Watch this

  • 65 Replies
  • 6261 Views
Re: Watch this
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2007, 11:53:24 PM »
you're stll not understanding what im getting at
if the track is going up hill for MOST of the ride
how come in the movie it appears to be going downhill
i mean i know its following the curvature of the earth
but wahts the FE respoonse to it not appearing to go uphill.
even if we cannot seet he END OF THE TRACK
why can we only see a lilttle bit of it?
why doesit even APPEAR to be going up hill?

Rarely will you find a self-employed scientist.

Tom Bishop the Self-Employed Scientist.
Proving the World Flat since 1962.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Watch this
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2007, 11:58:24 PM »
I'm not talking about a mountain road here.  I really don't think you would notice a ten foot change in elevation over 3 or 4 miles.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Watch this
« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2007, 12:06:18 AM »
according to the RE theory if that were true they would basically be traveling in a flat line, not one following the globe.
and according to the FE theory it should technically be visible.
maybe after zooming in....
but i wasnt

Rarely will you find a self-employed scientist.

Tom Bishop the Self-Employed Scientist.
Proving the World Flat since 1962.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Watch this
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2007, 12:10:18 AM »
Good lord. ::)


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Watch this
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2007, 12:19:32 AM »
pwnt.

Rarely will you find a self-employed scientist.

Tom Bishop the Self-Employed Scientist.
Proving the World Flat since 1962.

*

Nicolae Carpathia

  • 95
  • E=mc˛ DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!
Re: Watch this
« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2007, 08:30:35 AM »
What part of "THE END OF THE TRACK IS ON THE OTHER SIDE (THAT WOULD BE THE DOWNHILL SIDE) OF THE HILL" don't you understand?

What he means is that if there was a hill, and most of the track was going uphill, then that means we, instead of seeing a curvature on the end, would see a hill. We will see a BIG hill on the track. (remember, it is 5 miles of uphill track)

Also, if it was a hill, we would be able to see it by using the threes next to the track as a reference.

So many questions, no logical answers.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Watch this
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2007, 08:40:33 AM »
Yea, because 10 feet over 4 miles is really noticeable.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Nicolae Carpathia

  • 95
  • E=mc˛ DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!
Re: Watch this
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2007, 09:01:13 AM »
Yea, because 10 feet over 4 miles is really noticeable.

Actually, if you are in phase with the foot of the hill, you can see it. Also, if there was a hill, and the car was going at such a speed, don't you think it would jump?

So many questions, no logical answers.

?

Miss M.

  • 1854
  • Screw you.
Re: Watch this
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2007, 09:07:07 AM »
I can't believe anyone is falling for this crap. Why do you think the narrator mentions "the curvature of the earth"? So that sheep like you will greedily buy into the round-earth lie. It is all part of the conspiracy folks. Besides, don't forget the track is in Germany, if you look carefully you can see that the landscape is hilly.
Germany isn't a very hilly country. It has mountains, but when you're not anywhere near them, it's very very flat. The hills are hardly noticable. I drive from Holland to Essen every year. It's literally straight along the autobahn, really well and truely flat. And you can't see very far ahead. Try it sometime. :) Hilly my arse.

I'm sorry but that road was not on a hill. They would not be stupid enough to do that anyway - not on a test road! It's too dangerous surely, for top top speeds.
Quote from: TheEngineer
I happen to like GG.
Quote from: Z, the Enlightened.
I never thought in my life I'd write the sentence "I thought they were caught in a bipolar geodesic?"

Re: Watch this
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2007, 11:22:01 AM »
LOL!
ONCE AGAIN, PWNT!

Rarely will you find a self-employed scientist.

Tom Bishop the Self-Employed Scientist.
Proving the World Flat since 1962.

Re: Watch this
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2007, 01:28:32 PM »
Yea, because 10 feet over 4 miles is really noticeable.

Actually, if you are in phase with the foot of the hill, you can see it. Also, if there was a hill, and the car was going at such a speed, don't you think it would jump?

Wow, I don't think I could make out a 10 ft incline over 4 miles.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Watch this
« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2007, 01:30:24 PM »
What part of "THE END OF THE TRACK IS ON THE OTHER SIDE (THAT WOULD BE THE DOWNHILL SIDE) OF THE HILL" don't you understand?

What he means is that if there was a hill, and most of the track was going uphill, then that means we, instead of seeing a curvature on the end, would see a hill. We will see a BIG hill on the track. (remember, it is 5 miles of uphill track)

Also, if it was a hill, we would be able to see it by using the trees next to the track as a reference.

What is the difference between 'curvature of the surface' and a hill?  This whole discussion is too vague with phrases like "most of the track". 

you're stll not understanding what im getting at
if the track is going up hill for MOST of the ride
how come in the movie it appears to be going downhill
i mean i know its following the curvature of the earth
but wahts the FE respoonse to it not appearing to go uphill.
even if we cannot seet he END OF THE TRACK
why can we only see a lilttle bit of it?
why doesit even APPEAR to be going up hill?

So in the movie it appears to be going downhill, yet one cannot see the end.  What is it preventing someone from seeing the end of the track, then? 

What is the RE response for the track not appearing to go uphill?  If it were following the curvature of the round Earth the track would appear to go uphill. 

Re: Watch this
« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2007, 01:33:49 PM »
What part of "THE END OF THE TRACK IS ON THE OTHER SIDE (THAT WOULD BE THE DOWNHILL SIDE) OF THE HILL" don't you understand?

What he means is that if there was a hill, and most of the track was going uphill, then that means we, instead of seeing a curvature on the end, would see a hill. We will see a BIG hill on the track. (remember, it is 5 miles of uphill track)

Also, if it was a hill, we would be able to see it by using the trees next to the track as a reference.

What is the difference between 'curvature of the surface' and a hill?  This whole discussion is too vague with phrases like "most of the track". 

you're stll not understanding what im getting at
if the track is going up hill for MOST of the ride
how come in the movie it appears to be going downhill
i mean i know its following the curvature of the earth
but wahts the FE respoonse to it not appearing to go uphill.
even if we cannot seet he END OF THE TRACK
why can we only see a lilttle bit of it?
why doesit even APPEAR to be going up hill?

So in the movie it appears to be going downhill, yet one cannot see the end.  What is it preventing someone from seeing the end of the track, then? 

What is the RE response for the track not appearing to go uphill?  If it were following the curvature of the round Earth the track would appear to go uphill. 

Why would it go uphill?

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Watch this
« Reply #43 on: April 01, 2007, 01:36:49 PM »
It would 'appear' to go uphill because of the spherical shape of the RE. 

Re: Watch this
« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2007, 01:39:53 PM »
No it wouldn't.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Watch this
« Reply #45 on: April 01, 2007, 01:54:59 PM »
Oh, now I understand why you are confused.  I'm saying the surface would appear to be steepest toward the observer as it stretched away to the line of horizon, where it would appear to level off and then go downhill. 



That looks to me like the surface is rising up from where I am standing.  I thusly claim that it appears to go uphill. 

P.S.  I love MS paint.  It's been a while since I used it.  Good times. 
« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 02:34:55 PM by EvilToothpaste »

Re: Watch this
« Reply #46 on: April 01, 2007, 04:44:42 PM »
Oh, now I understand why you are confused.  I'm saying the surface would appear to be steepest toward the observer as it stretched away to the line of horizon, where it would appear to level off and then go downhill. 



That looks to me like the surface is rising up from where I am standing.  I thusly claim that it appears to go uphill. 

P.S.  I love MS paint.  It's been a while since I used it.  Good times. 

Oh, I get what your saying now.

Re: Watch this
« Reply #47 on: April 01, 2007, 06:51:01 PM »
Oh, now I understand why you are confused.  I'm saying the surface would appear to be steepest toward the observer as it stretched away to the line of horizon, where it would appear to level off and then go downhill. 



That looks to me like the surface is rising up from where I am standing.  I thusly claim that it appears to go uphill. 

P.S.  I love MS paint.  It's been a while since I used it.  Good times. 

Actualy:


On a round world, the 'flat' ground will appear to slope downwards. You have to remember that when you stand upright on 'flat' ground, you are perpendicular to RE's surface.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Watch this
« Reply #48 on: April 01, 2007, 08:40:57 PM »
You didn't use Paint, so your diagram is not so good.   :D

My other problem with your diagram is in knowing where the tangent line is in the actual situation.  Ideally, yes, we stand perpendicular to the surface, however, you are not going to be able to tell that the horizon is below this tangent line (which we can't see).  The declination is sufficiently negligible (like less than 1/100th of a degree).  So, there really is no difference between our two diagrams given such small angles. 

Basically, the video does not prove what the original poster thinks it proves.  He's making too many assumptions, one being that "they are smart enough to make a perfectly level road."  They may be smart, but the precision of road making equipment could not be good enough to come to a good conclusion as to the shape of the Earth. 

Another thing: knowing the speed of the car we can easily calculate the difference in forces on the car between the "perfectly flat RE" model and the "10-foot hill over 5 miles" FE model. 

The angle of incline of this hill is: arctan (10ft / 5mi) = 0.02 degrees. 
Now the difference between forces on the car (traveling at the same speed in each model) is REmodel = cos[above angle] *FEmodel
I can tell you without finishing the calculation that the difference is negligible because the COS of this degree measure is 1.0000000 (which is waaaay more significant figures than is necessary). 
So the forces on the car between the two models ARE identical. 


Because of this, one cannot come to a good conclusion.  There could be a hill.  The driver would not be able to tell the difference, though. 

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Watch this
« Reply #49 on: April 02, 2007, 03:29:54 AM »
Do FEers live in a constant paranoid terror? you're implying that not only is the government conspiring to make the world flat but so are private engineering companies.

The company wants to make a road that's flat for testing their cars, if it was built on a slight hill the surveyors who first surveyed the site would have picked it out (which can be accurate to the millimetre) When the road was finished a second survey to check it's accuracy would be made, if it was not level the track would not have met the requirements of the build, the engineers would be tasked with either MAKING it straight or starting again. I know because I used to be a civil engineer and I was never briefed to "Make the world appear like a ball" by my boss .

?

Miss M.

  • 1854
  • Screw you.
Re: Watch this
« Reply #50 on: April 02, 2007, 03:40:00 AM »
I know because I used to be a civil engineer and I was never briefed to "Make the world appear like a ball" by my boss .
yes you were! Why would you lie!?! Whyyyy!!!
Besides, surely your boss would tell you to tell people that he didn't brief you. Ha!!

Hang on. I'm an RE'er....RPGs really are addictive.
Quote from: TheEngineer
I happen to like GG.
Quote from: Z, the Enlightened.
I never thought in my life I'd write the sentence "I thought they were caught in a bipolar geodesic?"

?

Bushido

Re: Watch this
« Reply #51 on: April 02, 2007, 03:45:14 AM »
You leave TheEngineer alone. He's just volunteering here for Christ's sake.

?

Miss M.

  • 1854
  • Screw you.
Re: Watch this
« Reply #52 on: April 02, 2007, 03:46:59 AM »
You leave TheEngineer alone. He's just volunteering here for Christ's sake.
Imagine if we all said that about soldiers on the battle field. "Hey, there's no need to shoot him, he's just volunteering!".
Quote from: TheEngineer
I happen to like GG.
Quote from: Z, the Enlightened.
I never thought in my life I'd write the sentence "I thought they were caught in a bipolar geodesic?"

?

Bushido

Re: Watch this
« Reply #53 on: April 02, 2007, 03:51:55 AM »
LAWL

Re: Watch this
« Reply #54 on: April 02, 2007, 07:36:12 AM »
You leave TheEngineer alone. He's just volunteering here for Christ's sake.

No one gets left alone here.

?

DakaSha

  • 115
  • I'm so obviously gay
Re: Watch this
« Reply #55 on: April 02, 2007, 08:05:33 AM »
Why couldn't the road have be made cresting a small natural hill? 

why couldnt the earth be round dumbass

I know the waterfalls shadow is wrong. Eat a dick you fuckin know-it-all :P
A Genius: PBF

Re: Watch this
« Reply #56 on: April 02, 2007, 08:15:27 AM »
Why couldn't the road have be made cresting a small natural hill? 

why couldnt the earth be round dumbass

Because Tom Bishop said so.

Re: Watch this
« Reply #57 on: April 02, 2007, 08:56:32 AM »
Do FEers live in a constant paranoid terror? you're implying that not only is the government conspiring to make the world flat but so are private engineering companies.

The company wants to make a road that's flat for testing their cars, if it was built on a slight hill the surveyors who first surveyed the site would have picked it out (which can be accurate to the millimetre) When the road was finished a second survey to check it's accuracy would be made, if it was not level the track would not have met the requirements of the build, the engineers would be tasked with either MAKING it straight or starting again. I know because I used to be a civil engineer and I was never briefed to "Make the world appear like a ball" by my boss .
Actually The Engineer is saying that engineers can't make level roads.  :P :P

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Watch this
« Reply #58 on: April 02, 2007, 09:09:41 AM »
Do FEers live in a constant paranoid terror? you're implying that not only is the government conspiring to make the world flat but so are private engineering companies.
If the road is "perfectly level" -- and if they believe the Earth to be round -- then they DID purposefully build the road with a mound in the center.  If the road is "perfectly flat" then it will be concave in the sense that it will not be level anywhere but the center. 

In thinking the Earth to be round, they had to make a hill in the center in order for the road to be perfectly level at every point.  So, in trying to make a road level at every point the engineers had to take into account the supposed curvature of the Earth, which in turn made a slight hill in the center of their road.  But, as I have shown in this thread, a road that is perfectly flat and a road that is slightly higher in the center will make no appreciable difference on the performance of the car. 

Out of curiosity: you used to be a civil engineer?  Where did your degree go? 

Re: Watch this
« Reply #59 on: April 02, 2007, 09:26:57 AM »

In thinking the Earth to be round, they had to make a hill in the center in order for the road to be perfectly level at every point.  So, in trying to make a road level at every point the engineers had to take into account the supposed curvature of the Earth, which in turn made a slight hill in the center of their road.  But, as I have shown in this thread, a road that is perfectly flat and a road that is slightly higher in the center will make no appreciable difference on the performance of the car. 
You aren't making sense. Level means level with respect to the earth. If I take a plumb-bob and make a line perpendicular to the earth, it will be at a slight angle to an identical plumb-bob a few miles away on a spherical earth. However, on a FE, the 2 plumb-bobs will be exactly parallel.
A hill implies a rise above level. There is no 'hill' on a completely level road but the curvature of th earth would have the same appearance as if there were a hill.