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 - rayman

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
151
Flat Earth Debate / Re: sniper shot
« on: January 11, 2012, 10:57:34 AM »
But if you code a single wrong variable in your software, the results will always be wrong. Because the software will always account for a variable that doesn't exist. There are no luck with machines, if you add a certain input, you know exactly how the output is going to be. If the output if anything different than what it should be, your calculation is wrong.

The ballistic software do take the spin of earth in consideration, and they always shoot where it should shoot.  Therefore I must conclude the software is properly calculating its variables. So the corolis effect is taking place in those calculations.

Yes, the output is wrong when you think of straight correct/incorrect calculations. However, in math there are degrees of miscalculations you can accept for this type of application (Like a margin of error in statistics). The calculation is simply not "wrong enough" to be worthy of investigation.

itt: no ballistics experts

I agree. I would gladly have one post their two cents.

Ballistics experts  take the coriolis effect into consideration.  All snipers do, all ballasts software do too.

I am just surprised they even hit their targets since they are always miscalculating their shots.

152
Flat Earth Debate / Re: sniper shot
« on: January 11, 2012, 10:55:20 AM »

A bullet travelling towards the equador tends to slow down faster than a bullet at higher altitude. Simply because the earth's surface is rotating eastward at greater speed near the equator than near the poles

If you remove this very important variable from your equation, in a RE world, you would certainly miss your target.

In a FE world, if you ADD this variable, you would certainly miss you target too. Since depending your altitude, your bullet could fall before even hitting your target, or pass too high above your target, because you are adding extra information that doesn't exist.

153
Flat Earth Debate / Re: sniper shot
« on: January 11, 2012, 10:47:42 AM »
If you code your software improperly, it will always produce the wrong output. No matter what.
Humans never do the same motion exactly how they did last time, it is always different, so there is space for luck in there. But not machines, machines always do the exactly same thing.

This is not a direct input/output software configuration. It must take just as many weighted variables into the calculation as a human doing the would.

For example, a tank computer calculating the trajectory of a shell would take the same weighted variables a sniper would plus the fact the tank may be on the move. At that point the coriolis effect is so small including it in the calculation or not wouldn't even be noticed.

Yes that is true.
But if you code a single wrong variable in your software, the results will always be wrong. Because the software will always account for a variable that doesn't exist. There are no luck with machines, if you add a certain input, you know exactly how the output is going to be. If the output if anything different than what it should be, your calculation is wrong.

The ballistic software do take the spin of earth in consideration, and they always shoot where it should shoot.  Therefore I must conclude the software is properly calculating its variables. So the corolis effect is taking place in those calculations.



154
Flat Earth Debate / Re: sniper shot
« on: January 11, 2012, 10:37:48 AM »
The military would never teach the snipers to take coriolis effect  in consideration if such phenomena doesn't exist.
If you add a variable that doesn't exist in your calculations, you are just increasing your chances to miss and not kill the target.
it just doesn't make sense.

The military believes it exists and that is all that matters.

Keep in mind that Ballistics software also take in consideration the coriolis effect  in its calculations.  And if a machine is doing it, it would increase the miss chance in almost 100% if the software is calculating for something that doesn't exist.

A machine calculating it would be no different than a human calculating it. I suppose the human might input a digit incorrectly in the calculator but that is a random chance and shouldn't be taken into consideration. I don't have actuarial tables in front of me to give you an exact percentage of missed shots due entirely to miscalculations, but I would say (assume) it is in a marginal range.

You clearly have never programmed a software before.

If you code your software improperly, it will always produce the wrong output. No matter what.
Humans never do the same motion exactly how they did last time, it is always different, so there is space for luck in there. But not machines, machines always do the exactly same thing.


Machines have no instincts, if you code it wrong, it will always be wrong. Therefore it would never hit the target.


155
Flat Earth Debate / Re: sniper shot
« on: January 11, 2012, 10:09:53 AM »
I didn't ask why they miss, I asked why they HIT.

Like you said, at this distance there are so many variables that they cannot afford to miscalculate anything. They are not taking chances.
Those shots are so extremely hard, that calculating the coriolis effect would certainly lead them to miss the shot every single time, at long distances shots.  If earth was flat.

The "coriolis effect" plays a very small part in the calculation. Small enough that the error doesn't always cause an instant miss.

ITT: ClockTower attempts to derail thread when OP said specifically he does not wish to discuss the coriolis effect itself.

That is a big assumption.

You are simply denying the fact that highly skilled snipers do take in consideration the coriolis effect and that helps them to hit the targets, and then you are saying they hit the targets because of luck.

I have a feeling that a sniper would disagree with you, but of course that is just my assumption as well.

Although it boils down to luck, I would say "probability" since given the skill of the sniper and the sheer amount of weight the other factors carry, that the "coriolis effect" is not so much a wrench in an engine as much as it is a fly in the soup. Its there, its ugly, but the soup is still good if you manage to not scoop up the fly.

That is just your personal assumption.

That simply does not compute.

The military would never teach the snipers to take coriolis effect  in consideration if such phenomena doesn't exist.
If you add a variable that doesn't exist in your calculations, you are just increasing your chances to miss and not kill the target.
it just doesn't make sense.

Keep in mind that Ballistics software also take in consideration the coriolis effect  in its calculations.  And if a machine is doing it, it would increase the miss chance in almost 100% if the software is calculating for something that doesn't exist.



156
Flat Earth Debate / Re: sniper shot
« on: January 11, 2012, 09:54:40 AM »
I didn't ask why they miss, I asked why they HIT.

Like you said, at this distance there are so many variables that they cannot afford to miscalculate anything. They are not taking chances.
Those shots are so extremely hard, that calculating the coriolis effect would certainly lead them to miss the shot every single time, at long distances shots.  If earth was flat.

The "coriolis effect" plays a very small part in the calculation. Small enough that the error doesn't always cause an instant miss.

ITT: ClockTower attempts to derail thread when OP said specifically he does not wish to discuss the coriolis effect itself.

That is a big assumption.

You are simply denying the fact that highly skilled snipers do take in consideration the coriolis effect and that helps them to hit the targets, and then you are saying they hit the targets because of luck.

I have a feeling that a sniper would disagree with you, but of course that is just my assumption as well.




157
Flat Earth Debate / Re: sniper shot
« on: January 11, 2012, 09:45:35 AM »
The coriolis effect does not exist.

I'd image a FE would say that.

And I don't want discuss the coriolis effect .

What I want to discuss is why the snipers don't miss their shot if they take in consideration a phenomena that doesn't exist.
Snipers only take the "coriolis effect" into consideration at extreme distances. At these distances, regardless of thorough calculations, they retain accuracy problems. Not entirely because they added the "effect" in, but there are simply too many factors to attribute a miss to any one calculation. For example, if they missed, they would attribute their miss to misinterpreted wind speed or poorly manufactured ammunition.

I didn't ask why they miss, I asked why they HIT.

Like you said, at this distance there are so many variables that they cannot afford to miscalculate anything. They are not taking chances.
Those shots are so extremely hard, that calculating the coriolis effect would certainly lead them to miss the shot every single time, at long distances hots.  If earth was flat.


158
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun size problem
« on: January 11, 2012, 09:43:06 AM »
Even if you do take glare in consideration. The differences in size of the sun in this experiment should be considerable enough if earth was flat.


159
Flat Earth Debate / Re: sniper shot
« on: January 11, 2012, 09:38:30 AM »
The coriolis effect does not exist.

I'd image a FE believer would say that.

And I don't want discuss the coriolis effect .

What I want to discuss is why the snipers don't miss their shot if they take in consideration a phenomena that doesn't exist.

160
Flat Earth Debate / sniper shot
« on: January 11, 2012, 09:34:11 AM »
Very long distance sniper shots requires a lot of calculations from a variety of variables.
In the book The Way of the Sniper the navy sniper who tells the story says this:

“Each rifle a sniper uses has unique characteristics that are compounded by the ammunition and many, many exterior factors. There is wind. There is humidity. There is the spin of the Earth. There is even the fact that as a rifle is fired, its barrel heats up, the metal contracts, and the bullets are propelled faster.”

This is phenomena is called  Coriolis effect. Any object moving horizontally on or near the earth’s surface is deflected slightly off course due to the spinning of the planet beneath it.

Of course I am not expecting that FE believers will accept this as proof of a round earth.

But my question is, if the world is flat, and the snipers do consider the Coriolis Effect in their calculations. They are trained to do so.
How can they hit the target? If earth has no rotation and they are taking in consideration the roundness of earth and its spinning, they should always miss long shots.

Why they don't miss those shots? Why taking in consideration the Coriolis Effect helps them?

161
Flat Earth General / Re: video evidence of round earth
« on: January 10, 2012, 11:01:13 PM »
Irishwithscvs, the sun light shouldn't be fading anywhere if the earth is only 40,073km in diameter and as flat as you claim it is.. Another good video showing the curve, also not taken by NASA, the government ect ect..
I would suggest lurking more and actually spelling my name correctly before you post questions that have been answered too many times. Also, your assertion that a ride in a U-2 spy plane had nothing to do with the government is just plain funny.

Well, I thought that the FET would offer some sort of explanation for the picture, and not just deny what the picture shows.
Looks more like you are the one denying our answer to your question. So far every answer I've given you, you just put your hands over your eyes and pretend it never happened. Your journey to the Truth will be a brutal one, but we believe in you. You can do it.

Alright, I will accept your "argument" and pretend I can't see the curvature of the earth in that picture. =/

I mean, since I accepted the idea that Nasa is a conspiracy simply because somebody said so without any argument whatsoever.  I guess anything is possible if somebody tells me it is possible, even without presenting any form of valid argumentation or proof.
The conspiracy varies so greatly in scale from person to person it is difficult to talk about. Some (Tom Bishop) believe absolutely everything to do with space is faked. Some just believe the moon landing was faked (Because moon landing photos are the only ones that show a reasonably sound RET photo).

that is what I am looking for.

I know about the moon landing conspiracy, and I think it is a brilliant way of questioning the reality.
It is indeed a very interesting way to analyse that event.

However, I do not agree with it, but I do accept as a well crafted argument, and that is what I want to see here too =)

162
Flat Earth General / Re: video evidence of round earth
« on: January 10, 2012, 10:58:47 PM »
You should strive to be less credulous.

Well, I am accepting any form of argument here.

But it is hard to accept an answer like "this isn't round because I said so".

163
Flat Earth General / Re: video evidence of round earth
« on: January 10, 2012, 10:54:10 PM »
Irishwithscvs, the sun light shouldn't be fading anywhere if the earth is only 40,073km in diameter and as flat as you claim it is.. Another good video showing the curve, also not taken by NASA, the government ect ect..
I would suggest lurking more and actually spelling my name correctly before you post questions that have been answered too many times. Also, your assertion that a ride in a U-2 spy plane had nothing to do with the government is just plain funny.

Well, I thought that the FET would offer some sort of explanation for the picture, and not just deny what the picture shows.
Looks more like you are the one denying our answer to your question. So far every answer I've given you, you just put your hands over your eyes and pretend it never happened. Your journey to the Truth will be a brutal one, but we believe in you. You can do it.

Alright, I will accept your "argument" and pretend I can't see the curvature of the earth in that picture. =/

I mean, since I accepted the idea that Nasa is a conspiracy simply because somebody said so without any argument whatsoever.  I guess anything is possible if somebody tells me it is possible, even without presenting any form of valid argumentation or proof.





164
Flat Earth General / Re: video evidence of round earth
« on: January 10, 2012, 10:45:27 PM »
If you had to use your imagination and think of what a flat area of land lit up by a spotlight would look like, how would you picture it?

I would picture a a flat area of land lit up by a spotlight as a flat land.

Well, I thought that the FET would offer some sort of explanation for the picture, and not just deny what the picture shows.


165
Flat Earth General / Re: video evidence of round earth
« on: January 10, 2012, 10:35:44 PM »
Looking at the earth from that altitude, FET predicts that you'll only see an eliptical spot of light lit up by the sun. That video does not disagree with our prediction.

But does the FET predict the clear view of the curvature of a round earth?
That is not the curvature of a round earth you are looking at. You have been told the earth is round, so you force yourself to see curvature when there isn't any there. Take a good look and you'll notice that it is simply the light of the sun fading away.

I am not sure about you, but the earth doesn't look flat at all in this picture. It looks pretty round to me .




166
Flat Earth General / Re: video evidence of round earth
« on: January 10, 2012, 10:27:59 PM »
Looking at the earth from that altitude, FET predicts that you'll only see an eliptical spot of light lit up by the sun. That video does not disagree with our prediction.

But does the FET predict the clear view of the curvature of a round earth?

167
Flat Earth General / video evidence of round earth
« on: January 10, 2012, 10:21:40 PM »
I know that FE consider that all agency connected to any government is part of a conspiracy to make us believe that the earth is round. I don't really know what they have to gain from this, but this isn't the point.

Check this video. It is a group of professionals engineers, and some other people with different expertise,  decided to sent their own rocket to the space.


Though the rocket didn't get into orbit, it did get high enough to show the curvature of earth.

Here is their full summary report,  it is VERY detailed, http://ddeville.com/images/Rocket/Qu8k%20-%20The%20Story%20-%20Final.pdf

So we have video evidence from a experiment that had nothing to do with NASA or any governmental agency.

My question is, can FE consider this as evidence of round earth? And if not, why not?


168
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 06:44:52 PM »
Therefore I must conclude there is none evidence to be presented.
If that is how you want to see it that is your choice.

First, you argue with an Appeal To Anonymous Authority fallacy.

Then you provide yet another example of FE Ostrich Technique (FOT). Whining is not a valid way to make an argument.
Thanks for your valuable input.

That is not what I want to see, that is what there is to see.
Until evidence is presented, the only conclusion I can make is that there is no evidence o.0



169
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 05:59:59 PM »
Celestial gears also better explains why celestial bodies are on almost perfect horizontal planes with the sun.

Conservation of angular momentum in the early solar system seems to explain it well enough. Come to think of it though, if everything were on rigid gears, wouldn't everything be perfectly in the same plane instead of "almost perfect?"
I think you should take a longer critical thinking session and contemplate why this isn't the answer.

What is the mathematics behind the celestial gravity, or celestial gear? Whatever that is.
I don't have time, money, or patience to be providing extensive mathematical proofs.

Therefore I must conclude there is none evidence to be presented.

170
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 03:27:50 PM »
I am guessing there are no answer for my question =(

I am accepting anything, not only a name.

What is the mathematics behind the celestial gravity, or celestial gear? Whatever that is.

Why are those things in there?


171
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 02:58:39 PM »
If they prove this exist, they will be able to explain how gravity is created.
Incorrect. You couldn't find a relevant article so you proceeded to make something up. Here I was thinking this was a serious discussion.

  I just want to know the alternative FE theory that explain why bodies in different altitudes have different time experiences.
Also, I would like to know the mechanics of the FE alternative explanation, and not just the name of the theory.
I explained both of these questions multiple times, and each time you pretended the question wasn't answered and asked it again. Why are you asking these questions if you don't want to accept the answers we provide?

You gave me the name of a theory, but you didn't explain why such gravity exist, and if its predictions are backed by scientific experiments.
I am just asking any kind of answer, not just a name for a theory.

If you want know more about the boson higgs, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-exactly-is-the-higgs, or you can do your own research.

And Yes, the boson higgs is the particle that explain the origin of mass and gravity. This particle has been theorized and know scientists are trying to use the LHC to find such particle. If it is found it will prove the RE theories beyond and shred of doubt.






172
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 02:35:19 PM »
RE can predict the amount of gravity and its range provided it is known the amount of mass of a body.
 However, we can use mathematics to predict how and why the gravity is in there.
Being able to predict something =/= understanding how something works.

And RE scientists are working to prove this. We all know that the LHC  will soon prove, or debunk this idea.
RE scientists are working desperately to find more evidence for it, though I don't know where you got the idea they're using the LHC to do so. Reference?

Here is one of many many articles about the subject
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16158374

LHC may have found Higgs Boson, which is the particle that adds mass to the atom. If they prove this exist, they will be able to explain how gravity is created.
Scientist think they may have found it, but it will take them a few years of data analyses before they can say something conclusive.

But again, what RE says is beyond the topic.  I just want to know the alternative FE theory that explain why bodies in different altitudes have different time experiences.
Also, I would like to know the mechanics of the FE alternative explanation, and not just the name of the theory.





173
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 01:45:35 PM »
Why for 2 objects with the same mass and speed but in different altitudes are subjected to different time experiences?
The same thing that causes weight to differ at different altitudes, celestial gravitation.

I couldn't find any info about  celestial gravitation on the FE FAQ.

How is that any different from normal gravitation?  And how would that create the time dilatation that we observe in bodies affected by different gravity?

RE theory states that gravity comes form mass. RE can predict the amount of gravity and its range provided it is known the amount of mass of a body.
Of course that it isn't very clear yet why the mass can generate gravity. However, we can use mathematics to predict how and why the gravity is in there.
And RE scientists are working to prove this. We all know that the LHC  will soon prove, or debunk this idea.

Can FE theories do the same? To what extent has the celestial gravitation been theorized mathematically?
And if it has been theorized? There are any experiments that back up its predictions?
 

174
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 12:45:23 PM »
Why for 2 objects with the same mass and speed but in different altitudes are subjected to different time experiences?
The same thing that causes weight to differ at different altitudes, celestial gravitation.

I couldn't find any info about  celestial gravitation on the FE FAQ.

How is that any different from normal gravitation?  And how would that create the time dilatation that we observe in bodies affected by different gravity?


175
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 12:27:30 PM »
Black holes have infinite mass? : O

Time slows down for any accelerated reference frame.

But I am asking about a specific reference. The altitude.

Assuming this: 2 people with the same weight, same speed, and different altitudes on earth.  They will find out that their clocks aren't in sync. The time for the guy in higher altitude is faster.
So you can't explain this due the different in speed. The only explanation you have left is the effects of gravity, or whatever other force the FE theory offers.

In a closed system like a rocket accelerating at g, you would experience time dilation between rocket base and rocket tip. Of course the FE wouldn't be a closed system which is why EP is irrelevant but not quite for the reason you stated. It's the tidal effects that show we're under the influence of a gravitational field and not just accelerating through space.

Yeah, but the magnitude of this time difference wouldn't be as great as the time differences we are able to measure in our planet. Not for the acceleration our gravity has. 

I thought the FE theory would combine the this acceleration force with some other phenomena to explain the time dilatation between different altitudes.

As you stated, it cannot be explained only through acceleration.


176
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 12:06:05 PM »
Black holes have infinite mass? : O

Time slows down for any accelerated reference frame.

But I am asking about a specific reference. The altitude.

Assuming this: 2 people with the same weight, same speed, and different altitudes on earth.  They will find out that their clocks aren't in sync. The time for the guy in higher altitude is faster.
So you can't explain this due the different in speed. The only explanation you have left is the effects of gravity, or whatever other force the FE theory offers.

Relativity states both gravity and different velocities can cause time dilation due to the difference in the frames of reference. This means it does work in both RET and FET, and my original answer to your question stands as correct. I don't understand why you continue to pursue this.


You are absolutely correct, but I am looking forward to see the FE answer. I already know the RE theories behind gravity and time dilatation.

However, there is no such thing as gravity in the FE theories, at least as far I know. And the difference in velocity in between the references have to be too great in order to affect time.

So my question still remains. Why for 2 objects with the same mass and speed but in different altitudes are subjected to different time experiences?




177
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 10:31:59 AM »
Black holes have infinite mass? : O

Time slows down for any accelerated reference frame.

But I am asking about a specific reference. The altitude.

Assuming this: 2 people with the same weight, same speed, and different altitudes on earth.  They will find out that their clocks aren't in sync. The time for the guy in higher altitude is faster.
So you can't explain this due the different in speed. The only explanation you have left is the effects of gravity, or whatever other force the FE theory offers.

178
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 10:17:05 AM »
The same way RE explains it. We do not deny relativity, a pillar of Universal Acceleration.

Well, RE explains through gravity.

The more gravity there is, slower the time goes by. That is why there is a singularity in a black hole. The mass is infinity, therefore time stops.

Same happens on earth, the closer you are to earth, the more gravity there is around you, therefore the time is slower than the time in higher altitude, because there is less gravity around you the further you are from earth.

However, I understand that there is no gravity in FE theories, but some universal force type of thing. So the question still remains, how can FE predict this time difference between surface and higher altitude?

What are the alternative explanations?

179
Flat Earth Q&A / gravity and time relation
« on: January 10, 2012, 09:25:14 AM »
RE scientists are well aware of the relation between time and gravity.

We know that the time goes by faster the higher you are. This is proven fact since many many scientists and universities have done this experiment.
We also know that GPS satellites (or airplanes if you don't believe in satellites) have to  constantly adjust their clocks in order to match the clocks on the surface. because at higher places the time goes by slightly faster.

I was wondering how the FE theories would explain this phenomena ?


Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]