"Equator" problem

  • 454 Replies
  • 53921 Views
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2014, 12:05:46 AM »
Prove water to be convex, and we will at once and forever recant and grant you anything you like to demand.

Too easy.  If I travel by ship from New York to London, I travel in a curved line—known as a "great circle"—rather than a straight line.



This is to conserve fuel (and save money) simply because a straight line isn't the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere.  IF the earth were a flat plane, then obviously the ship would travel in a dead straight line.

Your knowledge of non-Euclidean geometry is obviously lacking.
It is a straight line with no change of direction left or right, just following the curvature of the earth.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 12:19:58 AM by inquisitive »

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2014, 12:31:46 AM »
Prove water to be convex, and we will at once and forever recant and grant you anything you like to demand.


This is not water around a solid object, but a water droplet. There is a difference. Show me an example of water encircling a solid object/sphere and actually sticking to it without spilling. Otherwise, nice try.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2014, 12:34:02 AM »
Prove water to be convex, and we will at once and forever recant and grant you anything you like to demand.

Too easy.  If I travel by ship from New York to London, I travel in a curved line—known as a "great circle"—rather than a straight line.



This is to conserve fuel (and save money) simply because a straight line isn't the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere.  IF the earth were a flat plane, then obviously the ship would travel in a dead straight line.

Your knowledge of non-Euclidean geometry is obviously lacking.
It is a straight line with no change of direction left or right, just following the curvature of the earth.

How do you know if a line is straight or curved? What is your reference point?

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2014, 01:44:16 AM »
Hi Saros, nice to see you here also!

Shall we fight with them like adults?

@ AUSGeoff, it's nice to hear you laughing, especially when i begin to feel desperate like Charlie in this scene:  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> Also, do you remember captain Bligh (Trevor Howard) how funny he looked like while attempting to dance tahitian dance?

Let's get serious now:

@ 29silhouette, calculating the differences of the different speeds of the Sun (when the Sun is above different latitudes) caused me to stumble upon "Equator" problem...

Few days ago (when there was sunny here) i have tried to measure the speed of the Sun (with a welding glass and a stopwatch). I noticed that the Sun moves one of his diameter in two minutes, that is roughly in accordance with zetetic reckoning of the diameter of the Sun AND with the RET & FET agreement over Equator circumference.

30 * 2 (minutes) = 1 hour
1666 / 30 = 55,5 km = 32 nautical miles = 34 statute miles = diameter of the Sun

So far, so good, but yes, you are right, the differences between the different speeds of the Sun (when the Sun is above different latitudes) would be too great to be acceptable if we calculated those differences assuming applicability of simple mathematical rules in the case of the Sun although we don't really know how Sun works at all...

That is why we should maybe reconsider these words of Sandokhan more carefully:

Quote
Therefore, statements such as: On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles.  and  If a navigator neglects to apply the sun's radius to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the radius of the sun is 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. cannot be true given the effect of the many layers of aether (of various densities) upon the light emitted by the Sun. Also, measuring the angle of the sun from a latitude of 30 degrees or 60 degrees will give different results.

And there are further issues to be dealt with, if we use simple triangulation to obtain possible figures for the Earth-Sun distance:

Read more, post #12 on this page: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39728.msg994892#msg994892

Plane Sailing 33 000 miles: http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html
Proving water to be convex: http://www.energeticforum.com/255875-post14.html
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 02:48:32 AM by cikljamas »

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2014, 02:17:08 AM »
This is not water around a solid object, but a water droplet. There is a difference. Show me an example of water encircling a solid object/sphere and actually sticking to it without spilling.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2014, 04:02:16 AM »
How do you know if a line is straight or curved? What is your reference point?


The red line on my map follows a vertical curve along the circumference of the planet.  Hence my reference to Euclid.  In plan view, the line is straight.

The globe as shown is an (approximate) isometric projection.


Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2014, 06:07:14 AM »
No worries here. Why don't you start with just one? I will be away for a few days, so no hurry.

Here is just one: http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html

Here is another one: http://www.energeticforum.com/265994-post593.html

Many more to come....

edit: Here you can take a look how had ended up one of previous FET debate on this very subject:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58467.30;wap2
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 06:25:14 AM by cikljamas »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38048
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2014, 07:13:26 AM »
This is not water around a solid object, but a water droplet. There is a difference.
You asked for an example of water being convex and I provided you one.  If you wanted an example of water sticking to an object, then you should have asked for one.  Quit moving the goal post.

Show me an example of water encircling a solid object/sphere and actually sticking to it without spilling. Otherwise, nice try.
Better?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22472
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2014, 07:17:58 AM »
I think he meant water not ice, markjo.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2014, 07:58:17 AM »
I think he meant water not ice, markjo.
Ice is water  ::)

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2014, 08:09:01 AM »
I think he meant water not ice, markjo.
Ice is water  ::)

Incorrect.  Just because something is made out of something else, that does not make them the same thing. 

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22472
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2014, 08:40:05 AM »
I think he meant water not ice, markjo.
Ice is water  ::)
Ice is frozen water. He meant water and you know it. You can't answer him because you have no clue how in the hell oceans stick to a supposed massive ball, except to mention gravity as a lame excuse.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38048
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2014, 09:21:12 AM »
I think he meant water not ice, markjo.
Shhh... Don't tell anyone, but I'm just messing with him because I know that he knows that he's asking for an impossible demonstration within earth's gravitational influence.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #43 on: October 17, 2014, 09:38:13 AM »
@Markjo, You bet that he is asking for an impossible demonstration, let alone asking for this kind of demonstration:

http://www.energeticforum.com/261779-post206.html

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38048
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #44 on: October 17, 2014, 02:05:39 PM »
@Markjo, You bet that he is asking for an impossible demonstration, let alone asking for this kind of demonstration:

http://www.energeticforum.com/261779-post206.html
Actually, the one in the link would be a lot easier because you could simulate the zero gee with magnetic levitation.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sokarul

  • 15980
  • Discount Chemist
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2014, 02:54:58 PM »
@Markjo, You bet that he is asking for an impossible demonstration, let alone asking for this kind of demonstration:

http://www.energeticforum.com/261779-post206.html
The Earth's spin is slowing down and the axis of rotation isn't fixed. Please note this.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #46 on: October 17, 2014, 07:10:59 PM »
I think he meant water not ice, markjo.
Ice is water  ::)
Did you really expect him to know that? This is sceptimatic we're talking about here.
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2014, 11:54:41 PM »
I think he meant water not ice, markjo.
Ice is water  ::)

Incorrect.  Just because something is made out of something else, that does not make them the same thing.
Ice is water just in a solid form.  Just as steam is water just is gaseous form.  Now if he had asked for an example of liquid water in a sphere, then by all means.  But he didn't now did he?

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #48 on: October 18, 2014, 02:03:41 AM »
While you are searching for an example that Saros has asked you for, maybe next two arguments (one of which arguments has been named by the name of my friend Saros, because it consists from his own words) can be of some help in speeding up your search and make it (your futile and absurd search) more productive...

http://www.energeticforum.com/266032-post597.html

Keep up, don't give up!  ;D

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22472
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #49 on: October 18, 2014, 03:02:55 AM »
While you are searching for an example that Saros has asked you for, maybe next two arguments (one of which arguments has been named by the name of my friend Saros, because it consists from his own words) can be of some help in speeding up your search and make it (your futile and absurd search) more productive...

http://www.energeticforum.com/266032-post597.html

Keep up, don't give up!  ;D
Keep up the good work. It's nice to see more people thinking for themselves. I had a topic similar to what you are talking about on the water running to the level of the sea.
Stick around as I'm enjoying your input as well as a few otehrs, like Legion, saros, etc. It makes a refreshing change to the tefal heads and their ready made scientific page turning MS answers.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #50 on: October 18, 2014, 05:53:05 AM »
This is not water around a solid object, but a water droplet. There is a difference. Show me an example of water encircling a solid object/sphere and actually sticking to it without spilling.
Too easy.....

UK Daily Mail Australia: April 2011:




This image by photographer Adam Gormley, from Noosaville, QLD, Australia
shows a dead ant trapped in a tiny perfect sphere of water, totally unable
to escape, after being caught in a sudden heavy downpour.



It never ceases to amaze me how pedantic flat earthers are, or how often they play with semantics whenever they're backed into a corner.  In this case, surface tension is the answer.




?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #51 on: October 18, 2014, 07:08:05 AM »


http://www.energeticforum.com/266032-post597.html

Keep up, don't give up!  ;D

Just want to point out that you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the "no up or down".  On a globe there IS a down.  It is towards the center of the Earth.

*

sokarul

  • 15980
  • Discount Chemist
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #52 on: October 18, 2014, 09:38:18 AM »
While you are searching for an example that Saros has asked you for, maybe next two arguments (one of which arguments has been named by the name of my friend Saros, because it consists from his own words) can be of some help in speeding up your search and make it (your futile and absurd search) more productive...

http://www.energeticforum.com/266032-post597.html

Keep up, don't give up!  ;D
No, rivers on a globe would not have to run uphill. Please note this.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #53 on: October 18, 2014, 10:10:37 AM »
While you are searching for an example that Saros has asked you for, maybe next two arguments (one of which arguments has been named by the name of my friend Saros, because it consists from his own words) can be of some help in speeding up your search and make it (your futile and absurd search) more productive...

http://www.energeticforum.com/266032-post597.html

Keep up, don't give up!  ;D
Keep up the good work. It's nice to see more people thinking for themselves. I had a topic similar to what you are talking about on the water running to the level of the sea.
Stick around as I'm enjoying your input as well as a few otehrs, like Legion, saros, etc. It makes a refreshing change to the tefal heads and their ready made scientific page turning MS answers.

Thanks for your words of encouragement, it's a pity that today's people are so brainwashed, so that thoughts of every trully free thinking man in today's world are precious as if they have been made of pure gold!!!

@BJ1234, according to you, rivers flow towards the centre of the Earth? Don't be ridiculous!

@sokarul, rivers on a globe would not have to run uphill, that is true, rivers on a globe would have to run downhill in both cases as it is described in my "Rivers" argument, only every day let's say at midnight downhill would be uphill, and at noon downhill would be again downhill as we know it from our everyday experience. And if you think that uphill would be impossibility because of inclinations of the river beds then i suggest you to read this for clarification:

Quote
" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles."  Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/265601-post587.html

In fact, rivers on a globe wouldn't flow at all, they would be spilled out into space together with all other water on such imagined globe. Don't you see how insulting for sanity of every man on the Earth is that outrageously idiotic fairytale about a imagined globular planet which our beautiful-true world supposed to be???

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #54 on: October 18, 2014, 10:24:04 AM »
While you are searching for an example that Saros has asked you for, maybe next two arguments (one of which arguments has been named by the name of my friend Saros, because it consists from his own words) can be of some help in speeding up your search and make it (your futile and absurd search) more productive...

http://www.energeticforum.com/266032-post597.html

Keep up, don't give up!  ;D
Keep up the good work. It's nice to see more people thinking for themselves. I had a topic similar to what you are talking about on the water running to the level of the sea.
Stick around as I'm enjoying your input as well as a few otehrs, like Legion, saros, etc. It makes a refreshing change to the tefal heads and their ready made scientific page turning MS answers.

Thanks for your words of encouragement, it's a pity that today's people are so brainwashed, so that thoughts of every trully free thinking man in today's world are precious as if they have been made of pure gold!!!

@BJ1234, according to you, rivers flow towards the centre of the Earth? Don't be ridiculous!

@sokarul, rivers on a globe would not have to run uphill, that is true, rivers on a globe would have to run downhill in both cases as it is described in my "Rivers" argument, only every day let's say at midnight downhill would be uphill, and at noon downhill would be again downhill as we know it from our everyday experience. And if you think that uphill would be impossibility because of inclinations of the river beds then i suggest you to read this for clarification:

Quote
" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles."  Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/265601-post587.html

In fact, rivers on a globe wouldn't flow at all, they would be spilled out into space together with all other water on such imagined globe. Don't you see how insulting for sanity of every man on the Earth is that outrageously idiotic fairytale about a imagined globular planet which our beautiful-true world supposed to be???
You are ignoring one huge factor.  The thing called gravity!!!!
And yes, rivers flow towards the center of the earth.  They never quite make it there though, you know with all the rock and ground in the way.  But yes, they flow from a higher elevation to a lower elevation.  Elevation is based on the distance from the center of the earth.  The river bed might only get closer to the center of the earth by a few feet over a few miles, but the water will flow that way.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #55 on: October 18, 2014, 10:31:59 AM »
@ 29silhouette, calculating the differences of the different speeds of the Sun (when the Sun is above different latitudes) caused me to stumble upon "Equator" problem...

Few days ago (when there was sunny here) i have tried to measure the speed of the Sun (with a welding glass and a stopwatch). I noticed that the Sun moves one of his diameter in two minutes, that is roughly in accordance with zetetic reckoning of the diameter of the Sun AND with the RET & FET agreement over Equator circumference.
I would suggest someone along the Tropic of Cancer in June using a stick to measure the speed of the shadow as the sun travels directly overhead, and someone along the Tropic of Capricorn in December, again using stick of the same height, to measure the shadow speed.

According to the mono-pole model, which seems to be the most popular, the sun would have to move almost twice as fast in December.  If someone can come up with a way to explain how the sun could travel the same speed along two vastly different distances, yet complete each trip in the same amount of time, and visibly appear to move the same speed, we'd all love to hear it.

Quote
30 * 2 (minutes) = 1 hour
1666 / 30 = 55,5 km = 32 nautical miles = 34 statute miles = diameter of the Sun

So far, so good, but yes, you are right, the differences between the different speeds of the Sun (when the Sun is above different latitudes) would be too great to be acceptable if we calculated those differences assuming applicability of simple mathematical rules in the case of the Sun although we don't really know how Sun works at all...

That is why we should maybe reconsider these words of Sandokhan more carefully:
Indeed, calculating the FE diameter of the sun.  I was talking about how fast it travels though.

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #56 on: October 18, 2014, 10:55:24 AM »
@ 29silhouette, calculating the differences of the different speeds of the Sun (when the Sun is above different latitudes) caused me to stumble upon "Equator" problem...

Few days ago (when there was sunny here) i have tried to measure the speed of the Sun (with a welding glass and a stopwatch). I noticed that the Sun moves one of his diameter in two minutes, that is roughly in accordance with zetetic reckoning of the diameter of the Sun AND with the RET & FET agreement over Equator circumference.
I would suggest someone along the Tropic of Cancer in June using a stick to measure the speed of the shadow as the sun travels directly overhead, and someone along the Tropic of Capricorn in December, again using stick of the same height, to measure the shadow speed.

According to the mono-pole model, which seems to be the most popular, the sun would have to move almost twice as fast in December.  If someone can come up with a way to explain how the sun could travel the same speed along two vastly different distances, yet complete each trip in the same amount of time, and visibly appear to move the same speed, we'd all love to hear it.

Quote
30 * 2 (minutes) = 1 hour
1666 / 30 = 55,5 km = 32 nautical miles = 34 statute miles = diameter of the Sun

So far, so good, but yes, you are right, the differences between the different speeds of the Sun (when the Sun is above different latitudes) would be too great to be acceptable if we calculated those differences assuming applicability of simple mathematical rules in the case of the Sun although we don't really know how Sun works at all...

That is why we should maybe reconsider these words of Sandokhan more carefully:
Indeed, calculating the FE diameter of the sun.  I was talking about how fast it travels though.

That was my first measurement of that kind, next measurments i will make sometime between 4th and 10th november, and then many more measurments to come...We have to make measurments by ourself, because this is the hoax-matrix reality in which we live, and if you want to figure out how our reality really looks like, you have to do everything by yourself, there is no help from anyone....Even Flat Earth Society is not competent (or willing)  to give you concrete answer to such elementary question as it is one that i have posed in the first post of this thread...

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #57 on: October 18, 2014, 11:30:42 AM »
http://www.energeticforum.com/266032-post597.html
LMAO... The concept of a globe with a force pulling matter against it's surface sure is a tough one.  ::)

Would an MS-paint diagram help?

Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #58 on: October 18, 2014, 12:10:25 PM »
Keep up the good work.
Thanks for your words of encouragement,

Your new friend (sceptimatic) said he conducted an elaborate experiment with a high-powered laser on a frozen lake that proves Earth is flat.  Perhaps you can talk him in to providing the photos and evidence of it to you.  :)

*

sokarul

  • 15980
  • Discount Chemist
Re: "Equator" problem
« Reply #59 on: October 18, 2014, 01:43:35 PM »

@sokarul, rivers on a globe would not have to run uphill, that is true, rivers on a globe would have to run downhill in both cases as it is described in my "Rivers" argument, only every day let's say at midnight downhill would be uphill, and at noon downhill would be again downhill as we know it from our everyday experience. And if you think that uphill would be impossibility because of inclinations of the river beds then i suggest you to read this for clarification:

Quote
" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles."  Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/265601-post587.html

In fact, rivers on a globe wouldn't flow at all, they would be spilled out into space together with all other water on such imagined globe. Don't you see how insulting for sanity of every man on the Earth is that outrageously idiotic fairytale about a imagined globular planet which our beautiful-true world supposed to be???
Gravitation, learn it.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER