Industrial flat glass, needs a flat earth

Indeed, I believe that even Thork understand his error now, after I explained it in 'baby steps' for him.

Justify this statement.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 15, 2010, 09:27:16 PM

Indeed, I believe that even Thork understand his error now, after I explained it in 'baby steps' for him.

Justify this statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Float_glass

1. Objects resist gravity.
2. There is a very small amount of tin. So the glass in an already flat container can resist the pull or gravity.
3. The Op is the only float glass source that claims that its perfectly flawless.

Please site a second source confirming the OP. Also in another post on the first page technical specs were requested and never provided. This flat glass is not perfectly flat. Pg. 5 ClockTower posts the correct math, which renders the OP wrong. What the hell do you have left?

You have:

1. No Evidence that it is perfectly flat other than a Manufacture's word, in what appears to be akin to advertising.
2. Your math was wrong
3. Flat Glass isn't perfectly flat (Read this: http://www.safti.com/articles/visual_distortions.htm)
4. The float process wouldn't be effected enough to make significant difference (Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity)
5. Never provided the technical specs of the "perfectly flat glass float system."

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 15, 2010, 09:36:28 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 15, 2010, 09:27:16 PM

Indeed, I believe that even Thork understand his error now, after I explained it in 'baby steps' for him.

Justify this statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Float_glass

1. Objects resist gravity.
2. There is a very small amount of tin. So the glass in an already flat container can resist the pull or gravity.
3. The Op is the only float glass source that claims that its perfectly flawless.

Please site a second source confirming the OP. Also in another post on the first page technical specs were requested and never provided. This flat glass is not perfectly flat. Pg. 5 ClockTower posts the correct math, which renders the OP wrong. What the hell do you have left?

You have:

1. No Evidence that it is perfectly flat other than a Manufacture's word, in what appears to be akin to advertising.
2. Your math was wrong
3. Flat Glass isn't perfectly flat (Read this: http://www.safti.com/articles/visual_distortions.htm)
4. The float process wouldn't be effected enough to make significant difference (Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity)
5. Never provided the technical specs of the "perfectly flat glass float system."

1. You have no proof that the glass isn't perfectly flat, and no proof that they are just advertising.
2. ClockTower's equations were shown to be wrong on that same page. Do note, just because some posts something against FE, does not mean that it is instantly correct.
3. No matter how much you post that article, it doesn't prove anything. All it states is that glass that appears flat isn't necessarily flat. It also states that the only reason it wouldn't be perfectly flat is because of the Earths curvature, hmmm it appears that your own article agrees that liquids follow the curvature of the Earth regardless of the container they are in. Since this glass is indeed, perfectly flat, that means that either your article is incorrect, or the Earth is flat. Your choice.
4. Actually, it would.
5. Of course they are not going to provide every technical detail to public domain. Are you retarded? This is like saying Hershey's doesn't actually make chocolate because they don't give out the steps required to make an exact replica of it. This is simple business. You aren't going to tell the world exactly how you make your stuff, otherwise your competition will just copy it.

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 15, 2010, 10:14:03 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 15, 2010, 09:36:28 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 15, 2010, 09:27:16 PM

Indeed, I believe that even Thork understand his error now, after I explained it in 'baby steps' for him.

Justify this statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Float_glass

1. Objects resist gravity.
2. There is a very small amount of tin. So the glass in an already flat container can resist the pull or gravity.
3. The Op is the only float glass source that claims that its perfectly flawless.

Please site a second source confirming the OP. Also in another post on the first page technical specs were requested and never provided. This flat glass is not perfectly flat. Pg. 5 ClockTower posts the correct math, which renders the OP wrong. What the hell do you have left?

You have:

1. No Evidence that it is perfectly flat other than a Manufacture's word, in what appears to be akin to advertising.
2. Your math was wrong
3. Flat Glass isn't perfectly flat (Read this: http://www.safti.com/articles/visual_distortions.htm)
4. The float process wouldn't be effected enough to make significant difference (Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity)
5. Never provided the technical specs of the "perfectly flat glass float system."

1. You have no proof that the glass isn't perfectly flat, and no proof that they are just advertising.
2. ClockTower's equations were shown to be wrong on that same page. Do note, just because some posts something against FE, does not mean that it is instantly correct.
3. No matter how much you post that article, it doesn't prove anything. All it states is that glass that appears flat isn't necessarily flat. It also states that the only reason it wouldn't be perfectly flat is because of the Earths curvature, hmmm it appears that your own article agrees that liquids follow the curvature of the Earth regardless of the container they are in. Since this glass is indeed, perfectly flat, that means that either your article is incorrect, or the Earth is flat. Your choice.
4. Actually, it would.
5. Of course they are not going to provide every technical detail to public domain. Are you retarded? This is like saying Hershey's doesn't actually make chocolate because they don't give out the steps required to make an exact replica of it. This is simple business. You aren't going to tell the world exactly how you make your stuff, otherwise your competition will just copy it.

1. Any you can't prove other wise as well
2. Where he had the final post explaining his math and Thork never responded.
3. Both arguments hinge on unconfirmed facts. Your "perfect flat glass" and my "round earth".
4.
"Your entire rant here is entirely false.. Seriously, the physics of a liquid conforming to the curvature of the Earth can be manipulated without bulging. Again you are pleading for ignorance here THork. And again they are not "perfect". Even on a FE they would not be "Perfect".. You are arguing from a position of Sagan's dragon Thork because you do not know the engineering that went into the processing of flat glass. Please don't post PDF's that are designed for marketing purposes.. And btw, you should have called the companies that make flat glass like I just did.. They said they indeed do have have to compensate for the Earth's curvature within the designed process, and that it's not even a major problem for making flat glass as a very simple direct answer.. Here is a place you can contact :

http://www.stewartengineers.com/english/contact_us.html

Here is a list of companies you can contact:

http://www.glassonweb.com/articles/archive/Companies

Sorry Thork but your play at ignorance is astounding, and that the technical difficulties you think are impossible over a RE are not impossible or unsolvable. You do not need a perfectly flat Earth to make perfectly flat glass. Especially when they only do widths up to 3 meters. And you also fail at realizing that the float bath length is not the entire length of the facility!



And btw  you might want to consult this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_gravity

The float bath length is no where near long enough to cause an earth curvature problem.. Once it reaches the next stage or production it already establishes it's flatness. In fact the next stage actually bends it and stretches it as it's fed into the annealing lehr

And you do realize they do have defects of glass coming out not "perfectly flat" in accordance to their production standards that do get rejected correct?"

-The Jackel


I feel the need to restate this. PROVE THAT IT IS PERFECT!!!!

2. ClockTower's equations were shown to be wrong on that same page.

Link please.

Quote from: zork on October 15, 2010, 11:59:29 AM

I said, it's not about oceans. But sure, if you shaved off the 1/4 of the earth so that you have the flat surface and poured the water onto it you think you get the nice curved ocean which complements the 3/4 round earth to the full roundness?
 But you still haven't explained me the wikipedia Surface tension Surface_curvature_and_pressure section which you so proudly quoted. How does it applies here? If I am stupid then I am stupid but at least try to explain to me about what I am stupid.

zork, pal, I think you're wrong here. Yes, you would get the full sphere. Perhaps oblated slightly due to the difference in density, but still pretty much a sphere. I renew my suggestion that ignoring EG, as a troll, is probably the best course.

  Rushing isn't good... As I quite get that it is the case when there is nothing to surround it I have a hard case to apprehend this when there would be pool with the walls instead. I am not sure that the picture would be like this

Zork, your diagram is spot on. That is exactly what you would get. Good analogy. 

I know it looks weird, but the liquid in your new diagram is being pulled to the centre of the earth in all directions. I can see why it is difficult to wrap ones head around, but it is the case, and the premise for my original OP.

Zork, your diagram is spot on. That is exactly what you would get. Good analogy. 

I know it looks weird, but the liquid in your new diagram is being pulled to the centre of the earth in all directions. I can see why it is difficult to wrap ones head around, but it is the case, and the premise for my original OP.

It's difficult because if you imagine that you start pouring water inside this pool then at first it fills bottom from side to side and then it just starts to move away from sides. Shortly, even if you are right you have not convinced me because I have not found any speculations/works in that area and you have also not showed anything concrete except something in style like "it is so".

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 08:34:27 AM

Zork, your diagram is spot on. That is exactly what you would get. Good analogy. 

I know it looks weird, but the liquid in your new diagram is being pulled to the centre of the earth in all directions. I can see why it is difficult to wrap ones head around, but it is the case, and the premise for my original OP.

It's difficult because if you imagine that you start pouring water inside this pool then at first it fills bottom from side to side and then it just starts to move away from sides. Shortly, even if you are right you have not convinced me because I have not found any speculations/works in that area and you have also not showed anything concrete except something in style like "it is so".

It is hard to imagine, but you have to remember its on a massive scale for RE. Check the Bedford level experiment. Its based on this premise. I provided a link a few posts ago. This should give you the speculation/works in this area. An physical example of the process in action.

It is hard to imagine, but you have to remember its on a massive scale for RE. Check the Bedford level experiment. Its based on this premise. I provided a link a few posts ago. This should give you the speculation/works in this area. An physical example of the process in action.

As far as I know the bottom of the Bedford follows also the curvature of the earth. It's kind of irrelevant in this case.

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 08:34:27 AM

Zork, your diagram is spot on. That is exactly what you would get. Good analogy. 

I know it looks weird, but the liquid in your new diagram is being pulled to the centre of the earth in all directions. I can see why it is difficult to wrap ones head around, but it is the case, and the premise for my original OP.

It's difficult because if you imagine that you start pouring water inside this pool then at first it fills bottom from side to side and then it just starts to move away from sides. Shortly, even if you are right you have not convinced me because I have not found any speculations/works in that area and you have also not showed anything concrete except something in style like "it is so".

Pools do not have massive amounts of gravity. If you poured water into your diagram, no matter where you pour it, it will go to the middle becuasse ther is where gravity is strongest. Water then just builds up from the middle outward.

Pools do not have massive amounts of gravity. If you poured water into your diagram, no matter where you pour it, it will go to the middle becuasse ther is where gravity is strongest. Water then just builds up from the middle outward.

Sure, because you just say so.

Quote from: zork on October 16, 2010, 09:49:15 AM

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 08:34:27 AM

Zork, your diagram is spot on. That is exactly what you would get. Good analogy. 

I know it looks weird, but the liquid in your new diagram is being pulled to the centre of the earth in all directions. I can see why it is difficult to wrap ones head around, but it is the case, and the premise for my original OP.

It's difficult because if you imagine that you start pouring water inside this pool then at first it fills bottom from side to side and then it just starts to move away from sides. Shortly, even if you are right you have not convinced me because I have not found any speculations/works in that area and you have also not showed anything concrete except something in style like "it is so".

Pools do not have massive amounts of gravity. If you poured water into your diagram, no matter where you pour it, it will go to the middle becuasse ther is where gravity is strongest. Water then just builds up from the middle outward.

The gravity has the same strength everywhere, it's not stronger in the middle.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 16, 2010, 11:15:09 AM

Quote from: zork on October 16, 2010, 09:49:15 AM

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 08:34:27 AM

Zork, your diagram is spot on. That is exactly what you would get. Good analogy.  

I know it looks weird, but the liquid in your new diagram is being pulled to the centre of the earth in all directions. I can see why it is difficult to wrap ones head around, but it is the case, and the premise for my original OP.

It's difficult because if you imagine that you start pouring water inside this pool then at first it fills bottom from side to side and then it just starts to move away from sides. Shortly, even if you are right you have not convinced me because I have not found any speculations/works in that area and you have also not showed anything concrete except something in style like "it is so".

Pools do not have massive amounts of gravity. If you poured water into your diagram, no matter where you pour it, it will go to the middle becuasse ther is where gravity is strongest. Water then just builds up from the middle outward.

The gravity has the same strength everywhere, it's not stronger in the middle.

Incorrect. In his diagram, the middle is closest, which means it is going to be most affected by gravity.

An easy way to see it is with this diagram. Which is most affected by gravity? The part that is touching the Earth, or the part that is in space?

A drawing in paint doesn't constitute any valid diagram for anything to my eyes, no matter who produces it.

But Ok, just look not only at the water in the diagram, but at the Earth itself, that's how we explain planets are round, because all their particles are attracted with the same strength, and the only shape that can come from it is a sphere.

A drawing in paint doesn't constitute any valid diagram for anything to my eyes, no matter who produces it.

But Ok, just look not only at the water in the diagram, but at the Earth itself, that's how we explain planets are round, because all their particles are attracted with the same strength, and the only shape that can come from it is a sphere.

A diagram is a diagram. It doesn't matter if it was drawn using photobucket or crayons and a napkin. Do explain how a diagram that was drawn in paint is invalid. This is a sort of Ad Hominem. "You are wrong because I don't like what program your diagram was made on".

Yes Kira, we are discussing RET right now. Thank you for acknowledging how gravity works and planets form. Now, how about you answer the question.

Which part is affected by gravity most. The part that is touching the Earth, or the part that is out in space?

The part that is touching the Earth suffers a biggest influence from gravity than the one out in space, nonetheless, depending on distance, there is a variation in intensity, and we are also adding a recipient in the diagram, it affects the shape.

The part that is touching the Earth suffers a biggest influence from gravity than the one out in space, nonetheless, depending on distance, there is a variation in intensity

So you admit that the parts further away are less affected by Earth's gravitational pull? Good.

Which part is affected by gravity most. The part that is touching the Earth, or the part that is out in space?

Do you have any evidence other that "I said so" that the "most affected" part should behave as you assume?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 16, 2010, 02:45:47 PM

Which part is affected by gravity most. The part that is touching the Earth, or the part that is out in space?

Do you have any evidence other that "I said so" that the "most affected" part should behave as you assume?

LoL. He just accused me of the same thing on another forum. I guess its contagious.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 16, 2010, 02:45:47 PM

Which part is affected by gravity most. The part that is touching the Earth, or the part that is out in space?

Do you have any evidence other that "I said so" that the "most affected" part should behave as you assume?

Gravity is a function of distance.

Therefore as stated above, the part that is touching the earth will be more effected than the part that is out in space. Will this suffice as evidence?

Quote from: zork on October 17, 2010, 02:41:33 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 16, 2010, 02:45:47 PM

Which part is affected by gravity most. The part that is touching the Earth, or the part that is out in space?

Do you have any evidence other that "I said so" that the "most affected" part should behave as you assume?

LoL. He just accused me of the same thing on another forum. I guess its contagious.

I suspect he didn't think he would have to aim the argument so low, as to have to demonstrate that.  

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 16, 2010, 02:45:47 PM

Which part is affected by gravity most. The part that is touching the Earth, or the part that is out in space?

Do you have any evidence other that "I said so" that the "most affected" part should behave as you assume?

It is called the Inverse Square Law. This is basic gravitation. The further two masses are away from each other, the more diminished the gravitational attraction between them will be. Therefore, the parts that are further away from Earth, are less affected by Earth's gravity than those that are closer. This is extremely basic RET. This is truly sad if you RE'ers don't even know these basic things about your own theory.

The gravitational attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. The force is always attractive and acts along the line joining them.

Sorry that I over-estimated your intelligence here Zork. I shall remember to act as though you are a 12 year old child every time I talk to you from now on.

Quote from: zork on October 17, 2010, 02:41:33 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 16, 2010, 02:45:47 PM

Which part is affected by gravity most. The part that is touching the Earth, or the part that is out in space?

Do you have any evidence other that "I said so" that the "most affected" part should behave as you assume?

Gravity is a function of distance.

Therefore as stated above, the part that is touching the earth will be more effected than the part that is out in space. Will this suffice as evidence?

No, because I didn't ask that. Read again if you didn't get what I asked.

Quote from: zork on October 17, 2010, 02:41:33 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 16, 2010, 02:45:47 PM

Which part is affected by gravity most. The part that is touching the Earth, or the part that is out in space?

Do you have any evidence other that "I said so" that the "most affected" part should behave as you assume?

It is called the Inverse Square Law. This is basic gravitation. The further two masses are away from each other, the more diminished the gravitational attraction between them will be. Therefore, the parts that are further away from Earth, are less affected by Earth's gravity than those that are closer. This is extremely basic RET. This is truly sad if you RE'ers don't even know these basic things about your own theory.

It's nice that you care about my understanding of gravity but I didn't ask about how the gravity affects something. I asked something else. Like Thork, read again if you didn't get what I asked.

Quote from: zork on October 17, 2010, 02:56:20 AM

Quote from: Thork on October 16, 2010, 04:15:05 PM

I will say this to you one final time.
It is Perfectly Flat Flaw-Free F*****g Glass! Ahhhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhh! AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

It is a marketing slogan and you just have failed to show that it is really so perfect and flat. Where is your evidence other that this marketing slogan?

Where is your evidence that it is a marketing slogan? Unless you have any, I have no reason to think it is. You are going the wrong way. You are starting with the assumption that it is a marketing slogan and than demanding we prove otherwise. You forget that it's evidence then conclusion. For shame!

 Because it's from the pamphlet for general public. There is no evidence that the glass is actually perfectly flat, only this pamphlet saying so. You really are saying that some general information pamphlet is your definitive evidence? Absolutely without any measurement data? It's like the thing with the Humber Bridge. From wikipedia - The towers, although both vertical, are not parallel, being 36 millimetres (1.4 in) farther apart at the top than the bottom as a result of the curvature of the earth.
 But if you are really interested and go and ask from Humber Bridge people then you get for an answer that it isn't so.

So, where is your evidence, other that this public info pamphlet, that the glass is actually perfectly flat?

Quote from: Thork on October 17, 2010, 09:27:03 AM

Quote from: zork on October 17, 2010, 02:41:33 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 16, 2010, 02:45:47 PM

Which part is affected by gravity most. The part that is touching the Earth, or the part that is out in space?

Do you have any evidence other that "I said so" that the "most affected" part should behave as you assume?

Gravity is a function of distance.

Therefore as stated above, the part that is touching the earth will be more effected than the part that is out in space. Will this suffice as evidence?

No, because I didn't ask that. Read again if you didn't get what I asked.

The evidence is what I said. Unless you are suggesting that gravitation does not behave as we say it does, do point out our error.

Quote from: zork on October 17, 2010, 01:16:43 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 17, 2010, 09:27:03 AM

Quote from: zork on October 17, 2010, 02:41:33 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 16, 2010, 02:45:47 PM

Which part is affected by gravity most. The part that is touching the Earth, or the part that is out in space?

Do you have any evidence other that "I said so" that the "most affected" part should behave as you assume?

Gravity is a function of distance.

Therefore as stated above, the part that is touching the earth will be more effected than the part that is out in space. Will this suffice as evidence?

No, because I didn't ask that. Read again if you didn't get what I asked.

The evidence is what I said. Unless you are suggesting that gravitation does not behave as we say it does, do point out our error.

Just to be clear, you now claim that Newton's ULoG is how gravitation behaves, really?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 17, 2010, 04:37:24 PM

The evidence is what I said. Unless you are suggesting that gravitation does not behave as we say it does, do point out our error.

Just to be clear, you now claim that Newton's ULoG is how gravitation behaves, really?

Newton's Universal Law of Gravity describes how gravitation behaves in RET, yes.

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 17, 2010, 04:56:14 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 17, 2010, 04:37:24 PM

The evidence is what I said. Unless you are suggesting that gravitation does not behave as we say it does, do point out our error.

Just to be clear, you now claim that Newton's ULoG is how gravitation behaves, really?

Newton's Universal Law of Gravity describes how gravitation behaves in RET, yes.

Quote

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Nope. You might want to leave explaining RET to REers since you don't seem to understand even gravitation.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 17, 2010, 06:05:19 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 17, 2010, 04:56:14 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 17, 2010, 04:37:24 PM

The evidence is what I said. Unless you are suggesting that gravitation does not behave as we say it does, do point out our error.

Just to be clear, you now claim that Newton's ULoG is how gravitation behaves, really?

Newton's Universal Law of Gravity describes how gravitation behaves in RET, yes.

Quote

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Nope. You might want to leave explaining RET to REers since you don't seem to understand even gravitation.

Do tell how I am incorrect.