Recent Posts

1
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« Last post by Shane on Today at 03:51:55 AM »
Bruins are 20-3-0, Bruins are 20-3-0, football sux now never actually liked it
2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reconciling Velikovskianism with the theory of the Flat Earth
« Last post by stack on December 03, 2022, 11:14:05 PM »
Quote
I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.


Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Am not sure that a magnetic and some iron filings demonstrates/proves the large-mass-becomes-sphere theory.
But surely its all relative. And the timescale of tens of thousands of years for a large mass to become a sphere would be much reduced for a very small mass surely? Or is there a minimum definitive size of mass which only above this the sphere theory works? If so what is that 'size'? If the theory has been tested, peer-reviewed, accepted by (and everything else that goes with proving such things) by science that shouldn't be a difficult one to answer.

It depends on what the object is made from

Here's a good paper on the subject http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.1091.pdf
The term used us hydrostatic equilibrium. As gravity pulls equally in every direction it will naturally attempt to pull things into an object where the mass is equally distributed from the centre of mass (a sphere). But depending on the material the object is, it's own integrity will try and resist the change. We can see this when we look at asteroids and moons as the paper shows in its diagrams. Below a certain size they will be more lumpy and potato shaped, but as they get larger the more rounder they are. The maths given are how this is calculated and the verification is observing the different sized bodies in the solar system.

Think of a thought experiment to explain why not just any body will turn into a sphere. Take a cardboard box and place a weight in it. The box is unlikely to collapse in any given timeframe. We add the same sized box with a weight in on top. Unless they are very poorly made your stack should be fine. But if we keep going eventually we will reach a trigger point. The weight constantly increasing is balancing against the strength of the boxes which is fixed. When the weight gets too much a crush begins. In our example you'll end up with a big pile of boxes, but in space with nothing to act on them you'll get a cloud. Keep adding boxes, they'll all be attracted to one another and with pressure on every side with enough you'll end up with a sphere!

Thank you. Very interesting. Also interesting was the article in the link you provided. In particular the galactic disk M104. And a thought came to mind; If this 'flat' galaxy was being 'pulled' together by a central force (magnetic, anti-gravity or something else) might it be possible for the constituent parts (of the galaxy) to form a complete disk? And even if this was just remotely possible could this therefore suggest how a flat as opposed to global earth was formed? Is there anything to dispel this for example?

Not really a comprehensive, in depth explanation, but a good primer of what we think we know to date:

Why Are Galaxies Flat?

In Summary
- Galaxies are flat because of the conservation of angular momentum.
- Flat galaxies are usually spiral galaxies.
- Our solar system is also flat because of the conservation of angular momentum. Past Neptune, our solar system ceases to be flat.
- Elliptical galaxies are not flat and lean more towards a spherical shape.
- The Milky Way was probably flat at one time, but currently, it is warped because of some unknown force.
3
Dear NATO, please take your $60 barrel and purchase many blankets. You're about to go into deep Frosty the snowman state.

Very toasty here in the USA.

$60?
Closer to $85.
But thats Capitalism for ya. 
4
Dear NATO, please take your $60 barrel and purchase many blankets. You're about to go into deep Frosty the snowman state.

Looks like Moscow needs to buy some blankets for their own troops.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1700543/Russia-Ukraine-war-winter-cyclone-freeze-equipment-uniforms-electricity-blackout-vn
5
Dear NATO, please take your $60 barrel and purchase many blankets. You're about to go into deep Frosty the snowman state.

Very toasty here in the USA.
6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reconciling Velikovskianism with the theory of the Flat Earth
« Last post by SimonC on December 03, 2022, 10:34:35 AM »
Quote
I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.


Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Am not sure that a magnetic and some iron filings demonstrates/proves the large-mass-becomes-sphere theory.
But surely its all relative. And the timescale of tens of thousands of years for a large mass to become a sphere would be much reduced for a very small mass surely? Or is there a minimum definitive size of mass which only above this the sphere theory works? If so what is that 'size'? If the theory has been tested, peer-reviewed, accepted by (and everything else that goes with proving such things) by science that shouldn't be a difficult one to answer.

It depends on what the object is made from

Here's a good paper on the subject http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.1091.pdf
The term used us hydrostatic equilibrium. As gravity pulls equally in every direction it will naturally attempt to pull things into an object where the mass is equally distributed from the centre of mass (a sphere). But depending on the material the object is, it's own integrity will try and resist the change. We can see this when we look at asteroids and moons as the paper shows in its diagrams. Below a certain size they will be more lumpy and potato shaped, but as they get larger the more rounder they are. The maths given are how this is calculated and the verification is observing the different sized bodies in the solar system.

Think of a thought experiment to explain why not just any body will turn into a sphere. Take a cardboard box and place a weight in it. The box is unlikely to collapse in any given timeframe. We add the same sized box with a weight in on top. Unless they are very poorly made your stack should be fine. But if we keep going eventually we will reach a trigger point. The weight constantly increasing is balancing against the strength of the boxes which is fixed. When the weight gets too much a crush begins. In our example you'll end up with a big pile of boxes, but in space with nothing to act on them you'll get a cloud. Keep adding boxes, they'll all be attracted to one another and with pressure on every side with enough you'll end up with a sphere!

Thank you. Very interesting. Also interesting was the article in the link you provided. In particular the galactic disk M104. And a thought came to mind; If this 'flat' galaxy was being 'pulled' together by a central force (magnetic, anti-gravity or something else) might it be possible for the constituent parts (of the galaxy) to form a complete disk? And even if this was just remotely possible could this therefore suggest how a flat as opposed to global earth was formed? Is there anything to dispel this for example?
7
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing
« Last post by markjo on December 03, 2022, 01:49:20 AM »
8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reconciling Velikovskianism with the theory of the Flat Earth
« Last post by andiwd on December 03, 2022, 12:42:42 AM »
Quote
I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Am not sure that a magnetic and some iron filings demonstrates/proves the large-mass-becomes-sphere theory.
But surely its all relative. And the timescale of tens of thousands of years for a large mass to become a sphere would be much reduced for a very small mass surely? Or is there a minimum definitive size of mass which only above this the sphere theory works? If so what is that 'size'? If the theory has been tested, peer-reviewed, accepted by (and everything else that goes with proving such things) by science that shouldn't be a difficult one to answer.

It depends on what the object is made from

Here's a good paper on the subject http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.1091.pdf
The term used us hydrostatic equilibrium. As gravity pulls equally in every direction it will naturally attempt to pull things into an object where the mass is equally distributed from the centre of mass (a sphere). But depending on the material the object is, it's own integrity will try and resist the change. We can see this when we look at asteroids and moons as the paper shows in its diagrams. Below a certain size they will be more lumpy and potato shaped, but as they get larger the more rounder they are. The maths given are how this is calculated and the verification is observing the different sized bodies in the solar system.

Think of a thought experiment to explain why not just any body will turn into a sphere. Take a cardboard box and place a weight in it. The box is unlikely to collapse in any given timeframe. We add the same sized box with a weight in on top. Unless they are very poorly made your stack should be fine. But if we keep going eventually we will reach a trigger point. The weight constantly increasing is balancing against the strength of the boxes which is fixed. When the weight gets too much a crush begins. In our example you'll end up with a big pile of boxes, but in space with nothing to act on them you'll get a cloud. Keep adding boxes, they'll all be attracted to one another and with pressure on every side with enough you'll end up with a sphere!
9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reconciling Velikovskianism with the theory of the Flat Earth
« Last post by SimonC on December 02, 2022, 09:35:21 PM »
Quote
I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Am not sure that a magnetic and some iron filings demonstrates/proves the large-mass-becomes-sphere theory.
But surely its all relative. And the timescale of tens of thousands of years for a large mass to become a sphere would be much reduced for a very small mass surely? Or is there a minimum definitive size of mass which only above this the sphere theory works? If so what is that 'size'? If the theory has been tested, peer-reviewed, accepted by (and everything else that goes with proving such things) by science that shouldn't be a difficult one to answer.
10
Technology & Information / Re: Speeding will be harder...
« Last post by markjo on December 02, 2022, 09:34:22 PM »
how would it know the speed limit?  Read speed signs?  Google map?

I recently drove a 2021 vehicle had camera(s), apparently reading roadside signs (which have a standardised format in the UK) and white-painted signs on the roadway. This system would fall apart if, for instance, New York State and New Jersey had different styles of roadside signs....
It's more likely that the speed zones are programmed into the navigation database.  Apple Maps doesn't use any of my iPhone's cameras but it still knows and displays the local speed limit on the screen.