The See saw effect.

  • 147 Replies
  • 26109 Views
?

jdoe

  • 388
  • +0/-0
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #60 on: January 16, 2008, 09:47:22 AM »
Quote
Syene and Alexandria are two North-South points with a distance of 500 nautical miles. Eratosthenes discovered through the shadow experiment that while the sun was exactly overhead of one city, it was 7°12' south of zenith at the other city.

7°12' makes a sweep of 1/50th of the earth's longitude.

Therefore we can take the distance of 500 nautical miles, multiply by 50, and find that the diameter of the Flat Earth is about 25,000 nautical miles.[Tom Bishop/quote]

Does anyone else think this math is bs?
Mars or Bust

?

eric bloedow

Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #61 on: January 16, 2008, 09:58:42 AM »
only Tom Bishop thinks it's BS: according to him, it "proves" the sun is only 3,000 miles away...IF you ASSUME earth is flat and shift all the numbers around to match that ASSUMPTION!

it always amuses me that FErs can't even agree on the size of the FE in their model!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #62 on: January 16, 2008, 10:37:15 AM »
Quote
Syene and Alexandria are two North-South points with a distance of 500 nautical miles. Eratosthenes discovered through the shadow experiment that while the sun was exactly overhead of one city, it was 7°12' south of zenith at the other city.

7°12' makes a sweep of 1/50th of the earth's longitude.

Therefore we can take the distance of 500 nautical miles, multiply by 50, and find that the diameter of the Flat Earth is about 25,000 nautical miles.[Tom Bishop/quote]

Does anyone else think this math is bs?

What part are you having trouble with, the fact that 7°12' makes a sweep of 1/50th of the earth's longitude, or the fact that 500 times 50 is 25,000?

?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #63 on: January 16, 2008, 10:59:20 AM »
Quote
What part are you having trouble with, the fact that 7°12' makes a sweep of 1/50th of the earth's longitude, or the fact that 500 times 50 is 25,000?

I do have a little problem with the fact that you say 7°12' makes a sweep of 1/50th of the earth's longitude. That wouldn't be true on a flat earth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #64 on: January 16, 2008, 03:08:37 PM »
Quote
I do have a little problem with the fact that you say 7°12' makes a sweep of 1/50th of the earth's longitude. That wouldn't be true on a flat earth.

Why not?

?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2008, 03:31:02 PM »
Quote
Why not?

Well, for starters you have no way of telling if the angle generated is 1/50th of the earth's longitude, if you put the angle down to the proximity of the sun rather than the curvature of the Earth.

?

jdoe

  • 388
  • +0/-0
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2008, 06:23:39 PM »
Quote
Syene and Alexandria are two North-South points with a distance of 500 nautical miles. Eratosthenes discovered through the shadow experiment that while the sun was exactly overhead of one city, it was 7°12' south of zenith at the other city.

7°12' makes a sweep of 1/50th of the earth's longitude.

Therefore we can take the distance of 500 nautical miles, multiply by 50, and find that the diameter of the Flat Earth is about 25,000 nautical miles.[Tom Bishop/quote]

Does anyone else think this math is bs?

What part are you having trouble with, the fact that 7°12' makes a sweep of 1/50th of the earth's longitude, or the fact that 500 times 50 is 25,000?

Your assumption that 7°12' sweeps out 1/50th of the earth's longitude is incorrect.  In fact, that angle has nothing to do with the earth's size in the FE model.
Mars or Bust

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +0/-0
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #67 on: January 17, 2008, 08:58:32 AM »
Since no-one had an explanation for altitudinal differences in gravity...

No explanation for them can be given, chiefly because they do not occur.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

jdoe

  • 388
  • +0/-0
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #68 on: January 17, 2008, 12:26:14 PM »
Since no-one had an explanation for altitudinal differences in gravity...

No explanation for them can be given, chiefly because they do not occur.

Didn't we agree that your experiments to measure differences in gravity were not precise enough to come to a conclusion?

Also, bump for Tom to explain why his math is right.

Mars or Bust

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +0/-0
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #69 on: January 17, 2008, 12:43:14 PM »
Didn't we agree that your experiments to measure differences in gravity were not precise enough to come to a conclusion?

Perhaps, but as a Zeteticist I'm not in the habit of assuming that things are true until they're proven false.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

jdoe

  • 388
  • +0/-0
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #70 on: January 17, 2008, 02:14:16 PM »
Tom, I'd really like you to explain how your math is right.   C'mon...don't run away.
Mars or Bust

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #71 on: January 17, 2008, 02:26:40 PM »
Sometimes I wish Eric was in the room with me so I could knock him over the head with a hammer.

hilarity. I lol'd for about 10 minutes.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

ehal256

  • 29
  • +0/-0
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #72 on: January 17, 2008, 07:37:23 PM »
i find it interesting that you say the gravity of the moon or anti-moon causes tides, when you ALSO claim that there IS no such thing AS gravity!
I said the gravitational pull of the moons causes tides, not gravity.

When we say gravity doesn't exist, we are referring to the force.



I'm sorry, you might want to retake Physics 101, gravitation pull is a force dipshit.  Stop contradicting your selves.

?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • +0/-0
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #73 on: January 17, 2008, 07:39:25 PM »
Quote
I'm sorry, you might want to retake Physics 101, gravitation pull is a force dipshit.  Stop contradicting your selves.

Please don't restart this debate
   

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 18043
  • +10/-8
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #74 on: January 17, 2008, 07:52:32 PM »
I'm sorry, you might want to retake Physics 101, gravitation pull is a force dipshit.  Stop contradicting your selves.
Gravitational pull is a fictitious force.
"Once again the apostles of science are found to lack the scientific credentials for their faith. This not an indictment of science; it only shows again that the choice of science over other forms of life is not a scientific choice."

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #75 on: January 17, 2008, 07:54:25 PM »
According to the Cosmological law, the universe must look similar all around.
What about that giant gaping hole in space that contains nothing for no apparent reason?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 18043
  • +10/-8
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #76 on: January 17, 2008, 07:57:11 PM »
According to the Cosmological law, the universe must look similar all around.
What about that giant gaping hole in space that contains nothing for no apparent reason?
Yep.
The cosmological principle is just another example of Copernican lies.
"Once again the apostles of science are found to lack the scientific credentials for their faith. This not an indictment of science; it only shows again that the choice of science over other forms of life is not a scientific choice."

?

ehal256

  • 29
  • +0/-0
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #77 on: January 17, 2008, 09:29:04 PM »
I'm sorry, you might want to retake Physics 101, gravitation pull is a force dipshit.  Stop contradicting your selves.
Gravitational pull is a fictitious force.

i thought you believed that gravity holds your infinite earth together?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 18043
  • +10/-8
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #78 on: January 17, 2008, 09:44:59 PM »
I'm sorry, you might want to retake Physics 101, gravitation pull is a force dipshit.  Stop contradicting your selves.
Gravitational pull is a fictitious force.

i thought you believed that gravity holds your infinite earth together?
It does.
"Once again the apostles of science are found to lack the scientific credentials for their faith. This not an indictment of science; it only shows again that the choice of science over other forms of life is not a scientific choice."

?

eric bloedow

Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #79 on: January 18, 2008, 08:07:54 AM »
so you believe "gravitation" holds earth together, but "gravitation" does not pull objects above earth down?!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #80 on: January 18, 2008, 10:58:11 AM »
I'm sorry, you might want to retake Physics 101, gravitation pull is a force dipshit.  Stop contradicting your selves.
Gravitation as a force is a contradiction.


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

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • +0/-0
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #81 on: January 18, 2008, 11:00:29 AM »
Well, technically, but it can be simplified as a force. Newtonian physics, and really, TBH, it matters very little in this discussion. Take it out of here. Relativistic physics doesn't make much of a difference at this level, so meh. For their elucidation, gravitation is technically a tendency, not a force, due to the curvature of space-time.

EDIT: Engy being picky :D
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 11:09:38 AM by fshy94 »
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 18043
  • +10/-8
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #82 on: January 18, 2008, 11:02:35 AM »
so you believe "gravitation" holds earth together, but "gravitation" does not pull objects above earth down?!
no, I didn't say that at all.
"Once again the apostles of science are found to lack the scientific credentials for their faith. This not an indictment of science; it only shows again that the choice of science over other forms of life is not a scientific choice."

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #83 on: January 18, 2008, 11:03:24 AM »
Well, technically, but it can be simplified as a force. Newtonian physics, and really, TBH, it matters very little in this discussion. Take it out of here. Relativistic physics doesn't make much of a difference at this level, so meh. For their elucidation, gravity is technically a tendency, not a force, due to the curvature of space-time.
How long have you been here and you still use gravity and gravitation interchangeably?


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

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • +0/-0
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #84 on: January 18, 2008, 11:04:06 AM »
Look engy, in casual usage, they are interchangeable. That's the point, and the confusion. If I was making a scientific research paper, then yes, I would pay attention, but, I'm not, and, I don't.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #85 on: January 18, 2008, 11:07:56 AM »
You not only use them interchangeably, but you use the wrong definitions.  I would like to think we have good scientific debate, but apparently you guys only hold one side to that standard.


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

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • +0/-0
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #86 on: January 18, 2008, 11:09:17 AM »
Erm...since when did this become a scientific debate?  ???

A real one requires sources, and a bunch of other nonsense.

This is a casual debate on science. Quite a difference.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #87 on: January 18, 2008, 11:15:12 AM »
You don't require sources?  Wow, that is new.


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

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • +0/-0
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #88 on: January 18, 2008, 11:19:22 AM »
For every thing you say? In a scientific debate, even the glaringly obvious requires not merely an internet source, but a hard, verified, published paper, like the kind you might find on Google Scholar. With me? Is this really where we want to head this forum to?
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: The See saw effect.
« Reply #89 on: January 18, 2008, 11:25:48 AM »
Gravity, gravitation, gravitation, gravity. I've never understood why you insist on gravitation but no gravity.

From my understanding, a FE has a force you can attribute the name gravity to, but no suitable Theory of gravitation.