How we can prove that this theory is beyond a doubt true in a matter of days.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 09:12:41 AM

Quote from: Thork on January 22, 2012, 08:54:55 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 08:12:28 AM

You do understand that you can accelerate northward, but not change distance from the NP, right?

I would be very interested in your explanation for this.

It's high school physics. See http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l1b.cfm.

ETA: Oh and I used the search function to see that this was discussed over 4 years ago. See http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13732.msg213684;topicseen#msg213684

No, no, no no. I want to know how you can accelerate northward without getting any closer to the north pole. That is your claim. Explain please. Your link explains something else entirely.

Goodness, it's obvious to me. Perhaps you could ask a question. Don't worry about appearing stupid.

Let's make sure you understand the basics... If you disagree with any numbered sentence, just tell me the first one with which you disagree and your reason (or confusion).

Let's consider only the Northern Hemidisc. Let's also consider you're in a craft that moves at a constant speed.

1) The NP is the center of the NH.
2) The Equator is the edge of the NH.
3) The Equator forms a circle centered on the NP.
4) Traveling along the Equator in either direction requires you to stay the same distance from the NP.
5) Traveling along the Equator requires you to accelerate to towards the NP.

I think that obvious and very well explained in both links but please let me know where you're getting lost.

Number 5. How does travelling along the equator require you to accelerate towards the NP?

So, just so I'm clear here, I offer as simple a solution as possible, to simply, reach the end, that would only only exist with your flat earth theory, an end that would not exist with the round earth theory, and rather than any answer even remotely legitimate, or even CLOSE to relating to the actual thread, this is what I get.

Instead there has been a range of "We already proved it here" Which quite frankly goes against what most of you say, since "Why should I believe what scientist have told me" is a common phrase, yet, you will just say was your science has said, avoiding any actual evidence, to flaming back and forth about various physics or other sciences.

How about someone actually read and respond to the actual thread purpose, instead of you all making yourself look like a group of uneducated savages.

When a question is asked, and you support your theory, you answer said question. Spouting out flames having no relation to an actual explanation of the question, is an excellent way to make yourselves look ignorant, in a fashion that seems like you have absolutely no evidence to support your claims, other than the same sciences you say you don't believe.

If the earth ends, go to the end. Until then it is 100% clear that this entire flat earth theory is beyond a giant crock.

Quote from: Thork on January 22, 2012, 04:25:23 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 09:12:41 AM

Quote from: Thork on January 22, 2012, 08:54:55 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 22, 2012, 08:12:28 AM

You do understand that you can accelerate northward, but not change distance from the NP, right?

I would be very interested in your explanation for this.

It's high school physics. See http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l1b.cfm.

ETA: Oh and I used the search function to see that this was discussed over 4 years ago. See http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13732.msg213684;topicseen#msg213684

No, no, no no. I want to know how you can accelerate northward without getting any closer to the north pole. That is your claim. Explain please. Your link explains something else entirely.

Though I find it almost physically painful to agree with Thork, I don't understand how this can happen either. Unless Clocktower is arguing from a semantic standpoint where changing direction without changing speed is described as acceleration.

It's not a matter of semantics. Kinetics requires the understanding that velocity is a vector and changes in magnitude, direction, or both are accelerations.

And since velocity is a vector that has both magnitude and direction, a change in either the magnitude or the direction constitutes a change in the velocity. For this reason, it can be safely concluded that an object moving in a circle at constant speed is indeed accelerating. It is accelerating because the direction of the velocity vector is changing

ClockTower, pay attention. How does accelerating northwards not change your proximity to the North Pole?

Though I find it almost physically painful to agree with Thork, I don't understand how this can happen either. Unless Clocktower is arguing from a semantic standpoint where changing direction without changing speed is described as acceleration.

This might help:  Remember, acceleration due to gravity is constant, even while jumping or hovering.

ClockTower, pay attention. How does accelerating northwards not change your proximity to the North Pole?

You pay attention.

Explain away Zarg. Explain how you can accelerate northwards and not get closer to the north pole.

Number 5. How does travelling along the equator require you to accelerate towards the NP?

Unless you travel in a straight line, you are accelerating. If your question is the direction of the acceleration, just look at the first link's section titled Direction of the Acceleration Vector.

Note in the diagram above that there is a velocity change for an object moving in a circle with a constant speed. A careful inspection of the velocity change vector in the above diagram shows that it points down and to the left. At the midpoint along the arc connecting points A and B, the velocity change is directed towards point C - the center of the circle. The acceleration of the object is dependent upon this velocity change and is in the same direction as this velocity change. The acceleration of the object is in the same direction as the velocity change vector; the acceleration is directed towards point C as well - the center of the circle. Objects moving in circles at a constant speed accelerate towards the center of the circle.

In FET the center of the NH is the NP.
 

And how would the accelerometers in an INS measure this, being as it would be exactly balanced by centrifugal force? Then explain why you felt it relevant?

And how would the accelerometers in an INS measure this, being as it would be exactly balanced by centrifugal force? Then explain why you felt it relevant?

Easily. The first link explains that very well. You're welcome to try the cork accelerometers in the first link to see such detection in action. You can also study the math in the second link.

Are you under the mistaken impression that centrifugal force is a real force in an inertial frame of reference?

Centrifugal force is often confused with centripetal force. Centrifugal force is most commonly introduced as a force associated with describing motion in a non-inertial reference frame, and referred to as a fictitious or inertial force (a description that must be understood as a technical usage of these words that means only that the force is not present in a stationary or inertial frame).

The acceleration towards the NP is real and measureable. A ship's rudder must push the ship toward the NP at a cost of energy in order to stay on the Equator.

And how would the accelerometers in an INS measure this

Are you denying that they can? Have you built your own accelerometer as in the high school science experiment posted above? Have you witnessed this experiment failing?



BTW, will you do this?

Thork, tell us what mechanisms INS uses to gather its data.  Then tell us how those mechanisms work.

"The knowledge" is still stuck at the same point. INS uses gyroscopes. Gyroscopes should suffer from precession on a round earth. To compensate, an adjustment is made. Its called schuler tuning. If the earth is flat, no adjustment need be made because the gyroscopes won't suffer precession errors. I'm not sure how I can make it any simpler. The entire premise of INS working on a round earth relies on proof of "Schuler Tuning" or as ClockTower has now named it "The Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Therefore the onus is on you to provide evidence of the flying spaghetti monster or concede INS is not proof of a round earth. I can not be forced into providing evidence of absence. That is an unreasonable request.

You cannot have it both ways.

1.)  Schuler tuning is used and messes up gyroscopes, but the INS is accurate with schuler tuning.
2.)  INS does not use schuler tuning, but then circumnavigation requires a constant turn that would be detected by INS.

Therefore either way INS proves the earth is round.

Explain away Zarg. Explain how you can accelerate northwards and not get closer to the north pole.

As I suspected, the "constant northwards acceleration" is a semantic trick that uses the definition of acceleration that includes change of direction without change of speed. It's slightly underhand of Clocktower and Zarg to not make this clearer, and rise above the techniques used by FE'ers to muddy things. Yes, technically this is acceleration, just as slowing down is "negative acceleration", but it's not a change in speed, which is what they are leading you to believe.

With regards to INS - it can detect this effect, as gyroscopes resist change of direction.

No, it's Thork who was being underhanded. You need to look back on this thread to see exactly why ClockTower's point about acceleration was made. Thork claimed that INS would not detect a northward change if the distance to the north pole remains the same. Thork is incorrect because the method INS uses to detect change is an accelerometer, and to understand exactly what accelerometers detect we must understand the technical definition of acceleration. We are not muddying, we are clarifying. As the experiment ClockTower posted proves, INS's accelerometers would detect the northward change.

No, it's Thork who was being underhanded. You need to look back on this thread to see exactly why ClockTower's point about acceleration was made. Thork claimed that INS would not detect a northward change if the distance to the north pole remains the same. Thork is incorrect because the method INS uses to detect change is an accelerometer, and to understand exactly what accelerometers detect we must understand the technical definition of acceleration. We are not muddying, we are clarifying. As the experiment ClockTower posted proves, INS's accelerometers would detect the northward change.

You could have said it more simply. I am on your side with this, remember? If I am to accuse the FE'ers of being deliberately sly and obfuscatory, we must not be so ourselves.

It is not sly to discuss true acceleration when the topic is accelerometers. Saying that you can accelerate northward without moving forward north is not obfuscatory. It's precisely what the accelerometer would detect in Thork's scenario of a plane circling the north pole.

It is not sly to discuss true acceleration when the topic is accelerometers. Saying that you can accelerate northward without moving forward north is not obfuscatory. It's precisely what the accelerometer would detect in Thork's scenario of a plane circling the north pole.

I had no ill intent. I did not set out to embarrass Thork. I can't imagine that my use of the word 'acceleration' properly could have been anything but straightforward. Every pilot knows that turning is an acceleration. Again, this is not semantics, but a necessary use of the word properly.

There's no place here where I taunted Thork for his error. I've encouraged him to ask questions. I've linked to a site that makes the point about acceleration including a change in direction. I've been straightforward.

Quote from: zarg on January 23, 2012, 10:43:14 AM

It is not sly to discuss true acceleration when the topic is accelerometers. Saying that you can accelerate northward without moving forward north is not obfuscatory. It's precisely what the accelerometer would detect in Thork's scenario of a plane circling the north pole.

I had no ill intent. I did not set out to embarrass Thork. I can't imagine that my use of the word 'acceleration' properly could have been anything but straightforward. Every pilot knows that turning is an acceleration. Again, this is not semantics, but a necessary use of the word properly.

As much as it pains me, ClockTower is right regarding acceleration as it's a vector, so turning would produce an acceleration in the direction you are turning. However, you are not right regarding the direction. I would imagine the accelerometers would be calibrated using north as the pivot (for want of better term) and so wouldn't detect anything other than moving east (turnwise).

It is impossible that the Earth is flat. If the earth was flat:

1st it would be impossible for the earth to complete it's orbit around the sun as it has been doing it for the las 3 billion years.

2nd If the earth was flat it would have been found really easily when the first satellites (or men) were sent in our orbit.

3rd if the earth was flat it would be impossible for the moon and the other satellites to orbit around the moon as they are doing right now.

The earth is ROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

It is impossible that the Earth is flat. If the earth was flat:

1st it would be impossible for the earth to complete it's orbit around the sun as it has been doing it for the las 3 billion years.

Lurk moar.  The flat earth doesn't orbit the sun.  The sun orbits above the flat earth.