Proof the Earth is Round

Actually the sun is about 3,000 miles in the sky, not 30.

Why 3000 miles? Why not 4000, or 100, or 149000000? Where is the proof that the Sun is 3000 miles above us? I started a thread with this question in, and not a single FEer responded.

Why 3000 miles? Why not 4000, or 100, or 149000000? Where is the proof that the Sun is 3000 miles above us? I started a thread with this question in, and not a single FEer responded

Because measurement of earth radius in RE implicates that distance in hypotetical FE.
Massive edits - when i'm writing posts i see something else than when reading topic, or someone deleted post after i replied

lolz0ar.
Because curvate of the earth is so small that you can't feel it.

Never mind that. I thought I replied to some person who said if the earth was round, then how come we don't feel like walking uphill. I just asked him why we wouldn't feel like walking downhill

On another note, regarding the drawing to scale. It is possible to estimate the maximal height of a mountain on a certain planet. Namely, just assume that the gravitational potential energy released by melting of a small layer of the bottom of the mountain is not greater than the heat needed for melting it. Assuming that the mountain has a conical shape with a height H and the height of the bottom layer is x << H, then the mass of the melted part is


where V is the total volume of the mountain, and ρ is its density.

One can show that the CM of a pyramid (cone) is at 1/4 of it's total height from the botton. Therefore, the decrease in potential energy is:


If the Latent heat of fusion (melting) is L, then the mountain should be stable under this kind of collapse as long as:


The rhs of this inequality effectively determines the maximal height of a mountain. We note that it does not depend on the total volume, nor the density of the mountain, but just on the latent heat of fusion. The numerical factor 6 comes from the assumed shape (pyramidal or conical) of the mountain. If we assumed a prismoidal or cylindrical shape, the factor would be simply 3.

The numerical values for latent heats are of the order of magnitude of 100 kJ/kg = 10⁵ J/kg, which gives a maximal height of the order of 10⁴ m ≈ 10 km.

On the shadow diagram, the towers are around one third of the height of the Sun, which would make the Sun to be at most 200 km from the surface of the Earth. This is incorrect according to all FE models.

On another note, regarding the drawing to scale. It is possible to estimate the maximal height of a mountain on a certain planet. Namely, just assume that the gravitational potential energy released by melting of a small layer of the bottom of the mountain is not greater than the heat needed for melting it. Assuming that the mountain has a conical shape with a height H and the height of the bottom layer is x << H, then the mass of the melted part is

ρ*V*[1 - (H - x)³/H³] ≈ 3*ρ*V*x/H,

where V is the total volume of the mountain, and ρ is its density.

One can show that the CM of a pyramid (cone) is at 1/4 of it's total height from the botton. Therefore, the decrease in potential energy is:

ρ*g*V*H/4 - ρ*g*V*(H - x)*(H-x)/(4*H) = (ρ*g*V*H/4)*[1 - (H - x)²/H²] ≈ (ρ*g*V*H/4)*(2*x/H) = ρ*g*V*x/2

If the Latent heat of fusion (melting) is L, then the mountain should be stable under this kind of collapse as long as:

ρ*g*V*x/2 < 3*ρ*L*V*x/H

H  ≤ 6*L/g

The rhs of this inequality effectively determines the maximal height of a mountain. We note that it does not depend on the total volume, nor the density of the mountain, but just on the latent heat of fusion. The numerical factor 6 comes from the assumed shape (pyramidal or conical) of the mountain. If we assumed a prismoidal or cylindrical shape, the factor would be simply 3.

The numerical values for latent heats are of the order of magnitude of 100 kJ/kg = 10⁵ J/kg, which gives a maximal height of the order of 10⁴ m ≈ 10 km.

On the shadow diagram, the towers are around one third of the height of the Sun, which would make the Sun to be at most 200 km from the surface of the Earth. This is incorrect according to all FE models.

I think I love you.

Why haven't any mods locked up bridget, which is Robosteve's alt?

Why haven't any mods locked up bridget, which is Robosteve's alt?

Please don't make baseless accusations, they only serve to make you look rash and ignorant.

Quote from: svenanders on July 18, 2009, 01:30:17 PM

Why haven't any mods locked up bridget, which is Robosteve's alt?

Please don't make baseless accusations, they only serve to make you look rash and ignorant.

Why do you think it's baseless? I've been lurking on this forum for a long time, and can easily spot
similar writing patterns. You and "bridge"t are too much a like to NOT be the same person.

Can a moderator check this up please, since it's not allowed to have alts in the forum?

Why do you think it's baseless? I've been lurking on this forum for a long time, and can easily spot
similar writing patterns. You and "bridge"t are too much a like to NOT be the same person.

Can a moderator check this up please, since it's not allowed to have alts in the forum?

If you have a serious concern about this issue, I'd suggest taking it up in private with a moderator, as opposed to spamming the debate forums with it.

Quote from: Robosteve on July 18, 2009, 01:32:57 PM

Quote from: svenanders on July 18, 2009, 01:30:17 PM

Why haven't any mods locked up bridget, which is Robosteve's alt?

Please don't make baseless accusations, they only serve to make you look rash and ignorant.

Why do you think it's baseless? I've been lurking on this forum for a long time, and can easily spot
similar writing patterns. You and "bridge"t are too much a like to NOT be the same person.

Can a moderator check this up please, since it's not allowed to have alts in the forum?

Bridget is not Robosteve's alt.  I think you demonstrated enough on your own forum how bad you are at sniffing out alts.  To you everybody is Robosteve.  Do not continue with this, it's derailing the thread.

To Robosteve: It makes no difference if the drawings are to scale or not. The concept will remain the same, although not as exagerated.

When you walk up a hill it feels like walking up a hill and when you walk on flat floor it feels like walking on flat floor not a hill

That's because when walking up a hill, gravity is pushing against you. When walking on a "flat" surface it is nuetral.

Quote from: macorules94 on July 16, 2009, 07:56:00 PM

When you walk up a hill it feels like walking up a hill and when you walk on flat floor it feels like walking on flat floor not a hill

That's because when walking up a hill, gravity is pushing against you. When walking on a "flat" surface it is nuetral.

No.

When someone mentioned in passing that there existed such a forum, well i was'nt shocked you can find anything on the internet, but amazed that it was not a joke forum but a serious disccusion, by chance did i miss the last few centuries where untold amount of scientests have agreed it's round, id bring up apollo photo's but i sense i'd get a "it was faked" response.

PS: can someone here give me a link to themirrorisactuallyaparralelluniversesocity ? or the ifyoudon'twearatinfoilhatandsmearyourselfinpeanutbutterthegovernmentwillreadyourmindandreprogramitsothatyouwillbeforcedtowatchrerunsofcharlesincharge ?


PPS: this will likely be my 1st and final post.


-Sig- It takes commitment to be as dumb as you are -Sigi

PS: can someone here give me a link to themirrorisactuallyaparralelluniversesocity ? or the ifyoudon'twearatinfoilhatandsmearyourselfinpeanutbutterthegovernmentwillreadyourmindandreprogramitsothatyouwillbeforcedtowatchrerunsofcharlesincharge ?

No, but I think you'd fit in well at www.ibelievewhatimtold.org

When walking up a hill, it feels like your're walking up a hill because of something called normal force. It pushes against you (to stop you from falling into the Earth) perpendicular to the surface of contact, as shown in the drawing. This can be resolved into it's x and y components (horizontal and vertical) to show that the x component is pushing against the direction you are trying to walk, making it difficult to advance. The horizontal component is also what causes items to slide down slopes.





The reason it doesn't feel like walking up a hill when you walk on Earth is that the Earth's gravitty is always pulling you towards the center, therefore on a perfect sphere you would always be pulled straight down (perpendicular to the floor). The direction is adjusted as you move around the sphere.





I hope that clears up some confusion.

Dear chaps,

i think we are glossing over the fact that the original photo posted showed a clearly round earth! Explain that away my Flat Earth believing chums

Dear chaps,

i think we are glossing over the fact that the original photo posted showed a clearly round earth! Explain that away my Flat Earth believing chums

It's fake.

I hope that clears up some confusion.

It's fake.

I hope that clears up some confusion.

Show me a photographic image of a flat earth please.

Their best evidence that all pictures are faked is that if they weren't, the earth would be round.

When people show you photo's of earth, all you is is that they are faked. Thats pretty weak.

Actually the sun is about 3,000 miles in the sky, not 30.

Tom if the sun were only 3,000 miles away you and everyone else would be incinerated, it's 93,000,000 miles or so away.....

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2009, 03:03:25 AM

Actually the sun is about 3,000 miles in the sky, not 30.

Tom if the sun were only 3,000 miles away you and everyone else would be incinerated, it's 93,000,000 miles or so away.....

What makes you think that?

Logic and data collected by NASA, and you?

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on July 23, 2009, 01:36:44 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2009, 03:03:25 AM

Actually the sun is about 3,000 miles in the sky, not 30.

Tom if the sun were only 3,000 miles away you and everyone else would be incinerated, it's 93,000,000 miles or so away.....

What makes you think that?

 What makes you think that the sun is 3,000 miles away?

Logic and data collected by NASA, and you?

Sorry, but where does NASA say that if the sun were 3000 miles away that everything would be incinerated?

What makes you think that the sun is 3,000 miles away?

I lurked more, read more, and educated myself. Something you need to do.

Quote

What makes you think that the sun is 3,000 miles away?

I lurked more, read more, and educated myself. Something you need to do.

Any educational facility that is worth a crud will tell you what I just told you, and they would tell you the earth is a sphere.

Any educational facility that is worth a crud will tell you what I just told you, and they would tell you the earth is a sphere.

Schools are just as susceptible to false science and propaganda. They're still telling children that Columbus' men mutinied because they thought they were going to "fall of the edge".

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on July 23, 2009, 06:27:19 PM

Any educational facility that is worth a crud will tell you what I just told you, and they would tell you the earth is a sphere.

Schools are just as susceptible to false science and propaganda. They're still telling children that Columbus' men mutinied because they thought they were going to "fall of the edge".

Show me undeniable proof that earth is flat, and none of this conspiracy the "photos are faked" crap

Show me undeniable proof that earth is flat, and none of this conspiracy the "photos are faked" crap

I've compiled a number of resources in my signature link.

 You can especially read In defense of the square peg by Irving Wallace available at
http://www.archive.org/stream/squarepegssomeam010794mbp/squarepegssomeam010794mbp_djvu.txt