Sinking Ship experiment - input welcome

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 09, 2008, 08:42:03 PM

Only three?  What about thermodynamics?  There is more than three classes there.  Or how about fluid mechanics?  I'm sure there are more than three classes there too.  Freshman physics?  Engineering classes?  I'm sure there are quite a few more than three there.

so what is the title of the one book that was written in the 1600s that covers all of those subjects
must be pretty thick

Quote

Bthimes set the groundwork for this experiment

What groundwork did Bthimes set by taking a picture of the ship with a camera lens of 6.1x zoom?

• In http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13592.msg210113#msg210113 he has a "computerized Celestron NexStar"
• In http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17379.msg300190#msg300190 "I have the Orion Starblast 4.5 EQ Reflector"
• In a previous post he didn't even have an appropriate camera to do a long exposure of the sky.
• In another post he is even capable of seeing frisbees 33 miles away.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 09, 2008, 08:56:21 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 09, 2008, 08:42:03 PM

Only three?  What about thermodynamics?  There is more than three classes there.  Or how about fluid mechanics?  I'm sure there are more than three classes there too.  Freshman physics?  Engineering classes?  I'm sure there are quite a few more than three there.

so what is the title of the one book that was written in the 1600s that covers all of those subjects
must be pretty thick

Every time you post you make yourself out to be just that much more stupid.  You seriously need to get over this little quibble you have with me.  So I have embarrassed you and made you look foolish for your understanding of physics.  It happens to most on this forum.  Those that are more intelligent do research and learn the reasons why they were wrong.  I suggest you give it a try before all respect for you, from everyone on this forum, is lost.

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 10, 2008, 07:33:31 AM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 09, 2008, 08:56:21 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 09, 2008, 08:42:03 PM

Only three?  What about thermodynamics?  There is more than three classes there.  Or how about fluid mechanics?  I'm sure there are more than three classes there too.  Freshman physics?  Engineering classes?  I'm sure there are quite a few more than three there.

so what is the title of the one book that was written in the 1600s that covers all of those subjects
must be pretty thick

Every time you post you make yourself out to be just that much more stupid.  You seriously need to get over this little quibble you have with me.  So I have embarrassed you and made you look foolish for your understanding of physics.  It happens to most on this forum.  Those that are more intelligent do research and learn the reasons why they were wrong.  I suggest you give it a try before all respect for you, from everyone on this forum, is lost.

so what is the title of that book that covers all fields of science then that was written in the 1600s where we have made no new discoveries so science is based on only that book?

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 09, 2008, 08:42:03 PM

Only three?  What about thermodynamics?  There is more than three classes there.  Or how about fluid mechanics?  I'm sure there are more than three classes there too.  Freshman physics?  Engineering classes?  I'm sure there are quite a few more than three there.

so what is the title of the one book that was written in the 1600s that covers all of those subjects
must be pretty thick

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 09, 2008, 08:56:21 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 09, 2008, 08:42:03 PM

Only three?  What about thermodynamics?  There is more than three classes there.  Or how about fluid mechanics?  I'm sure there are more than three classes there too.  Freshman physics?  Engineering classes?  I'm sure there are quite a few more than three there.

so what is the title of the one book that was written in the 1600s that covers all of those subjects
must be pretty thick

Newton's Principia

I think TheEngineer has answered this question before.

Only three?  What about thermodynamics?  There is more than three classes there.  Or how about fluid mechanics?  I'm sure there are more than three classes there too.  Freshman physics?  Engineering classes?  I'm sure there are quite a few more than three there.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 09, 2008, 08:56:21 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 09, 2008, 08:42:03 PM

Only three?  What about thermodynamics?  There is more than three classes there.  Or how about fluid mechanics?  I'm sure there are more than three classes there too.  Freshman physics?  Engineering classes?  I'm sure there are quite a few more than three there.

so what is the title of the one book that was written in the 1600s that covers all of those subjects
must be pretty thick

Newton's Principia

I think TheEngineer has answered this question before.

Apparently he did. 

Quote from: sokarul on August 10, 2008, 12:19:29 PM

Apparently he did. 

So you can admit when you are wrong!  You should do it more often.

so that covers relativity, quantum theory ect.

Get less stupid.

How do I apply it wrong?

How about you off-topic posters take your rubbish somewhere else?

No photos yet. I took some of the moon on Sat which I can post to demonstrate the magnification power of the unit.
Hopefully this weekend I will make it down and get some shots.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=-32.043005,115.716591&spn=0.130667,0.2211&z=12

This is the beach where i plan to shoot. I can get almost ground level from the beach as well as shots up on the footpath on the right. Quite an elevation difference.
Note that I won't be taking absolute ground level shots. I'm not dropping my equipment in the sand or water for the sake of science. I think the minimum elevation will be about 1m. Maybe a little less.

How do I apply it wrong?

It may be indistinguishable to the passenger's direct senses, but not to sensitive acceleration sensors. The gravitational field has divergence—its field lines aren't parallel and its strength isn't quite constant over space. The accelerating spaceship has an acceleration field that can be uniformly constant within the vehicle. The difference between these two cases is detectable with appropriate instruments. So when textbooks say that a person in a closed box frame of reference has no way to tell the difference between the effects of constant acceleration and a gravitational field they are perpetrating yet another didaktikogenic misconception.

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 10, 2008, 09:53:37 PM

How do I apply it wrong?

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/miscon.htm

Quote

It may be indistinguishable to the passenger's direct senses, but not to sensitive acceleration sensors. The gravitational field has divergence—its field lines aren't parallel and its strength isn't quite constant over space. The accelerating spaceship has an acceleration field that can be uniformly constant within the vehicle. The difference between these two cases is detectable with appropriate instruments. So when textbooks say that a person in a closed box frame of reference has no way to tell the difference between the effects of constant acceleration and a gravitational field they are perpetrating yet another didaktikogenic misconception.

Like I said, take your crap somewhere else. This ain't the topic for it.

Where are the mods with their sticks?

Updated the first post with a moon image to demonstrate the magnification power of the scope. The atmosphere causes the blur you see. It was taken in the city near the coast so conditions were not ideal. Not that those things should matter for a daytime shot.

Quote

And where are their pictures? Oh wait, they didn't have cameras. So you need pictures to disprove somthing that has no photographic evidence, I don't get how that works

Why do you need pictures? Dr. Rowbotham and company are quite specific in their dialog about the experiment and the results.

Why don't you show us pictures of contradicting results?

Besides, if you're looking for photographic evidence I've already mentioned that a women named Lady Bount was among the first to provide photographic evidence for a Flat Earth:

"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

Her photographs and research is available in the Flat Earth collection at the University of Liverpool's special archives repository.

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 10, 2008, 09:53:37 PM

How do I apply it wrong?

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/miscon.htm

Quote

It may be indistinguishable to the passenger's direct senses, but not to sensitive acceleration sensors. The gravitational field has divergence—its field lines aren't parallel and its strength isn't quite constant over space. The accelerating spaceship has an acceleration field that can be uniformly constant within the vehicle. The difference between these two cases is detectable with appropriate instruments. So when textbooks say that a person in a closed box frame of reference has no way to tell the difference between the effects of constant acceleration and a gravitational field they are perpetrating yet another didaktikogenic misconception.

I disagree, The error probably stems from a lack of knowledge of the subject, Engineering Majors(taking a guess on his major here) only cover the basics of relativity, I would need to verify this but if I remeber correctly they only need to take a quarter that would cover the subject

, also in the math end of it they do not need to take nearly as many math classes to even have the ability to understand the more advanced aspects of relativistic equations.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 11, 2008, 01:58:18 PM

I disagree, The error probably stems from a lack of knowledge of the subject, Engineering Majors(taking a guess on his major here) only cover the basics of relativity, I would need to verify this but if I remeber correctly they only need to take a quarter that would cover the subject

I don't understand, so a person that is not taught something in a class room can't learn it ever?  Newton would disagree.

Quote

, also in the math end of it they do not need to take nearly as many math classes to even have the ability to understand the more advanced aspects of relativistic equations.

How many math classes must I take?  For that matter, how many math classes do engineers have to take?

Quote from: markjo on August 11, 2008, 09:49:48 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on August 10, 2008, 09:53:37 PM

How do I apply it wrong?

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/miscon.htm

Quote

It may be indistinguishable to the passenger's direct senses, but not to sensitive acceleration sensors. The gravitational field has divergence—its field lines aren't parallel and its strength isn't quite constant over space. The accelerating spaceship has an acceleration field that can be uniformly constant within the vehicle. The difference between these two cases is detectable with appropriate instruments. So when textbooks say that a person in a closed box frame of reference has no way to tell the difference between the effects of constant acceleration and a gravitational field they are perpetrating yet another didaktikogenic misconception.

Yep, that is pretty consistent with what I say.  Thanks for proving cbarnett wrong.

Quote from: cbarnett97 on August 11, 2008, 01:58:18 PM

I disagree, The error probably stems from a lack of knowledge of the subject, Engineering Majors(taking a guess on his major here) only cover the basics of relativity, I would need to verify this but if I remeber correctly they only need to take a quarter that would cover the subject

I don't understand, so a person that is not taught something in a class room can't learn it ever?  Newton would disagree.

Quote

, also in the math end of it they do not need to take nearly as many math classes to even have the ability to understand the more advanced aspects of relativistic equations.

How many math classes must I take?  For that matter, how many math classes do engineers have to take?