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 - Manarq

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19
481
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 24, 2013, 03:57:29 AM »
Yes. If a troy ounce is the same everywhere, it is a measurement of mass.
wat? That's some pretty fancy circular reasoning right there. It is a unit of weight. That is a fact. It is a troy weight. It is not a mass. Changing location does not change the units. Mass is a scalar, it has magnitude. Weight is a vector. It has both magnitude and direction. Moving it around the earth does not magically turn it into a scalar.

You stated it is not a measurement of mass. That's having it both ways.
Its not a measurement of mass. I just told you. Its a weight. An ounce is a vector. It has magnitude and direction.

W = m * g

Now, the fact that W remains constant all over earth (W is directly proportional to price of gold) and m stays the same because the number of atoms remains finite. So g isn't changing either or it messes up the equation.

I'm going to find it hard to dumb this down any more, so please read my post several times before asking any further questions.


Given that above you say that W = m * g let's pose a maths problem

You have 10 pennyweight of gold, how much gold do you have in terms of mass?

482
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« on: January 23, 2013, 03:44:46 PM »
The moon does not go around the earth.  It circles above it.  The earth does not go around the sun.  The sun circles above us.  As do the planets and the other bodies in the celestial sphere.  And yes, everything appears to be affected by the UA just as the earth is.  If you'd do a little research here before 'pwning' us you may have a better chance at presenting a compelling argument.

tintagel, in your opinion do the sun and the moon circle in a plane parallel to the plane of the earth disc, as it shows in the FAQ, or do you believe that the sun and moon drop below the flat earth horizon and rise opposite, as in sandokhan's alternative theory?

or do you have another idea?

The former, as far as I can tell.

Why don't we see retrograde movement of the sun and moon then? If you stood in the right place on earth you'd observe them moving across the sky at decreasing speed, pausing, then moving in a different direction again.

Where would you have to stand to see retrograde movement of the sun and moon? Changes in speed etc yes but I can't see how the model in question would create that affect.

Say you were standing in Africa, for simplicity's sake let' say it's the equinox, when in FET the sun follows a path directly over the equator. You're standing slightly north of the equator. At noon, the sun passes overhead and you watch its progress across the sky, now looking westwards as it's the afternoon. You see the sun move in an apparent southwesterly direction, as it's following a curved arc which moves its path to your left. But soon it reaches the southerly extent of that motion from where you stand, and its curved path brings it in a direction to your right again, apparently northwesterly. This would be perfectly possible to observe while the sun was above the horizon, and indeed would be seen daily by every observer on earth who was close to the sun's track across the ground but slightly inside it. I can draw a diagram if needed.
None of this would be affected by the silly bendy light idea Tintagel is proposing, as that affects only the height of the sun above the horizon, not its lateral movement.

Ah I see how it would work now, for some reason I just couldn't see it in my head.


483
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 23, 2013, 01:51:17 PM »
I think it's perhaps a little disingenuous not to consider the fact that weight is almost always talked about as a magnitude. I have yet to see a set of scales that report my 'weight' as a vector. I've never heard weight watchers talk about separate radial, zenithal and azimuthal slimmers of the week. Although I don't dispute that for dynamical calculations it does matter.
It is a very acceptable simplification to say "my weight is ..." instead of saying "the magnitude of my weight is ...". It would be even better, scientifically speaking, to say "right now I am pressing the floor with a force (or weight) of ..."

What is totally wrong, and comes from antique errors in the English and other languages that were never corrected, is to say that I weigh 100 kilograms, or that I weigh 220 pounds. It would be correct, according to the SI system of units, to say that I weigh 100 kilograms-force, or 220 pounds-force.

Remember, nobody cares about his weight to a precision better than 0.5%, because even if you pee you lose more than 0.1% of your weight, and if you have a good lunch you temporarily add about 0.5% to your weight. Therefore nobody cares that you are lighter in Mexico than in Helsinki.

But if you have even a wish to think as a scientist you have to correct your language and tell things as they are: if you show 100 kilograms on the scale, your mass is 100 kilograms, not your weight. Your weight is 981 Newtons or 100 kilograms-force in magnitude. You cannot do a very precise experiment without taking this into account.

And if you want to be a scientist, you will never mistake a unit of measure with a magnitude or a vector. You never mistake the measurement with the measuring equipment or scale.

I'm pretty sure Thork doesn't want to be a scientist, a lingual gymnast maybe  :)

If he did have any scientific leaning then his attitude towards the UA would be what kind of experiment can i design and perform that would prove it, you know just like Rowbotham who at least designed an experiment and tried it to prove his hypothesis.

The simple experiment of using an accurate force scale to measure an item at the bottom of a mountain and then (without recalibrating the scale) measuring the same item again at a known height up the mountain would work. If the item continues to return the same value up the mountain then he can start to build a case for the UA.

Instead no doubt he'll just sit at home trying to make out that "a weight" is the same as "weight" instead of trying to advance FE science.

484
Flat Earth General / Re: evidence of moon missions
« on: January 23, 2013, 09:32:20 AM »
I think I see what your problem is with this. You can't see how the energy of the material being pushed out of the rocket is translated into forward momentum for the rocket, ie if you want to jump up you have to press against the ground and accelerate your body up whereas a rocket in your opinion isn't pushing against anything.


485
Flat Earth General / Re: evidence of moon missions
« on: January 23, 2013, 09:06:57 AM »
The exhaust doesn't need to push off of anything. If you think about it, the exhaust is no longer in contact with the rocketship. This means that if it pushes off of anything it will only affect itself and what it pushes off of. So really what happens to the exhaust after it leaves the rocket doesn't do anything to the rocket.
So why have a burning rocket in the first place? Why not just fill it with compressed air and some water?

Yes I know that sounds silly but if you think the burning of fuel isn't the reason a rocket works, then why the hell burn fuel.

Think about it.

That's not too efficient to have air and water since fuel has more potential energy. They burn fuel to expell the exhaust through the bottom of the rocket.
And how does the fuel get expelled through the bottom of the rocket?
What force is used to expel it?

The fuel isn't expelled, the hot gas created as a result of burning the fuel is expelled from the bottom. The hot gas is expelled for the same reason that the internal combustion engine works ie the hot gas takes up more space than the solid/liquid fuel and creates pressure.

486
Flat Earth General / Re: evidence of moon missions
« on: January 23, 2013, 08:25:00 AM »
Thanks for answering my questions, I have another though.

I've heard this experiment described to you so I know you're familiar with it.

If you sit on a chair with good wheels and on a low friction surface and start throwing medicine balls out in front of you then you will start rolling backwards. Can you explain what is happening?

The way you've described stuff above you're pushing against the ball as you throw it and the ball in turn is pushing against the air but I'm curious why if that's the case the ball doesn't just fall to the ground when you stop pushing.
I understand the action and reaction of a person on a chair with a medicine ball or on ice skates on a skating rink and this guise is used to make out that rockets use the same thing, which is rubbish to be honest.

Rockets do not throw medicine balls, or cannon balls or super dense massive lead balls from it's rear constantly, it ignites and then simply " burns" fuel.

This is the con job that people get hit with because it appears to be correct, yet it's two totally different means of propulsion.
A constant set of explosions like they say it is would blow the  rocket to pieces.
I don't expect you to believe it as you have your own mind, yet have a serious think about how it's easy to be duped either way, because, even I agree it is a clever mind busting job they have done to convince even the smartest people.

While a rocket may not be throwing balls out of the back a water rocket is (well tiny molecule sized watery ones :))
It's not the water that's acting against the air, it is the actual air acting against air, as in the air, "under pressure" racing past the water or through it and expelling it as a consequence, that's all.

So why have water in the rocket at all, surely it would work better with just air
To add mass to the bottle so it will push through the air above it and not simply go into a spin if compressed air alone was used.

Might I suggest building a water rocket or two and giving both scenarios a try, but instead of letting them fly in the air strap both rockets to a toy car or something like it so that the rocket can't spin off. Pump both the rocket with water and without up to the same pressure and see what happens when you let them go.

I predict the water rocket will go further! Prove me wrong

edit: You have to stand them up so the exhaust from the bottle is at the bottom (otherwise the water doesn't get pushed out) then use a bit of tube or something to direct the expelled gas etc in the right direction

487
Flat Earth General / Re: evidence of moon missions
« on: January 23, 2013, 08:12:08 AM »
So at what size does a vehicle throwing objects in one direction no longer cause movement in the opposite direction. Tennis balls, table tennis balls, marbles?
It doesn't matter about any vehicle throwing whatever balls out of it, because this is not how a rocket works.
Rockets burn fuel, that's what they do.

It's very relevant to the question at hand, as you've agreed that throwing a ball in one direction will make you move in the opposite direction but say this isn't how rockets create thrust. Now as people are saying that this is how a rocket works, at what scale does the experiment of throwing objects in one direction no longer cause a reaction in the opposite direction

488
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« on: January 23, 2013, 07:59:29 AM »
Might I suggest that if we're going to discuss your diagram Tintagel that it would be better to start a new thread about it?

489
Flat Earth General / Re: evidence of moon missions
« on: January 23, 2013, 07:57:16 AM »
Thanks for answering my questions, I have another though.

I've heard this experiment described to you so I know you're familiar with it.

If you sit on a chair with good wheels and on a low friction surface and start throwing medicine balls out in front of you then you will start rolling backwards. Can you explain what is happening?

The way you've described stuff above you're pushing against the ball as you throw it and the ball in turn is pushing against the air but I'm curious why if that's the case the ball doesn't just fall to the ground when you stop pushing.
I understand the action and reaction of a person on a chair with a medicine ball or on ice skates on a skating rink and this guise is used to make out that rockets use the same thing, which is rubbish to be honest.

Rockets do not throw medicine balls, or cannon balls or super dense massive lead balls from it's rear constantly, it ignites and then simply " burns" fuel.

This is the con job that people get hit with because it appears to be correct, yet it's two totally different means of propulsion.
A constant set of explosions like they say it is would blow the  rocket to pieces.
I don't expect you to believe it as you have your own mind, yet have a serious think about how it's easy to be duped either way, because, even I agree it is a clever mind busting job they have done to convince even the smartest people.

While a rocket may not be throwing balls out of the back a water rocket is (well tiny molecule sized watery ones :))
It's not the water that's acting against the air, it is the actual air acting against air, as in the air, "under pressure" racing past the water or through it and expelling it as a consequence, that's all.

So why have water in the rocket at all, surely it would work better with just air

490
Flat Earth General / Re: evidence of moon missions
« on: January 23, 2013, 07:49:29 AM »
So at what size does a vehicle throwing objects in one direction no longer cause movement in the opposite direction. Tennis balls, table tennis balls, marbles?

491
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« on: January 23, 2013, 07:09:09 AM »
The moon does not go around the earth.  It circles above it.  The earth does not go around the sun.  The sun circles above us.  As do the planets and the other bodies in the celestial sphere.  And yes, everything appears to be affected by the UA just as the earth is.  If you'd do a little research here before 'pwning' us you may have a better chance at presenting a compelling argument.

tintagel, in your opinion do the sun and the moon circle in a plane parallel to the plane of the earth disc, as it shows in the FAQ, or do you believe that the sun and moon drop below the flat earth horizon and rise opposite, as in sandokhan's alternative theory?

or do you have another idea?

The former, as far as I can tell.

Why don't we see retrograde movement of the sun and moon then? If you stood in the right place on earth you'd observe them moving across the sky at decreasing speed, pausing, then moving in a different direction again.

Where would you have to stand to see retrograde movement of the sun and moon? Changes in speed etc yes but I can't see how the model in question would create that affect.

He's referring to the fact that if you do the trigonometry involved the sun and moon should be 10 degrees or so above the horizon at all times.  However, this doesn't account for electromagnetic acceleration bending the light.

Hotlinked illustration:


As you see, once the sun moves far enough away its light is bent to such an extent that it appears to dip below the horizon and cannot be seen again until the next morning.

Neil is referring to retrograde motion of the sun, this would be making the sun appear to go in the wrong direction for a period. Essentially the sun travels across the sky east to west, slows down to a stop then starts to move west to east for a time before returning to a east to west motion.

That's a pretty diagram though, does the magnetic acceleration only effect light on a time of day basis or is it based on horizontal distance the light has to travel?

492
Flat Earth General / Re: evidence of moon missions
« on: January 23, 2013, 06:59:27 AM »
Thanks for answering my questions, I have another though.

I've heard this experiment described to you so I know you're familiar with it.

If you sit on a chair with good wheels and on a low friction surface and start throwing medicine balls out in front of you then you will start rolling backwards. Can you explain what is happening?

The way you've described stuff above you're pushing against the ball as you throw it and the ball in turn is pushing against the air but I'm curious why if that's the case the ball doesn't just fall to the ground when you stop pushing.
I understand the action and reaction of a person on a chair with a medicine ball or on ice skates on a skating rink and this guise is used to make out that rockets use the same thing, which is rubbish to be honest.

Rockets do not throw medicine balls, or cannon balls or super dense massive lead balls from it's rear constantly, it ignites and then simply " burns" fuel.

This is the con job that people get hit with because it appears to be correct, yet it's two totally different means of propulsion.
A constant set of explosions like they say it is would blow the  rocket to pieces.
I don't expect you to believe it as you have your own mind, yet have a serious think about how it's easy to be duped either way, because, even I agree it is a clever mind busting job they have done to convince even the smartest people.

While a rocket may not be throwing balls out of the back a water rocket is (well tiny molecule sized watery ones :))

493
Flat Earth General / Re: evidence of moon missions
« on: January 23, 2013, 06:39:38 AM »
Thanks for answering my questions, I have another though.

I've heard this experiment described to you so I know you're familiar with it.

If you sit on a chair with good wheels and on a low friction surface and start throwing medicine balls out in front of you then you will start rolling backwards. Can you explain what is happening?

The way you've described stuff above you're pushing against the ball as you throw it and the ball in turn is pushing against the air but I'm curious why if that's the case the ball doesn't just fall to the ground when you stop pushing.

494
Flat Earth General / Re: evidence of moon missions
« on: January 23, 2013, 05:18:49 AM »
I think I read you talking about this in another thread, something along the line of the rocket expels hot air and this pushes against cold air which somehow creates lift. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think the crux was that it required the atmosphere to work. I got the impression of a hot air balloon when I read it.

Have you ever built a water rocket?


495
Flat Earth General / Re: evidence of moon missions
« on: January 23, 2013, 02:59:45 AM »
Quick question Skeptimatic, why is space travel impossible?

496
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity Inconsistency
« on: January 23, 2013, 02:26:58 AM »
The moon does not go around the earth.  It circles above it.  The earth does not go around the sun.  The sun circles above us.  As do the planets and the other bodies in the celestial sphere.  And yes, everything appears to be affected by the UA just as the earth is.  If you'd do a little research here before 'pwning' us you may have a better chance at presenting a compelling argument.

tintagel, in your opinion do the sun and the moon circle in a plane parallel to the plane of the earth disc, as it shows in the FAQ, or do you believe that the sun and moon drop below the flat earth horizon and rise opposite, as in sandokhan's alternative theory?

or do you have another idea?

The former, as far as I can tell.

Why don't we see retrograde movement of the sun and moon then? If you stood in the right place on earth you'd observe them moving across the sky at decreasing speed, pausing, then moving in a different direction again.

Where would you have to stand to see retrograde movement of the sun and moon? Changes in speed etc yes but I can't see how the model in question would create that affect.

497
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 23, 2013, 12:52:47 AM »
you must let some victories slide or you end up being blocked from the upper fora.

i must shut up before i get banned again too. sorry im so bored downloading files.

err

did anyone get some details on how gold is weighed anyway from place to place? or what type of scale is used for large quantities?

This was first thing I found, fear my researching skills  ;D

http://www.ehow.com/how_4480812_weigh-gold.html

part of the process is to weigh it on accurate scales like these

http://www.scalesandbalances.co.uk/acatalog/Jewellery-Balances.html



498
Flat Earth Debate / Re: instability
« on: January 22, 2013, 08:44:07 AM »
I like this experiment, very simple and easy to replicate

http://www.gnomeexperiment.com/

This is the largest list I've found for the value of G for various locations around the world



Maybe they'd send you the gnome and scales then you could see if it's weight changes when you take it up a tall building or mountain.

Hell you could find the value of G for your location, compare it to the area of Germany where it's from and then make a prediction for how much it should weigh on their scale in your house. You'd have a hypothesis, a prediction, an experiment to test the prediction, a measurable result and a conclusion. That's almost like proper science!

499
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Explain why space flight is not possible.
« on: January 18, 2013, 12:36:17 PM »
Sustained space travel is impossible because the earth is accelerating upwards. This means that a rocket will eventually run out of fuel and the earth will catch up to it.

For evidence of this upwards acceleration get up on a chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully while walking off the edge of the seat. You will see that the earth rises up to you. There is nothing visible bringing you down. You are being pinned to the earth's surface by its upwards movement. You do not see "graviton particles" or a "bending of space" pulling you to the ground. Those explanations are entirely invisible and undetectable. The only direct observation is that the earth rose upwards to you.

Therefore by Argument from Parsimony, we must conclude that the earth is accelerating upwards.

So... if the Earth is moving upwards at an accelerating rate, why doesn't the Earth's surface just smack into skydivers? (Yes, the universe is expanding at 74.3 km/s per megaparsec.)

...it does, eventually.  Else they'd just stay in the air.

Acceleration is indiscernable from gravity, for the purposes of physics.
Acceleration due to gravity decreases at higher altitudes, as we are debating in another thread (pretty one-sided with Thork's poor performance though).

This is true, and seems to be an effect of UA.

That wouldn't be possible with UA.  If acceleration due to gravity was lower than at sea level, then that means that the ground UNDER the mountain is accelerating FASTER than the mountain itself.  That can't happen because the ground under the mountain would have to go THROUGH the mountain.  Matter can't clip into itself like that, and if it did, we'd notice.

That's not what I meant.  I meant that it seems that the higher your altitude, the the inertia that keeps us held down on the earth lessens.    Outside of the atmosphere the UA pushes everything along, and the atmosphere seems to counter this, but its effectiveness diminishes with altitude.

It's an interesting idea, the force keeping us on the ground though is not just affected by altitude but also by latitude. It is stronger at the poles and weaker at the equator.

500
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Weight and the UA
« on: January 17, 2013, 01:35:12 PM »
Quote
Quote
Because when you buy scales you don't have to buy them calibrated for your country.
That's because your objects of known mass and the object you are massing (assuming you are using an actual balance) have the same acceleration due to gravity being applied to them.  If you are using a force scale, then there would be inaccuracies due to gravitational variance.  However, they are insignificant in most everyday, non-laboratory contexts.

Actually you do, in the training material below it tells you how much a 1kg mass will weigh in different locations if the scales are left at the factory default.

http://www.aandd.jp/support/materials/product_training1_balances.pdf

Though as you say if you're using a traditional balance then your measurements are accurate

501
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how can we see the Crux
« on: January 17, 2013, 03:39:01 AM »
On a side note it is possible to be star gazing at the same time in Tazmania and the southern end of South America during the southern hemispheres winter.

Hobart is +10 GMT
http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/hobart.html

Comodora Rivadavia is -5 GMT
http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/comodoro-rivadavia.html

There's about a 4 hour window between sunset in South America and sunrise in Tazmania.

502
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What causes the tides?
« on: January 17, 2013, 03:16:46 AM »
Also if it was all different celestial bodies then the tides would be random not well timed and predictable like we know they are. Also if its just the FEs moon that causes it then how does a 32 mile objects with a very tiny gravitational pull pull trillions and trillions of gallons of water into a bulge to cause the tides?

Well one would assume that gravity is stronger in models that require it, neh? However, this is a serious concern for Wilmore's model of the infinite plane, I believe. Not sure how he would explain it.

In AW, it's caused by the aetheric permeation.

Hi Tausami, what is the aetheric permeation? I found an interesting patent for aetheric propulsion
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2541517/summary.html?section=claims&modificationDate=20100331&page=1&scale=25&rotation=0&type=basic_search&query=aether&start=1&num=50#View_Images
but not permeation

503
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Weight and the UA
« on: January 16, 2013, 04:25:46 PM »
Thork, are you really too dense to notice the last three gravity maps you posted look just like each other, but with slightly different resolution and false colour scaling? They all show a gravity peak in the North Atlantic (in red on two of the maps but in yellow in the other one. They all show a gravity peak on the northern edge of Africa just below Gibraltar. They all show a gravity weak spot in central Africa. They all show a weak band off the east coast of America. Admittedly the first map is more or less unreadable because it's not clear what the colour scale is and it does not overlap well with the other three.
It's stuff like this that betrays the troll wearing the FE'er mask, I'm afraid. I can only award low marks for your effort here.

Thanks Neil I'm trying to find where the images came from, I'm pretty sure the 2nd image is from the GRACE satellites and the 3rd and 4th from the GOCE satellites even though the colour for higher gravity is changed from red in the 3rd to yellow in the 4th.

As for the weight of Gold etc accurate and reliable measures of mass are accounted for by either

a: a traditional set of balance scales, as these will give the actual mass no matter the altitude, latitude etc
b: modern scales that are intended for trade use are re-calibrated on site to make sure they're accurate

Wikipedia for the broad overview of what scales are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale

Training material for using a modern balance
http://www.aandd.jp/support/materials/product_training1_balances.pdf

The NIST handbook 44, section 3.2.1
http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/upload/13-hb44-final-Web.pdf

504
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Weight and the UA
« on: January 16, 2013, 09:36:04 AM »
Well congratulations. You just found a way to make millions of dollars out of gold. And saffron. And anything else that is sold by weight. Just buy it in one of these mythical 'low gravity' areas and sell it in 'high gravity' areas. With apparent variations across the earth of 2%, you could make over $30 for every ounce of gold you sell right now.

And I do know. 'Gravity' is uniform all over earth because its really an acceleration of the earth, not an attractive force. The round earth theory is wrong. And you are lying about your experiences again, like you did with your last account before you were proved to be lying.

Are your debating skills and powers of reasoning that poor, that you need to keep coming to this site making new accounts and lying about 'experiments' that you have done?

You really are an angry person aren't you.

The gravitational field only fluctuate by around 0.5% not as you say 2%.
How do you know 'Gravity' is uniform all over the earth, the only thing you have is that your hypothesis says it should be.
There is a very simple way to prove the "Theory of Gravity" wrong here and get yourself in the history books.

505
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Weight and the UA
« on: January 16, 2013, 09:19:12 AM »
I was expecting a reply like that from you Thork, you know it is ok to say that you don't know. Also it's not my theory.

Anyway this is a simple experiment that anyone even school children can do. In fact I did it as a child using the following apparatus
1: weights (2 x 1kg and 2 x 2kg)
2: A set of digital scales
3: Mt Snowdon (it has a railway so we didn't have to walk up), ideally you want to go higher though.

And yes we did measure a fractional reduction in weight.



I measure a fractional reduction in weight every other time I step on my digital scale.

Glad to see your diet is working

506
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Weight and the UA
« on: January 16, 2013, 08:27:45 AM »
I was expecting a reply like that from you Thork, you know it is ok to say that you don't know. Also it's not my theory.

Anyway this is a simple experiment that anyone even school children can do. In fact I did it as a child using the following apparatus
1: weights (2 x 1kg and 2 x 2kg)
2: A set of digital scales
3: Mt Snowdon (it has a railway so we didn't have to walk up), ideally you want to go higher though.

And yes we did measure a fractional reduction in weight.


507
Flat Earth Q&A / Weight and the UA
« on: January 16, 2013, 07:50:21 AM »
If I take an object with a fixed mass and weigh it at sea level and then up a mountain it will be heavier at sea level and fractionally lighter up the mountain.

If you're on a solid object (the mountain) being pushed up at the same rate as everything around it (the world disc) then why would an object weigh less at altitude?



508
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: bendy light?
« on: January 16, 2013, 06:33:34 AM »
Bendy light is most often brought up for things like the sunset, however in the description of the equation it says

"this will only work when y is much greater than x - that is to say, when the vertical distance travelled is much greater than the horizontal distance travelled. Put another way, its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical."

given that in FET sunsets happen when the horizontal distance the light travels is greater than the vertical distance that might be a problem with it.

509
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how can we see the Crux
« on: January 14, 2013, 03:18:53 PM »
What course does the sun take on that map Kendrick?

510
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how can we see the Crux
« on: January 14, 2013, 03:18:00 PM »
I don't think you need to go that far south.

Here are the local sunrise and sunset times for 3 locations basically at -34o south on June 20th.
Buenas Aires (-4 GMT)
Sunrise - 07:00  (GMT Time - 03:00)
Sunset - 16:49  (GMT Time - 12:49)

Cape Town (+1 GMT)
Sunrise - 06:51  (GMT Time - 07:51)
Sunset - 16:44  (GMT Time - 16:44)

Sydney (+10 GMT)
Sunrise - 06:59  (GMT Time - 16:59)
Sunset - 16:53  (GMT Time - 02:53)

Sydney and Cape Town can observe the celestial south pole at the same time and Cape Town and Buenas Aires can observe it at the same time.

If you want to go a bit further south you can observe the south celestial pole in Tazmania and South America at the same time.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19