:38:22 AM »

If the sun "sets" due to "perspective" how come after sunset you can see stars where the sun was. (i.e. just above the horizon). Presumably the sun is closer and brighter than the stars so if you can see them the sun should still be visible.

Also. How does a "perspective sunset" explain this...? Surely the sun should be all visible or not at all.

130

Flat Earth General / Re: What evidence would convince you that the earth is round?

« on: March 31, 2017, 03:32:23 AM »

Putting the sun at the centre neatly explained the apparent retrograde motion of some of the planets against the background of stars.

131

Flat Earth General / Re: I Know The Earth Is Flat AMA

« on: March 30, 2017, 10:42:15 AM »

Polaris....

Tom Bishop said in another thread that Polaris has been calculated by the "Flat Earth Society to be at an altitude of four thousand miles above the hub of the earth".

The distance on the ground along a line of longitude between the north pole and the equator is approximately 6000 miles.

So. On a flat earth, using basic trigonometry, somebody standing at the equator looking north should see Polaris at an elevation angle of approximately 33 degrees above the horizon (inverse tan 4/6).

This does not agree with the observed angle of around zero degrees.

You said "ask me anything" - Can you please explain how the observed angle is different from that predicted by the flat earth model?

Tom Bishop does not speak for me.
How is the 6000 mile number attained again? Did YOU measure it? 33 degrees eh... Strange number.

It's from the FE Wiki and agrees roughly with the RE number. The angle is from simple geometry. Tan angle = opposite/adjacent. So no, it's not a "strange" angle, it just comes out of the maths (it's actually 33.7 degrees). Can you tell me why it doesn't agree with the real world observations of Polaris from the equator?

edited to add...

Let me know your numbers for the distances for the North Pole to Polaris and the Equator and we'll see what angle we come up with.

132

Flat Earth General / Re: I Know The Earth Is Flat AMA

« on: March 30, 2017, 01:27:51 AM »

Polaris....

Tom Bishop said in another thread that Polaris has been calculated by the "Flat Earth Society to be at an altitude of four thousand miles above the hub of the earth".

The distance on the ground along a line of longitude between the north pole and the equator is approximately 6000 miles.

So. On a flat earth, using basic trigonometry, somebody standing at the equator looking north should see Polaris at an elevation angle of approximately 33 degrees above the horizon (inverse tan 4/6).

This does not agree with the observed angle of around zero degrees.

You said "ask me anything" - Can you please explain how the observed angle is different from that predicted by the flat earth model?