Artillery

  • 167 Replies
  • 18899 Views
Artillery
« on: July 21, 2007, 06:59:08 AM »
When long-range artillery was invented, people at first could not accurately used them because of what we call the curvature of the earth.

We could assume that the path of the shells would travel in a parabola. Now if the Earth were flat, we could simply use high school mathematics to predict where the shells would land given an initial velocity and angle of attack. When engineers realized that they had to take into account the curvature of the Earth, the artillery became MUCH more accurate. How would FE'ers explain this phenomenon?

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Artillery
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2007, 08:47:16 AM »
Good question. Good luk getting a real answer. I predikt Tom Bishop will bring up "konspirasy".

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: Artillery
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2007, 09:59:04 AM »
Why would they need to determine Earth's curvature.  They should be concentrating on wind resistance, air pressure, and humdiity (which does affect air pressure).  These three variables along with others would produce greater margins of error compared to curvature.
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

Re: Artillery
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2007, 12:13:37 PM »
Why would they need to determine Earth's curvature.  They should be concentrating on wind resistance, air pressure, and humdiity (which does affect air pressure).  These three variables along with others would produce greater margins of error compared to curvature.

I believe the military would know more about firing artillery than you, and have learned what information they need to hit something ::)

?

sharkzf6

  • 130
  • Everything is number
Re: Artillery
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2007, 12:19:46 PM »
Why would they need to determine Earth's curvature.  They should be concentrating on wind resistance, air pressure, and humdiity (which does affect air pressure).  These three variables along with others would produce greater margins of error compared to curvature.
WFT!! You really are a dumbass arenít you?
"Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions..."
- Copernicus

Re: Artillery
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2007, 02:22:23 PM »
Why would they need to determine Earth's curvature.  They should be concentrating on wind resistance, air pressure, and humdiity (which does affect air pressure).  These three variables along with others would produce greater margins of error compared to curvature.

Their artillery became consistently more accurate after taking into account of (what they thought was) the Earth's curvature. I am saying that this is evidence that the Earth has non-zero curvature.

Obviously wind resistance and air pressure affects the trajectory as well, but the point is, again, that the artillery became more consistent while only changing the calculations involving curvature. In science this is standard evidence.

Re: Artillery
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2007, 03:00:29 PM »
Why would they need to determine Earth's curvature.  They should be concentrating on wind resistance, air pressure, and humdiity (which does affect air pressure).  These three variables along with others would produce greater margins of error compared to curvature.

Their artillery became consistently more accurate after taking into account of (what they thought was) the Earth's curvature. I am saying that this is evidence that the Earth has non-zero curvature.

Obviously wind resistance and air pressure affects the trajectory as well, but the point is, again, that the artillery became more consistent while only changing the calculations involving curvature. In science this is standard evidence.
Just FYI, The Kommunist is just standing in for the FEers who seem to have stopped responding to posts. You're quite right in your claim that the prediction by RE is what bolsters our confidence in that theory.

Please feel welcome to the debate. I hope that you've read the RE Primer. It's a great source for documenting the consensus of RE arguments. It'll save you a great deal of time rather than searching and guessing at the RE consensus. You can find a link to the RE Primer in my signature below.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Artillery
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2007, 06:10:11 PM »
Hmm. Let me look around.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 06:12:08 PM by divito »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Artillery
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2007, 06:12:42 PM »
"What the Coriolis effect is not

    * The Coriolis effect is not a result of the curvature of the Earth, only of its rotation."


Unless you have a reason for the FE to not be rotating, next.



um thanks. but maybe i missed where this had anything to do with the topic.
This is about the geometry of firing artillery on a plane compared to on a sphere.

Re: Artillery
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2007, 06:14:54 PM »
"What the Coriolis effect is not

    * The Coriolis effect is not a result of the curvature of the Earth, only of its rotation."


Unless you have a reason for the FE to not be rotating, next.



um thanks. but maybe i missed where this had anything to do with the topic.
This is about the geometry of firing artillery on a plane compared to on a sphere.
Just to be clear, The RE Primer has a section that explain the reason that the FE cannot spin or rotate about the North Pole.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Artillery
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2007, 06:16:30 PM »
"What the Coriolis effect is not

    * The Coriolis effect is not a result of the curvature of the Earth, only of its rotation."


Unless you have a reason for the FE to not be rotating, next.



um thanks. but maybe i missed where this had anything to do with the topic.
This is about the geometry of firing artillery on a plane compared to on a sphere.
Just to be clear, The RE Primer has a section that explain the reason that the FE cannot spin or rotate about the North Pole.

That's nice but how did his statement even come close to having to do with anything that was said.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Artillery
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2007, 06:16:48 PM »
Just to be clear, The RE Primer has a section that explain the reason that the FE cannot spin or rotate about the North Pole.

I'll have to look at that.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 06:20:05 PM by divito »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Artillery
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2007, 06:17:26 PM »
That's nice but how did his statement even come close to having to do with anything that was said.

It's also the reason I edited it right after I read the comments. Thanks though.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Artillery
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2007, 06:23:13 PM »
oh sorry. I just was all confused and wasn't sure if i had suddenly turned more retarded.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Artillery
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2007, 06:40:23 PM »
oh sorry. I just was all confused and wasn't sure if i had suddenly turned more retarded.

Ya I kind of made a stupid assumption and posted, then I read the comments and edited. Although you guys read the thread too damn fast and saw it :)

I'll have to be less retarded next time.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Artillery
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2007, 06:44:03 PM »
oh sorry. I just was all confused and wasn't sure if i had suddenly turned more retarded.

Ya I kind of made a stupid assumption and posted, then I read the comments and edited. Although you guys read the thread too damn fast and saw it :)

I'll have to be less retarded next time.
Actually, I quite respect your attempt to retract your comment while you reconsider it. That's commendable.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Artillery
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2007, 06:48:09 PM »
Actually, I quite respect your attempt to retract your comment while you reconsider it. That's commendable.

It was just that, I read his first sentence and was like "ok, here comes some mention of the Coriolis" so I went and got my quote and posted. Then I actually read the rest of his post and the ones following it and was like "SHIT! He doesn't say anything about it!". Sadface.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Artillery
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2007, 07:03:15 PM »
I maintain that government long-range artillery do not account for the supposed "curvature of the earth."
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 07:08:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Artillery
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2007, 07:09:51 PM »
I maintain that government long-range artillery do not account for the supposed "curvature of the earth."

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim Tom?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Artillery
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2007, 07:11:56 PM »
Quote
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim Tom?

Yep. Look out your window. Take a stroll down the beach. You will see direct observational evidence demonstrating that the earth to be flat. Or read EnaG. Therefore, we have various sources, your own eyes included, demonstrating the earth to be a plane.

Ergo, we see beyond all shadow of a doubt, beyond all question, beyond all misconception, that there is no earth "curvature" for government long-range artillery shells to account for. Any such account is hearsay, an old wives tale, a myth like all other myths passed down through stories and wishful thinking.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 07:24:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Artillery
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2007, 07:24:55 PM »
Quote
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim Tom?

Yep. Look out your window. Take a stroll down the beach. You will see direct observational evidence demonstrating that the earth to be flat. Or read EnaG. Therefore, we have various sources, your own eyes included, demonstrating the earth to be a plane.

Ergo, we see beyond all shadow of a doubt, beyond all question, beyond all misconception, that there is no earth "curvature" for government long-range artillery shells to account for.
Experiment 0001 of the RE Primer blows your comments out of the water. Your evidence is overwhelmed.

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Artillery
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2007, 07:25:46 PM »
Quote
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim Tom?

Yep. Look out your window. Take a stroll down the beach. You will see direct observational evidence demonstrating that the earth to be flat. Or read EnaG. Therefore, we have various sources, your own eyes included, demonstrating the earth to be a plane.

Ergo, we see beyond all shadow of a doubt, beyond all question, beyond all misconception, that there is no earth "curvature" for government long-range artillery shells to account for.

The Earth is a plane now?  I can disprove that quite easily, Tom.  I look out my window and see a hill.  The Earth is not a plane.
OMG!

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: Artillery
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2007, 11:18:34 PM »
Quote
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim Tom?

Yep. Look out your window. Take a stroll down the beach. You will see direct observational evidence demonstrating that the earth to be flat. Or read EnaG. Therefore, we have various sources, your own eyes included, demonstrating the earth to be a plane.

Ergo, we see beyond all shadow of a doubt, beyond all question, beyond all misconception, that there is no earth "curvature" for government long-range artillery shells to account for. Any such account is hearsay, an old wives tale, a myth like all other myths passed down through stories and wishful thinking.
If we were to shrink you down to a very small size and put you on, oh say, a basketball (let's forget gravitation for a second here), it would seem, at that perspective, a plane.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Artillery
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2007, 12:22:59 AM »
Quote
Experiment 0001 of the RE Primer blows your comments out of the water. Your evidence is overwhelmed.

The "experiments" in your primer are not experiments. No "experiments" were ever conducted in your primer. All you have are "what ifs," a collection of conjecture which are not even observations.

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham provides accounts of actual conducted experiments which prove the earth a plane.

Please consult Experiment 1 of Earth Not a Globe.

Quote
If we were to shrink you down to a very small size and put you on, oh say, a basketball (let's forget gravitation for a second here), it would seem, at that perspective, a plane.

If we were to shrink you to a very small size and put you on a plane, the world would seem, at that perspective, a plane.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2007, 12:52:18 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Artillery
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2007, 12:57:12 AM »
Wikipedia maintains that the earth is a sphere. Wikipedia once maintained that the population of elephants on earth had tripled within a timespan of six months. Therefore, Wikipedia is a biased and unreliable source with zero peer review.

In stark contrast, we have Earth Not a Globe; a peer reviewed work; a work which after its publication spawned several recurring scientific publications dedicated to investigating the sphere issue (Earth Not a Globe Review & the publication Earth); a work which has inspired several independent authors to investigate the shape of the earth:

"The Earth is Flat" by Dr. Leo Ferarri
"Zetetic Cosmogony" by Thomas Winship
"Unpopular truth against popular error in reference to the shape of the earth" by Charles Morse
"The flat earth and her moulder" by Ossipoff Woofson
"The shape of the earth" by Authur V. White
"The form of the earth" by Andrew D. White
"A view from the edge; on the necessity of the flat earth" by John P. Sisk
"The true shape of the earth" by Chester M. Shippey
"Terra firma" by David W. Scott
"He knew earth is round, but his proof fell flat" by Robert J. Schadewald
"The rectangular earth" by Cyrus N. Ray
"The earth a plane" by John E. Quinlan
"Proofs (so-called) of the world's rotundity, examined in the light of facts and common sense" by the London Zetetic Society
"The earth-flattener's challenge" by Richard Proctor
"The flat earth" by Charles W. Jones
"The book of light" by Gilbert Johnson
"The persistently flat earth" by Stephen J. Gould
"Earth not a globe: scientifically, geometrically, philosophically demonstrated" by Henry J. Goudey
"Does the earth rotate?" by William Edgell
"A reparation: universal gravitation a universal fake" by Charles S. Deford
"The terrestrial plane" by Frederick H. Cook
"England's modern flatearthists" by Oswell Blakeston

Ergo, we see that your Wikipedia quote is unsubstantiated heresy.  Non-Evidence.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2007, 01:24:43 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Artillery
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2007, 01:16:46 AM »
Wikipedia maintains that the earth is a sphere. Wikipedia once maintained that the population of elephants on earth had tripled within a timespan of six months. Therefore, Wikipedia is a biased and unreliable source with zero peer review.

In stark contrast, we have Earth Not a Globe; a peer reviewed work; a work which after its publication spawned several recurring scientific publications dedicated to investigating the sphere issue (Earth Not a Globe Review & the publication Earth); a work which has inspired several authors to investigating the shape of the earth:

"The Earth is Flat" by Dr. Leo Ferarri
"Zetetic Cosmogony" by Thomas Winship
"Unpopular truth against popular error in reference to the shape of the earth" by Charles Morse
"The flat earth and her moulder" by Ossipoff Woofson
"The shape of the earth" by Authur V. White
"The form of the earth" by Andrew D. White
"A view from the edge; on the necessity of the flat earth" by John P. Sisk
"The true shape of the earth" by Chester M. Shippey
"Terra firma" by David W. Scott
"He knew earth is round, but his proof fell flat" by Robert J. Schadewald
"The rectangular earth" by Cyrus N. Ray
"The earth a plane" by John E. Quinlan
"Proofs (so-called) of the world's rotundity, examined in the light of facts and common sense" by the London Zetetic Society
"The earth-flattener's challenge" by Richard Proctor
"The flat earth" by Charles W. Jones
"The book of light" by Gilbert Johnson
"The persistently flat earth" by Stephen J. Gould
"Earth not a globe: scientifically, geometrically, philosophically demonstrated" by Henry J. Goudey
"Does the earth rotate?" by William Edgell
"A reparation: universal gravitation a universal fake" by Charles S. Deford
"The terrestrial plane" by Frederick H. Cook
"England's modern flatearthists" by Oswell Blakeston

Ergo, we see that your Wikipedia quote is unsubstantiated heresy.  Non-Evidence.

wow bringing up a stunt done by the Colbert Report as evidence of why wikipedia is wrong. Considering the Elephant article was shut down within hours i'd say this incident proves how accurate wikipedia is.

Re: Artillery
« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2007, 01:31:12 AM »
Quote
If we were to shrink you down to a very small size and put you on, oh say, a basketball (let's forget gravitation for a second here), it would seem, at that perspective, a plane.

If we were to shrink you to a very small size and put you on a plane, the world would seem, at that perspective, a plane.

And these two statements in conjunction with each other prove that you cannot prove that the Earth is flat (or round!) by looking out the window!

Re: Artillery
« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2007, 06:24:42 AM »
Wikipedia maintains that the earth is a sphere. Wikipedia once maintained that the population of elephants on earth had tripled within a timespan of six months. Therefore, Wikipedia is a biased and unreliable source with zero peer review.

In stark contrast, we have Earth Not a Globe; a peer reviewed work; a work which after its publication spawned several recurring scientific publications dedicated to investigating the sphere issue (Earth Not a Globe Review & the publication Earth); a work which has inspired several independent authors to investigate the shape of the earth:

Ergo, we see that your Wikipedia quote is unsubstantiated heresy.  Non-Evidence.

Non-evidence does not imply non-truth. Wikipedia says that clouds are in the sky. Don't tell me clouds aren't in the sky!

Not only that, but I did not quote Wikipedia. I made a statement about evidence of a round Earth, and you are not refuting this evidence!

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: Artillery
« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2007, 10:26:51 AM »


Quote
If we were to shrink you down to a very small size and put you on, oh say, a basketball (let's forget gravitation for a second here), it would seem, at that perspective, a plane.

If we were to shrink you to a very small size and put you on a plane, the world would seem, at that perspective, a plane.
I'm just saying you can't use the argument "It looks flat."

Re: Artillery
« Reply #29 on: July 22, 2007, 11:40:29 AM »
Quote
Experiment 0001 of the RE Primer blows your comments out of the water. Your evidence is overwhelmed.

The "experiments" in your primer are not experiments. No "experiments" were ever conducted in your primer. All you have are "what ifs," a collection of conjecture which are not even observations.

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham provides accounts of actual conducted experiments which prove the earth a plane.

Please consult Experiment 1 of Earth Not a Globe.

Quote
If we were to shrink you down to a very small size and put you on, oh say, a basketball (let's forget gravitation for a second here), it would seem, at that perspective, a plane.

If we were to shrink you to a very small size and put you on a plane, the world would seem, at that perspective, a plane.
Each and every experiment in RE Primer is better documented and better performed than any experiment in EnaG--by a long shot.

FE cannot predict the location in the sky of the Sun or Moon. FE cannot predict the time of sunrise, sunset, moon rise, or moon set. FE fails against RE in simple, straight-forward experiments every day.