More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!

  • 65 Replies
  • 5768 Views
Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #30 on: July 22, 2017, 06:56:53 AM »
I have to see the numerical data first, but I'm not interested if the data is precise, but it is accurate and if you had an engineering degree you would know the difference!
I care about both.

For this experiment, accuracy without precision is pointless.
It would be akin to saying in both location the acceleration due to gravity was (10+-0.5) m/s^2.
That would be accurate. It gets the correct value. But it isn't precise enough to determine if they are actually the same at those 2 locations or just the same within error.

I also need to see his methodology to see if it is that precise.

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2017, 07:04:23 AM »
See my posts. I have used the technical specifications of the camera he said he used, plus the one photo he provided. I did not need anything else to prove that his 'experiment' is bullcrap or a lie.

There is no need to invest additional time in that, as the measurements he claimed to make are impossible under the conditions he described.

But you take the time to attack all topics that go against he Heliocentric model...

Just when I am procrastinating. Also, not all, just the ones that trigger me  ;D

So you accept that this experiment is utter bullshit and it is impossible with the given equipment to make such precise calculations? Good.


I have to see the numerical data first, but I'm not interested if the data is precise, but it is accurate and if you had an engineering degree you would know the difference!

Never said I had one. I have one in math and one in physics. And I know that for a decent experiment you need both accuracy and precision.

I am just saying that when your systematic errors are 10 times (in time) or 100 times (in pixel precisions) higher than the value that needs to be measured then you have a huge problem. You could maybe circumvent that by taking a large number of measurements (I am talking far more than 100, it would have to be at least 10.000 or so), but alone looking at the photo you see that his legs are not perfectly straight. As you can not assume that he moves exactly the same during each jump there are errors of cm-level induced by that. Even if your bias was exactly zero you would need an insane amount of measurements to account for that.

Then you look at his figures and see that the values measured between jumps deviate only by about 0.5%, which is simply impossible as you can only determine the value up to 3.3% due to finite number of frames. In addition to that he claimed to have measured micrometer-level precision, which is simply impossible with his equipment. The only conclusion you can draw is that the data are faked.

In your opinion, for an experiment be to be valid, to how many decimal places must the reading be?

If somebody was measuring the height of an object, that was 2 meter tall, how many decimal places must he measure to, cm, mm...

But remember with your answer, you will claim that all experiments that we conducted without this extend, are bogus!

If you will not answer because you don't know, then your statement of this experiment not being valid is bogus!!!
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #32 on: July 22, 2017, 07:11:13 AM »
In your opinion, for an experiment be to be valid, to how many decimal places must the reading be?
That depends upon what you are trying to prove.

If somebody was measuring the height of an object, that was 2 meter tall, how many decimal places must he measure to, cm, mm...
Again, it depends upon what you are trying to prove.
If you are trying to prove these 2 objects are the same and thus a hypothesis which says they are a few micrometers different is false, then you need it to within a micrometer.
If you are trying to prove it was 2 m tall, then a few cm would be fine.

But remember with your answer, you will claim that all experiments that we conducted without this extend, are bogus!
No I won't, because I realise the precision needed will vary depending upon what you are trying to do.

A ball bearing needs much greater precision than a kids toy of putting a rod through a hole.

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #33 on: July 22, 2017, 07:11:40 AM »
See my posts. I have used the technical specifications of the camera he said he used, plus the one photo he provided. I did not need anything else to prove that his 'experiment' is bullcrap or a lie.

There is no need to invest additional time in that, as the measurements he claimed to make are impossible under the conditions he described.

But you take the time to attack all topics that go against he Heliocentric model...

Just when I am procrastinating. Also, not all, just the ones that trigger me  ;D

So you accept that this experiment is utter bullshit and it is impossible with the given equipment to make such precise calculations? Good.


I have to see the numerical data first, but I'm not interested if the data is precise, but it is accurate and if you had an engineering degree you would know the difference!

Never said I had one. I have one in math and one in physics. And I know that for a decent experiment you need both accuracy and precision.

I am just saying that when your systematic errors are 10 times (in time) or 100 times (in pixel precisions) higher than the value that needs to be measured then you have a huge problem. You could maybe circumvent that by taking a large number of measurements (I am talking far more than 100, it would have to be at least 10.000 or so), but alone looking at the photo you see that his legs are not perfectly straight. As you can not assume that he moves exactly the same during each jump there are errors of cm-level induced by that. Even if your bias was exactly zero you would need an insane amount of measurements to account for that.

Then you look at his figures and see that the values measured between jumps deviate only by about 0.5%, which is simply impossible as you can only determine the value up to 3.3% due to finite number of frames. In addition to that he claimed to have measured micrometer-level precision, which is simply impossible with his equipment. The only conclusion you can draw is that the data are faked.

In your opinion, for an experiment be to be valid, to how many decimal places must the reading be?

If somebody was measuring the height of an object, that was 2 meter tall, how many decimal places must he measure to, cm, mm...

But remember with your answer, you will claim that all experiments that we conducted without this extend, are bogus!

If you will not answer because you don't know, then your statement of this experiment not being valid is bogus!!!

If I claim that a value should be 9.806 in one place and 9.803 in another, then I would want a precision of about 0.003. A less precise experiment would be fine if many repetitions were done. It all depends on your likelihood function in the end. I would want to get a result of 9.806 +- 0.001 to have a 3-sigma significance.

It depends on the required precision, which is very high here. Do you honestly think that the data presented could have been obtained with the methods he used?

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2017, 07:18:46 AM »
You're all debating a joke.
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.

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2017, 07:21:38 AM »
In your opinion, for an experiment be to be valid, to how many decimal places must the reading be?
That depends upon what you are trying to prove.

If somebody was measuring the height of an object, that was 2 meter tall, how many decimal places must he measure to, cm, mm...
Again, it depends upon what you are trying to prove.
If you are trying to prove these 2 objects are the same and thus a hypothesis which says they are a few micrometers different is false, then you need it to within a micrometer.
If you are trying to prove it was 2 m tall, then a few cm would be fine.

But remember with your answer, you will claim that all experiments that we conducted without this extend, are bogus!
No I won't, because I realise the precision needed will vary depending upon what you are trying to do.

A ball bearing needs much greater precision than a kids toy of putting a rod through a hole.

My mistake, let me clarify my question, To what percentage of the objects height must a person be accurate in making his readings, 99%, 99.9% , 99,99999%
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2017, 07:26:02 AM »
My mistake, let me clarify my question, To what percentage of the objects height must a person be accurate in making his readings, 99%, 99.9% , 99,99999%

That depends on your required precision. You can not make a general statement about that.

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2017, 07:29:45 AM »
My mistake, let me clarify my question, To what percentage of the objects height must a person be accurate in making his readings, 99%, 99.9% , 99,99999%

That depends on your required precision. You can not make a general statement about that.

OK, for this example, what % accuracy would you expect his readings to be.

And how can people disregard this work, without even looking at the numerical data
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2017, 07:44:44 AM »
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #39 on: July 22, 2017, 07:50:41 AM »
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:

fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc =  rand([2 100]);
fluc2 =  (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');

I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #40 on: July 22, 2017, 07:53:00 AM »
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?

I don't know, the iPhones are good telephones, but I use Android.

Let me put it to you this way, the camera on the iPhone is much better video cameras then the ones costing thousands of dollars 30 years ago. So with this logic, the measuring instruments of the iPhone will be just as good as the measuring instruments of 30 years ago.

If you discard the measurement, then you also have to discard all measurement before 30 years ago also.
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #41 on: July 22, 2017, 07:57:37 AM »
I am relieved. I hope you appreciated the feeding.

InFlatEarth: Instruments are designed for specific purposes. For this purpose, the instrument of choice would not have been precise enough.


Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #42 on: July 22, 2017, 10:26:05 AM »
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?

I don't know, the iPhones are good telephones, but I use Android.

Let me put it to you this way, the camera on the iPhone is much better video cameras then the ones costing thousands of dollars 30 years ago. So with this logic, the measuring instruments of the iPhone will be just as good as the measuring instruments of 30 years ago.

If you discard the measurement, then you also have to discard all measurement before 30 years ago also.
Dude the experiment was a joke

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #43 on: July 22, 2017, 04:22:26 PM »
My mistake, let me clarify my question, To what percentage of the objects height must a person be accurate in making his readings, 99%, 99.9% , 99,99999%
Your question is fine, you are just ignoring the answer.
Here, let me try and clarify it:
IT DEPENDS ENTIRELY UPON WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO WITH IT!!!
If you are looking for a change of 1% (a direct change), then it would need to be within less than that 1%, preferably 0.1%. If you are looking for a change of 0.00001%, then you need better than that.

Do you understand that?

OK, for this example, what % accuracy would you expect his readings to be.

And how can people disregard this work, without even looking at the numerical data
That would depend upon his exact methodology, i.e. exactly what he is measuring and calculating.

We can disregard his work because he blatantly lied about the accuracy he had.
He claimed to have had micrometer accuracy when in fact the best he could do is half a mm (or 500 times what he claims).

As he has now admitted the data was fake, I can provide a method by which you could do something like this:

We know that just considering the vertical component, a=-g (for simplicity, you could have it as g as well, it is just the direction that changes)
v=v0-g
d=d0+v0*t-0.5*g*t^2.

So the simplest way is to measure 3 points in time.
You have the first, which we define at t0, at which point the object is at d0 and v0.
You have some small time later, t1, at which point the object is at d1=d0+v0*t1-0.5*g*t1^2
And you have another time, t2, at which the object is at d2=d0+v0*t2-0.5*g*t2^2.
We are really looking at the differences in distance, so what we have is:
dd1=v0*t1-0.5*g*t1^2
dd2=v0*t2-0.5*g*t2^2

We directly measure d0, d1 and d2, and then use the difference to find dd1 and dd2, and we measure t1 and t2, but there is also the error in the start.
This means the error is doubled for each.

But at least we now have 2 equations with 2 unknowns (v0 and g).
Well, using the first one:
dd1=v0*t1-0.5*g*t1^2
Thus v0*t1=dd1+0.5*g*t1^2
Thus v0=dd1/t1+0.5*g*t1

Now stick that it 2:
dd2=v0*t2-0.5*g*t2^2
Thus 0.5*g*t2^2=v0*t2-dd2
Thus 0.5*g*t2^2=(dd1/t1+0.5*g*t1)*t2-dd2
Thus 0.5*g*t2^2=dd1*t2/t1+0.5*g*t1*t2-dd2
Thus 0.5*g*t2^2-0.5*g*t1*t2=dd1*t2/t1-dd2
Thus g*0.5*t2*(t2-t1)=dd1*t2/t1-dd2
Thus g=2*(dd1*t2/t1-dd2)/(t2*(t2-t1))
Thus g=2*(dd1/t1-dd2/t2)/(t2-t1)

So, now analysing the error, bit by bit.
So on the bottom we have (t2-t1).
In reality this is (t2-t0)-(t1-t0)=t2-t0-t1+t0=t2-t1.
Thus it is just twice the initial error in time.
Up top we have dd1/t1 (and dd1/t2) Because of that you need to use the percentage errors, and as they are uncorrelated, you add the errors in quadriture.
So now we have the error for that part is sqrt(pEd^2+pEt^2).
You then effecitvely multiply it by 2 as it is added together (and assuming the pE is similar for both).
You then have it getting combined together so you add the percentage errors (I think in quadrature):
So peG=sqrt(pEtop^2+pEbot^2)=sqrt((2*(Ed/t)/(d(d/t))^2+(2*Et/dt)^2)
=sqrt((2*(sqrt(pEd^2+pEt^2))^2+(2*Et/dt)^2)
=sqrt((2*(pEd^2+pEt^2)+(2*Et/dt)^2)
=sqrt((2*((Ed/d)^2+(Et/t)^2)+(2*Et/dt)^2)
=sqrt(2*(Ed/d)^2+2*(Et/t)^2+4*(Et/dt)^2)

And the difference he was looking for was 9.807 vs 9.809, so a difference of 0.002 out of 9.807 or roughly 0.02%, so you would want the error down to something like 0.005% or 0.00005

This means we have:
0.00005=sqrt(2*(Ed/d)^2+2*(Et/t)^2+4*(Et/dt)^2)

So first, lets assume the error in time is 0.
That makes it a lot simpler:
0.00005=sqrt(2*(Ed/d)^2)
=sqrt(2)*(Ed/d)
So Ed/d=0.00005/sqrt(2)
So Ed=d*0.00005*sqrt(2)/2
So assuming the jump was 1m, the maximum you can get for d is 1 m.
So the error is 0.5 m*0.00005*sqrt(2)=3.5 e-5 m=35 micron.

That is not achievable with that camera.
Thus the result must be fake, even without looking into it further.

So you want an instrument which gives at least a 35 micron resolution. When you factor in the error with time the requirements are even tighter.

Let me put it to you this way, the camera on the iPhone is much better video cameras then the ones costing thousands of dollars 30 years ago. So with this logic, the measuring instruments of the iPhone will be just as good as the measuring instruments of 30 years ago.

If you discard the measurement, then you also have to discard all measurement before 30 years ago also.
No.
We are discarding using an iphone (just the iphone) to measure a jump to within micrometer accuracy.

I will discard using a camera from 30+years in the past to do that.
That doesn't mean I have to discard other instruments or techniques.

The iphone is not as good as other instruments.

The iphone camera is for taking pictures, not measuring gravity or distances to micrometer accuracy.

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2017, 08:25:12 PM »
I will attempt to answer your question with as much patience as possible, as it is taking all my power to not throw my computer out the window after reading this question. (By the way, my computer would fall thanks to gravity)

Quote
Since the earth is flat, it is just accelerating at 9.807 m/s^2 in space creating a uniform gravitational field

You do realize that if the Earth is just moving up at 9.8 m/s^2, that in about a year the Earth would be moving the speed of light? Unless you are going to begin to question the validity of quantum physics and relativity as well, and assume that mass can travel millions of times the speed of light, then the flat Earth idea is debunked here.

Quote
If the earth were a spinning ball, centrifugal force would cause the equator to bulge out a little causing cities near the equator to be farther from the center of the earth than cities farther away from the equator. Below is an image to show this:

This is correct. No scientist will deny the fact that the Earth is slightly bulged. But the bulge is so small relative to the Earth that if you are far enough away to take a photo of the whole planet, you would see nothing. Surely you would not see a bulge represented in your photo. Because of how relatively small the bulge is the the overall mass and circumference of the Earth, difference in gravity is negligible up to 0.001%, far more precise than your "experiment" has the power to measure.

Quote
I used an iPhone 7 video camera to record myself jumping, then analyzed the video frame by frame to measure my acceleration.

Unless you insert a precisely measured board with evenly spaced lines behind you, there's no way to accurately calculate your acceleration down to the precise measurements you described.

Quote
I also knew how far I was jumping from the camera with great accuracy (to within micrometers).

Do you even know how small a micrometer is? The humidity of the air you're in could change the compression of the fabric in your shoes enough to skew results by micrometers. How straightened your toes are. What kind of measuring device you used. If you don't have the budget to purchase a camera better than an iPhone, then you certainly don't have the budget to purchase a device capable of measuring down to the micrometer.

Quote
I also measured my height to within micrometers.

Same thing... Depending on how you slept last night can affect your bone structure and muscle compression up to a matter of half an inch, let alone micrometers. I just laughed out loud at this point. Because you Mose surely are bull shitting us.

Please let me know if you disagree with any of my points.

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2017, 11:11:06 PM »
Erm, am I imagining it or has OP admitted this was a prank?

And you guys are still arguing?

This is insane... Inflatearth give it up man, you're making all these ridiculous posts and threads and just clogging up the genuinely interesting debate going on between other members.

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #46 on: July 24, 2017, 07:04:38 PM »
Erm, am I imagining it or has OP admitted this was a prank?

And you guys are still arguing?

This is insane... Inflatearth give it up man, you're making all these ridiculous posts and threads and just clogging up the genuinely interesting debate going on between other members.
Yeah, it's a prank

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #47 on: July 24, 2017, 10:59:36 PM »



Just because InFlatEarth keeps arguing that he wanted to see the data: It was presented exactly there. The 200 data points he was looking for. In the OP. As this arguments spans several threads I will just post it here, please cite it whenever he starts spouting BS again.

*

Pezevenk

  • 15095
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #48 on: July 24, 2017, 11:08:24 PM »
Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.

When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.

I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.

I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0

In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they canít do the physics.

But Iím curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.

I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.

Good luck

The guy is obviously a troll and you still think he's serious. Lol.

Actually forget about it. You're probably a troll too.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #49 on: July 24, 2017, 11:18:33 PM »
Explain this

Quote
The time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.

Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

*

Mikey T.

  • 2892
Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #50 on: July 25, 2017, 04:52:23 AM »


I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.



There is zero truth in this statement.  After seeing your blustering about show me the math, but never any correct math from you.  You show a real lack of physics understanding to ever have gotten through the physics classes required for mechanical engineering.  Of course you could have bought yourself an online degree like that Brian Mullins guy from balls out physics.  Some of your arguments remind me of him.
If you did attend a university, please let me know.  I have 4 teenagers, and they must never attend this fake college.

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2017, 04:53:26 AM »
Explain this

Quote
The time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.

Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false

Keep it in a single thread, stop spamming all over the place.

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2017, 05:15:58 AM »
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.

I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.

But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:

fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc =  rand([2 100]);
fluc2 =  (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');

I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)


Like I said the guy the guy was a fraud.

The lesson to learn from this is how the flat-tard straw clutchers zoomed in wanting to lap up this fraud crap out of shear desperation. There was no need to crunch numbers to disprove it as his whole claim was so bogus as to be laughable, but the real joke is on the gullible flat-tards who swallowed it hook line and everything.


Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2017, 07:00:47 AM »
The guy was a fraud, but was he a Flat Earther or a Spherical Earther that posted nonsense to make the Flat Earth look bad.

That is the real question, is it not.

But he did prove a point. You first attack, without even looking at the data!!!
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #54 on: July 25, 2017, 09:08:07 AM »
The guy was a fraud, but was he a Flat Earther or a Spherical Earther that posted nonsense to make the Flat Earth look bad.

That is the real question, is it not.

But he did prove a point. You first attack, without even looking at the data!!!
How about that map?  Or your calculations on the size of the sun and moon?  Anything?

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #55 on: July 25, 2017, 09:27:31 AM »
The guy was a fraud, but was he a Flat Earther or a Spherical Earther that posted nonsense to make the Flat Earth look bad.

That is the real question, is it not.

But he did prove a point. You first attack, without even looking at the data!!!
How about that map?  Or your calculations on the size of the sun and moon?  Anything?

Rome was not built in a day...

A songs for you, but you are probably too young to remember them when they came out



To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2017, 10:00:11 AM »
The guy was a fraud, but was he a Flat Earther or a Spherical Earther that posted nonsense to make the Flat Earth look bad.

That is the real question, is it not.

But he did prove a point. You first attack, without even looking at the data!!!
How about that map?  Or your calculations on the size of the sun and moon?  Anything?

Rome was not built in a day...

A songs for you, but you are probably too young to remember them when they came out


But a map should be easy.  Just make it fit known observations.
And I'm pretty sure I am older than you.

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #57 on: July 25, 2017, 10:07:04 AM »
The guy was a fraud, but was he a Flat Earther or a Spherical Earther that posted nonsense to make the Flat Earth look bad.

That is the real question, is it not.

But he did prove a point. You first attack, without even looking at the data!!!

No. I looked at the data and concluded that given the proposed method his data are not believable. You, on the other hand, blindly defended him. So I agree, he did prove a point. That you blindly and stupidly defend every argument in favor of a flat earth, no matter how fake or desperate it is.

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2017, 10:10:11 AM »
What data, and he did prove a point, you first attack and then ask questions!!!!

Who asked to see the data first?

Must I remind you that I asked him to post it on the Thread...
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Re: More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!
« Reply #59 on: July 25, 2017, 11:22:27 AM »
What data, and he did prove a point, you first attack and then ask questions!!!!

Who asked to see the data first?

Must I remind you that I asked him to post it on the Thread...

He also proved another point, that you hang onto anything that supports your claims, even if it's fake and you don't have the knowledge to notice it. What else have you hung unto that is/was fake?

Let that be a lesson for the future.

Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.

When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.

I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.

I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0

In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they canít do the physics.

But Iím curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.

I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.

Good luck

This is you brown nosing all over the place.

Have some self respect, you got rekt here, accept it and move on, doing that doesn't diminish the idea of a flat earth (although the idea itself has a lot of evidence contradicting it) but is hilarious at best seeing you being fooled by not being critical as much as you state to be.

Also, using a quote from Werner Von Braun as signature? Woah man...
« Last Edit: July 25, 2017, 11:43:36 AM by simba »