Really, boats would have to sail up hill?

being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill. This would create extraordinary problems with wind. It would present extraordinary problems with general travel.

Bulma.  If you sailed west on the ocean for the RE, when would you ever sail downhill?

Rather than a sailboat, I'll give you a rowboat. Have fun rowing uphill.

There’s all kinds of currents in the ocean.  If you think you know flat, where you butcher level surface, how is that possible in either model?  So Bulma, the only reason in a FE model for currents in the middle of the ocean is water going downhill?   

It's become clear to me, none of the flat earthers on this site are rich enough to own their very own earth globe.

They just need a practical one, that will help them in the real world. In the case of Bulma and Turbo, whose biggest career aspiration is sharpening pencils for somebody, I propose we start a go-fund me page, to get these guys an earth globe pencil sharpener each.

That way, they can fondle a different type of ball, while sharpening pencils and dribbling snot from their noses, and may elevate their understanding of the heliocentric model.

Gravity makes no difference when driving uphill

This is why people hate flat earthers, right out lies like this.

Do you understand anything about driving up hill trying to maintain speed.  Especially if you have driven a car or truck with a manual transmission.  Its easy to understand the vehicle needs more power to maintain speed when you have to press down more on the gas peddle to feed the engine more gas.  And often have to shift down a gear or two and the RPMs are running higher than driving on a level surface for the same speed. 

Forget about driving up hill.  Just by walking up hill you will notice the extra effort required.

Forget about driving up hill.  Just by walking up hill you will notice the extra effort required.

Bulma just likes to say you’re weak.

Flat earthers make claims about being brainwashed, then have to lie about simple undeniable truths.  Flat earthers don’t question, they accept blatant lies like a car doesn’t have to work harder and produce more energy to go up a step hill. Sorry.  Just pointing out the obvious. 

being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill. This would create extraordinary problems with wind. It would present extraordinary problems with general travel.

Just FYI.  When I was stationed in Maine. The work barge was right on the river, near the mouth of the river going out to sea.  When the tide would come in, the lobster boats going out to sea would have to fight the incoming tide to get to the sea. 

Forget about driving up hill.  Just by walking up hill you will notice the extra effort required.

This is correct. But walking uphill and downhill, you are working with angular momentum. A steep enough hill, and you must fight to stop. The same slant that made the climb laborious now makes the walk down an effort not to run ahead into a truck.

The point being do you notice any such push when you build a mile long pool and try to swim across it? What, you aren't rich enough that you can build a mile long pool? I'll spoil it for you: there is no hill in such water.  Having used a canoe a few times, you can typically row there and back unless fighting rapids. Because rapids are where water follows a hill.

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2025, 07:30:47 PM

Forget about driving up hill.  Just by walking up hill you will notice the extra effort required.

This is correct. But walking uphill and downhill, you are working with angular momentum.

*sigh*  No, that isn’t angular momentum.  Please stop making up your own definitions of concepts that are already well defined.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_I_-_Mechanics_Sound_Oscillations_and_Waves_(OpenStax)/11%3A__Angular_Momentum/11.03%3A_Angular_Momentum

The point being do you notice any such push when you build a mile long pool and try to swim across it? What, you aren't rich enough that you can build a mile long pool? I'll spoil it for you: there is no hill in such water.  Having used a canoe a few times, you can typically row there and back unless fighting rapids. Because rapids are where water follows a hill.

How many times do we need to explain to you that the curvature of the earth is not a hill?  Seriously, is there a number?  Are we getting close to that number?  The only people who claim that it is are flat earthers who claim to understand RE, but don’t.

This is correct.

Do you read what was posted?  Or do you babble word salad for the sake of just arguing.

Just FYI.  When I was stationed in Maine. The work barge was right on the river, near the mouth of the river going out to sea.  When the tide would come in, the lobster boats going out to sea would have to fight the incoming tide to get to the sea. Are the boats going up hill when the tide comes in?

Back to the car thing.

When I take a long curve on a flat surface my RPM’s don’t go up.  If I’m driving a manual, I’m not pressing down more on the gas to keep the speed constant.  Often I have to get out of the gas peddle to take a turn on a flat surface.

Quite the opposite for going up hill.  Again, I have to get into the gas to keep the car going a constant speed.  Or even down shift.  Where if it’s going up a hill with a curve, I’m not letting off the gas like I do for a curve on a level surface.

Going up hill takes more power where taking a curve on a level surface takes negligible increase in power.  Or taking a curve often takes getting off the gas or even braking. Where gravity can be used to slow down a car while going up hill if there is a curve in the road.

Remember Bulma, you posted this.

But at the end of the day, there is nothing preventing you from going up a hill nor down it, nor back up.

Bulma, you are the reason people hate flat earthers.  You have zero ability to reason, or so brainwashed you have to right out lie. 


So Bulma, why this sudden invoking of angular momentum.  Bulma, you are just a big contradicting fake. 

this is amazing

It's like trying to reach geography to a monkey.

The monkey has the intelligence, but doesn't have the intellect to apply that intelligence.

it's a circle.
and he's adding a bump to it.

it's amazing.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 12, 2025, 07:38:31 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2025, 07:30:47 PM

Forget about driving up hill.  Just by walking up hill you will notice the extra effort required.

This is correct. But walking uphill and downhill, you are working with angular momentum.

Quote

*sigh*  No, that isn’t angular momentum.  Please stop making up your own definitions of concepts that are already well defined.
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_I_-_Mechanics_Sound_Oscillations_and_Waves_(OpenStax)/11%3A__Angular_Momentum/11.03%3A_Angular_Momentum

If I were to lay a coin on a board, which in turn lies across the top of a bench and put all of this in a room with air but no wind, the coin would just sit there on one side of the board.  Gravity would never intercede to make this coin fall.

O
==============
             | |
             | |
             ++---
             | |     |

Now if I tilted that board just slightly, "gravity" which never existed before now suddenly kicks in due to nothing more than the angle.

What they describe here as angular momentum is radial momentum. That's momentum at a radius.

This is angular momentum.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 12, 2025, 07:38:31 AM

The point being do you notice any such push when you build a mile long pool and try to swim across it? What, you aren't rich enough that you can build a mile long pool? I'll spoil it for you: there is no hill in such water.  Having used a canoe a few times, you can typically row there and back unless fighting rapids. Because rapids are where water follows a hill.

How many times do we need to explain to you that the curvature of the earth is not a hill?  Seriously, is there a number?  Are we getting close to that number?  The only people who claim that it is are flat earthers who claim to understand RE, but don’t.

There supposedly is a number. This number has been checked repeatedly by Eric Dubay, and I have never seen it in any of my travels.

The curvature is effectively looking out into a horizon like so...

=====================
              /|\
            /  |  \
          /    |   \
         /     |    \
        /      |     \
       /       |      \
      /        |       \
     /         |        \
    /          |         \
   /           |          \
  /            |           \
 /             |             \
/              |              \

only paying attention to the middle line, and deciding that since it goes up toward the sky, there must be a hill somewhere that the  sun, planes, birds, and fences go under.  It is a really really stupid way of looking at the world, which is up to you, until you start taking school age children and forcibly enlisting them in your idea. Just as I don't like molesting or abusing children, I don't like that little kids are bullied until they agree with this.

Yes, a sphere would dictate that a small slice of a sphere looks like this: <)

Put that upright, and you have a hill.


Not coincidentally, the same site that gave me both of these pictures moves next to the idea that if you accept globalism, you also accept climate change:

The Long Term Strategy Of United States Pathways To Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2050

I am not paranoid to think that children are abused into accepting an agenda.

But since I reject the whole of Marxist-globalist-environmentalist-space-explorationism, we'll instead focus on how this plays out.

For one mile this is eight inches. But since it's 8 in² and based on pi or radius or whatever, at mile 2, this is 32 rather than 16 inches as I would have thought. At mile 3, the drop is 72 inches; then 128, 200, etc. In the course of just 10 miles, there is a curvature (supposedly) of 66 ft. By 50 miles, where you can technically still see Chicago (when it is 1666 ft of drop), they excuse it away by claiming it is a mirage.

Sorry, but a mirage does not work on a curve.

For the same reason that a flashlight angled straight ahead doesn't really hit a mirror on the bottom of a hill, drop means that light would be doing extremely strange things to even begin to create a mirage. Like, you could only see it at sunset. But in fact:

Broad daylight.
https://www.gps-coordinates.net/distance
42 miles away

Where that image is real or a mirage, the facts don't change.

I drove at one point from the Eastern Shore of Virginia to Seattle, WA. At the 3599 miles, the drop equals the number of miles. This was more than that, with no such adjustment to any roads or bridges or anything really. No such curvature. It fails!

Now if I tilted that board just slightly, "gravity" which never existed before now suddenly kicks in due to nothing more than the angle.

The normal force of the board equals the weight of the object.  When you tilt the board, the weight of the object overcomes the friction of the surface of the board.  Gravity, as a component of weight, was always there.

What they describe here as angular momentum is radial momentum.

No, they're right about angular momentum.  Radial momentum is something else.

This is angular momentum.

No, that's linear acceleration.  Please, stop trying to redefine physics terms.

Not coincidentally, the same site that gave me both of these pictures moves next to the idea that if you accept globalism, you also accept climate change:

If you haven't noticed the weather changing even during your own lifetime, then you haven't been paying attention.

Bulmabriefs144, Virginia to Seattle is from the East Coast of the United States to the West Coast of the United States.

Maybe if you used the correct formula for earth curvature, instead of the flat Earth con man formula, you would have a far more accurate understanding of how much Earth curve you negotiated.

Look at the route you travelled, by looking at a to-scale Earth globe.  If you want to see the curve you travelled, mould a piece of wire on your earth globe between Virginia and Seattle to see the curve. Try and understand the globe earth model again, which you clearly never understood properly in the first place.

It's not that hard, Bulma.

 At the 3599 miles,

What are you babbling about.  If you go around the surface of a sphere, you end up where you started.  On the surface of the sphere.  You don’t magically end up at a higher point above or below the sphere.  You’re still on the surface of the sphere.  Move half way around the sphere, you’re still on the surface of the sphere.  Not magically at an higher point above the surface, not magically below the surface of the sphere. 

If I were to lay a coin on a board,

That wasn’t the argument.

This was..

Just FYI.  When I was stationed in Maine. The work barge was right on the river, near the mouth of the river going out to sea.  When the tide would come in, the lobster boats going out to sea would have to fight the incoming tide to get to the sea. Are the boats going up hill when the tide comes in?

Back to the car thing.

When I take a long curve on a flat surface my RPM’s don’t go up.  If I’m driving a manual, I’m not pressing down more on the gas to keep the speed constant.  Often I have to get out of the gas peddle to take a turn on a flat surface.

Quite the opposite for going up hill.  Again, I have to get into the gas to keep the car going a constant speed.  Or even down shift.  Where if it’s going up a hill with a curve, I’m not letting off the gas like I do for a curve on a level surface.

Going up hill takes more power where taking a curve on a level surface takes negligible increase in power.  Or taking a curve often takes getting off the gas or even braking. Where gravity can be used to slow down a car while going up hill if there is a curve in the road.

Broad daylight.
https://www.gps-coordinates.net/distance
42 miles away

Where did you pull 42 miles away?

https://antivirus.22web.org/av/psyop-plocha-zeme.htm?i=1


This is one of the newer photos where you can see more buildings, especially when compared to the next one. (The Trump Hotel is in line with the Aon Center - as we move away and change the angle of view, they will become separated from each other.)

Chicago from 40 km:

Looks like 40 km by this quote.

Which is more like 25 miles.

I did find this on tineye.





Miller Beach Indian.


Or this..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 24, 2025, 06:15:09 AM

As predicted, you say.

As predicted. You lied.

Quote

Miller beach?

Quote

Which is about 26 miles to Chicago over the water.


Notice you don’t see the Chicago sea walls and trees.  If the earth was flat.  You should.

Quote

Chicago Yacht Club
The sea wall

https://www.iiseagrant.org/chicagowaterwalk/cww5_rtlm_cyc_seawall.html

Nothing to do with you claim of 100 miles.

You understand drive times and distances are different than straight line of sight over the water.  Right?

Quote

Oh.  Look.  Bulma still lying by using driving distance instead of line of sight distance.

Bulma.  You are stupid.  Or you really don’t understand 25 miles isn’t 42 miles when looking line of sight over the lake? 

This is correct.

Bulma.  Do you understand that you got called out when you tried to claim you had a picture of Chicago 100 miles away and didn’t produce one.

Then you tried to use a picture from Miller Beach in February that is only 25 miles line of sight distance from Chicago and tried to claim it was 40 some miles away.  And you got called out.

Then Bulma, you tried the same lie and were called out again.

Bulma, you are a proven liar.  Do you understand. 

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2025, 03:30:55 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 12, 2025, 03:08:07 PM

Now if I tilted that board just slightly, "gravity" which never existed before now suddenly kicks in due to nothing more than the angle.

The normal force of the board equals the weight of the object.  When you tilt the board, the weight of the object overcomes the friction of the surface of the board.  Gravity, as a component of weight, was always there.

Overcome nothing. It slides because it is falling, which again, has to do with buoyancy and angular momentum.
      /
     /
    /
O/

The more I tilt this board, the more one side is against air and the more it stays in motion. But instead of air below this, I built a wooden ramp with mind power. How far this coin rolls depends on its momentum, the density difference between itself and air (a quarter ought to roll farther than a penny), the slope, how sanded and oiled the surface is, etc.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 12, 2025, 03:08:07 PM

What they describe here as angular momentum is radial momentum.

No, they're right about angular momentum.  Radial momentum is something else.

FFS. "Objects in motion stay in motion" is momentum. "Objects at rest stay at rest" is nonsense. There is no such "force" of inertia, as shown by the coin. That's an excuse for paralyzed people not to get off their lazy asses. You ought to be calling something angular momentum that has to do with angles.

Btw, when I typed in radial momentum, it led me straight to
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=radial+momentum&ia=web

Angular momentum
Measure of the extent to which an object will continue to rotate in the absence of an applied torque

Angular momentum (sometimes called moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational analog of linear momentum.

We are not using this definition. They seem to have swallowed a definition by conflation.

Angular momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion along slopes or inclined planes.
Linear momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion along level planes.
Radial/rotational momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion (to rotate) in the absence of an applied torque.

This means a gyroscope spins due to rotational momentum, but it tilts due to angular momentum. Conflating the two is stupid. They are two distinct types of momentum.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 12, 2025, 03:08:07 PM

This is angular momentum.

No, that's linear acceleration.  Please, stop trying to redefine physics terms.

We must use exact terms

Angular: adj. Having to do with angles
Momentum: n. A quantity used to measure the motion of a body, equal to the product of the body's mass and its velocity

We are not taking about its acceleration on a line. We are talking about its continued motion along an angle. Similarly, when someone spins, the angle in question pivots as a radius.


Radius

Angle

Line (a commentary on how bad search engines are, it was the first forty images)

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 12, 2025, 03:08:07 PM

Not coincidentally, the same site that gave me both of these pictures moves next to the idea that if you accept globalism, you also accept climate change:

If you haven't noticed the weather changing even during your own lifetime, then you haven't been paying attention.

They are called seasons. Seasons in turn enter cycles. The most notable cycle being cicadas. Another one being that coastal regions might have a four or seven year frost cycle, where it gets colder at certain intervals. No, I don't believe in climate change. I believe man-made destruction of forests to build unsightly green energy does raise temperature through lack of transpiration.  People who log forests for fuel or wood or toilet paper, have an end goal of sustainability. These are called "managed forests"

but there is no such goal for the self-righteous Zizians (named as a byword for a group of trans "environmentalists" that left a tugboat spewing oil in a harbor, deciding it's someone else's problem, then went on to murder people for perceived evils) who convince themselves they do the will of the environment.

If that forest never regrows, they excuse it because it's "producing green energy" (until it isn't, but is instead moldering and producing toxic waste).

You Zizians can take all your "rational" talk and get lost. I don't want veganism nor environmental action while you destroy real environments.

Meanwhile, again, we use exact terms. These are the changing of seasons. Angles, lines, and radii are all different things. And gravity vs buoyancy and angular momentum are different things.

When water is level, you can swim or row across it from every imaginable direction. When water mounds (as it does only in games like Ocarina of Time), then we start talking about the difference in motion on the bulge.

Overcome nothing.

You are incoherently babbling again.  And a proven liar.

Again.  To take a curve on a level surface with a manual transmission takes no addition pressing down on the gas paddle.

Going up a steep hill takes considerable pressing down on the gas paddle and often downshifting.

My jeep has a six speed manual transmission.  I don’t have to press down on the gas paddle more nor down shift to take a curve on a level surface in six gear.  Going up even moderate hills takes me pressing down on the gas peddle more to feed the engine more gas to make more power, and I often have to down shift to 5th or 4th gear.

There is definitely a force dragging on the keep going up hill that isn’t present while taking a turn.

I can push my jeep in neutral all day long on a level surface even while turning the steering wheel to turn the jeep.  I can’t push the jeep up hill because of gravity.

 At the 3599 miles,

I can take a piece of rod 3 inches in diameter.  Put it in a metal lathe and turn it to cut one thousandth of an inch off the diameter to make a grove in the rod one thousandth of an inch deep.  If I don’t advance the cutting tool, the cutting tool just rides the new cut grove.  It don’t magically start rising off the grove, it doesn’t magically start cutting deep.  Is just traces the surface.

Your logic is stupid Bulma.  And it seems your so brainwashed you are a pathological liar. 

Overcome nothing.

That your so brainwashed by FE that your a pathological liar and keep using the same lies you been called out all.  That you have repeatedly been proven a liar. 

This is correct. But walking uphill and downhill, you are working with angular momentum.

No, angular momentum has nothing to do with it.
Do you even know what that is?
Because you keep using in contexts where it clearly doesn't apply.

Instead, what is important is gravity. You are getting further away from the centre so it takes more effort; vs you are getting closer so it is helping.

The point is, the ground doesn't need to be going down hill to have this.

The point being do you notice any such push when you build a mile long pool and try to swim across it?

No, because you are going level, along a curve.
You are not getting closer or further from the centre (for the simple case of a stationary round Earth, for rotation it gets more complicated, but lets have you understand the basics first).

If I were to lay a coin on a board, which in turn lies across the top of a bench and put all of this in a room with air but no wind, the coin would just sit there on one side of the board.  Gravity would never intercede to make this coin fall.
Now if I tilted that board just slightly, "gravity" which never existed before now suddenly kicks in due to nothing more than the angle.

And if you had a brain, and chose to use it, you would understand why.
What direction is gravity trying to make it move?
That is down into the table.
This compresses (usually by an imperceptible amount) the table and results in a normal reaction force perpendicular to the surface of the table.
When the table is level, that results in no net force, because the 2 forces are in opposite directions and equal in magnitude.
(An aside: if they were not equal in magnitude, then either the coin pushes into the table more, compressing it more until either the force of the table increases enough to stop it or it breaks through the table; or the force from the table is greater, pushing it up reducing the compression and reducing the force.)

But when the table is at an angle, then the 2 forces are not in opposite directions. Instead they are offset at an angle, resulting in a net force on the coin with a component in a sideways direction, causing it to move.
Gravity was there the whole time.

What they describe here as angular momentum is radial momentum.

No, what they describe as angular momentum, is angular momentum.
Your pathetic rejection of reality does not change that.

What you lie to everyone about, pretending is angular momentum, is simply linear momentum at some angle relative to level. That is NOT angular momentum.
Angular momentum is where the angle changes.
An easy way to think about it - If the angle remains constant there is no momentum of the angle, so it is not angular momentum.

There supposedly is a number.

And that does not make it a hill.

The curvature is effectively looking out into a horizon

Your pathetic strawmen do not change reality.
Your stupidity and wilful ignorance does not change why people say there is curvature.

Again, a simple example is looking at a building across a lake, and seeing the bottom of the building missing, with water blocking the view; even though both you are the building are above the water.

All the evidence shows it curves.
You have NOTHING to show it doesn't.

Put that upright

And what way is "upright"?

Not coincidentally

Coincidentally, as explained to you repeatedly.
The only part of globalism that deals with the shape of Earth is the name.
Stop spamming the same pathetic BS everywhere.

I am not paranoid to think that children are abused into accepting an agenda.

Like you were abused into accepting Christianity?
It is paranoid to think that all the evidence people point out supporting a round Earth is all BS and that you alone (or a small group of cultists) have worked it out.

Sorry, but a mirage does not work on a curve.

Because you are a moron that is looking in the wrong direction.

The horizon is not perfectly level.
You don't calculate the drop from where you are, unless your eyes are at sea level.
You first need to work out the distance to the horizon.

You even provided an image showing the difference, in just ignored it.

Where that image is real or a mirage, the facts don't change.

Yes, the FACT that the bottom of the buildings are obscured by water, even though both the observer and the observed buildings are above the water.
How is that possible?
Also note they are clearly resolvable so it has nothing to do with perspective or vanishing point or any other BS like that.

I drove at one point from the Eastern Shore of Virginia to Seattle

And cannot explain just what you expected to see and how you expected to see it.
So you fail.

Overcome nothing. It slides because it is falling, which again, has to do with buoyancy and angular momentum.

Unless you are appealing to the rotation of the coin, it has NOTHING to do with angular momentum.
And as shown repeatedly, buoyancy only works with gravity; with you continually fleeing from the refutation of your BS.

We are not using this definition.

Then stop trying to speak English.
If you aren't going to use the definition of words, then conversation is impossible and you may as well be spouting pure gibberish.

Conflating the two is stupid.

And that most certainly appears to describe you.
Failing to understand and then "conflating" the two.

When water is level

i.e. when it is following the general curve of Earth, where the surface is at an equal potential.

That your so brainwashed by FE that your a pathological liar and keep using the same lies you been called out all.  That you have repeatedly been proven a liar.

You call other people liars, while you can't even tell the truth about what a line is, what angle is, what a radius is. And you tell me something is accelerating on a line when it is continuing to roll on a slope. These are all lies.You can't even tell me here what is a lie.

I can take a piece of rod 3 inches in diameter.  Put it in a metal lathe and turn it to cut one thousandth of an inch off the diameter to make a grove in the rod one thousandth of an inch deep.  If I don’t advance the cutting tool, the cutting tool just rides the new cut grove.  It don’t magically start rising off the grove, it doesn’t magically start cutting deep.  Is just traces the surface.

We're not talking about cutting pieces off a rod. We're talking about a confirmed theory of curvature, and how this increase is equal to 90° (which is why at the distance that it is 90°, drop equals length). The measurements are confirmed, as part of angles. They are consistent with that. What isn't confirmed about this theory is that anything of the sort happens. Not even one inch of curvature over 100 miles happens.

Dishonesty through logical fallacy.
Fallacy of composition:

The logical fallacy where one assumes that what is true for a part is also true for the whole is known as the "fallacy of composition." An example is concluding that because every individual part of a machine is light, the entire machine must also be light, which is not necessarily true.

I don't fucking care what happens to 1/1000 of a rod or sphere or whatever. "This tiny point of a basketball is level! It all must be flat!"  When you measure enough points as level, sooner or later, you cannot be talking about a sphere. The same isn't true of an angled side of a basketball. And if you held this "level" point to a microscope and while you were saying that it was level, an enemy came and dripped water, would you continue to say that as it rolled across the surface?

My jeep has a six speed manual transmission.  I don’t have to press down on the gas paddle more nor down shift to take a curve on a level surface in six gear.  Going up even moderate hills takes me pressing down on the gas peddle more to feed the engine more gas to make more power, and I often have to down shift to 5th or 4th gear.

Typical. Unlike some of the more stupid upgrades to a car (keyless ignition, which means the car can't start if the fob runs out of power or gets a wireless issue, short of knowing that there's a manual method which obvious to  without reading the manual, power windows which can get stuck in place due to a short), manual transmission should have gone the way of the dinosaur long ago. Your car sucks.

It's like this. While you're fiddling with clutch, angular momentum causes your car to potentially roll backwards, as it is in neutral for the seconds that it's between gears. To get up a moderate hill means fighting the gears of your car, trying to accelerate but instead cutting speed (what you should be doing is staying in your current gear before going up the hill). Meanwhile, I just drive up and down hills with automatic transmission, and then my transmission explodes leaving me stranded in Tucumcari.

You call other people liars,

Bulma.  You more than once tried to say this picture was taken over 40 miles away.  You been called out and correct multiple times on this lie.



Read the caption of the picture.

You have repeatedly highjacked other people’s work and been corrected on it multiple times.  For you to use the same lies repeatedly makes you a pathological liar.  You are so brainwashed you keep using the same lies you been repeatedly shown to be a liar on. 

You call other people liars, while you can't even tell the truth about what a line is, what angle is, what a radius is. And you tell me something is accelerating on a line when it is continuing to roll on a slope. These are all lies.

Well at least you are now admitting you are lying.

The one continually lying about things here is you.
Wilfully rejecting the meaning of words to outright lie to people.

We're talking about a confirmed theory of curvature

Yes, something which has been demonstrated countless times; which you can even do yourself, but choose not to.

Not even one inch of curvature over 100 miles happens.

So you have actually measured that?
Constructing a straight edge over 100 miles, and measured that not a single inch of curvature happened?
Just how did you pull off this feat?

Or do you actually mean you just don't know of any instance recoding it, because you choose to remain wilfully ignorant of reality?

Dishonesty through logical fallacy.
Fallacy of composition:
The logical fallacy where one assumes that what is true for a part is also true for the whole

i.e. WHAT YOU ARE DOING!
You can't measure the curve in your bathtub, so you assume it can never be measured.

When you measure enough points as level, sooner or later, you cannot be talking about a sphere.

This is quite literally the fallacy of composition.
You are taking measurements over a tiny area and using that to make a claim about the whole, while ignoring the uncertainty associated with it.

If you want to disagree, why don't you tell us what you are doing to measure it as "level", by which you really mean flat?

The same isn't true of an angled side of a basketball.

Again, Earth is not a tiny ball held on top of a much larger ball.
Stop appealing to your tiny balls. If you want to do so, then do so honestly.
That means understanding which way is "down", and how the measurement of level would work.
Stop appealing to your magical universal down you cannot justify or demonstrates exists.

But that doesn't help you at all with the issue of the OP.
Putting aside your pathetic fantasy for a second, what is expected for the RE?
Can you honestly answer that? Or can you just repeat the same pathetic BS?

it is in neutral for the seconds that it's between gears.

Which is a far greater problem for automatic transmissions.

His car doesn't suck, you just suck.

I don't fucking care what happens to 1/1000 of a rod or sphere or whatever. pw07x.jpg[/img]

Read what was posted..

I can take a piece of rod 3 inches in diameter.  Put it in a metal lathe and turn it to cut one thousandth of an inch off the diameter to make a grove in the rod one thousandth of an inch deep.  If I don’t advance the cutting tool, the cutting tool just rides the new cut grove.  It don’t magically start rising off the grove, it doesn’t magically start cutting deep.  Is just traces the surface.

Your logic is stupid Bulma.  And it seems your so brainwashed you are a pathological liar.


The cutting tool once the grove is cut follows the surface of the spinning rod without leaving the cut grove.  It does magical rise out of the grove or start magically cutting without being advanced.  Sad you can’t get walking on a large sphere like the earth would be the same way.  You would just simply fallow the surface.  And would always be on the surface. 

Btw, when I typed in radial momentum, it led me straight to
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=radial+momentum&ia=web

Quote

Angular momentum
Measure of the extent to which an object will continue to rotate in the absence of an applied torque

Quote

Angular momentum (sometimes called moment of momentum or rotational momentum) is the rotational analog of linear momentum.

We are not using this definition. They seem to have swallowed a definition by conflation.

Angular momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion along slopes or inclined planes.
Linear momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion along level planes.
Radial/rotational momentum: The tendency of objects to stay in motion (to rotate) in the absence of an applied torque.

This means a gyroscope spins due to rotational momentum, but it tilts due to angular momentum. Conflating the two is stupid. They are two distinct types of momentum.

I’m sorry but it doesn’t work that way.  You don’t get to redefine the well established fundamental concepts of physics just because they aren’t to your liking.  There is a reason that they have stood the test of time and helped build our modern world; they work.  If you don’t want to use the proper vocabulary, then there is no point in trying to have any sort of meaningful discussion.

It's like this. While you're fiddling with clutch,

My jeep actual has a six cylinder engine rated around 285 horsepower power.  It has plenty of power for a two door jeep. 

I can be running on the highway at 70 mph on a curve on a level surface and place the transmission in neutral.  The jeep keeps going with momentum taking the turn and doesn’t lose much speed. And when I put it back in 6th gear it’s fine.

 If I do the same thing going up a steep hill, I lose speed at a much greater rate.  If I try placing the manual transmission back in 6th gear after putting the manual transmission in neutral driving up mid steep hill, I risk stalling out / killing the engine and need to down shift before engaging the transmission.

Again.  Staying in 6th on a curve on a level surface doesn’t mess with the fuel mileage.  Trying to run up a steep hill in 6th makes the fuel mileage go down with the engine running like crap with no power until I down shift to 5th or 4th gear.  Anyway, the gas mileage is still way down.  It’s really pronounced if I’m pulling my trailer loaded down with gravel. 

Again Bulma, the fact you got to blatantly lie about driving up hill is why people hate flat earthers.  You are so brainwashed you have to lie about simple everyday events.