This place is quite comical.

  • 13 Replies
  • 3285 Views
This place is quite comical.
« on: June 16, 2006, 02:53:47 AM »
Bad math, no proof on the FE-ers side.

And these are honestly some of the dumbest RE-ers i've ever met. How can they operate a keyboard, much less comprehend a sphere?

And you all hate one another so much.

How trivial.

Personally, i've been shown proof that the earth is a sphere. The math involved is relevant to real life. I've seen it for myself. I've tested it for myself. Do I give a damn if you don't believe it? No. You are free to believe whatever you want, regardless of how unfounded it may be.

I honestly thought the FE-ers would be able to provide some tangible evidence. I don't want numbers. I want proof. You haven't provided any. You can't even show me a picture of the single greatest structure that ever existed (that you claim exists). On a flat earth, you could see a huge ice wall 150 feet high from hundreds of miles away. And you can't even snap a picture of it. You can't even explain why the entire pacific ocean, three miles deep, 65 million square miles of surface area, 195 MILLION square miles of water. I'm a SCUBA diver. One foot of salt water weighs about 33 pounds. A ten mile structure is not going to hold in that incredible weight. The sheer force of that amount of water is like nothing we've ever seen and reminds me that we are powerless against nature.

I can't believe I just did this asnine math.

I added the areas of all the oceans in the world.

Cubed it.

And then calculated exactly how much all of the oceans weigh.

3.612 x 10²º = Cubic miles of water in the oceans

361,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 * 33 = One cubic foot of water weighs 33 feet.

 1,083,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 = First three.
10,836,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = Second three.
11,919,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 = Pounds of water in the ocean.

Like a ten mile structure's gonna hold 11,919,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds of water back...And I even calculated the volume of a structure that big.

The volume of the ice wall, all of it, all the way around, is 5.75573352 × 10^10.

Would a structure with a volume of 5.75573352 × 10^10 win out against a force of 1.19196 * 10^21? I don't believe so.



So your theory is flawed. That's why I don't believe it.

So be it, man. Just making my voice heard.
I myself am not a RE'er or FE'er more a OE'er with lumpy bits (Oval Earther with lumpy bits)

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Re: This place is quite comical.
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2006, 10:05:27 AM »
Quote from: "Galileo the Great"
Bad math, no proof on the FE-ers side.


These are some interesting numbers you've got, Mr. the Great.

Quote
3.612 x 10²º = Cubic miles of water in the oceans


Especially interesting, considering non-you RE scientists measured the Earth's volume to be only on the order of 10^12 km^3, the Earth's radius being about 6.4 x 10^3 km.

You're saying that the oceans are bigger than the entire world?

Quote
So your theory is flawed. That's why I don't believe it.


o/~  Before you accuse me....
       Take a look at yourself!  o/~
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

This place is quite comical.
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2006, 01:54:12 PM »
Really, now? Show me where I measured that.
I myself am not a RE'er or FE'er more a OE'er with lumpy bits (Oval Earther with lumpy bits)

This place is quite comical.
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2006, 01:59:20 PM »
Its fine.  Many people fear that they are attacked when presented with information that contradicts their own beliefs.  Infact, I'd wonder if something were wrong with you if this were not the case.

There is still no excuse in the harsh manner of your post.

Also, I'm finding these challenge threads more and more annoying.  They are good for strengthening both sides of the debate of course, but it seems to me that there is much less that is being "generally discussed" rather than "generally debated".  Perhaps a debate or challenge forum in the future?
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

This place is quite comical.
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2006, 06:12:10 PM »
volume of earth is 10^21, volume of water is 10^18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28volume%29

that is in meters, so in km it becomes Earth 10^12 water 10^9


one cc of water is 1 gram, so 1 cubic meter becomes 1000000 grams, 1000 kg, or a metric tonne

therefore there are 10^18 metric tonnes of water in the world.


now. lets consider the tensile strength of carbon nanotubes (the strongest material we have) which can theoretically go up to 300 GPa or 3x10^11 Pa, 63x10^9 Newtons per square meter. now the ice wall has circumference of 78225 miles, that is about 125000 km (using 1.6 km to the mile), lets assume that the water goes to the top of the wall, all 150 feet of it, 50 meters give or take (taking 3 feet per meter) so we have a surface area of 6.25 million meters squared, 6.25x10^6 meters squared. so lets divide the volume of the water by the surface area, rounding the SA up to 10^7 that gives us 10^11 meters of water affecting every unit area of the icewall. so using that F=ma, that water is going to give 10^12 Newtons per unit area (in otherwords 10^12 Pa. Therefore even a carbon nano tube ice wall would fail.


of course i have made certain assumptions, such that all of the gravitational force of the wate is being pushed towards the ice wall (and i'm meaning Gravitational force in the FE model too, water will be force outwards by the upthrust of the earth, and that tensile strength should be used for the icewall breaking apart (it should be compressive strength, however i have found not numbers for that - although compressive strength only affects when the crack forms, once the crack forms it is tensile strength that causes the crack to expand)  however i also used a carbon nanotube, the strength of ice is mcuh less - steel is 4x10^8 Pa, water is 1.7x10^7 Pa

i apoligize if i have made any glaring errors, but it is relatively late now, so i am quite tired.

This place is quite comical.
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2006, 06:12:58 PM »
i should aslo state that most of my numbers came from wiki, but the tensile strength of water came from a research paper, and it is the quoted number for pure ice.

This place is quite comical.
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2006, 03:13:21 AM »
i love seeing a picture of the earth... there are very few things more beautiful than it

This place is quite comical.
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2006, 10:35:55 AM »
Quote from: "DrQuak"
i love seeing a picture of the earth... there are very few things more beautiful than it

Beautiful, yes. Also, fake.
It could be, anyways.

This place is quite comical.
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2006, 12:22:25 PM »
yeah... i really have a lot of fun here.  its quite a hoot.

This place is quite comical.
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2006, 11:22:25 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "DrQuak"
i love seeing a picture of the earth... there are very few things more beautiful than it

Beautiful, yes. Also, fake.
It could be, anyways.


is it fake if I launch a sattelite and take my own pic? :roll:
i]On this issue -- my default assumption is that all members of this forum are male.  I usually expect women to have more sense than to waste their time arguing trivialities over the internet.
[/i]
-Erasmus

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
This place is quite comical.
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2006, 11:27:28 AM »
Quote from: "Marshy"

is it fake if I launch a sattelite and take my own pic? :roll:


How will you do that? Corporations and "governments" with enough revenue to launch satellites are almost all in the know about the true nature of the Earth - private, skeptical citizens won't have the resources to do so.
"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

This place is quite comical.
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2006, 06:27:52 AM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "Marshy"

is it fake if I launch a sattelite and take my own pic? :roll:


How will you do that? Corporations and "governments" with enough revenue to launch satellites are almost all in the know about the true nature of the Earth - private, skeptical citizens won't have the resources to do so.


Actually, not so. It's expensive, yes, but there ARE ways to get your own satellite into space.
I myself am not a RE'er or FE'er more a OE'er with lumpy bits (Oval Earther with lumpy bits)

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
This place is quite comical.
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2006, 09:01:07 AM »
Quote from: "DrQuak"
... so lets divide the volume of the water by the surface area, rounding the SA up to 10^7 that gives us 10^11 meters of water affecting every unit area of the icewall. so using that F=ma, that water is going to give 10^12 Newtons per unit area (in otherwords 10^12 Pa. Therefore even a carbon nano tube ice wall would fail.


Not being an engineer, I can't say for sure, but it seems that this is not the appropriate calculation to make.  I think we satisfactorily showed in another thread that water pressure is a function of depth, not of volume.

If it were as you say, then why is it that vertical underwater walls in the ocean are not crushed by the water pressure?  Certainly the rock there is not stronger than carbon nanotubes, or even steel.

Quote
of course i have made certain assumptions, such that all of the gravitational force of the wate is being pushed towards the ice wall (and i'm meaning Gravitational force in the FE model too, water will be force outwards by the upthrust of the earth,


It is this very assumption which I wish to call into question.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

This place is quite comical.
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2006, 04:50:43 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "DrQuak"
... so lets divide the volume of the water by the surface area, rounding the SA up to 10^7 that gives us 10^11 meters of water affecting every unit area of the icewall. so using that F=ma, that water is going to give 10^12 Newtons per unit area (in otherwords 10^12 Pa. Therefore even a carbon nano tube ice wall would fail.


Not being an engineer, I can't say for sure, but it seems that this is not the appropriate calculation to make.  I think we satisfactorily showed in another thread that water pressure is a function of depth, not of volume.

If it were as you say, then why is it that vertical underwater walls in the ocean are not crushed by the water pressure?  Certainly the rock there is not stronger than carbon nanotubes, or even steel.

Quote
of course i have made certain assumptions, such that all of the gravitational force of the wate is being pushed towards the ice wall (and i'm meaning Gravitational force in the FE model too, water will be force outwards by the upthrust of the earth,


It is this very assumption which I wish to call into question.


It's a matter of structure. If i'm pushing outward on a wall with nothing behind it, I am more likely to break it. Try squeezing a pencil, and then try breaking it in half. Which is easier?
I myself am not a RE'er or FE'er more a OE'er with lumpy bits (Oval Earther with lumpy bits)