Holes in RET - Post them FEers

Quote from: parsec on April 29, 2010, 04:33:30 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on April 29, 2010, 04:07:07 PM

3. Want me to decompose your vector?  Here you go:

Let's say you are in free fall with no movement except directly down, like you jumped out of a helicopter (yes I know they can't go that high).
So your acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 down.  That can be broken into X = 0, Y = 9.8m/s^2, Z = 0

It can also be decomposed as:
one vector with <2, 4.6, 0>

another vector with <-2, 4.6, 100>

and a third vector with <0, 0, -100>

Out of the three. The third one has the biggest magnitude. So, according to your definition, down is in that direction.

You'll have to excuse me for not following your math since I'm not very mathematically inclined.

Exactly how do you decompose the down vector like that?

Decomposing a vector means representing it as a sum of several other vectors. If the vectors are given in Cartesian coordinate form, then vector addition means adding coordinate by coordinate. In this way, you can check that the three vectors sum up to a vertically down vector (y-axis oriented vertically down). If nothing else is specified, vector decomposition is an ambiguous operation. But, you already knew that, didn't you?

I've seen no experimental evidence that shows that gravitation is less with altitude, yet see again and again that it is the same.

Strange. I think your account has been hached.

Yes, gravity does vary with altitude somewhat, due to the heavens, local differences in geography, etc.  

I've seen no experimental evidence that shows that gravitation is less with altitude, yet see again and again that it is the same.

The difference in the force of gravity at differing altitudes is incredibly slight but still definitely measurable.  What are you expecting?  To go to the top floor of a building and bounce around like you're on the moon?

Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 05:09:33 PM

I've seen no experimental evidence that shows that gravitation is less with altitude, yet see again and again that it is the same.

Strange. I think your account has been hached.

Quote from: John Davis on October 30, 2009, 11:04:08 AM

Yes, gravity does vary with altitude somewhat, due to the heavens, local differences in geography, etc.  

Apologies, I stated incorrectly.  Gravity does not vary due to altitude by virtue of altitude alone.

Gravity does not vary due to altitude by virtue of altitude alone.

So what's the gravity up where the moon, sun and stars are?

Altitude is distance from the surface of the Earth.  Distance is involved in the law of universal gravitation.  Therefore, altitude is involved in the force of gravity felt between an observer and the Earth.  You saying it isn't is just denying an easily observed fact.  It's not a hole in the RE idea.  It's a hole in your understanding.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 29, 2010, 05:11:21 PM

Quote from: parsec on April 29, 2010, 04:33:30 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on April 29, 2010, 04:07:07 PM

3. Want me to decompose your vector?  Here you go:

Let's say you are in free fall with no movement except directly down, like you jumped out of a helicopter (yes I know they can't go that high).
So your acceleration is 9.8m/s^2 down.  That can be broken into X = 0, Y = 9.8m/s^2, Z = 0

It can also be decomposed as:
one vector with <2, 4.6, 0>

another vector with <-2, 4.6, 100>

and a third vector with <0, 0, -100>

Out of the three. The third one has the biggest magnitude. So, according to your definition, down is in that direction.

You'll have to excuse me for not following your math since I'm not very mathematically inclined.

Exactly how do you decompose the down vector like that?

Decomposing a vector means representing it as a sum of several other vectors. If the vectors are given in Cartesian coordinate form, then vector addition means adding coordinate by coordinate. In this way, you can check that the three vectors sum up to a vertically down vector (y-axis oriented vertically down). If nothing else is specified, vector decomposition is an ambiguous operation. But, you already knew that, didn't you?

I suppose I should say the net force and not vector since vector implies a single force in a single direction shouldn't I?

They have harassed me extensively.

Oh yeah? The only reason I can see is because you have mental issues because you think the moon emits its own light and that you are a werewolf. This thread is so derailed.

Well, the topic is asking for problems with the idea of a round Earth.  Only one has been proposed, and it failed utterly.  I think we're waiting for another at the moment.

Well, the topic is asking for problems with the idea of a round Earth.  Only one has been proposed, and it failed utterly.  I think we're waiting for another at the moment.

I still think that the only reason someone would harass James is because he is an idiot. And try going to Antarctica again sometime, John Davis. I'm wetty wure wu were wahassed wike Wames.

Quote from: Ellipsis on April 29, 2010, 06:29:08 PM

Well, the topic is asking for problems with the idea of a round Earth.  Only one has been proposed, and it failed utterly.  I think we're waiting for another at the moment.

I still think that the only reason someone would harass James is because he is an idiot. And try going to Antarctica again sometime, John Davis. I'm wetty wure wu were wahassed wike Wames.

Going to Antarctica is not a trivial task that I can do everyday.  I am not a rich man.

Quote from: Rahimz on April 29, 2010, 06:33:18 PM

Quote from: Ellipsis on April 29, 2010, 06:29:08 PM

Well, the topic is asking for problems with the idea of a round Earth.  Only one has been proposed, and it failed utterly.  I think we're waiting for another at the moment.

I still think that the only reason someone would harass James is because he is an idiot. And try going to Antarctica again sometime, John Davis. I'm wetty wure wu were wahassed wike Wames.

Going to Antarctica is not a trivial task that I can do everyday.  I am not a rich man.

So how much did it cost you on your first time attempt?

Quote from: John Davis on April 29, 2010, 06:47:11 PM

Quote from: Rahimz on April 29, 2010, 06:33:18 PM

Quote from: Ellipsis on April 29, 2010, 06:29:08 PM

Well, the topic is asking for problems with the idea of a round Earth.  Only one has been proposed, and it failed utterly.  I think we're waiting for another at the moment.

I still think that the only reason someone would harass James is because he is an idiot. And try going to Antarctica again sometime, John Davis. I'm wetty wure wu were wahassed wike Wames.

Going to Antarctica is not a trivial task that I can do everyday.  I am not a rich man.

So how much did it cost you on your first time attempt?

I'd rather not get into my personal finances.  However, I will say it is not something I can do every weekend  .

Going to Antarctica on a Cruise this Fall.
Will report on what I see.
If it truly exists it backs up Lord Wilmores cliamn that it is a separte continent. (I which I believe)

Going to Antarctica on a Cruise this Fall.
Will report on what I see.
If it truly exists it backs up Lord Wilmores cliamn that it is a separte continent. (I which I believe)

Indeed, I saw nothing to discredit that it is a distinct continent, however that doesn't say anything about the layout of the rest of the continents.

I'd also love to get info about sunrise/set times during your trip to add to my data set.  Though be careful not to just use the ones printed in ships daily news and instead record them manually.  If its not much trouble.

So, JD, how would Antarctica look on a map if it does turn out to be a distinct continent?  I'm not sure if you're of those who think it's a distinct ring around the edge, but it certainly raises a few questions.

If you sail around Antarctica, that does not reject any of the models of being a ring around the World or a separate continent.

So, JD, how would Antarctica look on a map if it does turn out to be a distinct continent?  I'm not sure if you're of those who think it's a distinct ring around the edge, but it certainly raises a few questions.

I imagine it would just be off from the outer ring.  I can't say though, thats just a guess.

Now I'm very curious.  If you observed the geographic south pole, walked towards it, passed it, and continued on long enough to find that you were suddenly going north, would you conclude that you existed for a moment around the entire edge of the disk before suddenly appearing on it's opposite side?  Or would you claim fault in that your walking path might not have been completely straight, and conclude that you had quickly walked those apparently thousands of miles around half the circumference of the disk to show up on its opposing side?  Or would you conclude that the Earth is spherical?

Now I'm very curious.  If you observed the geographic south pole, walked towards it, passed it, and continued on long enough to find that you were suddenly going north, would you conclude that you existed for a moment around the entire edge of the disk before suddenly appearing on it's opposite side?  Or would you claim fault in that your walking path might not have been completely straight, and conclude that you had quickly walked those apparently thousands of miles around half the circumference of the disk to show up on its opposing side?  Or would you conclude that the Earth is spherical?

What's a geographic south pole?

I'm referring to the Earth's axis that goes through roughly the center of the antarctic continent.  I agree we should define our terms, but I have enough faith in you to know the location to which I'm referring when I say "geographic south pole."

I'm referring to the Earth's axis that goes through roughly the center of the antarctic continent.

wat?

If you sail around Antarctica, that does not reject any of the models of being a ring around the World or a separate continent.

Apart from the massive variation in coastline.

wat?

The antarctic point where Earth's lines of longitude converge.

Are you just trolling to troll, or do you honestly have no idea of where I'm talking about?

Well so far, there are two items on the list.  (3 if you really want to count JD's gravity issue)

This confirms my suspicions:

Flat Earth Theory is nothing more than an attempt to refute a working and functional Round Earth universe by proposing alternate reasons for observed phenomenon.

In other words:
FET is merely an attempt to refute the Round Earth Model.

See ENaG for several other issues. 

See ENaG for several other issues. 

You mean, like, with Newtons law?

FET is merely an attempt to refute the Round Earth Model.

I had this suspicion as well.  It's become rather evident that the FEers think purely in the logical fallacy of confirmation bias.  They reject outright any and all evidence contrary to their presupposition, then cling to some scraps of random factoids that may be misconstrued by weak minds as evidence for their case.  If I may quote Aronra: the only wonder is how so many people can be so dead wrong about damn-near-everything, one hundred percent of the time, for such a long time, and still believe theirs is the absolute truth.

Well so far, there are two items on the list.  (3 if you really want to count JD's gravity issue)

This confirms my suspicions:

Flat Earth Theory is nothing more than an attempt to refute a working and functional Round Earth universe by proposing alternate reasons for observed phenomenon.

In other words:
FET is merely an attempt to refute the Round Earth Model.

There are several more in the literature.  You'd have to sort out the trash though, which could prove time consuming.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 30, 2010, 12:35:04 PM

Well so far, there are two items on the list.  (3 if you really want to count JD's gravity issue)

This confirms my suspicions:

Flat Earth Theory is nothing more than an attempt to refute a working and functional Round Earth universe by proposing alternate reasons for observed phenomenon.

In other words:
FET is merely an attempt to refute the Round Earth Model.

There are several more in the literature.  You'd have to sort out the trash though, which could prove time consuming.

How about you mention those then? Apparently you know which they are.