Earth's Shadow

I can't wait until this thread is locked...

Ye man then you can ignore it more 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2007, 01:26:55 PM

Quote

Please provide evidence of the shadow object's existence.

For direct observational evidence take look at the crescent moon on any night.

I see the Earth's shadow on the moon. Thereby, I proved the earth is round. 

No, you proved that the moon is round - even a straight-edge would cause a curved shadow on a spherical moon.

Quote from: astronomy101 on March 01, 2007, 11:30:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2007, 01:26:55 PM

Quote

Please provide evidence of the shadow object's existence.

For direct observational evidence take look at the crescent moon on any night.

I see the Earth's shadow on the moon. Thereby, I proved the earth is round. 

No, you proved that the moon is round - even a straight-edge would cause a curved shadow on a spherical moon.

Explain plx because I just put a piece of paper infront of a globe with a torch shining on it and I got something similar to http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h70/LogiX_2006/Untitled-2-1.jpg . Anyway, the round shadow is only one thing that backs up my claim, the other is that in the flat Earth model there is no way a shadow could be cast on the moon by the sun.

Quote from: EricTheRed on March 03, 2007, 03:33:45 PM

Quote from: astronomy101 on March 01, 2007, 11:30:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2007, 01:26:55 PM

Quote

Please provide evidence of the shadow object's existence.

For direct observational evidence take look at the crescent moon on any night.

I see the Earth's shadow on the moon. Thereby, I proved the earth is round. 

No, you proved that the moon is round - even a straight-edge would cause a curved shadow on a spherical moon.

Explain plx because I just put a piece of paper infront of a globe with a torch shining on it and I got something similar to http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h70/LogiX_2006/Untitled-2-1.jpg . Anyway, the round shadow is only one thing that backs up my claim, the other is that in the flat Earth model there is no way a shadow could be cast on the moon by the sun.

I explain how the earth can cast a shadow on the moon in my post on page 4 of the thread "Why ships' hulls disappear, photos from space and other mysteries"

Quote from: MooBs on March 03, 2007, 04:21:16 PM

Quote from: EricTheRed on March 03, 2007, 03:33:45 PM

Quote from: astronomy101 on March 01, 2007, 11:30:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2007, 01:26:55 PM

Quote

Please provide evidence of the shadow object's existence.

For direct observational evidence take look at the crescent moon on any night.

I see the Earth's shadow on the moon. Thereby, I proved the earth is round. 

No, you proved that the moon is round - even a straight-edge would cause a curved shadow on a spherical moon.

Explain plx because I just put a piece of paper infront of a globe with a torch shining on it and I got something similar to http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h70/LogiX_2006/Untitled-2-1.jpg . Anyway, the round shadow is only one thing that backs up my claim, the other is that in the flat Earth model there is no way a shadow could be cast on the moon by the sun.

I explain how the earth can cast a shadow on the moon in my post on page 4 of the thread "Why ships' hulls disappear, photos from space and other mysteries"

You can explain anything without evidence and tests.

1) Why do different people have different explanations for certain things that dont agree with FE? Tom Bishop and others have claimed a shadow object, while you say something about light. Sounds like people just make up bullshit that fits the FE model without proof at all.

2) Prove your statement using mathematics and science, thanks.

1) Why do different people have different explanations for certain things that dont agree with FE? Tom Bishop and others have claimed a shadow object, while you say something about light. Sounds like people just make up bullshit that fits the FE model without proof at all.

2) Prove your statement using mathematics and science, thanks.

1) There is a healthy debate going on in current physics between string theory and loop quantum gravity, which are rival theories-of-everything, trying to unite quantum mechanics and relativity .  It's part of science to try our different hypotheses and work out the consequences until one is seen to be superior.  Why would you hold FE to more stringent rules.
2) Exactly what I was doing.  I have been drawing simple pictures of the math, as even though there seem to be some mathematically inclined people on this forum, differential geometry is fairly tricky stuff.  If you're inclined to work it through, you just need a projective transform.  It is the transform which takes a spherical earth into a disk with the hub/N pole at it's centre, which you can see elsewhere on this site.  If you look up any book or reference on projective transforms you'll see they take all (circles and straight lines) into (circles and straight lines) - in other words most circles remain circles, but some become straight lines, and some straight lines become circles.  You don't need to trust me, just look it up.  And general relativity says the laws of physics, expressed in tensors, remain the same no matter what smoothly differentiable transform I apply to the coordinate system.  All you need to do is to take the transform seriously as applying not just to the Earth's surface but also to the space above it.  You'll find that not only do the optics work out, as I have shown, but also gravitation - guaranteed by general relativity itself.
I have to admit that the S pole/rim is the problem - it becomes a singularity as a disk and a sphere are different a more fundamental level than the metric.  But conventional physics has singularities at the big bang, in black holes, around (so far hypothetical) cosmic strings, wormholes and other exotic beasts, so I'm just adding one more to the pantheon.

but guys. the earth is flat obviously innit.
once i kicked a football down a street and after a couple of moments it just stopped dead! no movement at all.
on a round earth it is obviously gonna keep rolling, rolling and rolling, therefore the earth must be flat.

please help me out with this proof, if you sees any flaws or nething.
cheers

but guys. the earth is flat obviously innit.
once i kicked a football down a street and after a couple of moments it just stopped dead! no movement at all.
on a round earth it is obviously gonna keep rolling, rolling and rolling, therefore the earth must be flat.

please help me out with this proof, if you sees any flaws or nething.
cheers

I pointed out the flaws in that awful expiriment yesterday newton, stop trying.

come on pablo, there are no flaws, you have no proof just theory. i saw it with my own eyes, its a phenomenom that can be only associated with flat surfaces, i.e the earth

Explain then why a round earth would cause a football( and im assuming its a european football, not american) to roll continuously?

to continually travel with circular motion, there is a force needed to cause the acceleration of the ball. This is provided by gravity. By Newtons 1 st, this will act oppositely to the normal reaction force, towards the centre. The ball therefore follows a circular path around the earths surface.
Friction is negligible because, as you say asphalt is the no.1 road surface, asphalt roads are fundamentally smooth because of unseamed fabrication and flexibility of binding agents within its cheical make up. Therefore there is no friction force that will make a large effect on the dynamics of the ball, and it is so small it shold allow for 1000 s of orbits of the earths surface. The ball i rolled travelled a distance of less than 40 metres, whereas with RE it would have covered multiples of 100000s of miles in distance. QED

The lack of actual physics in that post is astounding.

The lack of actual physics in that post is astounding.

But pretty funny, you must admit  - surely you've figured this guy is a stand-up comic.
Of course, if friction were negligible, the ball would roll forever on a flat earth too.  This experiment has the same results in FE and RE.

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 04, 2007, 09:21:28 AM

The lack of actual physics in that post is astounding.

But pretty funny, you must admit  - surely you've figured this guy is a stand-up comic.
Of course, if friction were negligible, the ball would roll forever on a flat earth too.  This experiment has the same results in FE and RE.

It would fall off the edge, unless stop by the government!!

Whats wrong with that physics?!its completely true. although it is simplified so you can understand as you are obviously quite absent minded folk  I have many a more qualifications than you will ever have so leave your snarly little comments to yourself.Whats ure IQ PUNKS?!

Whats wrong with that physics?!its completely true. although it is simplified so you can understand as you are obviously quite absent minded folk  I have many a more qualifications than you will ever have so leave your snarly little comments to yourself.Whats ure IQ PUNKS?!

Can somebody put this in their signature so that I don't have to?  Especially the last sentence.

 

Whats wrong with that physics?!its completely true. although it is simplified so you can understand as you are obviously quite absent minded folk  I have many a more qualifications than you will ever have so leave your snarly little comments to yourself.Whats ure IQ PUNKS?!

Although many people on this forum's IQs are higher then yours id be most worried about tom bishop's IQ, its so large it would crush you in seconds and according to your negligible friction theory it wouldnt roll on you for the rest of eternity

I heard that he sat down to take the IQ test and he melted.

Tom Bishops IQ is higher than the number of digits in the number infinity.

Also, refer to the FAQ

Plus I want stars under my picture like Eramus because I have been a good psuedo FEer and made lots of posts.

I heard that he sat down to take the IQ test and he melted.

I doubt he even made it to the IQ testing building, hes so dumb he would've died on the way, the most likely cause of his death being that he tripped up on the wires of a wireless phone

only 5% of people posting?

 

 

More evidence:

BTW I took that picture myself. On the moon topic, why do u lock my threads?

cause they are inaccurate, wrong, long, (it rhymes!!) dull and boring

Come on Tom, either prove the shadow object or explain my original post.

Come on Tom, either prove the shadow object or explain my original post.

 

He ignores all arguments.  Its like that dudes sig.  He will post once in a thread, then just crash and forget he posted there and never come back.