Let's do the science

Not that you seem to understand these kind of concepts very well.

So you can't even defend yourself.

Oh, so now you agree that I am right.

Even though you said this:

Quote from: Master_Evar on January 14, 2016, 10:53:02 PM

Not that you seem to understand these kind of concepts very well.

and this:

Quote from: Master_Evar on January 14, 2016, 11:14:46 PM

So you can't even defend yourself.

But you meant those in a 'I agree with you' sort of way, right?

I don't get it, acceleration = =deltaV/deltat = change in velocity/change in time.

So for a quad that hovering at say 1m off the ground for 10 seconds

The change in velocity = 0 - 0, the change in time is 10 - 0 seconds

0/10 = 0

How is that wrong?

tl;dr

"TheEngineer you are right." 

Thanks Master_Evar!

Well whatever, you aren't wrong

Did anyone attempt the very simple experiment of observing the waters edge in the distance from a starting point of the waters edge ?

Plenty of people have observed shore line to shore line at distances that are supposed to be beyond the curve.

anyone ?

curvature ?

maybe this quick and simple mystery is just to much for the paradigm huggers.

I don't get it, acceleration = =deltaV/deltat = change in velocity/change in time.

So for a quad that hovering at say 1m off the ground for 10 seconds

The change in velocity = 0 - 0, the change in time is 10 - 0 seconds

0/10 = 0

How is that wrong?

I trust your claims as much as you trust NASA.
 

Quote from: Empirical on January 15, 2016, 08:28:18 AM

I trust your claims as much as you trust NASA.
 

your unquestioning trust is not required,
have you stood at the edge of an expanse of water and measured how far  you can see the waters edge stretch away ?

Doubt it,

I urge you to go and see for yourself,
in fact I dare you.

post the results.

curvature as expected ?

Quote from: feuk on January 15, 2016, 08:46:04 AM

Quote from: Empirical on January 15, 2016, 08:28:18 AM

I have and yes, curvature as expected.

I stood on the beach at the Bay/Gulf county line in Mexico Beach, FL.  From that point looking directly south over calm water you can see the trees of Cape San Blas but not the beach or water line.  I used binoculars and still could not see them.  However, climbing up the 15 feet to the road level makes the beach and water line of Cape San Blas visible.

lol,
I smell bullshit.

People all over the world are getting different results.

Strange that.

See you Monday.

Quote from: frenat on January 15, 2016, 08:49:25 AM

I have and yes, curvature as expected.

I stood on the beach at the Bay/Gulf county line in Mexico Beach, FL.  From that point looking directly south over calm water you can see the trees of Cape San Blas but not the beach or water line.  I used binoculars and still could not see them.  However, climbing up the 15 feet to the road level makes the beach and water line of Cape San Blas visible.

lol,
I smell bullshit.

People all over the world are getting different results.

Strange that.

See you Monday.

Quote from: feuk on January 15, 2016, 09:07:27 AM

Quote from: frenat on January 15, 2016, 08:49:25 AM

I have and yes, curvature as expected.

I stood on the beach at the Bay/Gulf county line in Mexico Beach, FL.  From that point looking directly south over calm water you can see the trees of Cape San Blas but not the beach or water line.  I used binoculars and still could not see them.  However, climbing up the 15 feet to the road level makes the beach and water line of Cape San Blas visible.

lol,
I smell bullshit.

People all over the world are getting different results.

Strange that.

See you Monday.

Yet you haven't posted them.  Strange that.  As expected you handwave it away.  Interesting that you screwed up ANOTHER quote when all you had to do is click a button. 

Here's another incident.  I've been to the beach at Indiana Dunes State Park.  From the beach you can see the tops of some of the buildings in Chicago.  Higher up at the building with changing rooms and refreshments you can see more but still not the bottom of the buildings.  Nearby is a large dune you can climb and get even higher up.  Even more of the buildings can be seen but still not the bottoms.  The world is curved.  It has been known to be so since the Greeks and no amount of recent trolling or ignorant videos on the Internet will change that fact.

Did anyone attempt the very simple experiment of observing the waters edge in the distance from a starting point of the waters edge ?

Plenty of people have observed shore line to shore line at distances that are supposed to be beyond the curve.

anyone ?

curvature ?

maybe this quick and simple mystery is just to much for the paradigm huggers.

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 15, 2016, 12:17:57 AM

I don't get it, acceleration = =deltaV/deltat = change in velocity/change in time.

So for a quad that hovering at say 1m off the ground for 10 seconds

The change in velocity = 0 - 0, the change in time is 10 - 0 seconds

0/10 = 0

How is that wrong?

Let's take it one step at a time.

When your drone is hovering, the props are turning, correct?

Here is an experiment I did almost a year ago:

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 24, 2015, 09:30:35 AM

Recently I organized an experiment to prove the shape of the Earth where Dephelis and I both took pictures of the Sun at the same time at two very distant locations.  Time zones were obviously taken into account.

My photo:


Dephelis's photo:


Astronomy telescopes have a tendency to flip their image as well as rotate it in weird ways and also it was sunrise for me and sunset for Dephelis so we are seeing the sun at different orientations.  Here is my image rotated 180 degrees to match Dephelis's image better:


Here I have identified the sunspots on the two images:


Both these images contain the same sunspots in the same places which means that when they were taken the same side of the Sun was facing the two telescopes, but these images were taken at the same time from different continents so the only explanation is that the Sun is really far away, and if the Sun is really far away then the only way that time zones and seasons can be explained is by saying that the Earth is round.  Any resident of Earth has experienced seasons, and time zones had to be taken into account when this experiment was being preformed so they are obviously real.

Conclusion: the Earth is round.

I could repeat it if any willing participants live far away from the United States and has a telescope with a solar filter.  We could also repeat this experiment with the Moon instead of the Sun.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 15, 2016, 08:31:26 AM

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 15, 2016, 12:17:57 AM

I don't get it, acceleration = =deltaV/deltat = change in velocity/change in time.

So for a quad that hovering at say 1m off the ground for 10 seconds

The change in velocity = 0 - 0, the change in time is 10 - 0 seconds

0/10 = 0

How is that wrong?

Let's take it one step at a time.

When your drone is hovering, the props are turning, correct?

Calling SkepticMike and his drone!  SkepticMike and his drone, please report to the thread.

Holy shit, you were the first person to actually read what my original post was and do it.

Quote from: feuk on January 15, 2016, 03:31:03 AM

Did anyone attempt the very simple experiment of observing the waters edge in the distance from a starting point of the waters edge ?

Plenty of people have observed shore line to shore line at distances that are supposed to be beyond the curve.

anyone ?

curvature ?

maybe this quick and simple mystery is just to much for the paradigm huggers.

This series of pictures shows ships between 15-25km from the observer, photographed from both sea level and 12m altitude.  Also included are pictures of the distant shoreline of the island that lies across the bay, from both sea level and 12m altitude.  There are examples of photos taken at magnifications of 1:1, 8:1 and 28:1. 

In these series are shown;

1. ships at 8 times magnification viewed from different elevations, the higher elevations revealing more of the hulls than are visible at sea level (0m)
2. Island coastland viewed at 8x magnification from different elevations, with more of the lower view of the coast visible from higher elevations
3. 28x telescope images of selected views of both coastal land and ships showing that higher magnification does not increase the proportion of the subject viewable but that higher elevation does increase the proportion of the subject that is visible.

Note: Some images have been reduced in size to make comparisons easier, the full view is available by cliking the image.


Ship 1, 1x mag. 12m alt. (enlarged to show detail)

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 0m alt.  (note ship 2 behind ship1. The hull of ship 2 is not even visible)

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 3, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 3, 28x mag. 0m alt. 

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 28x mag. 1.5m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 28x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Dune, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Dune, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Houses on hill, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Houses on hill, 28x mag. 1.5m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Houses on hill, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Plenty of Curavture

Quote from: Mbecks on January 16, 2016, 07:41:10 PM

Holy shit, you were the first person to actually read what my original post was and do it.

Actually, I was.  My post was #17.  His was #25.

Yeah, I get it now, all object within the influence of a gravitation field have the effects of that gravity field working on them even if they're stationary. So even while I'm standing on the ground my body's own structure is fighting the efects of the earths gravitational field. At or near enough to ground level that is measured at 9.8m/s^2.

You can get as technical as you want and say "but all he said was do the science" but really that thought process isn't helping anyone further there knowledge.

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 16, 2016, 07:48:57 PM

Yeah, I get it now, all object within the influence of a gravitation field have the effects of that gravity field working on them even if they're stationary. So even while I'm standing on the ground my body's own structure is fighting the efects of the earths gravitational field. At or near enough to ground level that is measured at 9.8m/s^2.

Congrats on the epiphany, and well done for admitting your preconceived notions were incorrect.  Most people on this forum can't do that.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 16, 2016, 07:10:15 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 15, 2016, 08:31:26 AM

Quote from: SkepticMike on January 15, 2016, 12:17:57 AM

I don't get it, acceleration = =deltaV/deltat = change in velocity/change in time.

So for a quad that hovering at say 1m off the ground for 10 seconds

The change in velocity = 0 - 0, the change in time is 10 - 0 seconds

0/10 = 0

How is that wrong?

Let's take it one step at a time.

When your drone is hovering, the props are turning, correct?

Calling SkepticMike and his drone!  SkepticMike and his drone, please report to the thread.

Lo, ah sorry about that, was a bit busy making an arcade cabinet and trying to keep up with posts/replies.

Yeah, I get it now, all object within the influence of a gravitation field have the effects of that gravity field working on them even if they're stationary. So even while I'm standing on the ground my body's own structure is fighting the efects of the earths gravitational field. At or near enough to ground level that is measured at 9.8m/s^2.
 

I have never seen a definition of acceleration that is not "the rate of change of velocity with respect to time" or some reiteration of that idea.