Bitcoin Forum
August 13, 2020, 10:50:29 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 [613] 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 ... 802 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Flat Earth  (Read 1093585 times)
joerogers8
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 105

Negative trust for an opinion! Check it out.


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 03:57:46 PM
Last edit: October 26, 2018, 04:10:29 PM by joerogers8
 #12241

You can circumnavigate the flat earth just as easily as the globe.  

Put a quarter on the floor.  Walk around it.  You just circumnavigated the quarter on a flat plane.

Again, Joe is assuming everyone but himself is a liar and an idiot.  :/

Professional sailors would know the velocity of the wind based on that tautness of the sails.  Professional sailors would know the velocity they were travelling.  Professional sailors would know the distance they have traveled which would not match with a flat earth model.  Professional sailors made their living this way - if there were an extra thousand kilometers in the circumference of the earth, they would bill for it.
 
But lets have Joe, who is not a professional and has no science education, prove us all wrong with his beliefs.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong I'm asking you to prove your claims of a globe.  Something which you cannot do.  If you could, you wouldn't be making bone headed comments like you do about going with consensus and authority.  You really showed your true colors with that one.  It wasn't a misquote as if you typed it in wrong.  You slipped up and showed us all you have not the slightest bit of hard evidence to back up your beliefs.  Then you attack anyone who thinks differently from you.  This all now makes perfect sense.  You are fearful of this because it shatters your preconceived notion of where you live.  You lash out and attack because you are not confident in your beliefs and they are being challenged.  Why else would someone hang around this thread for 3 years.  You said you are hoping to help people by acting like this.  How can you help them if you cannot prove your own beliefs to them?  Do you really think you're helping them by telling them to follow the authority?

Run along now little sheep.  The herd is waiting for you.  Funny you claim to be attempting to help people in this thread and you have not the first clue as you cannot prove your points.  Your just trying to usher people back into your belief system.  

If you come up with some proof let us know.  

Here are you potential answers:
-  Listen to the government and scientists they know what's good for us.
-  I don't have to prove shit to you
-  You can go with the lie and say you already proved it (I know you like to use this one)
-  start name calling (also a personal favorite when you get called out on your bullshit)

Whatever you do don't say I can't prove it.  Don't simply say I believe the earth is round and you can believe it's flat and then leave the conversation like most normal people would do.  Make sure you stay here and try to "help" the people by telling them to follow the authority.

1597315829
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1597315829

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1597315829
Reply with quote  #2

1597315829
Report to moderator
1597315829
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1597315829

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1597315829
Reply with quote  #2

1597315829
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1597315829
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1597315829

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1597315829
Reply with quote  #2

1597315829
Report to moderator
1597315829
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1597315829

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1597315829
Reply with quote  #2

1597315829
Report to moderator
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 2148


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 06:12:38 PM
Merited by Foxpup (6), suchmoon (4), sirazimuth (1)
 #12242

I'm not a flat earther.  I'm more of a sphere denier.  

The deepest hole I have heard about is in Russia, approx 8 miles deep.  I have no idea how deep the earth is.  I would say at least 8 miles.  

Sending a balloon up is a great idea and I would love to do this.  This was my first thought actually when I discovered the flat earth discussion.  I have seen amateur balloons go to 120k feet.  The horizon was flat and rose to eye level.  It seems the balloons top out around that altitude.  Would be interesting to attempt the creation of a more robust balloon that could get up higher.  The balloon seems more practical than a rocket (for me to pull off).  I live in a remote area so I have that working in my favor.

I go off my direct reality which is bodies of water find level, cannot conform to the exterior of a shape and a pressure system cannot exist next to a vacuum without a barrier.  

I don't believe in satellites as mainstream science suggests due to the issue of the vacuum existing next to our pressurized environment with no barrier.  This goes against every experiment I have seen in which a vacuum is used.  

I'm a practical person so the proof would have to be measurable, repeatable, demonstrable.  The globe claims fall to pseudoscience for me as these claims are not measurable, repeatable or demonstrable.  The globe claims also go against my direct reality.  I would need to see definitive proof in order to put my reality on the shelf.  I have yet to see this proof in my searches.  

Your credentials are impressive.  Interested if you can show practical proof of a spherical earth that can be measured, demonstrated and is repeatable.


As a nuclear physicist I would love to hear your opinion on one of your fellow nuclear physicist Galen Windsor. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcJXniibK4

Well, you are right. The earth isn't a sphere, its an oblate ellipsoid. If you do ever get around to launching a balloon, make sure you consider the effect on the image from the lens.  The formula for bodies of water finding level is derived from the equation for gravitational potential energy which relies on the distance of the object being 1 radius from the earth's center away (at the earth's surface). Admittedly, fluid dynamics aren't my forte, there's too much chemistry going on for my liking, so I use the, good enough to get an idea of whats going on models, not the, I trust my rocket to this man's models.

The vacuum of space doesn't really exist right next to our pressurized environment, its a gradient.Pressure decreases as you get higher and higher up. On top of a mountain the pressure is lower than at sea level. It continues like that all the way up until you reach a point that is "virtually" a void or vacuum. Space isn't always an ideal vacuum, it gets closer and closer to ideal as you get further and further away from all other planets.

To me, there is a lot of observable proof, which I can justify to myself either with a telescope, observing the periodic motion of celestial bodies, etc. You are fine not taking  anyone's word for it if you don't really want, but if you are going to be a skeptic against the mainstream opinion, you should first get a definitive grasp of what you believe to exist. Then see if your predictions based on what you believe hold up 100% of the time. If your models don't hold up 100% of the time, but 50% of the time instead, try and figure out why. There is still a lot you can learn or figure out for yourself from that.

With regards to the link, to avoid dragging the thread off topic, please don't respond to the part about nuclear power, if you'd like we can chat about it more in another thread or shoot me a PM.


Yes, the nuclear scare scam is a thing. There have only been a handful of incidents, and they've been caused by negligence and greed. The problem with nuclear power as people see it now is the perceived danger, and that the waste needs to be contained, however that isn't necessarily the case forever. There are a lot of useful products that come out of spent fission materials. Something that I've spent a fair amount of time researching is a zero net sum reactor that uses catalytic processes to influence the makeup of fission products to point them in the direction of those with short half lives, or towards valuable materials like rare earth metals. The perceived danger is completely disproportional. Ask someone how many coal plant related accidents there have been, and they can't name one. I had to do a google search myself to see for myself, and there have been plenty, lots of mine related accidents as well. I just stole this chart from wikipedia, so don't take any of the numbers as definitive, but there is certainly a trend you can notice. On top of that, who is in charge of counting the effect of air contamination by gases related to fossil fuel combustion and coal burning particulate? Go ask the older generation of people from Pittsburgh how they are holding up.



Comparing a coal burning plant to a nuclear power plant, a power plant that uses 10 kilograms of fuel per day will produce the same amount of power as a coal burning plant that burns 30,000 tons of coal in that same day. We worry about the three major nuclear incidents (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima) but not what it means that there have been three incidents in 40 years. On top of that, Chernobyl was from a poorly designed and crudely built Soviet plan with people that weren't trained. Three Mile Island same deal, the employees weren't trained, and Fukushima was the result of plant operators not wanting to scare people by telling them there was a problem, so they missed their window to protect people because they didn't want to get sued. All of those were the results of human problems, not anything inherently to do with nuclear power.

[/thread hijack]



joerogers8
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 105

Negative trust for an opinion! Check it out.


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 07:25:16 PM
Last edit: October 26, 2018, 07:37:21 PM by joerogers8
 #12243

Salty, I omitted the original post as things will become very long and hard to follow.  

Nice 411 on the nuclear thing.  Appreciated.

If gravity is being used to say the water is level we must first show definitive proof it is in fact gravity causing the water to behave this way.  Can you prove it is gravity causing this?  A few pages back we went through the Cavendish experiment and how big G was derived.  I for one am not buying the Cavendish experiment which was done in a shed nor do I buy off on teenage girls doing the Cavendish experiment in their door rooms as others have posted.  The entire concept of the Cavendish experiment is preposterous to me.  Also using equations to prove something are a no go for me as well.  Math proves nothing.  Math is a language.  We need to know the axioms that are being used in these equations.  If you're going to plug in Cavendish's numbers for big G we need to discuss how Big G is derived.  We can all agree that the equation of 2x + 2 = 4 if we ASSUME x=1.  I need proof x=1.  We cannot just be plugging in numbers that fit the cause.  

I also appreciate what you say regarding the air pressure gradually tapering off.  The issue I have with this is there is no other vacuum that I have witnessed which has caused this effect of a gradual gradient of pressure when the barrier is removed.  Pressure systems next to vacuums equalize fully when the barrier is removed.  So why would the infinite vacuum of space and our pressurized system not equalize and only cause this gradient?  Repeating what the text book says really does nothing for us at this point.  We need a practical demonstration to the claims that are being made.

As far as the luminaries go I feel as though it is a logical fallacy to use them to prove the shape of earth.  It's akin of saying the lights above the pool table are round so the pool table must be round.  

For this to be science and not pseudoscience the claims must be practically demonstrated, they must be observable, they must be measurable and they must be repeatable.  If we cannot prove our claims through experimentation, that we can all do, we will simply be talking our book.  

Once again the only claims I am making are the following.  

Bodies of water finds their level.
Bodies of water do not take the on the exterior of a shape
Vacuums cannot exist next to pressurized systems without a barrier.  They will fully equalize.  

Any other beliefs I may have are just that, beliefs.  I would not attempt to convince you of any of them.  They are simple beliefs I have based on what makes the most sense to me based off the 3 claims I have made above.  The only claims I make to you are the above 3.  You can experiment and test these on your own.  If we are to believe what goes against our direct reality and believe the globe earth claims we must be given concrete proof.

If no observable, measurable, repeatable proof can be given regarding the shape of the earth I am ok with that.  My main gripe is if this claim of a oblate spheroid as Tyson DeGrasse claims we live on is true I would like to see definitive proof.  As the claim goes against my reality.

Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 2631


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 08:21:24 PM
 #12244

im curious to know about this truth too, how would still a lot believer earth is flat, im neutral opinion, wondering

1) You can observe yourself.  Look at tides, the recent eclipses, etc.  Look at all the magic that would have to exist for the earth being flat.

2) Read up the facts.  Observe over a thousand years of testing and retesting.

3) Talk to the people who have proved the earth was round through experimentation.  There are millions of them.

4)  Verify it yourself.  Consider everyone and everything to be dishonest and do one of the thousands of experiments to prove it yourself.

Almost two dozen victims identified in the case of the missing 2600 BTC  You can't unwatch this!
Previous investigations:  OG vs Lauda (2018)  OG vs TMAN (2017)  OG vs Owlcatz (2018)  OG vs Twitchyseal (2018)  OG vs Lutpin (2016)  After all these complaints, OG was removed as the sole forum treasurer in early 2019. 
OG: Supporting scammers is the sane thing to do against Vod.
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 2148


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 09:29:03 PM
Merited by Foxpup (6), Vod (5), suchmoon (4)
 #12245

So my only real problem with discussing this sort of topic is exactly this:

-snip
If gravity is being used to say the water is level we must first show definitive proof it is in fact gravity causing the water to behave this way.  Can you prove it is gravity causing this?  
-snip

The definitive proof was found hundreds of years ago. All of the physics today that we know builds on itself. Humanity started by observing phenomena, and then tried to find relations between causation and reaction, until we were able to predict what would happen in any given circumstance by formulating physics models. The proof that gravity is partially responsible for how water flows, is that a measurable change in gravity will cause a predictable change in that particular behavior 100% of the time. Asking to prove that gravity is responsible would take us through hundreds of hours of derivations and proofs until we got back to the Apple falling on Newton's head. We find flaws in models when a situation arises that can't be described by what we know. Admittedly, that happens relatively frequently, however the changes that do occur don't require us to dismiss gravity's relationship on water, but rather look for previously unnoticed terms that provide a small correction factor. We are working in the wrong direction here, you or anyone else is trying to find a way to make the things that we can observe working 100% of the time as predicted, don't start with, alright prove all of this to me. Rather, find a case where water is not behaving the way it should, and ask, why is this? Maybe its because the earth is a shape other than what we've been assuming.

For example, when you first start learning physics, you learn how objects move when forces are applied to them. You start with a system without friction, and then next lesson you add that friction in. Adding the friction "correction factor" helps to get a more realistic model of how things really work. Now, you add in air resistance, that is another correction factor that makes the model more true to real life. My proof that gravity works the way it does on liquids is that at the moment, as far as I know there aren't any unexplained situations with fluids with relation to gravity (at least not with Newtonian fluids). The last time there was a sizable amount of correction to physics was when Relativity was introduced. Now its like models give 99.999999999999% accurate results, and we are hunting down the fraction of a percent to figure out, oh yeah the light from the sun is producing a measurable amount of force on this ball I'm throwing, neat so thats why my calculation was off by what I thought was a rounding error.


Also using equations to prove something are a no go for me as well.  Math proves nothing.  Math is a language.  We need to know the axioms that are being used in these equations.  If you're going to plug in Cavendish's numbers for big G we need to discuss how Big G is derived.  We can all agree that the equation of 2x + 2 = 4 if we ASSUME x=1.  I need proof x=1.  We cannot just be plugging in numbers that fit the cause.  

Calculus was invented for Physics. Nearly every math class that you take is just figuring out how some real object is behaving, but they just don't tell you the reason why you are finding an equation. Can I explain to you practically that G = 6.67x10^-^11 m^3/kgs^2 ? Absolutely. If we had a few weeks, some telescopes, calculators, etc. If you have systems of equations, you can solve for unknown variables. The systems of equations are things like the orbit of satellites around the different planets. They are hard to measure, but not impossible.

As you said, just knowing 2x + 2 = 4 isn't very useful. if X equals 1, it could equal 1!, it could equal 1^2, 1^5, 2/2 etc. Each of those numbers would have implications in a real world scenario. if X is some relationship between planets and a combination of variables is what makes up that X = 1, whether its just 1*1 or 2/2 has very different implications. Knowing how something behaves at a single point X is not proof. It has to behave that way when X is any number from negative to positive infinity, as long as that number makes sense. I can't "prove" physically the quantity 6.67x10^-^11 m^3/kgs^2 but I can prove that if we use that constant, and the variables related to it, we can 100% predict how something is going to behave, and then watch it do that. G is used for a lot of things. Off the top of my head, its used for potential energy of falling objects, orbits, forces, etc. If G wasn't 6.67x10^-^11 m^3/kgs^2 then all of the observable phenomena that we can predict with it fall apart.

Light gets super complicated, so I'm going to steer clear of using light for examples regarding earth's properties. I can tell you that if your twin brother is an astronaut and launches off the planet at a speed near the speed of light, when he returns 6 years later, you will be 4 years older than him, but I don't have the means to give you a demonstration.

What I'd recommend doing is looking at classical physics and seeing who first created theories regarding air pressure, gravity, etc. Back before we had fancy electronics, someone got pretty good proof of how these things work with technology that you should have available to you. I am completely on board with people doing whatever experiments that they'd like to prove to themselves whatever they want. I'll let you know if I can think of a good one for air pressure gradients.
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 2148


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 10:34:38 PM
Merited by sirazimuth (2)
 #12246

I also appreciate what you say regarding the air pressure gradually tapering off.  The issue I have with this is there is no other vacuum that I have witnessed which has caused this effect of a gradual gradient of pressure when the barrier is removed.  Pressure systems next to vacuums equalize fully when the barrier is removed.  So why would the infinite vacuum of space and our pressurized system not equalize and only cause this gradient?  Repeating what the text book says really does nothing for us at this point.  We need a practical demonstration to the claims that are being made.

So I had an idea for a pressure gradient explanation, I'm going to describe a void or vacuum as just a space that doesn't contain matter, namely air. Its a very simplified version so its not technically absolutely correct, but I'd have to write a thesis paper if I included all of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, factored in.

So whether our gravitational model is correct or not, we can agree that there is some sort of attractive force that pulls everything towards the ground. We also know that as you get further away from the earth, that attractive force decreases. Stand on a scale at sea level versus on a mountain, and your weight which is your mass * that gravitational force however you want to describe it, will be lower on top of the mountain.  With that, I make the statement that gravitational force decreases as you get further away from the surface of the earth.

We can observe that as you continue to go up, the gravitational force will continue to decrease. Gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. A gravitational force will be 1/X^2 or 1/4th of its original at a distance 2X away. That is a bit harder to allow you to prove to yourself, but it would be possible with a high quality scale and a large enough range in height. Regardless of whether we agree at the rate it drops off at, I think we can agree that at a certain point away from the earth, this force of gravity will be so close to zero, that for all practical purposes, we can call it zero.

I'm neglecting the force of gravity from the moon, the sun, all of the other planets, etc because they are typically minuscule because of how far away they are and that inverse square relationship described a minute ago.  All of the atmospheric gases, go from the surface of the earth up to this point where the force of gravity is holding them down to the planet. Typically its referred to as the Karman line. about 100KM above the earth's surface, but that detail isn't important. Around this point, the force of gravity is equal to zero, gravity cannot keep the gases accelerating down towards the planet any further, at this point. Because there are no forces on the gases, and they aren't accelerating towards or away from the planet, they will kind of stay where they are at.

I'm going to explain mathematically with simple integer values, these are more for concept and comparison rather than stating that you have thousands of KG of air resting on your head. Starting from the beach, you have 100KM of distance between the top of your head and all the way up where air is contained. Air has mass ~1Kg/m^3 so say that the surface area of your head is 1m^2, that means that you have 100Km^3 of air on top of your head. If you took the space escalator and went up 50Km above the earth, you'd now only have 50Km^3 of air on top of your head. If we talk about pressure as force over an area, the force is the weight of the air. If you were to get all of the way up to the top, you'd no longer have any air above your head, and no pressure from that air on you. A vacuum is a space without matter (air in our case) where pressure is 0. So you could say that outside of that distance, there is no more air, and the pressure would be 0. In reality, there are gases that escape the earth's atmosphere and drift off into space, but we are speaking relatively here.

A really good example of this without requiring you to travel 100Km up in the air, is if instead of walking up into the air from the beach, instead you walk under water. With the exact same reasoning as before, but now we consider the amount of water on top of your head. Water's density is 1000Kg/M^3 so 1 Meter under water your massive 1m^2 head would feel 1000Kg of water on top of it. Go down to 10m and you have 10,000 Kg of water on top of your head. The pressure increases as you keep going down, and decreases as you get up onto the land. Now the reason I used an easy but absurd value of having a square meter as the surface area of your head, is because it keeps the math simple, but it also helps with the comparison I'm about to make. Lets say you start from 100m under water. Thats only ~360 feet, nothing crazy like 100KM in the previous example. At 100m under water, you'd have 100m^3 of water on top of your head which is 100,000 KG of water. The pressure is astronomically higher than that of 100m above you at the surface. As you swim up, you would feel a difference of 100,000Kg of weight off of your head. If having 100,000Kg of water on top of you was your normal, then not having that 100,000 Kg on top of you would feel like a vacuum. A good example of this is deep sea fish, a lot of deep sea fish like the blobfish, which have evolved to be able to survive crazy pressures like that collapse when they come to the surface of the water, the same way that a human would in the vacuum of space.

Honestly, the conclusion I drew was accurate for an explanation of the concept, but I didn't account for a lot of things like that the air density decreases as you go up, the water density increases as you go down. Gravity isn't the only thing that keeps the air up or down in the atmosphere, etc. But the quantities aside, the idea that there is more substance above your head the lower down you go is correct. That substance has mass that is pushing down on you, creating atmosphere pressure.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464
Merit: 1196


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 10:41:36 PM
 #12247


Bodies of water finds their level.
Examples where bodies of water don't find their level:
1. Water in a container where there is adhesion or cohesion.
2. The Panama Canal where the bodies of water are connected around the South and North American continents.
3. Water on a wet basketball.
4. Drops of water in the air in a rain storm.

Because of the great size of GE, we can't easily see or measure the change in water level. But it can be understood with the horizon.



Bodies of water do not take the on the exterior of a shape
Yes they do:
1. Water on a wet basketball.
2. The underside of ocean water in the oceans.
3. The underside of water on a wet basketball.



Vacuums cannot exist next to pressurized systems without a barrier.  They will fully equalize.  
Gravity is a barrier, as is centrifugal force - https://www.quora.com/How-fast-do-you-have-to-spin-a-drum-of-air-for-a-complete-vacuum-to-form-in-the-middle-due-to-centrifugal-force.


Cool

Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !  Thank you.
sirazimuth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1608


born once atheist


View Profile
October 26, 2018, 11:11:35 PM
 #12248

<very interesting and informative post>

Thank you sir/madam
Great to see intelligent informative posts on this thread.
Hopefully you have educated some folks today.

Bitcoin...the future of all monetary transactions...and always will be
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
October 27, 2018, 01:15:50 AM
 #12249




Respect my authority!

There's heavy balls in the sky!

"Gravity is a barrier"

Code:
10 PRINT $MURLOC_GARGLE
20 GOTO 10




mikeywith
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 2837


be constructive or S.T.F.U


View Profile
October 27, 2018, 01:20:28 AM
 #12250

How as an individual can I know if the Earth is a sphere or a flat disc? What experiment can I do that doesn't involve trusting information from a 3rd party that would prove what the geometry really is?




the best experiment would be walking non stop on the same direction, if you go back to where you started then it's round, if you "fill" somewhere at the end of the "flat" earth then you know it was flat, too sad you will not be able to tell us about your findings Cheesy.


sirazimuth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1608


born once atheist


View Profile
October 27, 2018, 02:37:56 PM
 #12251

Why am I not surprised that on the rare occasion something actually intelligent is  posted in here
and notnotbatty replies with....

<snip...the usual clusterfuck trolling garbage... see above>

Bitcoin...the future of all monetary transactions...and always will be
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 288
Merit: 102


Yin Yang religion of wisdom, harmony


View Profile
October 27, 2018, 03:27:36 PM
Last edit: October 27, 2018, 03:51:41 PM by —
 #12252

For somebody arguing the flat and motionless nature of the Earth here's a tip:



So you claim the Sun and Moon are drunk.
One more so than the other as it still manages to "wobble" uniformly and the other just went way overboard.

I am loving it....



Thank you for not sending browny points, much appreciated.

4D Torus Earth https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5042249.msg46425670#msg46425670
joerogers8
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 105

Negative trust for an opinion! Check it out.


View Profile
October 27, 2018, 04:16:25 PM
Last edit: October 27, 2018, 07:05:02 PM by joerogers8
 #12253

Why am I not surprised that on the rare occasion something actually intelligent is  posted in here
and notnotbatty replies with....

<snip...the usual clusterfuck trolling garbage... see above>

I for one have said nothing because he has been very polite and very giving with his explanation. He did not attack us so I wish not to be perceived as attacking him.  The issue is he has invoked gravity in just about every paragraph of his explanation and has told us that when we ask him to prove gravity he doesn't like it and has a problem with it.  So if we are not to ask him for proof of gravity there is no where else to go but to a pissing match, which I hope we can all agree to is unnecessary at this point.  You cannot prove points with something you cannot show proof of.  He has also assumed that as we raise up further and further there is a vacuum.  I agree there is a gradient but he has proven nothing regarding what is actually up there.  The fact of the matter is we don't know what's up there.  He is also referring to lights in the sky, as far as we can tell, as having a gravitational effect on us.  There is no proof of this.  There is simply nothing provable in his post aside from the fact that we have a pressure gradient to our atmosphere much as their is a pressure gradient with water which I think we all already knew.    

He has beautify and intelligently recited what we have been taught.  You get to the point where it's the equivalent of telling a person that believes in Jesus that Jesus does not exist and you upset them and cause a fight.  There have been bunches and bunches of videos with debates revolving around exactly what his example was.  It's nothing new.  In the end it's a giant pissing match.

The final and most important issue is the entire example has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.  No matter what the answer is it's not getting us any closer to the shape of this place we call earth.  This is most likely why no one is chiming in.  It has nothing to do with the topic.  You actually merited a post that is completely off topic.  

notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
October 27, 2018, 04:50:19 PM
Last edit: October 28, 2018, 01:42:11 PM by notbatman
 #12254

^^^ I'm interested in discussing atmospheric refraction and Eratosthenes experiment using three or more shadow angles. Instead we've got Magellan's Island and a succession of off-topic posts on an unproven theory that received more merit points than I gave Vitalik Buterin and Satoshi Nakamoto combined!

Eratosthenes experiment using three or more shadow angles is touted as proof of the globe by scientists, professors, NASA, PBS and the church. What happens when the recorded angles have atmospheric refraction taken into account?








Perhaps I believe in some kind of black magic that moves the shadows cast by the sticks; a magic called refraction that magically moves the Sun and Moon? Maybe if we move to ban plastic straws we can help reduce the danger refraction magic poses to people?




Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/plastic-straw-ban-why-are-there-so-many-2018-7








While you ponder the magic of refraction and why your drink no longer comes with straw, I've got short documentary video about our hero Elon, the man single-handedly building vacation getaways on Mars.

The Mysterious Lineage of ELON MUSK! -- https://youtu.be/yfcprMi82l0








SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 2148


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
October 28, 2018, 02:10:24 PM
 #12255

The issue is he has invoked gravity in just about every paragraph of his explanation and has told us that when we ask him to prove gravity he doesn't like it and has a problem with it.  So if we are not to ask him for proof of gravity there is no where else to go but to a pissing match, which I hope we can all agree to is unnecessary at this point.

Well, my post doesn't actually have anything to do with gravity. I kept calling it gravity for lack of a better term, but I tried to establish the term "gravity" as the measurable quantity of force that can be observed whenever you try to leave the ground. Whether the finer details of gravity apply or not, the only assumption I made were that if you are on the ground, something keeps you there unless you put effort into overcoming it. I also claimed that "gravity" decreases as you get higher and higher up, and there is a point where that force is zero. There are no arguable concepts there. You can witness those for yourself, and don't need to take anyone's word for it.

^^^ I'm interested in discussing atmospheric refraction and Eratosthenes experiment using three or more shadow angles. Instead we've got Magellan's Island and a succession of off-topic posts on an unproven theory that received more merit points than I gave Vitalik Buterin and Satoshi Nakamoto combined!

Eratosthenes experiment using three or more shadow angles is touted as proof of the globe by scientists, professors, NASA, PBS and the church. What happens when the recorded angles have atmospheric refraction taken into account?


I'm not familiar with Eratosthenes experiment, but after a quick search I just found that shadows were measured when the sun was directly overhead near the tropic of cancer on the summer solstice, at noon. If there is something I'm missing let me know. In this case, the angle of incidence will be 0 degrees to normal. The ratio of Sin(incident angle) / Sin(refraction) = N. Sin(incident) = 0 so there will be no change in the path the light takes.
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
October 28, 2018, 04:47:08 PM
Last edit: October 28, 2018, 06:00:22 PM by notbatman
 #12256

^^^ Thanks for your intellectually dishonest reply.

"... When performing Eratosthenes experiment using three or more sticks (or wells), the stick directly under the Sun has no refraction due to its position, for all other sticks atmospheric refraction must be accounted for. ..."


1. There are three (3) or more separate shadow angle measurement points located in different cities.

2. Shadow angle measurement points are plum vertical sticks or plum vertical wells.

3. The one (1) point directly under the Sun at noon is not measured because its angle and refraction are both known to be zero (0).


You're telling me that because the point directly under the Sun is known, we don't need to account for refraction on the points are being measured and documented? Either you're confused or, you're being dishonest with me and everybody else and you should rope yourself.
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 2148


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
October 28, 2018, 06:14:02 PM
 #12257

^^^ Thanks for your intellectually dishonest reply.

1. There are three (3) or more separate shadow angle measurement points located in different cities.

2. Shadow angle measurement points are plum vertical sticks or plum vertical wells.

3. The one (1) point directly under the Sun at noon is not measured because its angle and refraction are both known to be zero (0).


You're telling me that because the point directly under the Sun is known, we don't need to account for refraction on the points are being measured and documented? Either you're confused or, you're being dishonest with me and everybody else and you should rope yourself.


I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth at a single point. Would you mind linking me to the experiment where this one done at different places? If you compare the shadows cast by three separate sticks in different cities, yes you will have to take into account index of refraction as well as the elevation and distance from the earth to the sun at those individual points. That is if those places are far enough apart to make a calculable difference. ~ 100Km for each parallel.

Is this what you are referring to? http://www.k12science.org/noonday/oldbackuppages/cosmos.html
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
October 28, 2018, 06:32:14 PM
 #12258

^^^ The whole argument laid out by Neil deGrasse Tyson. -- https://youtu.be/hLPPE3_DVCw?t=248
SaltySpitoon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 2148


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
October 28, 2018, 08:19:18 PM
 #12259

So your point is that Neil DeGrasse Tyson's explanation doesn't include how the light is bent because of the index of refraction of the atmosphere? I'm sure it does play a role, how significant that role is I don't know. Much like I was doing earlier, for the sake of explanation to people who haven't spent 8 years researching a particular topic of physics, or to those who don't have 6 hours to hear a lecture, simplifications are used. There are many terms not explained in the video about what is going on when light passes through the atmosphere and shines down a well. I don't think thats being deceptive, thats for the sake of making the concept understandable. Frankly, light confuses the hell out of me, so I can't provide an in depth analysis of what the results you should expect.

My thoughts on the matter:
Does anyone have exact data collected from when this experiment was done? Has it been replicated. All of the explanations and diagrams I see are so heavily rounded that they aren't good for anything besides theory. If you are getting a whole number as a degree, you are shaving off at least 4 significant figures.

I'm not dodging your question, just answering honestly that I don't know. I don't have enough information available to give you a better answer. If I can find some reliable data collected where someone tried this experiment, I can help draw a simple conclusion. The finer details of light are way beyond my understanding, so I may be able to find an answer with a reasonable margin of error, but I wouldn't be able to account for all of the correction factors needed to give you definitive proof. I'm not saying its not out there, just that I'm not qualified to do so.
notbatman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1032



View Profile
October 28, 2018, 08:38:45 PM
Last edit: October 28, 2018, 09:06:14 PM by notbatman
 #12260

^^^ Nice an honest answer, I see you're now willing to admit that you don't know instead of the knee-jerk it's a globe reaction we see from the other users. If you've got the ability to think critically I implore you, spend some time going over the evidence we're on a spinning globe.








This video goes over some of the math:
   Flat Earth | Globe Earth Mathematically Debunked -- https://youtu.be/bol8vZ7pcu8
Pages: « 1 ... 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 [613] 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 ... 802 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!