Boats Over The Horizon

Perspective ans distance shrink objects.
In ALL directions
Updown leftright.

So why
why!
Why do tall things lose only their bottoms to "parabolas?"

Why you keep dodging this question

Wrong.

They make objects appear to shrink. Just as they make objects appear to warp near the horizon.

If you don't understand the difference between appearance and reality, you're the one we should have been calling delusional all along.

You can ask an Episcopal what the difference is between bread and wine symbolically becoming the body and blood of Christ (as most Protestants believe) and literally changing to the body and blood of Christ (as Catholics believe).
Likewise, you can ask a construction worker the difference between a bridge that looks curved because of architectural tricks and optical illusion on account of being long, and where the supports are actually leaning away from each other. The construction worker knows that his bridge doesn't actually curve. They built it solidly, and they have pride in their work.

Objevts likewise appear to shrink. People are not able to reach tiny doors at the end of a hallway, like that scene in Willy Wonka.

Appears to. Appears to! That's what I've been trying to impress upon you here.

Curvature theory states that world has to be round because objects like water curve at the horizon. Parabola theory says that objects only appear to curve, and in fact water behaves exactly the same whether in a bath, and Olympic sized swimming pool, or the entire surface of the Earth.

You can't accept the basic reality that some things are only appearances because it might require accepting that theory you don't wanna accept. Yet you proceed to tell me that I am only seeing the appearance of the sun orbiting the Earth, and it is really the other way around (hypocritical much). Yes, there are some things about the sunset that are optical illusions. But I know the difference between someone circling around me and me circling around them. Why don't I feel the motion of Earth? No, that question was rhetorical, you don't get to answer that. There isn't any!

I just answered this question with the obelisk. For the same reason they lose their tops if you are standing too close. And you are free to decide why that is, but the one thing not cool about all this is you not knowing the difference between appearance and actually affecting things. If we make a long hike (say 20 miles in a day), we do not have to adjust for the curve.

Ahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

This is amazing.
I really thought people got smaller as they walked away

Haha, yeah.

 

Parabola theory says that objects only appear to curve,

Then how are laser range finders accurate.

You never answered the question…

When I was in the military.  I was able to shoot popup targets at 300 yards that represented a person from the waist up.  With peep sights. Say with my rifle level, the target was 300 yards straight north with the top of the target 3 feet below by rifle leveled.  A second target with the base of the target six feet above my leveled rifle.  Let’s put that on a x,y,x plane.  Both targets 300 yards out on the x axis.  One target -1 yard in the z axis.  The other target 2 yards in the z axis. Measured by laser rangefinder by distance off the origin point.  Height measured off the x axis. 

Where would these targets be in the coordinate system for your parabola? Why is there no adjustments to correct for the parabola delusion?

Or for these shooters shooting out to 1000 yards..



For the parabola delusion to change a flat earth fantasy to appear curved, there has to be something to cause light to change direction.

There is no evidence of such a force / object in the context you present.  There is no evidence of any source of force/objects causing such a distortion. 


There is no evidence of people walking around with something like stack exhaust surrounding them to distort light. 1000’s of times larger.

If you don't understand the difference between appearance and reality, you're the one we should have been calling delusional all along.

Ignoring refraction, diffraction and gravitational lensing, light travels in straight lines.
Perspective is a logical result of this.
If you construct a straight line, passing level through your eyes (or measuring device), and continue it past the object, such that the object is a distance h above the line, measured perpendicular to the line, and the distance from your eyes (or measuring device) to the point on the line nearest the object is d, then the angle of elevation of the object will be given by arctan(h/d).

You can also look at the angular size of an object by looking at 2 points on it. The simplest way to do this is to instead construct your line directly from your eyes to the object, and h is the total height of the object.
This gives the angular size as 2*arctan(h/(2d).

It isn't that objects appear smaller, it is that the angular size of the object is smaller.

The construction worker knows that his bridge doesn't actually curve.

Prove it.

Curvature theory states that world has to be round because objects like water curve at the horizon.

The RE theory states that Earth is round, because this is what explains so many observations.
But more importantly we can go the other way.
For this, we observe the angular size of the boat shrink as the boat goes into the distance, until it reaches the horizon. After this point the angular size continues to shrink, but it also becomes quite apparent that the angular position is getting lower, with the lower portions of the boat being obstructed by the horizon.
Unless the boat is actually sinking into the water, this requires the water to be curved to allow the view of the bottom of the boat to be obstructed.

Parabola theory says that objects only appear to curve

And that is pretty much it.
It provides no explanation of what is actually happening.
As shown, your delusional parabola should result in the top of the object being cut off, not the bottom.
Likewise, it shouldn't just magically make it appear to sink into the water.
It has no explanatory power, it has no evidence to support it.
In short, it is just a pathetic excuse to pretend Earth is flat.

in fact water behaves exactly the same whether in a bath, and Olympic sized swimming pool, or the entire surface of the Earth.

Yes, following the curvature of Earth.

You can't accept the basic reality

No, that would be you. Still clinging to a flat Earth even though you cannot offer any proof of it, nor can you refute the RE, nor can you refute the evidence showing Earth is round.
Instead you just come up with pathetic excuses like your parabola, which explain nothing, and which you refuse to actually defend.

Again, this is an diagram of a boat crossing your parabola:

It is clear that the top and front are outside the parabola, and thus shouldn't be visible, while the bottom at the back is inside and should still be visible.
This directly contradicts what is observed in reality.
This shows your parabola is nonsense.

Yet you refuse to even discuss it.

What you instead need is something more like this:

Notice that the parabola is now upside down, to correctly show how the bottom disappears first.
But you also need that magic on the left to pull down things there to make them appear below.
This is simply the result of showing what should happen on a round Earth, and then making Earth flat for no reason at all other than you desperately wanting Earth to be flat.

Yet you proceed to tell me that I am only seeing the appearance of the sun orbiting the Earth, and it is really the other way around (hypocritical much).

Do you mean for its yearly cycle or daily cycle?
If the latter, no, that isn't an orbit. That would be magically circling a point.

If the daily cycle was the sun orbiting Earth it would be summer in England and Australia at the same time, and summer would slowly shift in latitude over the course of a year.

But there is a big difference.
What you are describing here is the visual observation of relative motion.
With this, you cannot tell if you are turning around or if the sun is circling a point on a axis passing through or close to you.
What allows you to distinguish them are more accurate observations, like that of a laser ring gyroscope that measures the rotation of Earth, or explanatory power, where a RE rotating on its axis while orbiting the sun due to gravity it quite simple and explains the observations, while there is no explanation for why the sun should magically circle a point (and no, gravity wont help as there is nothing there to be attracted to).

But I know the difference between someone circling around me and me circling around them.

How?
Because you are desperate to want it to be?

Why don't I feel the motion of Earth?

Why don't I feel the motion of plane flying at almost 1000 km/hr?
Because you don't feel motion.
What you feel is a force being transferred through you.
You feel the wind when pushes against your face, because the part of your body under your face is pushing back to hold your face in place.
You feel acceleration in a car, because the seat is pushing into your back which then transfers the force through the rest of your body.
You feel weight when you are holding up a heavy object, because a force is being transferred through your arms and the rest of your body to hold it up.

You don't feel constant velocity, because there isn't a force being transferred through your body to maintain it.
You don't feel acceleration by a force like gravity because it acts on your entire body, not merely one part of it like the seat does, so it doesn't require the force to be transferred through your body. This is also what lead to it being labelled an inertial force, with the alternative understanding of curved spacetime, with you following a geodesic through it instead of accelerating, and instead seeing you standing on Earth's surface being Earth accelerating you upwards, which you do feel, in a manner identical to you being in a sealed box being accelerated upwards.

So before such ignorant questions of why don't you feel the motion of Earth you should start by explaining just what you should feel with a proper justification, starting with the basics of what is actually felt.

No, that question was rhetorical, you don't get to answer that. There isn't any!

You hating reality doesn't mean we don't get to answer your question.
There is quite simple answer.
You wanting to reject that answer means you want to be wilfully to cling to your fantasy.
We don't need to support your wilful rejection of reality.

I just answered this question with the obelisk.

Which is a clear demonstration that you are wrong.
You don't see the top of the obelisk when you are close because the side blocks the view.
Again:

There is no need to invoke your delusional garbage.
Your delusional garbage doesn't help explain it at all.

If we make a long hike (say 20 miles in a day), we do not have to adjust for the curve.

And this is just more ignorant garbage.
Just how do you think you would need to adjust for the curve?
So many FEers love to spout ignorant garbage like this, acting like a RE would require you to adjust for the curve for every step you take; while being completely incapable of describing just what adjustments would need to be made.
Those who try to make claims about what adjustments need to be made typically describe what would happen if their fantasy FE was magically made round, but still kept its magical universal down; instead of even attempting to describe what would happen on the real round Earth with gravity.

So tell us, just what adjustments do you think you need to make to adjust for the curve?
Explain them in clear detail, including a justification of why you need to do this.

Haha, yeah.

 

Is he trolling?

Or is he proud of himself that he thinks he taight me something?


Who can know?

OK so i am just going to read through, i may have not been clear in my talk, but hopefully enough so that you guys can clear this up for me.

Quote from: globalist powertrooper on October 15, 2022, 01:14:39 AM

but if you look closely you will see there is the whole ship in view but very faded and no immediatley visible, but indeed fully above the horizon in the last frame of the video. this is a shortenede verdion of the video and it may not be there, i will try to find the other vid if this isnot it.

I am not seeing it.   If you crop zoom, it’s clear the boat is blocked physically from view by being over the horizon.



Vs



Not sure the boat is in the last frames.  There are birds and items in the last few frames…




Anyway.  The subject throughly exploded at this thread…
Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

With video of a large ship going beyond the horizon. 

Sorry, to say the boat in the second vid is in the last few frames is an error, it is before taht by about 5 sec, did you  honestly not realize this though....pls tell me. So looking at it again, it may or may not be the whole boat, but is much more of the sail than what was shown and supposed to be blocked by curve in prev part of vid. Soin my mind mind it pretty much ammounts to you guys saying at some point there is an obscurring of the bottom of objects... at some point.

Sorry, to say the boat in the second vid is in the last few frames is an error, it is before taht by about 5 sec, did you  honestly not realize this though....pls tell me. So looking at it again, it may or may not be the whole boat, but is much more of the sail than what was shown and supposed to be blocked by curve in prev part of vid. Soin my mind mind it pretty much ammounts to you guys saying at some point there is an obscurring of the bottom of objects... at some point.

Care to provide a timestamp of a frame from the video to show what you are talking about?
By second video do you mean this one here:
?
If so, I don't see an issue with it.
Do you mean how they transitioned to another clip zoomed in more?
If so, that doesn't appear to be showing more of the boat, just that it is zoomed in more.

Also, care to try explaining how the bottom is clearly being obscured with the boat appearing to sink, if Earth is flat?
What is obstructing the view? How is the boat appearing to sink?

Wrong.

Parabola theory says that objects only appear to curve,

How are these two different sets of towers parallel on the horizon?





With no sign /indication of these distortions:


https://www.vision-doctor.com/en/optical-errors/distortion.html

In your parabola delusion where the “lensing” effect has to be powerful enough to hide the sun at sunset on the flat earth fantasy?


How would laser range finders be accurate in that your parabola delusion is actually distorting the media the laser travels through?   

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 18, 2022, 06:44:59 AM

Haha, yeah.

 

Is he trolling?

Or is he proud of himself that he thinks he taight me something?

Who can know?

You can always ask me.

I'm having a laugh, as it is absurd. I was visualizing people dropping in height as they walked away, gradually becoming the size of mouse, and smaller.

When I was in the military. 

That's all you need to say. You were broken at basic training, taught not to think or question orders, and then told facts and told to accept them. If you have to lift the gun in order for it to fire furtherwhy is it that snipers are found at ground level? They shouldn't be able to hit anything at range, but yet they seem able to blast the eye off a crow. How is it that they are not forced to stand or tilt their weapons upward?

Oh you haven't thought of that? Relax, I have. See, what we are working with is several generations of weapons. Older pistols are made and remade because people like them, but the speed isn't actually accurate. (A doppler radar measures speed by bouncing sound waves at it like a bat, but this means sound distortion can give a false read. Pistols have alot of energy wasted as sound) So no, I do not think a bullet from a pistol is going as fast as we say. It's faster than a bow, but loud as fuck in comparison. I do think a rifle moves at speeds approaching that of a pistol, but if either moved steadily (without reduction of momentum) at such speeds, and the atmosphere curves, we should expect bullets in outer space. In actuality, a sniper can fire just fine when he is on a high ledge, gunning down people from a mile or two with no sweat. A pistol on the other hand, I tried from the firing range at twenty feet, and I don't think I even hit the paper (nearsighted and wasn't wearing glasses that day). It's a weak weapon with too much hype from my experience. A bow? Not that strong, but you can actually see the object hit the target even without glasses. For firing range, if anything I did not have to point up, which sent the arrow much farther. You're angling up to create arc. Nothing else. Not fighting a curvature. Just creating arc for a longer trajectory.

That's all you need to say. You were broken

All he needs to say for you to come up with a pathetic excuse to dismiss what he says.

Of course you would never rationally respond to the argument, because that would require admitting you are wrong.

If you have to lift the gun in order for itto fire furtherwhy is it that snipers are found at ground level? ... How is it that they are not forced to stand or tilt their weapons upward?

"Ground level" is quite misleading here.
Snipers can be found in all sorts of locations, including the tops of mountain, at "ground level", or in tall buildings.
As the surface of Earth isn't perfectly level, a sniper can be at ground level, while still being well above others.
Additionally, what makes you think they aren't tilting their weapon upwards?

Oh you haven't thought of that? Relax, I have.

So you should know that what you are spouting is pure BS.
Or is what you really mean that desperate to try and pretend they are wrong, you thought of excuses without actually thinking about the nonsense excuses you have come up with?
Just like your parabola BS.
Which you are still fleeing from.

You have clear evidence that your fantasy doesn't work, so you come up with nonsense, have it refuted and ignore the refutation.

A doppler radar measures speed by bouncing sound waves at it like a bat

Wrong again. It is even in the name.
Radar uses radio waves, not sound waves.
It looks like yet again you are trying to think of pathetic excuses without even thinking them through.

But the common devices to measure bullet speed don't use radar. Instead they simply time how long it takes for a bullet to pass between 2 sensors.

I do not think a bullet from a pistol is going as fast as we say

And what you think doesn't matter.
The speeds of pistols shots have been objectively measured. You not liking that measurement because it doesn't fit your fantasy doesn't magically make your fantasy correct or reality wrong.

if either moved steadily (without reduction of momentum) at such speeds, and the atmosphere curves, we should expect bullets in outer space.

Sure, if we had pure magic so things like gravity ceased to exist, they could end up in outer space, as you could by just jumping.
Yet again you just spout garbage with no justification or point, all to pretend there is a problem.


Now again, care to address the issue at hand?
How does your magic parabola hide the bottom of the boat first and how does it magically make the boat appear to sink?

Again, the simple I have provided indicates the boat should vanish from the top down, without the parabola changing its angular position.

That's all you need to say. You were broken at basic training,

How was I broken?  My career path after the military required critical thinking, a scientific background that was provided by the military, knowledge of power plants, and able to react rationally to process / personnel emergencies.

And spherical earth was only taught in terms of navigation and distance firing solutions.

Let’s stop here, with this.

What navy in the world has a tactical advantage, better firing solutions, more accurate targeting and targeting computers, able to bring ships faster on station with less fuel because they navigate the word as flat? 


Added this below because your utterly ridiculous.

taught not to think or question orders, and then told facts and told to accept them.

One.  You have an obligation to evaluate all orders if they are lawful.

Two.  What you posted is quite the opposite for working in a navy power plant.  Often as enlisted you may have years, and some decades, of experience operating the plant that the junior officers in charge don’t have.  It is your job to question all orders as being sound in operating principles, not violating procedure unless under threat of loosing the ship, and if they are lawful with US and maritime law.

pistol on the other hand, I tried from the firing range at twenty feet, and I don't think I even hit the paper (nearsighted and wasn't wearing glasses that day). It's a weak weapon with too much hype from my experience

Pistol weak?

Firearms are like knives.  Lots of different designs for different applications, doesn’t mean any one knife isn’t sharp.  Just like any one gun isn’t “weak”

Cartilage used usually as a revolver round.

.454 Casull

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.454_Casull

Vs something usually used as a rifle round.

.223 Remington

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 18, 2022, 01:43:57 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 18, 2022, 06:44:59 AM

Haha, yeah.

 

Is he trolling?

Or is he proud of himself that he thinks he taight me something?

Who can know?

You can always ask me.

What in the ever loving fuck was all of that inane, insane garbage of a ramble about pistols, arrows, missing glasses and whatever the fuck all about?  Are you just completely high on mesc?

I’ve rarely seen someone make zero sense using so many words aside from a street corner junkie completely off their meds. Holy shit. Please say you are just trolling otherwise get some lithium and quick.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2022, 06:40:08 AM

pistol on the other hand, I tried from the firing range at twenty feet, and I don't think I even hit the paper (nearsighted and wasn't wearing glasses that day). It's a weak weapon with too much hype from my experience

Pistol weak?

Firearms are like knives.  Lots of different designs for different applications, doesn’t mean any one knife isn’t sharp.  Just like any one gun isn’t “weak”

Cartilage used usually as a revolver round.

Quote

.454 Casull

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.454_Casull

Vs something usually used as a rifle round.

Quote

.223 Remington

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

Yes, pistols suck.



While you are cocking, disarming safety, aiming, and all that, some guy can rush you with a knife. You will be dead. This is at about 20 ft range or so. Btw, the effective firing range of a pistol? Around 0-75 ft, with alot of fights taking place around 20 ft, just the right range to be knifed in the belly. Yes, pistols suck. Don't get me wrong, bows suck too, because you manual load them. But to answer Stash's question, a bow allows you to see (and retrieve) the projectile, and adjust your shot. It also gives you a reality check. Weapons have range. Weapons lose speed. Then weapons begin to fall.

See, gun-fans have this complex where they forget their weapon actually has range and think that somehow it would be able to continue forever if not for this fanciful notion of curvature. In fact, when asked Quora this very question, I got:

You can fire a pistol in a spaceship towards empty space. Given its speed and the expansion of the universe it might well go on forever as anything it was headed towards expands away until the heat death of the universe. If you mean from Earth, you fire it on top of Everest at a 45 degree angle towards the lowest spot.

This is literally the level of delusion that gun owners have about guns. All because they can't see the bullet fly. Sorry, but it isn't curvature or even air resistance that slows a weapon down. Propulsion doesn't continue forever, and an object loses momentum. Simple as that.

No, bullets cannot fire forever in space, and if you fired it straight out from Everest, someone carefully watching with binoculars would see it drop as it loses speed. Likewise, you could test the momentum of the bullet by measuring two parallel gunners, one with a line of targets to penetrate (let's say plates) and the other shooting the same number of targets but from 150 ft away. Yes, guns definitely lose speed and piercing power, as do all weapons.



Watch in particular the loss of power in the throwing knives. From a distance they just bounce off, but up closer they pierce. And you can see how the half-decent bow penetrates one shield or so, and the top-tier one penetrates about four. Meanwhile, the .22 doesn't do much penetration. Like gun-owners everywhere, they are convinced of the penetrating power of the gun ("It's a .22 Mag, it had to have gone through"). Sure guy, that's why cops trust the shielding power of riot shields. The arrow penetrates because momentum adds the weight of projectile. Yeah, even a good knife at close range pierces the shield, and bow certainly does, but you can see just how fucking puny .22 are.

It's not the curvature. Pistol range and power is a joke.

Even the shotgun, got stopped by one shield at distant range, and two shields at close range. None came close to penetrating four shields like the crossbow. It really is the power transferred by the long shaft of the weapon.

Oh, and here's an old military propaganda film about bow hunting.



So now you see, you shouldn't be trusting even a shotgun, you should leave home defense to your crossbow or longbow.

An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Wjats the big thing underneath everest?
The reeeeeallly big thing?

 Sorry, but it isn't curvature or even air resistance that slows a weapon down. Propulsion doesn't continue forever, and an object loses momentum. Simple as that.

In addition to what Stash posted.

Why would “curvature” slow a bullet down.   Why do you try to drag ground into this while ignoring the atmosphere is the medium the bullet travels through.  Unless your just shooting right into the ground…

And yes.  Air resistance/friction is a real thing, and is what eats away at the bullet’s speed once the initial explosion that propelled the bullet is done.

We know this because the shape of the bullet effects the amount of drag produced by the bullet and changes the speed and distance a bullet travels. 

The Open Tip Match vs. Very Low Drag Bullet

https://www.darkearthtactical.co.za/blog/the-best-bullets-for-long-range-precision/

The Open Tip Match (OTM) bullet, sometimes referred to as a boat-tail hollow-point, is a target bullet that was designed for long range accuracy. For many years the open tip match bullet was classed as the best bullet for long range precision.

This was until Very Low Drag (VLD) bullets came to be known. These bullets are longer and more sleek in character, with a long secant ogive. They overcome air and wind resistance far better than any other bullet, and are often the modern bullet of choice for long range shooting.

Ballistic Coefficient, commonly referred to as the bullet’s BC, is the measure of a projectile’s exterior ballistic performance, and how well the bullet penetrates and overcomes air resistance during flight.

https://www.darkearthtactical.co.za/blog/the-best-bullets-for-long-range-precision/

So many words, yet still refusing to address the issue and even attempt to explain how your magical parabola magically makes the boat disappear from the bottom up and appear to sink, instead of vanishing from the top down as would be expected with a parabola limiting the range.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 19, 2022, 01:42:40 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 19, 2022, 06:40:08 AM

pistol on the other hand, I tried from the firing range at twenty feet, and I don't think I even hit the paper (nearsighted and wasn't wearing glasses that day). It's a weak weapon with too much hype from my experience

Yes, pistols suck.

So you go from "weak" to "suck", and focus on time it takes to do things with it, rather than muzzle velocity and bullet energy/momentum.

See, gun-fans have this complex where they forget their weapon actually has range and think that somehow it would be able to continue forever if not for this fanciful notion of curvature.

No, they don't.
That is just your fantasy.
No one thinks curvature will slow down a bullet or stop it.
Curvature allows it to go further than it otherwise would have. And if you manage to make it go fast enough (around 8 km/s), without air resistance to slow it down, it could keep going forever around Earth.

In fact, when asked Quora this very question

What very question?
The response indicates it is focusing on firing a gun in empty space.

This is literally the level of delusion that gun owners have about guns. All because they can't see the bullet fly. Sorry, but it isn't curvature or even air resistance that slows a weapon down. Propulsion doesn't continue forever, and an object loses momentum. Simple as that.

You are one of those delusional nutters?
What magically causes it to slow down?

All the available evidence indicates you need a force to accelerate an object, and that includes slowing it down.
On Earth, most things "slow down" due to air resistance or other forms of friction.

An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Why Newton was an idiot hack. I place an object (stapler) precariously at the edge of a table. It is still at motion when I drop it, maybe that's staying at motion? I try again, this time only sliding it to the edge and taking my hands off carefully. If it do this suddenly, I may cause it to wobble and fall even if not strictly at the edge. But I carefully move my hand back from the object after holding it steady, and depending on how close to the edge, it is an object at rest that nevertheless immediately becomes an object at motion. Because of gravity? No, because massive objects cannot be more than 2/3 or so of an edge before it's own mass moves it. At any kind of wobble, it will stay in motion.

I try the same experiment with a non-massive object (handkerchief) being more then 2/3 on a table. it nudges a centimeter (becoming an object at motion from an object at rest), then stops again (becoming an object at rest). Its mass is not enough for 2/3, I have to stop and release at... closer to 5/6.

With an object in motion, Newton is claiming that a person  standing in a room of endless size (like the void of The Good Place) with a space suit with all air sucked out (thus no air resistance) using arrows that don't create drag (and a lot of other forces removed by one means or another) can simply fire endlessly forever.

But let's assume he doesn't know what he is talking about. And let's assume I continue walking and find the arrow. No air resistance as in it. No friction or drag. It should have kept going. Newton says that gravity suddenly acted on this object, or maybe that it cumulatively added to it. But I say that the object had a limited amount of force applied to propel it, and once all that momentum was spent, even without other forces acting on it, Newton is wrong, wrong, and dead wrong. Period.forces

 Yes wind resistance and other things matter. But in the end, it's total momentum, affected by distance. Only a weapon that does not lose momentum can stay in motion. I can't even stay in motion at a brisk run for 1/2 mile. I slow to a walk. How then can he make this outrageous claim which applied not just to objects but living things?

Hell, unless the floor is weak, both the stapler and the handkerchief stop not long after hitting it. But if the floor is weak, I as an object standing at rest, will become an object in motion when it cracks.

 i beleive i asked a question that was not adressed. does a smaller and smaller paret of the top of boat get stretched taking place of the whole image. if not pls explainwhat is going on here. i think it is possibly the horizon ramps up to the vanishing poiint and then what ever horizon phenoimenon is taking place at the time takes effect resulting in lots of different stuff, but you can always see to far, even though the bottom is obscured.

not to negate my prev post but can anyone offer a explanation that shows thoroughly that the mainstream exdplanation of the finer pooints of boats over horizon is correct. like actually showing the numbers in a proof or something ezam[ple explained thoroughly. not to mention, the boat should alrfeady be blocked out by horizon at that opooint or what...

yes
walk over a hill
things disappear bottom-up.




life can't be that complicated.

Quote from: Stash on October 22, 2022, 12:00:42 AM

An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Why Newton was an idiot hack.

Oh lawdy me. The sheer hubris alone is ridiculous.

Go ahead, show us the math you use to calculate objects in freefall, stasis, forces imparted, inertia, etc., and how engineers around the world should use your calculations instead of Newton's.

You really are great at fleeing from topics.
You take a single statement, which was already quite far from the topic, and run with it to avoid admitting your fantasy fails.

Once more, how does your magic BS parabola cause boats to appear to sink and disappear from the bottom up?
Can you actually address this? If not, can you be honest and admit you have no explanation?

Why Newton was an idiot hack.

Because he performed experiments to better understand reality which demonstrates your fantasy is false?
That doesn't make him an idiot or a hack.
If anything, it makes you an idiot hack for rejecting reality and spouting pure garbage to try to prop up your delusional fantasy.

But I carefully move my hand back from the object after holding it steady, and depending on how close to the edge, it is an object at rest that nevertheless immediately becomes an object at motion.

No, it doesn't.
If I carefully balance a stapler right at the edge of a table, it remains there until something knocks it.
If I bring it close to the point of balance and then nudge it so it goes just over the point of balance, then it is moving, slowly at first, but being accelerated by gravity to cause it to fall.

No, because massive objects cannot be more than 2/3 or so of an edge before it's own mass moves it.

This depends entirely upon the distribution of mass in the object (and assuming it isn't being held down by something).
If it has a uniform mass distribution, or at least a symmetrical mass distribution (symmetric about an axis perpendicular to the way it is being moved), then it can't be more than 1/2 off the edge without falling.
But if the mass distribution is highly asymmetric, you can have almost the entire object off the edge, but if you turn it around, just putting a bit off the edge is enough.
A great example of this from the modern day is a fishing rod.
A fishing rod can be quite long, but will typically have a balance point just above where the reel is.
If you stick just the bottom of the rod, past the reel off the edge of the table, it will fall.
But if you do it the other way, you can have almost the entire rod off the table, without it falling.

But let's assume he doesn't know what he is talking about. And let's assume I continue walking and find the arrow.

So what you are saying is "Lets assume reality is wrong, and my fantasy is true instead".
While we are at it, why not just assume that the arrow magically gains sentience, gets a big evil grin on its face and starts chasing the archer around the room, because why not?

Yes wind resistance and other things matter. But in the end, it's total momentum, affected by distance.

No, in the end it is resistance and gravity.
Resistance acting to slow the projectile down, and gravity acting to cause it to fall to Earth.

Only a weapon that does not lose momentum can stay in motion.

And the only way to lose momentum is by a force acting on the object.

I can't even stay in motion at a brisk run for 1/2 mile.

Due to the nature of how you run.
You need to keep your legs moving to keep up the pace. If you stop, then the frictional force between your foot and the ground will stop you.

But put yourself on a bike/skateboard/scooter and see how much easier it is.
Now, they have bearings and wheels allowing you to roll.
You no longer need to spend all that energy moving your legs back and forth to keep going. Now if you stop, the wheels allow you to continue.

If there was truly some magical momentum sucking thing which causes you to stop then you should travel a comparable distance running while holding a bike, and by riding that same bike.
Yet we know people will be able to run a shorter distance while carrying something that not carrying it, and they can travel much further, even with a load, while on a bike.

Hell, unless the floor is weak, both the stapler and the handkerchief stop not long after hitting it. But if the floor is weak, I as an object standing at rest, will become an object in motion when it cracks.

Because of gravity acting on it.

i beleive i asked a question that was not adressed. does a smaller and smaller paret of the top of boat get stretched taking place of the whole image. if not pls explainwhat is going on here.

No, it doesn't get stretched. It appears to sink, with the bottom being obstructed by the horizon.

i think it is possibly the horizon ramps up to the vanishing poiint

And this is demonstrably wrong as the horizon is observed below the vanishing point.

but you can always see to far, even though the bottom is obscured.

When?
You are yet to provide a single example of where you can see to far which takes into consider the observer height, the distance to the object being seen and refraction (even standard refraction).

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 03, 2022, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: Stash on October 22, 2022, 12:00:42 AM

An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Why Newton was an idiot hack.

Oh lawdy me. The sheer hubris alone is ridiculous.

Go ahead, show us the math you use to calculate objects in freefall, stasis, forces imparted, inertia, etc., and how engineers around the world should use your calculations instead of Newton's.

I will when you prove to me that Sir Isaac Newton was actually responsible for his own physics formulas. You see, Newton wasn't a physicist. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a natural philosopher.
To put this in context, this is the equivalent of a mystery writer actually solving mysteries. Outside of Castle, forget that notion.

Prove to me that Newton's formulas weren't made up by someone else years later. Even so, I don't deal in phony formulas. I wouldn't know when to subtract and when to divide. But I do have a very keen sense of fiction. if we're gonna go with credentials that don't add up, as a result of writing novels, I know nonsense when I see it.

But this theory is very easy to test as false. Drop an bullet rather than firing it. No wind resistance, no deal with forward momentum (so you can't say it is affected somehow by curvature). No nothing really.
According to Newton, this object, now that it is in motion, should continue to be in motion (either drilling through the ground, or moving across it like a torpedo on water).

But that is not what happened. Lacking an arrow, I used a mini crossbow bolt, with a solid plastic back, and a bent metal front (The crossbow suxked, but I kept the bolt as a souvenir). The bolt hit the ground, bounced forward once, and stopped. Just like gravity, This rule isn't a law. It's a lie  written by a known occultist. But it can be disprove by something as simple as dropping an object. Imagine that, Newton's own other theory (also not a law) contradicts this one.

Quote from: Stash on November 03, 2022, 12:22:44 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 03, 2022, 07:30:49 AM

Quote from: Stash on October 22, 2022, 12:00:42 AM

An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Why Newton was an idiot hack.

Oh lawdy me. The sheer hubris alone is ridiculous.

Go ahead, show us the math you use to calculate objects in freefall, stasis, forces imparted, inertia, etc., and how engineers around the world should use your calculations instead of Newton's.

I will when you prove to me that Sir Isaac Newton was actually responsible for his own physics formulas. You see, Newton wasn't a physicist. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a natural philosopher.

He died 3 centuries ago. Physics, science, medicine was all in it's nascent forms at the time. It's not like he was a natural-path in 2005. A ludicrous statement on your part.

To put this in context, this is the equivalent of a mystery writer actually solving mysteries. Outside of Castle, forget that notion.

Umm, no. That's a stupid analogy. The Wright Brothers were bicycle mechanics.  Look where were are today with powered flight...

Prove to me that Newton's formulas weren't made up by someone else years later.

Again, a bizarre notion out of ignorance. You don't know much about aything yet you rail against things you don't even understand.

Philosophić Naturalis Principia Mathematica
Published 1686



It contains everything that you somehow claim came afterward???

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Prinicipia-title.png

Even so, I don't deal in phony formulas.

You don't stand in any position to call them phony wjhen you know nothing about them or how they are used by everyone who needs the calculations - And they have worked quite well for 3 centuries. And then you come along? My goodness, you arrogance and hubris is unbounded.