Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

  • 725 Replies
  • 60701 Views
*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3362
  • God winds the universe
Re: Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.
« Reply #720 on: October 06, 2023, 06:56:58 AM »
remmeber when i said this guy doesn't know how triangles and circles work?

maybe she can realize that as the plane ascends into the sky, she draws a circle and a triangle on a piece of paper and realizes that the horizon moves farther out, just like it is expected to do as the triangle gets taller and taller off the circle, the tangent point to the circle gets farther and farther away.

So in the end you don't have a debate point, just a recycled model. 

You can do the same on a piece of paper using triangles on a flat level ground. Sky, earth, sky, earth. 

Sky

Earth


The sky is curved. The ground is not.

Geez, you ppl aren't even helpful when someone wants a favor.
. The space inside a circle, versus the space atop a circle. The rightmost triangle should be flipped but actually the rest is spot on for looking at an object in the sky. It appears to be climbing up a circle. You aren't standing on a circle.

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.
« Reply #721 on: October 06, 2023, 02:22:29 PM »
The space inside a circle, versus the space atop a circle. The rightmost triangle should be flipped but actually the rest is spot on for looking at an object in the sky. It appears to be climbing up a circle. You aren't standing on a circle.
An object following a circular arc appears vastly different to an object travelling in a straight line.
Objects appearing to follow a circular arc, such as the sun and moon, remain the same size throughout.
Objects appearing to follow a roughly straight line, such as a light in a hallway as you approach it, appears to increase in size.

But the real issue is what happens as it gets very far away, especially approaching the horizon, where it appears to drop below Earth.
No amount of perspective can do that.

But that doesn't really address the comment you were responding to at all.
Nor does it have anything to do with your blatant misrepresentation of buoyancy.

Again, buoyancy relies upon weight, i.e. a force trying to move mass down.
No weight, no buoyancy.
So what causes this weight?

If you want to pretend that is magically buoyancy, then why doesn't the pressure gradient in the atmosphere add to your magic buoyancy and push objects (at least those with comparable density to the air/fluid, but still more dense) up?

Re: Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.
« Reply #722 on: October 06, 2023, 02:51:22 PM »
He was attempting to draw the horizon getting further away the higher you get


Thats how he understands the model.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 3362
  • God winds the universe
Re: Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.
« Reply #723 on: October 06, 2023, 09:51:45 PM »
Wow. You didn't understand what I drew at all. If I really drew higher at farther away, wouldn't it look like a U? You guys are dishonest down to a fundamental level of what you see. What I drew is lower at the edges (or rather appears to be so). Sorta like an umbrella that extends all down. Now, the horizon is further away the higher you get, but not because of that drawing. But this brings up an interesting point. Think about an umbrella that covers the ground but not the area extending from a hill. I can't draw now cuz Kindle, so picture this as a flat hill with domed horizon: (| Now a domed sky on a mountain top: (< Go ahead turn that sideways. One of these hits the ground, and the other extends a ways. Now, let's try this if the land is round and the sky is round. (( The problem with this is that you'd see parallelism between the Earth and sky. You would also see no close effect at the horizon. Or this. <( A triangle atop a circle? Really?!?

*

JackBlack

  • 23451
Re: Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.
« Reply #724 on: October 07, 2023, 01:30:03 AM »
Wow. You didn't understand what I drew at all. If I really drew higher at farther away, wouldn't it look like a U?
And as pointed out before, that, that is really what you need to get the effect that is observed, as well as some magic to then pull the bottom of that U to eye level.
With your fantasy, things should disappear from the top down as they leave the dome.

You guys are dishonest down to a fundamental level of what you see.
Quite the opposite.
You are so dishonest you entirely what is said and respond with nonsense.

The text you were responding to was discussing how as you get higher, the horizon gets further away.
So what was that drawing meant to convey, if not that?
And why did you provide that crap in response, rather than providing something to illustrate the horizon getting further away as you get higher?

I can't draw now cuz Kindle
Wait until you can, because your word based descriptions are horrible.

What we know is that with your parabola limiting your vision to 5km, there is no reason to be able to see further as you get higher.
Why should the parabola get higher, rather than you just moving closer to the top of the parabola?
What magic gives your parabola its size and distance?

And we also know a RE does give the expected result, as has been explained to you repeatedly.
With a spherical Earth, the horizon is merely the location where a line of sight from your eye to Earth is tangent to Earth.
If you get higher, the tangent gets further away.


Re: Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.
« Reply #725 on: October 14, 2023, 04:41:00 AM »
Wow. You didn't understand what I drew at all. If I really drew higher at farther away, wouldn't it look like a U? You guys are dishonest down to a fundamental level of what you see. What I drew is lower at the edges (or rather appears to be so). Sorta like an umbrella that extends all down. Now, the horizon is further away the higher you get, but not because of that drawing. But this brings up an interesting point. Think about an umbrella that covers the ground but not the area extending from a hill. I can't draw now cuz Kindle, so picture this as a flat hill with domed horizon: (| Now a domed sky on a mountain top: (< Go ahead turn that sideways. One of these hits the ground, and the other extends a ways. Now, let's try this if the land is round and the sky is round. (( The problem with this is that you'd see parallelism between the Earth and sky. You would also see no close effect at the horizon. Or this. <( A triangle atop a circle? Really?!?

I didn't understand what you drew either. You really are a shit artist.

Can you even draw stick figures, or is that beyond your artistic scope also?

You and your umbrella. Too many pina coladas with little pink umbrellas in them, for you.