Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Longtitube

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9  Next >
41
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Have a video for you guys
« on: December 23, 2020, 08:37:15 PM »
... The separation between a straight line of points would decrease with distance regardless of the angle between the horizon and the line in question (in other words: the angle between stars *does* appear to decrease ...

My apologies: I assumed you meant something by the above quoted statement. I'm trying to imagine how the sky as described in the wiki would look with stars a few thousand miles above us moving over our heads, how they would look as they move in the course of a night. It doesn't square with what we see in the actual sky. Constellations a few thousand miles above would most certainly change in size and the angle between these stars change as they passed from horizon to horizon, only in the real night sky they don't.

42
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Have a video for you guys
« on: December 23, 2020, 04:44:44 PM »
I do wonder if Pete has ever watched the stars much. Has he witnessed Orion's belt become Orion's watchstrap as it sets in the west? Has he seen Castor and Pollux in Gemini increase their social distancing as they rise from the east? Did he notice Cygnus become a Sparrow as it drops in the northwest from the UK or Draco shrink to a Gecko?

The stars don't become further apart as they rise from the eastern horizon, nor do they come closer together as they vanish over the west. Anyone familiar with astronomy and stellar navigation understands that from observation and common experience, and quoting Rowbotham (as the wiki does) won't change the night sky.

43
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 18, 2020, 12:50:58 PM »

I never avoid supplying sources / validation for obfuscation.  If I know of a good source that can help explain more adequately than the detail I include - I am most happy to include it.  ...

Presumably you meant something else. Elucidation is always welcome, elaboration can be useful, but obfuscation is no help to anyone.

44
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?
« on: December 17, 2020, 10:12:47 AM »
I’m not questioning your calculations or the results, but it would help understanding if you also mention the apparent height of Polaris above the North Pole as calculated from these positions. At 60 degrees north, Polaris is apparently 3,118 miles above the pole and at 30 degrees north it’s apparently 2,078 miles above a flat earth pole. So Polaris goes up and down in height as an observer on a flat earth travels towards and away from the pole. Similar problems beset calculations of the sun’s height above a flat earth, but Samuel Whirling Roundbottom didn’t mention these in ENAG.

45
I have to admit my mistake when I misread "hours" for "years" so apologies. 8503.4 hours, you said.

I suspected as much, don’t worry about it.

I understand the boat changing direction at 1g as experienced by its passenger, also length dilation and redshift for an outside observer not being seen by those on a fast-moving Earth. So please go on, what’s next?

46
The speed of light is 300,000,000ms-1 so at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 it takes 300,000,000/9.8 = 30,612,244.9 seconds to reach light speed, c.

Divide this by 60 to get 510,204.082 minutes.

Divide again by 60 to get 8503.4 hours

Finally, divide for a last time by 24 to get 354.3 days to reach light speed from a standing start at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 which is less than a year.

This is why UA is nonsense: according to it the Earth reached light speed millenia ago and has continued accelerating at 9.8ms-2 ever since, even though the speed of light cannot be reached by anything with mass.

Please check the arithmetic in case I made a blunder.
You made a blunder, in that you fundamentally are misunderstanding how relativity works. Let's take the shape of the Earth out of the equation, and just talk about a rocket accelerating through space at 1G. By your math, after about 8500 years, the people on board that rocket would measure their instantaneous velocity to be 99.99% (with probably a fair few more 9's added on, I'm not going to bother working it out because it's meaningless) of c. Yet, what relativity tells us is that the people on board that ship will measure their velocity to still be 0% of c. Because there is no such thing as a preferred frame of reference, you can always pick a frame where that rocket has an instantaneous velocity of 0m/s while still accelerating at 1G for a completely arbitrary amount of time, and the people in that ship would be feeling that steady 1G acceleration the whole time. The people in the rocket ship from this example would be much like people standing on a UA version of the FE, in that they are moving with the accelerating object. An observer on that FE would never exceed c, nor would the FE, because it can never itself move any faster than 0% of c as measured by an observer standing on that FE (since, you know, it's invariant).

And all of that is still glossing over a misapplication of how relativistic velocities are added up, since that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Then indulge an poor sap who'd like to know more and explain just a little of that. Where, first, does the 8500 year figure come from? Secondly, since there is no preferred frame of reference, please explain how the people in your rocket ship can be said to have an instantaneous velocity of zero while continuing to accelerate at 1G. I really would like to know this, so gnomic pronouncements or sneering from others just won't cut it: I'll take your own words or you can supply links or reading material.

Since the UA concept, or the energy powering UA, makes no sense to me currently, I'd genuinely appreciate a little light. Go for it.

47
The speed of light is 300,000,000ms-1 so at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 it takes 300,000,000/9.8 = 30,612,244.9 seconds to reach light speed, c.

Divide this by 60 to get 510,204.082 minutes.

Divide again by 60 to get 8503.4 hours

Finally, divide for a last time by 24 to get 354.3 days to reach light speed from a standing start at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 which is less than a year.

This is why UA is nonsense: according to it the Earth reached light speed millenia ago and has continued accelerating at 9.8ms-2 ever since, even though the speed of light cannot be reached by anything with mass.

Please check the arithmetic in case I made a blunder.

48
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 13, 2020, 05:38:16 PM »
Well, now the origin of the notorious photograph has been settled, we can each decide who the joke is on. Good grief!
What do you mean this has been settled?

The photo originates from NASA and was originally published to Wikipedia on 15 November 2006. These are facts.

You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.

You may not know this, but science doesn't have a full and exhaustive explanation for every phenomenon under the sun. Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that. On a more mundane level, ordinary mechanics doesn't have a full theoretical explanation: the lecturer facing another year's undergraduates made the point that there is no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body. The students are taught that the sum of all horizontal forces on a stationary body is zero, the sum of all vertical forces is also zero and all rotational forces on that same stationary body also sums to zero, but this is drawn from observations, not a grand theory.

Mark, you repeatedly state that these vacuums are "so powerful" and can supposedly do all sorts of things. What is your basis for these claims? What do you know about these phenomena that "we have no experience of"? Have you a book you have read? Maybe a web article? YouTube video? Other people have provided links and quotations to support their case – Tom Bishop usually posts tons of links, f'rinstance – but you just make unsupported claims about excitable vibrating protons and whatnot. Where's the beef, Mark?

Contradictory post here. You are telling me that science doesn't have an exhaustive explanation for everything yet you expect all my arguments to be sourced and established scientifically? I'm still waiting for the scientific explanation for how rockets work in a vacuum without violating Newton's 1st law.  ::)

Others have answered about rockets and Newton's three laws already. I have quoted and supplied links to substantiate things and yes, it's expected you can also back up your scientific claims with scientific facts, so thank you for the link, but the smaller figures in the diagrams you show are illegible, so here's a link to the source of those diagrams:–

https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/p03/PAPERS/MPPB003.PDF

Here's an image taken from a paper on photon chamber design in which the author ponders over limitations of cross sectional shape in terms of deflection under a vacuum (with 1atm externally). He mentions that while rectangular cross sections are preferred, they deflect more than the less desirable elliptical shape. Even the elliptical shape deflects more than 0.1mm on both sides of the chamber despite the aluminium being 1mm thick! That is unprecedented:


Trakhtenberg, Brajuskovic, Wiemerslage New Insertion device vacuum chambers at the advanced photon source (2003)

If you read the article more carefully, you'll see the deflection wasn't as you claim:–
Quote
All  previous  ID  VC  had  an  elliptical  aperture.  The  deflection  under  atmospheric  pressure  for  such  a  shape,  even with 1 mm wall thickness, is below 100 μm per wall. (my emphasis)

How is a chamber wall deflection of around one tenth of a millimetre "unprecedented"?

And yet we have coke cans (also made from aluminium) that are one tenth the thickness of the above and yet they contain 2-3 atmospheres of pressure (sometimes twice this) with negligible deflection! This is why we can't apply basic pressure vessel mechanics to high vacuums because the science doesn't fit - there are phenomena that we simply don't understand whether you like it or not.

Incredible isn't it?

I suggest a small experiment: buy yourself a Coke can and let it warm to room temperature; or if you're more adventurous, let it warm in the sun or above a radiator. Measure distance between the top rim of the can and the surface of the top face of the can. Then open the can and measure the distance between top rim and top surface again. Let us know how negligible is the difference, if any, between the two measurements.

Here's an interesting informational article describing the strength of vacuums and the kinetic theory of gases which looks at the molecular element: https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html

I read the article through and it is a good summation of the problems of getting the gas pressure down to high vacuum. I've seen some of the diagrams used elsewhere, I know about the application of kinetic gas theory to the problems, but I'm still no wiser as to quantum effects, oddball chemistry or the "immense power" of such regimes? As for diffusion through the chamber wall, the article instances helium as being able to penetrate to a degree, but helium is not a substantial part of our atmosphere, nor is it used in spacecraft breathing atmospheres that I'm aware of, so why should that be relevant to the "strength" or "power" of a vacuum?

What I did notice in the article is confirmation of my point about some things in science being based on experiment and observation, rather than derived from theory:–

Quote
The above is related to the principle in classical mechanics where kinetic energy = 1/2 m v2, developed by Leibniz and Bernoulli and originally described in 1722 by Gravesande in a series of experiments in which brass balls were dropped from varying heights onto a soft clay surface. Gravesande found that a ball with twice the speed of another would leave an indentation four times as deep, from which he concluded that the force generated by a body in motion is proportional to the square of its velocity. This same principle applies to the kinetic gas theory where the force of the molecules impacting the walls of the vessel is what generates the gas pressure, in proportion to the square of their speed.

So kinetic energy being proportional to velocity squared is not derived from grand theory, but experiment. That finding is subsequently included in the theory and taught to school students and others as part of mechanics, but you will search in vain for a theoretical origin for it.


I'm reluctant to put the effort in to give you the science because I don't believe you sincerely want to be convinced.

I enjoy learning new things, so I ask you to reconsider that remark.

49
Einstein said that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, but he also said that nothing could reach the speed of light. The equations in the Wiki are from Special Relativity, which says that a body can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light. Relative frames of references, etc.

Alternatively, it may also be that there are no speed limits. I don't believe Einstein actually performed any experiments on that.

See these two articles:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment

Summary: "Our light experiments can't see the Earth moving around the Sun. Everything must be moving relative to each other. The only standard is the speed of light, which is consistent, and which everything moves relative to."

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

Summary: "Nooooooo. Those experiments which show SR to be incorrect must be exceptions to the rule."

Tom, you are mixing up Special and General Relativity. Even if you don't believe gravity exists, the science examines Earth, Sun and the planets in terms of gravitational attraction, so only General Relativity describes their behaviour.

Quote
The theory of relativity usually encompasses two interrelated theories by Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity.[1] Special relativity applies to all physical phenomena in the absence of gravity. General relativity explains the law of gravitation and its relation to other forces of nature.[2] It applies to the cosmological and astrophysical realm, including astronomy.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

50
But you are still not accounting for the issue about the shape of the earth.  Since you agree the Earth is not set on a foundation, but is detached, thus whether floating or accelerating it still would take the shape of every other large mass and be a globe.  Blow a flat bubble and prove me wrong.

I’m not accounting for or agreeing with anything. I only told you what you’ll find in the wiki, not what I think about it, nor whether I’ll blow any bubbles. Read a few threads as well as the FAQ and you’ll get a better feel for this place and the characters who may be found, as well as the opinions voiced and argued over. Four days since you joined is not enough to understand what sort of forum this is. Good luck!

51
If you read the wiki here you’ll find this site maintains the Earth is not stationary but travelling upwards at by now immense speed, since it is claimed Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Apparently everything else we see - sun, moon and stars - is also accelerating at the same rate with the Earth. This is called Universal Acceleration and is this site’s explanation of what the rest of the world calls gravity.

I’ll leave you to read for yourself and ponder the implications of the idea, but neither “resting on a foundation” nor “floating in space” apply to this notion. I’m making no comment at this time.

52
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 11, 2020, 07:31:49 AM »
Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that

I did not know that. What do you mean exactly? Very interesting.

no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body.

This is the debate about a "theory of everything" right? Or is it a more specific hole in our understanding of forces?

Some subjects are almost completely “done” in science, like chemistry: when an unknown form of carbon (buckminsterfullerine) was discovered some years ago, its bond energies, molecular size and other properties were rapidly calculated from theory by chemists who had not actually seen the stuff - and found to be accurate. Magnetism (and gravity), although understood quite well, lacks the “theory of everything” to fully explain it. There is no theory, however, for the basis of mechanics: things are as we observe, not as predicted by Klausowitzensky’s Principia Mecanica Universalis.

But if you want an example of something we really don’t fully understand, try to come up with a theoretical explanation of adhesion which allows predictions of which substance makes the best glue. Last I heard, that one was nowhere to be found, but the glues still work. Just as well for the ISS astronauts, eh, Mark?

53
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 08, 2020, 10:24:17 PM »
Well, now the origin of the notorious photograph has been settled, we can each decide who the joke is on. Good grief!

You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.

You may not know this, but science doesn't have a full and exhaustive explanation for every phenomenon under the sun. Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that. On a more mundane level, ordinary mechanics doesn't have a full theoretical explanation: the lecturer facing another year's undergraduates made the point that there is no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body. The students are taught that the sum of all horizontal forces on a stationary body is zero, the sum of all vertical forces is also zero and all rotational forces on that same stationary body also sums to zero, but this is drawn from observations, not a grand theory.

Scientific vacuum chambers on earth require extremely complex processes to create. They need mechanical displacement pumps, ion pumps and often the chamber needs to be baked to 600+ degrees to remove any contaminants or moisture in the chamber.

And even after doing all this, the vacuums are so powerful that leaks through seals aren't the only problem, you have diffusion leaks through the steel itself! This is a quantum physics problem, not a school mechanics problem. You have to take molecular bonding and vibration into account. In the lowest vacuums in space you have 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter but even this can become more unstable depending on the excitation/vibration of the proton.

Mark, you repeatedly state that these vacuums are "so powerful" and can supposedly do all sorts of things. What is your basis for these claims? What do you know about these phenomena that "we have no experience of"? Have you a book you have read? Maybe a web article? YouTube video? Other people have provided links and quotations to support their case – Tom Bishop usually posts tons of links, f'rinstance – but you just make unsupported claims about excitable vibrating protons and whatnot. Where's the beef, Mark?

54
Magnificent photos indeed, but what do they demonstrate? How are the captions in the video substantiated?

55
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere
« on: December 03, 2020, 07:15:10 PM »
All you need is a way of holding the camera still for a long exposure at night - think 30 minutes as a minimum or perhaps a couple of hours if there’s little light pollution. Even iPhones can do this now.

https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2013/01/31/star-trails-from-47˚s-72˚w/

56
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An inconvenient hemiplane.
« on: December 02, 2020, 06:57:10 AM »
The Wiki gives the following information under “Eratosthenes on diameter”:-

Quote
A circle with a diameter of 25,000 miles across is simply the area of land which the light of the sun affects, and represents the area of our known world.

25,000 miles is 40233.6km

The kilometre was originally defined as one ten thousandth of the meridional distance (through Paris) from north pole to the equator. Presumably that distance was known when the definition was declared by the French - pretty silly if they didn’t.

57
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 01, 2020, 01:00:46 PM »
Whether you’re a physicist or not, @james38, that’s very close to the points I was making, but more elegantly put. @MarkAntony, the water boiling at room temperature in that vacuum chamber is not going to begin until about 17 torr of pressure is reached - a medium vacuum, by the standards of the table from Wikipedia we both have referred to. The water boiling freely implies the pressure is reduced to and sustained at a vacuum of at least that degree. The syringe still doesn’t suck any water up when activated in that regime.

58
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 29, 2020, 10:03:51 PM »
I especially like the last bit of the demonstration when he lets the air back into the vacuum chamber. Air pressure does the work, not vacuum.

I've acknowledged already that it's still 1 atm outside the vessel. You can't apply simple pressure vessel mechanics to vacuum chambers that we have no experience of on earth. If there is very little difference between them, then how come we haven't recreated these vacuums? In the 50-60 years of space travel, how come an astronaut didn't think of bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis?

For all the money spent on the space program, they really have done a poor job answering lots of basic questions...  ::)

I don't think you have understood what has been written or demonstrated, possibly not even read or watched either. I have tried, but it seems oddly pointless. It has, however, been highly entertaining, especially the suggestion of "bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis".  ;D  However, I don't want to break the strict conditions of these forums so I'm out.

Thank you for engaging.  :)

59
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 28, 2020, 08:35:03 PM »
:o I am lost for words at these responses...

......



This table explicitly states that an "Extremely high vacuum" is 1000 to 1000 000 000 (1 billion) times stronger than a "High Vacuum". Are you saying that the figures in this image are wrong? If so, what are the true figures?

You're not the only one lost for words, you don't understand what that table says, but the oil is on a slow rolling boil – just tell me who taught you scientific notation for numbers and I'll collect the person and drop them in it myself.  :o :o

Mark, that table lists pressures for various degrees of vacuum. Look at it again:–



"Pressure ranges of each quality of vacuum" is the title and you've selected the column of torr values for your case. The pressures are listed, not the "power of vacuum".

The number 1x103 is 1 multiplied by 103 which is 1x10x10x10 = 1,000. However, the number 1x10-3 (don't miss the minus sign!)  means 1 divided by 103 which is 1/1000 or 0.001 and we call that a thousandth. A thousandth of a torr is a pretty small pressure.

Another number like 9.87x10-7 means 9.87 divided by 107 which is 9.87/10,000,000 or 0.000000987 and is just smaller than a millionth. A millionth of a torr is much smaller than our last example.

The table is not telling us that this, that or the other vacuum is a thousand or a billion times "more powerful" than another, but that the pressure in one is a thousandth or a billionth that of another. The table explicitly tells you that the pressure in an Extremely High Vacuum is a thousandth to a billionth that in a High Vacuum.

Someone told you the work is done by the vacuum pulling on the piston, the vacuum chamber wall or the spacesuit, but it's not. The work of keeping the piston in the syringe, fracturing the vacuum chamber or bursting the spacesuit is done by the external pressure withstood or internal pressure contained. There is space for another person in the boiling oil...

If it's the vacuum pulling, then that would even work in a vacuum chamber. I'm serious: by your reckoning, pulling water into a syringe should be possible even in a vacuum chamber, because pulling that piston will increase the "strength of vacuum" in the syringe. So does it? Watch for yourself:–



I especially like the last bit of the demonstration when he lets the air back into the vacuum chamber. Air pressure does the work, not vacuum.

60
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 26, 2020, 09:05:21 PM »
The point I was making around 1psi and 0psi is that it is not a binary thing as NASA imply by saying there is a low pressure differential if you have 5psi inside the space suit and 0psi outside. The reality is that there is a massive pressure differential - we just don't have any experience of the strength of these vacuums on earth. We can get vacuums down very low but only on an extremely small scale (not infinite like in space). Or if we do scale it up in size we have to use very thick concrete walls or thick steel vessels. But why? Isn't it just a small pressure differential  ::)

Yes it is a small pressure differential, but applied over a large surface it amounts to a very large force. Let’s take a vacuum chamber with one flat wall 10 feet square and assume it’s air at 5psi outside and 0psi inside. That’s a wall of 14,400 square inches and it will be bearing a pressure load of 72,000 pounds force on that wall alone.

Both you and Jack refer to an infinite vacuum of space - but what are you talking about? Do you think there are pressures below zero?

......... (suggested investigation).........

Do try this at home!
I appreciate the mathematical demonstration but you are making the very assumption I am saying is flawed, that there is a 5psi pressure differential no matter how powerful the vacuum. This is an absurd assumption with no disrespect. You really can't talk about these vacuums without taking energy or even wall stresses into account.

Lets say you have a syringe like below:



For arguments sake, the barrel is 20miles long and the plunger is pushed in as far as it can go so only a very small amount of air is in the tip. You plug the tip and get someone to pull the plunger as hard as they can. That person is only going to get so far before the strength of the vacuum is just too much to go any further. Lets say you then get a horse to pull it further. At some point the barrel will collapse so you will have to replace it with steel to withstand the vacuum. The horse can go no further so you get a 16 wheeler truck to pull the plunger. The truck pulls the plunger further but now the steel tube collapses so you have to replace it and reinforce with outer ribs for support. You then get an army tank that pulls the plunger further. Each foot of distance the plunger gets pulled will require an exponentially higher amount of energy to do so. It will get to a point where no vehicle or combination of vehicles will be powerful enough to pull the plunger further. You are also getting closer to material limitations where there simply won't be materials strong enough to maintain the volume of vacuum. There is still only 1atm outside but the differential is growing immensely.

Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum". We have only ever recreated a high vacuum on a large scale on earth. These are unimaginably powerful vacuums we're dealing with, yet we have astronauts dancing around on the moon? I think not.

Mark, can I just say how much I'm enjoying this conversation, learning how you think. I think I see where the vacuum logic comes from: take a cylinder of gas and a piston and apply increasing force to the piston, directed towards the gas, and the pressure will climb and as the volume of gas decreases and its pressure increases, it takes ever-increasing force to move the piston further into the cylinder in ever-decreasing amounts. This analogy is extended to pulling a piston out of a cylinder containing a vacuum, implying ever-increasing force is needed to pull the piston further out of the cylinder against the vacuum.

There's just one problem, a vacuum is nothing. Compressing a gas by reducing its volume does indeed take greater and greater effort, because there's a gas in the cylinder, but increasing the volume of a vacuum means increasing the volume of nothing. The outside pressure is still 1 atm and the internal pressure, the vacuum, is still nothing, nada, zero, so the differential is the same whether the piston is pulled out by 1cm or 500 yards. The piston is still being pulled against a pressure of 1 atm on the piston, however far it is pulled.

Have you any example of that experiment having been done to back up the idea? Gas compression is not a thought experiment like the vacuum in a piston example, it's an everyday occurrence; but I shall be astonished if you can point to even one successful attempt to prove pulling on a vacuum results in an ever-increasing resistance to being pulled. I'm not being frivolous by suggesting this would be a scientific revelation.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9  Next >