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 - Slorrin

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 01:46:47 PM »
Well, i'm glad we're on the same page.

Let's take it as read, currently that the phenomenon exists.  Can an explanation be offered for how it would exist in an FE universe?

Assuming it exists.  I can't prove it exists on a message bard without referring to something which will just be called into question, the testing ethosd, aparatus, etc..

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 01:26:40 PM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"

How can flat earth science explain this repeatable and observable phenomenon, the easterly direction of freefalling spheres from great heights?

I don't think it really happens. I think the cannonball drops straight down.

That is not an answer.  What you think happens doens' tmatter.  What is a demonstrable phenomenon matters.  This happens, whether you want to believe it or not.

The cannonball moves eastward.

It's a fact.

I want an explanation for what causes that to happen in flat earth science.  WIthout spurious claims as to whether or not a plum bob never shows a right angle.  It obviously does show a right angle, if it created the foundations for buildings that lasted millenia, or else would they not be slanted and leaning?

I think the flaw is in how you conceptualize inertia.  For the plum bob to lean eastward, that would mean all spheres would roll eastward naturally.  Things don't just MOVE to the east without force.

If you shorten the arm of a ballista, it will throw less far.  WHy?
IF you lengthen the arm, it will throw further.  WHy?

It's because the rate of the drop of the load is similar in both cases, changing only a little with the addition of more wood and the distance of the load from the axel.  The motion is circular on a ballista.

The further from the axel, the faster the load travels.  ANd further extensions were made with the use of ropes, slings...

infact, that's how the sling works, as a weapon.. adding length to your arm so that your throw';s force can be increased by the increased speed at the further distance.

It's why if you have smaller tires on your bike, but pedal at the same rate, you go much slower.

Its the basis of differential pulleys, where two pulleys of different diameters are mounted together on the same axel, and as the pulleys make complete rotations at the same rate, one draws more cord, and the smaller one less cord, as it draws cord equal to the diameter of the wheel.

So whether you THINK the ball drops straight down, it doesn't drpo straight down.  IF you can gain access to some high towers with open windows, you can easily test that theory.

Immaone where we'd be if aristotle had tested his physical theories, rather than just conclude them by logic...

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 01:15:06 PM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "Slorrin"
These are also questions not relevant to the original one.

They are relevent to whether this experiment is valid.

Would the plumbob not be deflected in the same direction as you claim the cannonball is displaced?

Not unless it was falling.  If it was sitting still, why would it be displaced?

The force at work here is that the cannonball, travelling at a faster rate of speed being further from the earths' axis, is falling to a frame of reference which is travelling at a VERY slightly different rate of speed.

The plum bob is not travelling.  It's sitting still, in regards to it's reference.

Why would you assume it would be displaced?  It would sit still.

Do experiments with plum bobs and squares, and ou will find that that is correct, that a plum bob works.  It is in motion at the same speed as the surface f the earth.

I have found the problem with a lot of FE thinking is scale.  I read the book earth: not round and it uses TINY distances.. a couple of miles, for it's experiments.  Not thousands of miles.  

In this case, the cannonball released from the tower of pisa might land half a foot further than one dropped from the ground.

we're not talking about jet engine forces here.  We're talking about minor force differentials which are observable.

Quote from: "Unimportant"

And if the plumbob is displaced because of its inertia, it does not indicate true up/down, and so cannot be used as a valid reference for measuring the horizontal displacement of your cannonball.

That is why you would not measure your angles while walking, but while standing still.  An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

The results of the xperiment are valid, but your understanding of the inertial forces is incomplete or flawed.

If you leave a ball at rest, it stays at rest.  Right?  But on the surface of the earth, the ball is travelling at the same speed as the surface itself.  SO relative speed is zero.  

IF you move from an altitude where the relative speed is higher SLIGHTLY because the rate of ration is the same, to a lower altitude, the relative speed of the object from high altitide, which wants to fall straight down, but continue it's forward motion at the speed of the earth's rotation (the speed it was moving at while it was being held "still" at the top of the tower).  

Since that speed is very very very very slightly different, straight down is not how it appears to fall.  It appears to fall forward.

Now, a plum bob, at one rate of travel, identical to the earth's surface, would not be displaced, at rest.

Nomatter where you hold the plum bob, it will accelerate or decerlated to meet the speed of rotation, until it sits still.  Once it sits still, it is at the same rate of speed.  It is therefor, referrentially, still.  

It would not move forward to the east.  There is no reason to believe because a cannon ball moving from high altitude to low altitude shows a slighty eastward trajectory, that a still plum line, not falling, nor moving altitude, would also have an eastward bend.

Indeed, as you say, if you walk, it trails behind you, whereas in this case, the ball moves AHEAD.  Cearly what you witness when you begin motion is the inertial tendency to remain at rest.  Whereas when it moves forward (The cannon ball) you witness it's tendency to remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by another force (in this case, hypothetically, gravity, or, the acceleration of the earthdisk upward.)

SO again, why would the plumbob be displaced?

How can flat earth science explain this repeatable and observable phenomenon, the easterly direction of freefalling spheres from great heights?

I don't think it really happens. I think the cannonball drops straight down.[/quote]

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:52:35 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"

Constructing newton's laws in a rotating system and you see the same inertia.

The identical inertia.

It's lke calling inertia something else when its observed in a specific case.  That's stupid.

LIke saying "Those are clouds, unless they are over denmark, then we call them puffblobs.  ANd puffblobs, because they ave a different name are NOT LIKE CLOUDS"

Flat Earth Q&A / TIDES!
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:49:46 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
It still doesn't make sense. If the "wobbles" are due to earthquakes, why is the tide regulary while earthquakes happen at chaotic frequencies?

The earthquakes don't happen at chaotic frequencies; they happen at very regular frequencies.

Note that the FAQ made a point of saying very minor earthquakes. These happen daily, at such a frequency so as to stimulate the tides, and are undetected otherwise. Much larger earthquakes happen at irregular intervals. These are the ones you hear about, and so are the ones you associate with the term "earthquakes". We aren't talking about the big ones, we are talking about the small ones you don't hear about.

Those are the ones that cause the tides, and those are the ones that happen regularly. The FAQ was actually pretty good about making this distinction.

BUt the daily tremors don't posess enough force to account for the tides.

Force needs to be employed, and especially, force with enough regularity to both force the wayter in one direction, then slow, stop, accelerate in the opposite direction, ever 12 hours.

The force required for this to happen is not released by the combined tectonic action of the earth on an average day.

Flat Earth Q&A / TIDES!
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:47:19 AM »
Quote from: "Raa"
You see, the earth is infinitlly large. We live on it centrally. The part that we live on rocks a little, because it is surrounded by water, within a cradle. On the outside of this cradle, the earth extends horizontally to the sky line and this part of the earth does not move at all. The part that we live on also rocks because of the source of heat which is directly underneath us. Heat rises, everybody knows this.  :o  Now this part which we live on is also infinitly large and deep. Sort of like an earth within an earth. Now only God could have made such a large section of earth to rock so slightly and perfectly in order to cause the tides. Measure all the tides at the same time for 10 days and you will have a good idea of the movement of the earth. Don't forget, tides are not increases or rising water, they are a rocking firmament, within the earth :!:. It is not necessarilly rocking left and right only though, its' rocking pattern will be determined by the gathered measurements after 10 days of measurements. :roll:
We were given a firmament to live on because in the beginning "the earth was void" :shock: , gaseous, and liquid. There was nothing to stand upon without sinking or falling into deepnessee aaaaaaahhhhhh :cry: for ever and ever. So let's thank God for the Firmament :!:   :lol: [emoticon thanking God] And don't think that I am only talking to emoticons.  :evil:

Demonstrate a proof that the earth's land surface, that we live on, is buoyed in water, and rocks in that water, rather than the postulate that the  surface of the earth is solid, and that water resides on top of that.

Flat Earth Q&A / TIDES!
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:45:16 AM »
Quote from: "beast"
How do you know Earthquakes happened when there were no humans around?

Aside from the fact that the cause of earthquakes existed before humans did, and that the surface of the earth has changed but little since the arrival of humans, so it's logical to conclude that the same causal forces and the same conditions at the surface might result in the same outcoe, earthquakes, earthquakes leave geological evidence, as to the tsunami they sometimes create.  Evidence that predates the existance of mankind.

Flat Earth Q&A / Please. Try to prove this wrong. Don't just ignore it.
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:42:07 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Maybe FE ers should start agreeing among themselves. Does it tilt or not?

to slope or incline (something); to slant

An unsteady motion.

From the FAQ:
...Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes...

I don't believe anyone has ever said Earth was "tilting", and the difference between "tilt" and "wobble" is fairly large.

tilting is the FE explanation for tides.  a tilt back and forth.  

WHen a disc wobbles, it MUST tilt, as it is a planar surface.  

A disk rotating isn't wobbling or tilting.  A disk rising or falling along it's Z axis is not wobbling.  

If the disk is rising along it's z axis, as FE suggests, and is also wobbling, that means that it is tilting, changing the angle between the central axis and the direction of up, determined by the direction of it's acceleration.

try to make a plate wobble without altering it's axial relation to up and down.

You can't.

Flat Earth Q&A / Please. Try to prove this wrong. Don't just ignore it.
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:37:30 AM »
Quote from: "holybrain"
Quote from: "Enraged Youth"
Anyway, on to my main point - The Ice Wall.
It is, as i see it, impossible for this wall of ice to remain in a frozen state. Where does the lack of heat come from (Hah, I know that sentence is stupid, but you get my drift). In a world that is lit by a spotlight strong enough to light entire continents to the point of > 40 degress celcius, how does it remain frozen?

What continents are heated up to > 40 degrees Celsius?

The indian subcontinent routinely superceeds 40 C.  Much of africa routinely supercedes 40c.  THe australian outback is frequently above 40c.

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:34:59 AM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Not too bothersome- find a level surface (using a level, of course), put up a tower of reasonable height, put a ruler down on the ground along the direction of the Earth's rotation, and drop a dense object with low air resistance (say a bowling ball) on a day with as little wind as possible. Set up a camera to record exactly where on the ruler the ball lands. If the Earth is rotating, the ball should land farther along the ruler than where it was dropped.

yeah, that's it in a nutshell.

ANd the distance along the ruler should be greater the higher the ball was released from.  And it shoul dbe repeated with a dropping machine, and multiple droppers, to factor out dropping technique, and repeated several times in each case, then statistically plotted.

It has been, of course, by galileo, and then by others since.  THe question is, how does a flat earth account for this?

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:32:47 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Not too bothersome- find a level surface (using a level, of course), put up a tower of reasonable height, put a ruler down on the ground along the direction of the Earth's rotation, and drop a dense object with low air resistance (say a bowling ball) on a day with as little wind as possible. Set up a camera to record exactly where on the ruler the ball lands. If the Earth is rotating, the ball should land farther along the ruler than where it was dropped.

It seems like the level might be subject to the same inertial conditions as the bowling ball, and so level wouldn't really be level.

why would it not be level?

If you keep the level at the same height, or if you drop it, it will still indicate up by the location of the air bubble.

In the case of a plum level, dropping a plumb level from a tower doesn't help anything... but subject to the same inertial forces, so is the frame it's suspended from, and the ground on which it sits, the observer.

All mas is subject to inertia.  How does that make a level inaccurate?

Why would it not indicate up and down?  Explain?

These are also questions not relevant to the original one.

How can flat earth science explain this repeatable and observable phenomenon, the easterly direction of freefalling spheres from great heights?

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:29:05 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
This force, inertia, he hadn't had a specific name for. Newton called it ctrifugal force, but it's just inertia.

There you go!

As for the experiment, how exactly would it be observable? Would it be measured as a displacement from "straight down"? And if so, how are you measuring "straight down"?

The logistics of this type of experiment are bothersome.

They're pretty simple.  Aside from a plumb line, a level and square would also indicate "straight up" and "Straight down"

Simple carpenter's tools from ancient times are all that are required.  And the ability to measure how far east or west your point of release is at different heights, compared with one another, dould also suffice, without knowing up or down.  You would then just be able to measure relative distance the ball travelled eastward.

Flat Earth Q&A / Burden of Proof
« on: October 17, 2006, 10:24:47 AM »
Quote from: "beast"
I'm not sure if I follow what you mean.

"light curves in fluids" ?

I'd like you to back that up with some references.  My impression was that light bent moving from one substance (or lack of substance) to another - but that's clearly not a curve.

The above is the impression I get of how light reacts moving from substances.  You can see that at no point does the light curve but in fact it changes angles at the point of change of substance.

On the other hand this is Jessica Alba.  If you follow the contours of her body you can clearly see that it doesn't suddenly change directions and that she isn't made up of straight lines but in fact she has curves.  I see a fairly significant difference between light refracting and curving.

Well, light bends in a number f circumstances, such as passing through substances with different refractive indexes.  IN the convection above pavement.  Gravity.


Flat Earth Q&A / My First Topic
« on: October 17, 2006, 12:53:40 AM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Well, think about it this way. Had the Flat Earth model been the "generally accepted" one for the entire human technology boom/space age, I assure you, more than Mr. Rowboatham would have written reports. The FE model is simply at a loss, due to general unacceptance. Also, I haven't seen proof that NASA has conducted any experiments in space either...but everyone believes that now.


History proves this point of view to be false. Flat earth WAS generally acepted, until people decided to test the theory and all the results pointed at a spherical world. When the first experimentations started bothering the status quo, others replicated them in order to find a flaw into it, which they didn't.

ANd that was done in preclassical times too.

The last time wetern society generally believed in a flat earth was in the old babylonian period, ca 1800 BC.

Babylonian mathematicians demonstrated, as did the egyptians, rpoofs for a round earth. A greek in alexandria calculated the earth's circumference by measuring shadows and angles at the tropic on the equinox and other days..

aristotle used the example of the shadow of the earth on the moon demonstrate that, knowing the only object which can always cast a round shadow in all instances is a sphere, and that the earth always casts a round shadow, as reported as far afield as india and spain, it must be a sphere.

So i mean, with 5000 years of mounting evidence, first observational/theoretical, then experimental, then predictive (in this model, this should happen, if it happens it supports the model, until something happens that th emodel says shouldn't happen),

with all of that evidence, why is this one man, a lone voice in the wilderness, so credible?  Especially without personally examining his proofs and repeating his experiments to test and verify the data?

A lot of people knock science, but in science, it's a rigorous process of experimentation, followed by a long period of your peers around the world copying your experiment to see if they got the same data, or if yours was a mere fluke or attributable to some other unforseen phenomenon or circumstance of your environment.

Applying that same thing, i mean, as a flat earther, wouldn't you want to test this theory personally?

not accepting the conclusion "The earth is flat, and if i do these experients and see these things, that prooves the earth is flat because dude said that after the same observations"... but to make the observations, then serisouly consider their meaning.

Flat Earth Q&A / Burden of Proof
« on: October 17, 2006, 12:37:13 AM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Yes, we do know how strong the Earth's gravity is. We know that it is nowhere near strong enough to cause a curving of light's path over these distances that would be significant in this experiment.

Light also curves in fluids.  The atmosphere is a gas, and gasses are fluids.  

Not to mention, the mirage effect, and numerous other experiences of perceiving light from a greater distance, refracted by convection...

neither of which proves or disproves a flat earth..

What do you have on offer whic proves a flat earth.  That can not be also explained by a round earth.

One thing that says "okay, if we put two poles at opposite ends of the flat earth, and beam a laser at the hight of the pole to the other pole, it hits that pole dead on, right at the top."

that would do it, that would prove it.  If a laser shone straight south was detectible south of the equator, at the southern ice wall.  IN a flat earth, that would be possible.

that experiement would work.

Has anyone done that experiment?

Flat Earth Q&A / Burden of Proof
« on: October 17, 2006, 12:33:15 AM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "kgmon"
This is the gist of most of the arguments, the earth must be flat because as the distance between 2 points increases, visibility is not affected as one would expect with the basic geometry of a sphere. However, see my above post. We are on the sphere. The gravity of the sphere affects space-time in such a way that when light travels, following the curve of space time, from our point of reference, light appears straighter, thus showing how the earth can appear flatter than it actually is.

Your argument assumes that we are on a sphere, if Earth is flat obviously the gravity of the planet doesn't affect space time in the same way.
You can't base your argument on the the assumption that Earth is round. It just doesn't work that way.

No, it does.  YOu can't use something asn argument against a round earth saying "if the earth is round, this phenomemon should not be" and then, when someone says "assuming the round earth, this phenomenon can STILL exist" and then say "That's not fair."

The purpose of that argument was to prove the earth was flat by discussing visibility with a telescope.  It was saying this visibility thing is a fact.  ANd with my understanding of light, geometry, and astronomy, it seems impossible on a round earth.

The the other guy says "no no no, your understanding of light, geometry and astronomy are incomplete, here's something called relativity, which shows how, on a sphere's surface, it can appaer more flat than it is, due to the gravity of the sphere".

So whereas the argument started, rationally, from the observable phenomenon was used to debunk the round earth theory, and then, since that is debunked, alternate explanations for gravity etc.. are hypothesizes and worked out to fit the new model, the new information about how light behaves allows for the phenomenon, previously taken as proof of a flat earth, to no longer conflict with a round earth.

Meaning, because that phenomenon does not conflict with a round earth, it is NOT PROOF that the earth is not round.  To prove the non existence of something you must prove the existence of something that is utterly incompatible with the existence of the other thing.  

Now, the burden of proof, argues the writer of that message, is on the flat earther, to counter the ready observations of round shadows during eclupses, the arc of falling bodies being in the direction of the earth's hypothesized rotation, the phenomenon of night and day.

While the model proposed has explanations for those (Except the arc of freefalling bodies being eastward) it fails to then demonstrate how the model works.  What forces exist, and the means by which those forces act.

What keeps the sun rotating in a ring around the equator?  What imbused the stars and moon with gravity that the earth, hypothetically posessing no gravity, lacks?  

What force permits constant acceleration of an object?  Requiring, essentially, a perpetual source of precise energy, unfluctuating, through eternity.  What power source is that, and what is the physics behind it's operation.  Aside from the observance of "clinging to the earth" what other observable phenomenon are consequences of this perpetual and constant force always applying the same amount of energy to keep acceleration constant.  

How did the flat earth form?  What process brought the liquid water, rock, etc.. together, and allowed it to form into a perfect disk , with a wall of ice to keep the atmosphere and water in.  Where are the remnants of those forces actions upon other things.  

WHy, if the tide is caused by a slight tilting of the earth back and forth, like a see saw, would the tides not ebb from western shores simultaenously but flow to eastern shores simultaenously, all, nomatter the hemisphere (As would happen.  simply reconstruct this model and tilt the plate or pan you have, and watch as the water rushes towards the eastern coasts and away from the western coasts, all at once, and then tilted the other eway, the opposiote) while in reality, tides ebb and flow based on the time of day, irrespective of westerliness or easterliness of the coast.  

These questions are all explainable by a simple theory, round rotating earth in rotation around sun with moon rotating around it.  This theory, beeing the simplest and most repeatedly demonstrable EVEN with tiny experiments in your own home, in order to disprove the round earth, you must propose then demonstrate the existence of one phenomenon at least that can NOT exist in a round earth, but CAN exist in a flat earth, and ONLY in a flat earth.  

I think that is what the gentleman was asking.  

I for one, am not arguing for either theory.  I withhold my judgement until i can examine the nature of and vilidity of the proofs on offer by this theory.

I have the hollow earth theory to examine too.  INdeed, there are more evidence for the hollow earth than flat, at least that i'vecome across so far.

Flat Earth Q&A / The arc of a released object
« on: October 17, 2006, 12:12:08 AM »
Galileo observed that when an object was released and allowed to fall straight down, it would arc.  Believing it to be possibly wind, or a defect of his release, he repeated the experiement from different heights on still days, with more and more massively weighted balls (balls in each case) and observed that the higher he travelled, the more pronounced the arc.

The arc was always precisely the opposite of the sun's procession across the sky.  That is to say, the objects appeared to fall east, always, by some measure.

Why that was he conjectured, was that, in a rotating system, you have inertia and a constraint preventing the exterior bits from flying away.  This force, inertia, he hadn't had a specific name for.  Newton called it ctrifugal force, but it's just inertia.

THe further from the axis you travel, the faster your speed is, so long as you maintain the same RPMs.

An object has a larger cirucmference to travel along while maintaining the same rate of revolution, so naturally, goes faster.

This being the case, a cannonball released from the top of a high tower, is travelling faster toward the direction of the earths' rotation, assuming it's round and rotates, than at the middle of the tower.

If only by a small degree, but a degree large enough to be clearly seen when th eballs reached rest on the ground.

As the balls plummet, they are falling relative to things moving at the same rate of revolution, but being closer to the axis, are moving at a slower rate of speed.  The balls then appear to accelerate slightly before slownig their speed differential, and falling more or less straigt down.

You get a nice arc.

Now.  This is easily tested, wherever you ahve a tower you can climb and a cannonball you can find :)  BUt try it.

It is a readily observable phenomenon.

My question is, how is this explained in a flat earth scenario?  In a flat earth scenario, the ball being a weight on a disc, being released, should move toward the outside of the disc, that is to say, southward.

take a pice of cardboard, cut a circle out of it, put a pencil through it, then put a penny in the middle, and watch the penny move off.

Now, i fyou believe that the disc of the earth sits still, doesn't rotate, there should be no arc to massive falling spheres that can't be explained by wind.

At least, not using conventional physics.  So how is this accounted for in flat earth physics?

Pages: [1]