The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Organic Pork on October 09, 2017, 08:41:04 PM
-
If the Earth is flat, wouldn't gravity pull you towards the center of mass of the Earth, which, if you are near the edge, would not pull you perpendicular to the ground?
-
If the Earth is flat, wouldn't gravity pull you towards the center of mass of the Earth, which, if you are near the edge, would not pull you perpendicular to the ground?
Disc Earth doesn't have gravity but substitutes Universal Acceleration: https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
In the other hypothesis the Earth is infinite and gravity does exist, but since the Earth is a finite thickness it's evenly spread across the globe.
Both use 'Celestial Gravitation' to some degree to create the gravity variance that can be measured across Earth: https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
-
If the Earth is flat, wouldn't gravity pull you towards the center of mass of the Earth, which, if you are near the edge, would not pull you perpendicular to the ground?
In some other post, I pointed out that the FE'ers really have four options for "what is gravity":
1) Infinite disk earth with gravity.
2) Infinite disk earth with Universal Acceleration.
3) Finite disk earth with gravity.
4) Finite disk earth with Universal Acceleration.
The folks here at TFES.org seem mostly to be agreed on (2). Personally, I think they'd be better off with (1).
The problem you describe would indeed be an enormous problem with (3) - so as far as I can tell, the "finite-flat-earth" people either haven't thought about it - or are going with (4).
Option (2) has problems though. For UA to work would require an infinite energy source...and would either violate the law of conservation of momentum - or would require the earth to be sloughing off material from the underside at some prodigious rate as it accelerates.
So if *I* was an FE'er - I'd be going with option (1)...but all four approaches have problems with the variability of gravity over the Earth's surface (greater at poles than equator and less on top of tall mountains)...and falls apart when you consider tides.
A VERY few FE'ers claim that effect that we call "gravity" is caused by air pressure pushing down on things - but even their fellow FE'ers find that funny. After all, if you put something under a bell jar and pump all of the air out, the object doesn't float. So that's a bust.
-
If the Earth is flat, wouldn't gravity pull you towards the center of mass of the Earth, which, if you are near the edge, would not pull you perpendicular to the ground?
In some other post, I pointed out that the FE'ers really have four options for "what is gravity":
1) Infinite disk earth with gravity.
2) Infinite disk earth with Universal Acceleration.
3) Finite disk earth with gravity.
4) Finite disk earth with Universal Acceleration.
The folks here at TFES.org seem mostly to be agreed on (2). Personally, I think they'd be better off with (1).
The problem you describe would indeed be an enormous problem with (3) - so as far as I can tell, the "finite-flat-earth" people either haven't thought about it - or are going with (4).
Option (2) has problems though. For UA to work would require an infinite energy source...and would either violate the law of conservation of momentum - or would require the earth to be sloughing off material from the underside at some prodigious rate as it accelerates.
So if *I* was an FE'er - I'd be going with option (1)...but all four approaches have problems with the variability of gravity over the Earth's surface (greater at poles than equator and less on top of tall mountains)...and falls apart when you consider tides.
A VERY few FE'ers claim that effect that we call "gravity" is caused by air pressure pushing down on things - but even their fellow FE'ers find that funny. After all, if you put something under a bell jar and pump all of the air out, the object doesn't float. So that's a bust.
I've honestly only ever seen (1) and (4) used. (4) seems most popular here (unless I've misread the wiki) and (1) is more popular over at theflatearthsociety.
-
If the Earth is flat, wouldn't gravity pull you towards the center of mass of the Earth, which, if you are near the edge, would not pull you perpendicular to the ground?
In some other post, I pointed out that the FE'ers really have four options for "what is gravity":
1) Infinite disk earth with gravity.
2) Infinite disk earth with Universal Acceleration.
3) Finite disk earth with gravity.
4) Finite disk earth with Universal Acceleration.
The folks here at TFES.org seem mostly to be agreed on (2). Personally, I think they'd be better off with (1).
The problem you describe would indeed be an enormous problem with (3) - so as far as I can tell, the "finite-flat-earth" people either haven't thought about it - or are going with (4).
Option (2) has problems though. For UA to work would require an infinite energy source...and would either violate the law of conservation of momentum - or would require the earth to be sloughing off material from the underside at some prodigious rate as it accelerates.
So if *I* was an FE'er - I'd be going with option (1)...but all four approaches have problems with the variability of gravity over the Earth's surface (greater at poles than equator and less on top of tall mountains)...and falls apart when you consider tides.
A VERY few FE'ers claim that effect that we call "gravity" is caused by air pressure pushing down on things - but even their fellow FE'ers find that funny. After all, if you put something under a bell jar and pump all of the air out, the object doesn't float. So that's a bust.
I've honestly only ever seen (1) and (4) used. (4) seems most popular here (unless I've misread the wiki) and (1) is more popular over at theflatearthsociety.
Hmmm - you know I could have sworn I'd seen pictures of an infinite plane earth on the Wiki - but now I can't find it.
Maybe you're right.
-
The folks here at TFES.org seem mostly to be agreed on (2).
Please stop spreading lies about us. It's extremely unhelpful, especially when it's been pointed out to you before.
-
The folks here at TFES.org seem mostly to be agreed on (2).
Please stop spreading lies about us. It's extremely unhelpful, especially when it's been pointed out to you before.
would you mind pointing me to where on the wiki is the correct information? I happen to agree that 3d got that one probably wrong, but I can't blame him. If you spent half of the time you spend whining correcting the wiki with clear and univocal statements, you'd get almost no misrepresentations from people trying to nail jello to the wall.
-
The folks here at TFES.org seem mostly to be agreed on (2).
Please stop spreading lies about us. It's extremely unhelpful, especially when it's been pointed out to you before.
would you mind pointing me to where on the wiki is the correct information? I happen to agree that 3d got that one probably wrong, but I can't blame him. If you spent half of the time you spend whining correcting the wiki with clear and univocal statements, you'd get almost no misrepresentations from people trying to nail jello to the wall.
Aha! I knew I'd seen it someplace:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer#Infinite_Earth
-
The folks here at TFES.org seem mostly to be agreed on (2).
Please stop spreading lies about us. It's extremely unhelpful, especially when it's been pointed out to you before.
would you mind pointing me to where on the wiki is the correct information? I happen to agree that 3d got that one probably wrong, but I can't blame him. If you spent half of the time you spend whining correcting the wiki with clear and univocal statements, you'd get almost no misrepresentations from people trying to nail jello to the wall.
Aha! I knew I'd seen it someplace:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer#Infinite_Earth
figures ;D
But then, it is presented with a big if. Truth is, you won't catch anyone making a definitive positive statement... The wiki is noncommittal on almost every topic, and most of the people know better than lending their side to fact-checking.. You have to end up giving credit to j-man for the courage of his convictions.
-
Gravity has always been one of the most perplexing things to me. However, gravity can pull everything towards the center but it isn't powerful enough to keep magnets apart.If I have a magnet strong enough placed on the top of my hand with the palms of the hand facing down, I would be able to lift an opposing magnet that is on the floor, being pulled by the magnetic force of gravity without any problem! #VierdYah
-
Gravity has always been one of the most perplexing things to me. However, gravity can pull everything towards the center but it isn't powerful enough to keep magnets apart.
Gravity can also be beaten by a playing card - make a house of cards and you'll see that the cards on the higher levels are beating gravity in its attempts to pull them to the ground. Gravity is beaten by a child's helium balloon with no effort. Apply effort and gravity is thwarted in a big way with a jumbo jet. Don't stop at magnets, gravity gets defeated every day in countless ways but what is the relevance??? ???
-
Gravity has always been one of the most perplexing things to me. However, gravity can pull everything towards the center but it isn't powerful enough to keep magnets apart.
Gravity can also be beaten by a playing card - make a house of cards and you'll see that the cards on the higher levels are beating gravity in its attempts to pull them to the ground. Gravity is beaten by a child's helium balloon with no effort. Apply effort and gravity is thwarted in a big way with a jumbo jet. Don't stop at magnets, gravity gets defeated every day in countless ways but what is the relevance??? ???
The relevance would then lead you to believe that "gravity" isn't what we think it is. If you have a Helium balloon it will rise, but if the ballon has 50/50 air and Helium it floats! So clearly buoyancy creates the "gravity" effect we see. Depending on the medium in which you are in, gravities' effect changes, but ONLY depending on the medium in which you are in! :) That would then lead us to rethink the force of gravity in space! How could we know the effect of gravity two objects have on one another if we don't know what the medium is made of?
-
No its about forces equalling or overwhelming the pull of gravity. The helium pushes the balloon up countering the effect of gravity. The playing cards exert a force on the one above preventing the pull of gravity from pulling it down. As for the medium of space I'll have to hand that one over as I won't be good at explaining that (not that I am saying I have done a good job so far) ;)
-
No its about forces equalling or overwhelming the pull of gravity. The helium pushes the balloon up countering the effect of gravity. The playing cards exert a force on the one above preventing the pull of gravity from pulling it down. As for the medium of space I'll have to hand that one over as I won't be good at explaining that (not that I am saying I have a good job so far) ;)
Seeing as gravity isn't the result of two mediums (what he appears to be attempting to present here is 'denpressure' and if you google that you can find out more about *that* particular insanity) wondering what the medium of space is seems largely irrelevant. Remember, gravity is a relatively weak attraction, dependent upon the size of the body. If you went to, say Jupiter, all of these things would be *much* harder to do. If gravity wasn't as relatively weak of a force as it is, you would have trouble simply walking!
-
Gravity has always been one of the most perplexing things to me. However, gravity can pull everything towards the center but it isn't powerful enough to keep magnets apart.If I have a magnet strong enough placed on the top of my hand with the palms of the hand facing down, I would be able to lift an opposing magnet that is on the floor, being pulled by the magnetic force of gravity without any problem! #VierdYah
It isn't a competition as if, a balloon floating has defeated gravity. Gravity is a force exerted on things by mass. Magnetism is a force that attracts things within magnetic fields. A magnet can attract metal or another magnet over a short range. But while the magnet can hold something, it still all exists in the Earth's gravitational field. Gravity is still working on both of them.
Think of an airplane. Gravity pulls the plane down and the lift created by the wings moving through the air pushes the plane up. Level flight is a balance between these two forces.
-
The answer to OP's question is pretty simple: gravity isn't real, so this is a non-issue.
-
The answer to OP's question is pretty simple: gravity isn't real, so this is a non-issue.
I just picked up a book and let go. It dropped toward the Earth. Gravity seems to still be working here. I'll let you explain to the OP that you think the floor was infinitely/universally accelerating towards the book driven by unknown and magical forces.
-
The answer to OP's question is pretty simple: gravity isn't real, so this is a non-issue.
I just picked up a book and let go. It dropped toward the Earth. Gravity seems to still be working here. I'll let you explain to the OP that you think the floor was infinitely/universally accelerating towards the book driven by unknown and magical forces.
You make it sound like uniform acceleration of the book in one direction is inherently less magical than it doing so in the other direction.
-
dudes when you drop that book, it doesn't just accelerate toward the Earth, the Earth accelerates right back!
HOW SWEET IS THAT?
anyway gravity is super magical and cool imo:
Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass. The most extreme example of this curvature of spacetime is a black hole, from which nothing -- not even light -- can escape once past the black hole's event horizon. However, for most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which describes gravity as a force which causes any two bodies to be attracted to each other, with the force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity)
...
Every planetary body (including the Earth) is surrounded by its own gravitational field, which can be conceptualized with Newtonian physics as exerting an attractive force on all objects. Assuming a spherically symmetrical planet, the strength of this field at any given point above the surface is proportional to the planetary body's mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of the body.
According to Newton's 3rd Law, the Earth itself experiences a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that which it exerts on a falling object. This means that the Earth also accelerates towards the object until they collide. Because the mass of the Earth is huge, however, the acceleration imparted to the Earth by this opposite force is negligible in comparison to the object's. If the object doesn't bounce after it has collided with the Earth, each of them then exerts a repulsive contact force on the other which effectively balances the attractive force of gravity and prevents further acceleration.
The apparent force of gravity on Earth is the resultant (vector sum) of two forces: The gravitational attraction in accordance with Newton's universal law of gravitation, and the centrifugal force, which results from the choice of an earthbound, rotating frame of reference. The force of gravity is the weakest at the equator because of the centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation and because points on the equator are furthest from the center of the Earth. The force of gravity varies with latitude and increases from about 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator to about 9.832 m/s2 at the poles. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Earth.27s_gravity)
yeah gravity is pretty cool.
getting way into it involves getting up to date on 20th century physics, which is a challenge. but you can do it! read some wikipedia articles for a start, maybe try some books
-
No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.
If you believe in universal acceleration, please explain what is making the Earth accelerate. And why we observe star light shifted to the red end of the spectrum (things moving further away) rather than the opposite. If the Earth is accelerating, shouldn't you believe we are getting closer to the stars and other things we observe in the sky?
-
No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.
And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.
If you believe in universal acceleration, please explain what is making the Earth accelerate. And why we observe star light shifted to the red end of the spectrum (things moving further away) rather than the opposite. If the Earth is accelerating, shouldn't you believe we are getting closer to the stars and other things we observe in the sky?
I never claimed that I knew what makes it accelerate, you're the one here claiming it must be gravity, a completely unverified force.
-
To state things a different way...
Newton, Kepler, and scientists that followed defined formulas that precisely predict the movements of objects and their interactions. In part, this was done with observations of planets and their moons, which helped them understand how the solar system works, with the sun at the center and all that. So they made observations and calculations that work. Those formulas are used in many aspects of modern life, like launching satellites.
FE theory doesn't have any equivalent body of work for UA. These is no scientific basis for the existence of UA. Those gravity formulas work for the round Earth having its place as one of the planets of our solar system. But since FE people can't accept that the Earth is round, all those gravity formulas must be wrong in your view. So UA is invented as a placeholder, one that just happens to have all the same effects of gravity.
-
No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.
And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.
If you believe in universal acceleration, please explain what is making the Earth accelerate. And why we observe star light shifted to the red end of the spectrum (things moving further away) rather than the opposite. If the Earth is accelerating, shouldn't you believe we are getting closer to the stars and other things we observe in the sky?
I never claimed that I knew what makes it accelerate, you're the one here claiming it must be gravity, a completely unverified force.
You are correct on the first point. Newton/Kepler figured out what it does. Einstein explained how it does it. And experiments have been confirming his results for the last hundred years.
If you think gravity hasn't been verified, you are truly delusional and there is nothing I can say to help you. I assume you are in the camp of thinking all space flight has been faked. If not, I can assure you the they were using verified formulas to launch space flights. And satellites, like the one I'm using now to watch Dish TV.
-
Not to change the subject, but while I have your attention. What is a "Planar Moderator"?
-
No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.
And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.
Yeah. And? We don't now the "why" of anything in science, only the "how".
-
No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.
And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.
Yeah. And? We don't now the "why" of anything in science, only the "how".
Not always...but ultimately, it's like talking to a small child when you say "Get ready for bed now."..."Why?"..."Because it's your bedtime soon."..."But why?"..."Because you have school tomorrow."..."But why?"..."Because you need to learn stuff."..."But why?"....."AAAAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! GO TO BED...NOW!"
Same deal with physics. You can ask why your teacup is broken? Because you released it from your hand, it gained kinetic energy and that was dissipated when it hit the floor. But why did it fall? Because of the force of gravity was acting upon it and F=m.a - so it accelerated downwards. You can ask why that happened? Because two masses attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of their distance. You can ask why? Because mass curves space and the force emerges from the need to follow a geodesic path. But if you ask "Why?" one more time - then in the end, the answer tends to be "Because that's how the universe is."
No matter how many explanations you provide, you can always reply with "But Why?" and eventually run out of explanations. Will we ever know why masses curve space? Maybe - but then we'll just be asking why THAT happens.
Sooner or later, you will ALWAYS run out of answers.
This isn't a flaw in physics - you run into the same problem with ANY system of discussion. Why does the government demand taxes from use...descends into a long series of "But why?" questions that probably traverse through economics to politics to psychology to biology to chemistry to physics - and then to a brick wall when you just have to say that we ran out of explanations.
Flat Earth theory is just as bad - except that you hit the wall MUCH sooner! Why does the moon move across the sky? Because of celestial currents. Why are there celestial currents?
We don't know.
-
No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.
And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.
Yeah. And? We don't now the "why" of anything in science, only the "how".
Which is precisely why science is utterly useless.
You are correct on the first point. Newton/Kepler figured out what it does. Einstein explained how it does it. And experiments have been confirming his results for the last hundred years.
If you think gravity hasn't been verified, you are truly delusional and there is nothing I can say to help you. I assume you are in the camp of thinking all space flight has been faked. If not, I can assure you the they were using verified formulas to launch space flights. And satellites, like the one I'm using now to watch Dish TV.
Gravity has not been verified, and Einstein presupposed the causes of gravity, he never proved any of them (and they still haven't been proven). Remember, Einstein received a Nobel prize on his work with the photoelectric effect, never his unproven relativity hypotheses.
However, since you seem to be so sure about it being proven, perhaps you should let the greater scientific community know that you've finally found the One True Model and you're ready to be their overlord.
Not to change the subject, but while I have your attention. What is a "Planar Moderator"?
It's just a fancy title for "moderator". I try to keep the forum orderly, though usually I don't venture up here to the FET forums.
-
No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.
And yet they never figured out why. They simply stated it happened.
Yeah. And? We don't now the "why" of anything in science, only the "how".
Which is precisely why science is utterly useless.
You are correct on the first point. Newton/Kepler figured out what it does. Einstein explained how it does it. And experiments have been confirming his results for the last hundred years.
If you think gravity hasn't been verified, you are truly delusional and there is nothing I can say to help you. I assume you are in the camp of thinking all space flight has been faked. If not, I can assure you the they were using verified formulas to launch space flights. And satellites, like the one I'm using now to watch Dish TV.
Gravity has not been verified, and Einstein presupposed the causes of gravity, he never proved any of them (and they still haven't been proven). Remember, Einstein received a Nobel prize on his work with the photoelectric effect, never his unproven relativity hypotheses.
However, since you seem to be so sure about it being proven, perhaps you should let the greater scientific community know that you've finally found the One True Model and you're ready to be their overlord.
Not to change the subject, but while I have your attention. What is a "Planar Moderator"?
It's just a fancy title for "moderator". I try to keep the forum orderly, though usually I don't venture up here to the FET forums.
Science is utterly useless?? The irony is that this was posted by a device that would not exist without science... Saying relativity is unproven just shows your ignorance. The GPS system (not that you likely believe in that sort of thing) takes into account relativistic effects. I could go on, but changing your mind is not going to happen.
-
Taking "relativistic" effects into account and proving relativity are two entirely separate things. Basic concepts of relativity, like frames of reference, do exist. Spacetime warping to create a magic force that attracts everything? Not so much.
-
Taking "relativistic" effects into account and proving relativity are two entirely separate things. Basic concepts of relativity, like frames of reference, do exist. Spacetime warping to create a magic force that attracts everything? Not so much.
You're wrong. Spacetime warping is exactly what the GPS system has to take into account. (time dilution) There was also an experiment performed back in 2011 that proved frame dragging. Further, astronomers use gravitational lensing to get a better view of distant objects.
You're OK with frame of reference because FET uses to help explain UA. Spacetime effects can't exist because gravity doesn't exist in FET as it is observed in the real world. Talk about cherry picking. This is the sort of stuff that makes FET look completely made up.
-
Taking "relativistic" effects into account and proving relativity are two entirely separate things. Basic concepts of relativity, like frames of reference, do exist. Spacetime warping to create a magic force that attracts everything? Not so much.
You're wrong. Spacetime warping is exactly what the GPS system has to take into account. (time dilution) There was also an experiment performed back in 2011 that proved frame dragging. Further, astronomers use gravitational lensing to get a better view of distant objects.
You're OK with frame of reference because FET uses to help explain UA. Spacetime effects can't exist because gravity doesn't exist in FET as it is observed in the real world. Talk about cherry picking. This is the sort of stuff that makes FET look completely made up.
Could you go into how exactly I might go about diluting time and what sort of diluting mixture I should use?
-
You are correct on the first point. Newton/Kepler figured out what it does. Einstein explained how it does it. And experiments have been confirming his results for the last hundred years.
If you think gravity hasn't been verified, you are truly delusional and there is nothing I can say to help you. I assume you are in the camp of thinking all space flight has been faked. If not, I can assure you the they were using verified formulas to launch space flights. And satellites, like the one I'm using now to watch Dish TV.
Gravity has not been verified, and Einstein presupposed the causes of gravity, he never proved any of them (and they still haven't been proven). Remember, Einstein received a Nobel prize on his work with the photoelectric effect, never his unproven relativity hypotheses.
Still haven't been proven you say?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a6175/5-recent-tests-that-prove-einstein-right/ (http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a6175/5-recent-tests-that-prove-einstein-right/)
https://www.livescience.com/16270-general-relativity-gravitational-redshift-galaxies.html (https://www.livescience.com/16270-general-relativity-gravitational-redshift-galaxies.html)
https://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/ (https://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
-
Taking "relativistic" effects into account and proving relativity are two entirely separate things. Basic concepts of relativity, like frames of reference, do exist. Spacetime warping to create a magic force that attracts everything? Not so much.
You're wrong. Spacetime warping is exactly what the GPS system has to take into account. (time dilution) There was also an experiment performed back in 2011 that proved frame dragging. Further, astronomers use gravitational lensing to get a better view of distant objects.
You're OK with frame of reference because FET uses to help explain UA. Spacetime effects can't exist because gravity doesn't exist in FET as it is observed in the real world. Talk about cherry picking. This is the sort of stuff that makes FET look completely made up.
Could you go into how exactly I might go about diluting time and what sort of diluting mixture I should use?
Sigh...dilation.
-
You are correct on the first point. Newton/Kepler figured out what it does. Einstein explained how it does it. And experiments have been confirming his results for the last hundred years.
If you think gravity hasn't been verified, you are truly delusional and there is nothing I can say to help you. I assume you are in the camp of thinking all space flight has been faked. If not, I can assure you the they were using verified formulas to launch space flights. And satellites, like the one I'm using now to watch Dish TV.
Gravity has not been verified, and Einstein presupposed the causes of gravity, he never proved any of them (and they still haven't been proven). Remember, Einstein received a Nobel prize on his work with the photoelectric effect, never his unproven relativity hypotheses.
Still haven't been proven you say?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
Stop spamming links. Use the edit feature. Warned.
-
A fair point, I could have put the links in one post. The effort to dial knowledge back decades and to simply deny things that exist irritates me, sometimes more than other times.
-
And of those listed links, how many of those have you performed yourself to verify their authenticity?
-
And of those listed links, how many of those have you performed yourself to verify their authenticity?
Quite the copout. No reasonable answer, so you pull that one out of the hat.
To answer you question, no I have not performed those experiments. I am not a scientist, but I do have the capability to read and understand their results. At least, much of the time. And if it's something I don't understand, I try to learn and don't automatically assume everyone is conspiring against me.
Have you personally proven that the publisher/authors of all those articles are lying, part of the vast round conspiracy?
Have you personally visited and mapped the ice wall in which you probably believe?
-
So, not only are your claims unverified, but you yourself admit that you wouldn't be able to test them, even if you want to, and instead refer to things like GPS satellites using relativity, when satellites don't even exist! And then you have the audacity to claim I'm the copout. Quite the intriguing line of argument you've built.
-
So, not only are your claims unverified, but you yourself admit that you wouldn't be able to test them, even if you want to, and instead refer to things like GPS satellites using relativity, when satellites don't even exist! And then you have the audacity to claim I'm the copout. Quite the intriguing line of argument you've built.
For the record, I didn't say anything about GPS formulas using relativity, someone else made that comment. I actually had not heard that before, but considering the orbital speed of the satellites and their altitude, I suppose that makes sense. What with speed and lessor gravitational fields having effects and all.
It's a sad little world you have chosen for yourself where no accomplishments can be appreciated or knowledge gained based on the experiences of others.
Did you hear that someone climbed to the summit of Mt Everest? But wait, I can't comment on that since I didn't do that myself, and you probably haven't been there. So I guess you don't believe in that either.
OK, that's enough for now. I'm going to go back to the baseball game I'm watching on my satellite TV, which I assume you don't believe in either.
-
So, not only are your claims unverified, but you yourself admit that you wouldn't be able to test them, even if you want to, and instead refer to things like GPS satellites using relativity, when satellites don't even exist! And then you have the audacity to claim I'm the copout. Quite the intriguing line of argument you've built.
I HATE this BS FEers try to pull. It is such a bogus line of hypocritical garbage and they know it. What experiments have YOU performed? You say the Earth is flat, prove it. Satellites don't exist - right... I blew Tom Bishop up on this a while back. Had him backed into such a corner that he started claiming there was a conspiracy after claiming there isn't one. Rushy, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you aren't even remotely qualified to perform anything more than very basic "backyard science" sort of experiments. If you can't test it, it can't be true. Sigh, willful ignorance is such a sad thing.
-
I HATE this BS FEers try to pull. It is such a bogus line of hypocritical garbage and they know it. What experiments have YOU performed? You say the Earth is flat, prove it. Satellites don't exist - right... I blew Tom Bishop up on this a while back. Had him backed into such a corner that he started claiming there was a conspiracy after claiming there isn't one. Rushy, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you aren't even remotely qualified to perform anything more than very basic "backyard science" sort of experiments. If you can't test it, it can't be true. Sigh, willful ignorance is such a sad thing.
Yes, it's just sad.
In my limited time here, I've seen that excuse rolled out several times. But I can't think of any post that I've seen where one of the FE faithful have reported on their own experimental data. Other than, I looked at the horizon and it looked flat to me. Or that canal experiment from the 1800's.
-
No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.
If you believe in universal acceleration, please explain what is making the Earth accelerate. And why we observe star light shifted to the red end of the spectrum (things moving further away) rather than the opposite. If the Earth is accelerating, shouldn't you believe we are getting closer to the stars and other things we observe in the sky?
I think the claim is that those things (stars, etc) are responding to the same universal acceleration effect as the Flat Earth disk - that's presumably why it's called "universal".
The problem is that this effect is somehow selective. Universal acceleration applies to the (flat) earth - but not to a rock that's made of the same 'stuff'. When you dig a deep hole with steep sides, it tends to collapse - which would be odd if all of the rocks were susceptible to this acceleration.
So we'd have to imagine some kind of magical substrate beneath the rocks that's feeling the acceleration - while the rocks themselves (along with trees, houses, cars, people, etc) are immune to it's effects.
Whatever this magical stuff is - must be the same thing that sun, moon, stars and planets are made of because they are evidently accelerating too.
But then you get into the ikky corner cases. There are asteroids and comets up there - which MOSTLY accelerate along with the earth (so they are made of magical accelerating stuff) - but sometimes one of them falls out of the sky and kills a few billion dinosaurs - or flattens a million acres of Russian forest. We can even find some of these things ("meteorites") lying around on the ground - and it seems that if you drop one, it falls to the ground.
So do comets and meteors sometimes get "un-magicked" so they are no longer being accelerated upwards by this "universal" force?
Like all FE theories, it kinda sorta works at first glance - but then fails horribly when you think past that and start to consider the effects of it.
...and (sorry to keep saying this) it can't explain tides or the lesser force of gravity at the equator or the greater force at the poles.
Also, an acceleration implies a force - and a motion through a distance - and THAT requires "ENERGY" - so what is the energy source behind this acceleration? There must be a hell of a lot of it to keep the Earth and all of those other bodies accelerating continually like that. Will it run out so we'll all go into free-fall one day?
In RET, Gravity is a force - but it doesn't move through a distance - so the Earth doesn't need a power supply.
-
No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.
If you believe in universal acceleration, please explain what is making the Earth accelerate. And why we observe star light shifted to the red end of the spectrum (things moving further away) rather than the opposite. If the Earth is accelerating, shouldn't you believe we are getting closer to the stars and other things we observe in the sky?
I think the claim is that those things (stars, etc) are responding to the same universal acceleration effect as the Flat Earth disk - that's presumably why it's called "universal".
Here is the reason I posed that question. If you assume that the Earth is flat, and being accelerated constantly, you can't be expected to know about the force pushing the Earth up, since it is below the flat Earth and not visible. But that is not the case for the stars "above" us. So if something is accelerating them, shouldn't we be able to see some evidence of whatever is causing that force? Just another attempt to get them to answer some logical questions, which I know they can't do.
-
For the record, I didn't say anything about GPS formulas using relativity, someone else made that comment. I actually had not heard that before, but considering the orbital speed of the satellites and their altitude, I suppose that makes sense. What with speed and lessor gravitational fields having effects and all.
It's a sad little world you have chosen for yourself where no accomplishments can be appreciated or knowledge gained based on the experiences of others.
Did you hear that someone climbed to the summit of Mt Everest? But wait, I can't comment on that since I didn't do that myself, and you probably haven't been there. So I guess you don't believe in that either.
OK, that's enough for now. I'm going to go back to the baseball game I'm watching on my satellite TV, which I assume you don't believe in either.
There's a big difference between claiming you can climb a mountain versus saying the earth is a shape that it isn't.
I HATE this BS FEers try to pull. It is such a bogus line of hypocritical garbage and they know it. What experiments have YOU performed? You say the Earth is flat, prove it. Satellites don't exist - right... I blew Tom Bishop up on this a while back. Had him backed into such a corner that he started claiming there was a conspiracy after claiming there isn't one. Rushy, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you aren't even remotely qualified to perform anything more than very basic "backyard science" sort of experiments. If you can't test it, it can't be true. Sigh, willful ignorance is such a sad thing.
The Bedford Level experiment is really all you need. On a curved world the size that RET claims it to be, water would curve at about an 8 inch drop per mile, and yet this doesn't exist. I've done it, you can do it too, all you need is a large lake or river and a laser pointer. Simple stuff, I imagine even you could do it, but you're not going to. You'll just continue to sit here and insist I'm doing the same thing you are: nothing.
-
For the record, I didn't say anything about GPS formulas using relativity, someone else made that comment. I actually had not heard that before, but considering the orbital speed of the satellites and their altitude, I suppose that makes sense. What with speed and lessor gravitational fields having effects and all.
It's a sad little world you have chosen for yourself where no accomplishments can be appreciated or knowledge gained based on the experiences of others.
Did you hear that someone climbed to the summit of Mt Everest? But wait, I can't comment on that since I didn't do that myself, and you probably haven't been there. So I guess you don't believe in that either.
OK, that's enough for now. I'm going to go back to the baseball game I'm watching on my satellite TV, which I assume you don't believe in either.
There's a big difference between claiming you can climb a mountain versus saying the earth is a shape that it isn't.
I HATE this BS FEers try to pull. It is such a bogus line of hypocritical garbage and they know it. What experiments have YOU performed? You say the Earth is flat, prove it. Satellites don't exist - right... I blew Tom Bishop up on this a while back. Had him backed into such a corner that he started claiming there was a conspiracy after claiming there isn't one. Rushy, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you aren't even remotely qualified to perform anything more than very basic "backyard science" sort of experiments. If you can't test it, it can't be true. Sigh, willful ignorance is such a sad thing.
The Bedford Level experiment is really all you need. On a curved world the size that RET claims it to be, water would curve at about an 8 inch drop per mile, and yet this doesn't exist. I've done it, you can do it too, all you need is a large lake or river and a laser pointer. Simple stuff, I imagine even you could do it, but you're not going to. You'll just continue to sit here and insist I'm doing the same thing you are: nothing.
No, it's exactly the same thing. You are saying I can't claim any fact without having proven it myself.
I claim that the summit of Everest was reached by Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay. I could give you links to articles written about it, pictures from the expedition. If you were to consistently apply your FE standard of proof, you would claim that since I wasn't there I can't prove it happened. I can't prove that the articles and the pictures are not forgeries, therefore, you shouldn't believe it. Granted that it is a different scale of alleged deception, but the concept is exactly the same.
I could claim that the Dodgers won Word Series game 1 last night. But I can't prove it since I watched it by receiving a broadcast signal from a satellite, which you say doesn't exist.
So you've called me out by showing that I personally didn't measure the red shift of certain distant galaxies. Wow, you got me there. It's a convenient method you have to make yourself feel superior and comfortable in ignoring knowledge gained by talented people that have access to high levels of education and advanced tools. But you have to ignore all of astronomy because it conflicts with your belief system.
As far as doing anything myself...
Example 1: I was at the beach a few weeks back. Used my DSLR zoom lens to take pictures of the most distant building I could along the coast. I took shots from the beach level and then from my 11th floor balcony. I forget the exact measurements (have them written down somewhere), the other building was about 12-14 miles away. The 8 inch/mile2 thing said that from the balcony I should have nothing obscured and from the beach level there should have been 20 or 30 feet obscured. The zoom wasn't strong enough to make out individual floors to get an exact count, but it was quite clear that the beach in front of the other building could be viewed from my balcony, but not from the beach view photo. I had intended to post the pictures, but kept seeing the noise about refraction along the water from similar pictures and didn't think it would be worth the bother. But it confirmed the curvature in my mind.
Example 2: Before the same trip I decided to test FE vs. Timeanddate.com. That site allowed me to enter a location and date, it gave me the exact times and angles for sunset/rise, moonset/rise, etc. I posted a question here about how to calculate where (compass angle) the sun should set according to FE math. Got one response that gave me a formula that would work only if calculated for one of the equinox dates. Seems FE math isn't very advanced. But it worked out since my trip was only one week from the equinox, close enough for government work as they say. So I used my compass and atomic clock phone app and watched the sunset. It happened exactly where timeanddate said it would, which was about 25 degrees off from the FE prediction. I posted these results, and of course, none of the FE faithful had any comment. I will link to the thread if you want to review it. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6862.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6862.0)
So now that I've shared some of my work, let's hear about one of your experiments! I look forward to it.
-
For the record, I didn't say anything about GPS formulas using relativity, someone else made that comment. I actually had not heard that before, but considering the orbital speed of the satellites and their altitude, I suppose that makes sense. What with speed and lessor gravitational fields having effects and all.
It's a sad little world you have chosen for yourself where no accomplishments can be appreciated or knowledge gained based on the experiences of others.
Did you hear that someone climbed to the summit of Mt Everest? But wait, I can't comment on that since I didn't do that myself, and you probably haven't been there. So I guess you don't believe in that either.
OK, that's enough for now. I'm going to go back to the baseball game I'm watching on my satellite TV, which I assume you don't believe in either.
There's a big difference between claiming you can climb a mountain versus saying the earth is a shape that it isn't.
I HATE this BS FEers try to pull. It is such a bogus line of hypocritical garbage and they know it. What experiments have YOU performed? You say the Earth is flat, prove it. Satellites don't exist - right... I blew Tom Bishop up on this a while back. Had him backed into such a corner that he started claiming there was a conspiracy after claiming there isn't one. Rushy, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you aren't even remotely qualified to perform anything more than very basic "backyard science" sort of experiments. If you can't test it, it can't be true. Sigh, willful ignorance is such a sad thing.
The Bedford Level experiment is really all you need. On a curved world the size that RET claims it to be, water would curve at about an 8 inch drop per mile, and yet this doesn't exist. I've done it, you can do it too, all you need is a large lake or river and a laser pointer. Simple stuff, I imagine even you could do it, but you're not going to. You'll just continue to sit here and insist I'm doing the same thing you are: nothing.
Have you confirmed the test results? What allowance did you make for light refraction? You also know that the test was invalidated upon peer review.
It does appear the Rowbotham seems to have thought himself right even when he was wrong:
When finally pinned down to a challenge in Plymouth in 1864 by allegations that he wouldn't agree to a test, Parallax appeared on Plymouth Hoe at the appointed time, witnessed by Richard A. Proctor, a writer on astronomy, and proceeded to the beach where a telescope had been set up. His opponents had claimed that only the lantern of the Eddystone Lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be visible. In fact, only half the lantern was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed his opponents were wrong and that it proved the Earth was indeed flat so that many Plymouth folk left the Hoe agreeing that "some of the most important conclusions of modern astronomy had been seriously invalidated"
-
The Bedford Level experiment is really all you need. On a curved world the size that RET claims it to be, water would curve at about an 8 inch drop per mile, and yet this doesn't exist. I've done it, you can do it too, all you need is a large lake or river and a laser pointer. Simple stuff, I imagine even you could do it, but you're not going to. You'll just continue to sit here and insist I'm doing the same thing you are: nothing.
Have you confirmed the test results? What allowance did you make for light refraction? You also know that the test was invalidated upon peer review.
It does appear the Rowbotham seems to have thought himself right even when he was wrong:
When finally pinned down to a challenge in Plymouth in 1864 by allegations that he wouldn't agree to a test, Parallax appeared on Plymouth Hoe at the appointed time, witnessed by Richard A. Proctor, a writer on astronomy, and proceeded to the beach where a telescope had been set up. His opponents had claimed that only the lantern of the Eddystone Lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be visible. In fact, only half the lantern was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed his opponents were wrong and that it proved the Earth was indeed flat so that many Plymouth folk left the Hoe agreeing that "some of the most important conclusions of modern astronomy had been seriously invalidated"
I agree - but I'd also say this: I'm something of an expert on lasers (I own some seriously big ones!).
Given the divergence of a typical laser pointer - there is no way you'd be able to see the resulting spot at "horizon" distances - so I'm calling "bullshit" on Rushy's claim to have done this experiment.
Evidence: The beam divergence of a laser diode (which is all you can physically fit into such a small device) is AT BEST 1.2 milliRadians (more like 1.5 for a reasonably priced laserdiode and more like 2.5 for a typical "Walmart" $5 laser pointer). Doesn't sound much - but over (say) 3000 meters - 1.2 mRad error is going to produce a 3.8 meter "spot", With the maximum legal brightness of 5 milliwatts for an unlicensed privately owned laser - the result is an illumination level of 5 milliWatts over 12 square meters. In reality, atmospheric scattering over a total 6 kilometer path reduces it FAR below that.
This is well below the human visual threshold...but even if it wasn't, claiming to do any kind of a precision experiment with a 3.8 meter fuzzy blob...it's not happening.
So Rushy is LYING TO US.
-
The earth is not flat
-
The earth is not flat
Have a few days off for continuing with low-content posts after multiple warnings.
-
Gravity doesn't exist. Just as the dudes at CERN disclosed Matter and antimatter should have cancelled one another out and the universe shouldn't exist. They proved that both are the same in every way and that there must be a God, breathing in and out doing remarkable things that makes no sense to the retards.
The earth is flat as a pancake. The only force is GOD......
"Riddle of matter remains unsolved: Proton and antiproton share fundamental properties"
"All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist,"
Hey guys it doesn't, it a picture dome above your heads you retards. The bible has been telling you satanists for millenniums.
http://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/aktuell/3027_ENG_HTML.php
-
Gravity doesn't exist. Just as the dudes at CERN disclosed Matter and antimatter should have cancelled one another out and the universe shouldn't exist. They proved that both are the same in every way and that there must be a God, breathing in and out doing remarkable things that makes no sense to the retards.
The earth is flat as a pancake. The only force is GOD......
"Riddle of matter remains unsolved: Proton and antiproton share fundamental properties"
"All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist,"
Hey guys it doesn't, it a picture dome above your heads you retards. The bible has been telling you satanists for millenniums.
http://www.uni-mainz.de/presse/aktuell/3027_ENG_HTML.php
Love how you cherry pick something out of an article and claim it confirms your belief when it obviously doesn't. Do you think do one will actually read the article and just take you at your word? The article makes no reference to gravity. It comments that if protons/anti-protons cancel each other and were originally in symetry, then the universe shouldn't exist. That means we have more to learn since the universe obviously exists. We are both people that live in it.
I also liked the quote regarding the precision...
This is the equivalent of measuring the circumference of the earth to a precision of four centimeters.
These are scientists, they weren't talking about the circumference of your ice wall.
-
No, it's exactly the same thing. You are saying I can't claim any fact without having proven it myself.
I claim that the summit of Everest was reached by Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay. I could give you links to articles written about it, pictures from the expedition. If you were to consistently apply your FE standard of proof, you would claim that since I wasn't there I can't prove it happened. I can't prove that the articles and the pictures are not forgeries, therefore, you shouldn't believe it. Granted that it is a different scale of alleged deception, but the concept is exactly the same.
I could claim that the Dodgers won Word Series game 1 last night. But I can't prove it since I watched it by receiving a broadcast signal from a satellite, which you say doesn't exist.
So you've called me out by showing that I personally didn't measure the red shift of certain distant galaxies. Wow, you got me there. It's a convenient method you have to make yourself feel superior and comfortable in ignoring knowledge gained by talented people that have access to high levels of education and advanced tools. But you have to ignore all of astronomy because it conflicts with your belief system.
As far as doing anything myself...
Example 1: I was at the beach a few weeks back. Used my DSLR zoom lens to take pictures of the most distant building I could along the coast. I took shots from the beach level and then from my 11th floor balcony. I forget the exact measurements (have them written down somewhere), the other building was about 12-14 miles away. The 8 inch/mile2 thing said that from the balcony I should have nothing obscured and from the beach level there should have been 20 or 30 feet obscured. The zoom wasn't strong enough to make out individual floors to get an exact count, but it was quite clear that the beach in front of the other building could be viewed from my balcony, but not from the beach view photo. I had intended to post the pictures, but kept seeing the noise about refraction along the water from similar pictures and didn't think it would be worth the bother. But it confirmed the curvature in my mind.
Example 2: Before the same trip I decided to test FE vs. Timeanddate.com. That site allowed me to enter a location and date, it gave me the exact times and angles for sunset/rise, moonset/rise, etc. I posted a question here about how to calculate where (compass angle) the sun should set according to FE math. Got one response that gave me a formula that would work only if calculated for one of the equinox dates. Seems FE math isn't very advanced. But it worked out since my trip was only one week from the equinox, close enough for government work as they say. So I used my compass and atomic clock phone app and watched the sunset. It happened exactly where timeanddate said it would, which was about 25 degrees off from the FE prediction. I posted these results, and of course, none of the FE faithful had any comment. I will link to the thread if you want to review it. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6862.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6862.0)
So now that I've shared some of my work, let's hear about one of your experiments! I look forward to it.
Those aren't experiments. One is just you literally taking a picture of the horizon and the other is you googling times and doing "calculations" without actually explaining what those calculations consisted of. If this is your standard for experimentation, then it's no surprised that you believe the earth is a big ball.
-
Example 1: I was at the beach a few weeks back. Used my DSLR zoom lens to take pictures of the most distant building I could along the coast. I took shots from the beach level and then from my 11th floor balcony. I forget the exact measurements (have them written down somewhere), the other building was about 12-14 miles away. The 8 inch/mile2 thing said that from the balcony I should have nothing obscured and from the beach level there should have been 20 or 30 feet obscured. The zoom wasn't strong enough to make out individual floors to get an exact count, but it was quite clear that the beach in front of the other building could be viewed from my balcony, but not from the beach view photo. I had intended to post the pictures, but kept seeing the noise about refraction along the water from similar pictures and didn't think it would be worth the bother. But it confirmed the curvature in my mind.
Example 2: Before the same trip I decided to test FE vs. Timeanddate.com. That site allowed me to enter a location and date, it gave me the exact times and angles for sunset/rise, moonset/rise, etc. I posted a question here about how to calculate where (compass angle) the sun should set according to FE math. Got one response that gave me a formula that would work only if calculated for one of the equinox dates. Seems FE math isn't very advanced. But it worked out since my trip was only one week from the equinox, close enough for government work as they say. So I used my compass and atomic clock phone app and watched the sunset. It happened exactly where timeanddate said it would, which was about 25 degrees off from the FE prediction. I posted these results, and of course, none of the FE faithful had any comment. I will link to the thread if you want to review it. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6862.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6862.0)
So now that I've shared some of my work, let's hear about one of your experiments! I look forward to it.
Those aren't experiments. One is just you literally taking a picture of the horizon and the other is you googling times and doing "calculations" without actually explaining what those calculations consisted of. If this is your standard for experimentation, then it's no surprised that you believe the earth is a big ball.
They are experiments. Simple ones I grant you, but they are experiments. Really you just want to ignore them because you don't like the results.
#1 If the Earth was curved, I should be able to see more ground level detail from a higher altitude. I was.
#2 Forget about timeanddate.com being exactly correct. The FE math given to me on this forum predicted the direction of sunset would be 56 degrees north of due west (316 degrees). It actually set at 275 degrees, close to due west. That is 41 degrees wrong. That is an experiment that FE failed miserably.
The way you guys flip on standard of proof is so funny. You can view a hundred hours of ISS footage, find one unexplained spec floating on the screen and that is iron clad proof that NASA lies and the Earth is flat. The prediction of how the sunset works (based on data verified by one of your believers) is wrong by 41 degrees and that doesn't prove anything. LOL
I'm still looking forward to you posting some of your experimental results.
-
I take it you've never been to the movies? The ISS is nothing more than a movie CGI loop. If you watch it for hours on end with great intensity you will see the splice.
Begin.....
-
Yes, been to the movies numerous times, don't think that proves anything. And have been watching space exploration since long before CGI existed. Maybe photoshop has been around for your whole life, but there was a time before it existed you know.
-
Yes, been to the movies numerous times, don't think that proves anything. And have been watching space exploration since long before CGI existed. Maybe photoshop has been around for your whole life, but there was a time before it existed you know.
The state of the art for 3D graphics in the glory days of NASA were NOTHING LIKE what we have these days.
The first CGI every used by NASA was done by a good friend of mine - Jim Blinn. He did the famous Voyager fly-by graphics. He invented an amazing number of the bag of tricks that are used today. This work was the best-of-the-best in 1981:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQk7AFe13CY
I'd remind everyone that this was 12 years AFTER the first Apollo moon landings...8 years after the first Skylab mission...and the same year that the first Space Shuttle mission (STS-1) orbited the Earth.
Jim won a ton of awards for that - but as you can see - it's really not convincingly real (nor did anyone claim it was). But that is the best that could be done in 1981 - even when money was no object.
Here in 1985 - after a BUNCH of shuttle flights and a ton of decidedly Round Earth videos - is one of the first commercial 3D graphics videos. Wikipedia points out: "The video was one of the first uses of computer-animated human characters and was considered ground-breaking at the time of its release.":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAD6Obi7Cag
The quality difference is noticeably much worse than NASA's best efforts...and the animation of people - which was state-of-the-art for the time - is CRAP. (The bits with video of the band isn't CGI - we're talking about the two blocky furniture movers). There were no 3D modeling packages - everything in the 3D graphics had to be drawn out on graph paper and the coordinates of every triangle typed in by hand.
So when you say something is "CGI" and talking about shuttle missions and earlier - you're looking at about that kind of quality.
-
Thanks for the detailed answer 3D, the Dire Straits video is a good example. I say that not just because I'm such a Mark Knopfler fan, but because I remember reading at the time that the rendering (did they call it that yet?) took a full day on a Cray super computer, one of the most powerful at the time.
I think sometimes the generations that have grown up with computers don't really understand the landscape that existed 30-40 years ago. You know, they think the CGI can fake it now, so it must have always been that way, right? LOL
-
Those aren't experiments. One is just you literally taking a picture of the horizon and the other is you googling times and doing "calculations" without actually explaining what those calculations consisted of. If this is your standard for experimentation, then it's no surprised that you believe the earth is a big ball flat.
are you describing Rowbotham? it's not clear
/jokes
-
Those aren't experiments. One is just you literally taking a picture of the horizon and the other is you googling times and doing "calculations" without actually explaining what those calculations consisted of. If this is your standard for experimentation, then it's no surprised that you believe the earth is a big ball flat.
are you describing Rowbotham? it's not clear
/jokes
While jokes are appreciated, if you aren't going to add anything else at all to the topic, it isn't appropriate for the FED forum.
Last warning, next one is some time off to review the rules.
-
Those aren't experiments. One is just you literally taking a picture of the horizon and the other is you googling times and doing "calculations" without actually explaining what those calculations consisted of. If this is your standard for experimentation, then it's no surprised that you believe the earth is a big ball flat.
are you describing Rowbotham? it's not clear
/jokes
While jokes are appreciated, if you aren't going to add anything else at all to the topic, it isn't appropriate for the FED forum.
Last warning, next one is some time off to review the rules.
I think this is a bit unfair. Rushy has been talking about using laser lights to observe the curvature of flat surface - which what Rowbotham did (only without the lasers). I don't think xenotolerance was joking - it's a genuine request for clarification. Is Rushy basically just describing a somewhat updated version of the Rowbotham experiment?
If moderation is called for - perhaps you should be concerned about the fact that Rushy lied to us in one of his posts when he claimed to have done this measurement with "a laser pointer". This kind of downright misinformation is very damaging to the Flat Earth cause. He should be asked to either clarify his meaning or retract it and admit that he was "economical with the truth".
-
I think this is a bit unfair.
I for one am shocked.
If moderation is called for - perhaps you should be concerned about the fact that Rushy lied to us in one of his posts when he claimed to have done this measurement with "a laser pointer". This kind of downright misinformation is very damaging to the Flat Earth cause. He should be asked to either clarify his meaning or retract it and admit that he was "economical with the truth".
I am actually not concerned at all. If he wants to clarify, he can. If you want to point out that you think he is lying, you are free to do so. None of that is against the rules. Low-content posts that don't contribute anything to the topic or existing discussion are against the rules (which should be clear to anyone who has taken the few minutes required to actually read the rules). If you have an issue with moderation, then you are welcome to post about it in the appropriate forum. Doing so here only further derails the discussion, so I will ask you to stay on topic.
-
No magic in gravity. Mass attracts. Newton and Kepler figured it out a few hundred years ago.
If you believe in universal acceleration, please explain what is making the Earth accelerate. And why we observe star light shifted to the red end of the spectrum (things moving further away) rather than the opposite. If the Earth is accelerating, shouldn't you believe we are getting closer to the stars and other things we observe in the sky?
Whats more is that if there was universal acceleration, there wouldn't be a weaker gravitational pull the higher you go up. And this is very easily measurable if you go up 5000+ft. But there is a weaker gravitational pull the higher you go up.
-
I have a style of sarcasm that appears to be lost on junker, as a couple other recent posts like this have gotten me a warning. I was, in fact, joking, and it was not a request for clarification - it was pointing out a double standard regarding a lack of self-awareness on Rushy's part. But instead of writing "You have a double standard," I made fun of him. I did the same thing to junker in fact, when I responded "False" to one of his warnings, in what I'm sure was the first iteration ever of a completely original, super witty comeback to a mod warning.
-
I have a style of sarcasm that appears to be lost on junkeras a couple other recent posts like this have gotten me a warning. I was, in fact, joking, and it was not a request for clarification - it was pointing out a double standard regarding a lack of self-awareness on Rushy's part. But instead of writing "You have a double standard," I made fun of him. I did the same thing to junker in fact, when I responded "False" to one of his warnings, in what I'm sure was the first iteration ever of a completely original, super witty comeback to a mod warning.
I can't believe I didn't realize that is what you were doing... You sure are smart and witty. Unfortunately, if all you are going to do is bless us with your incredible sarcasm and not add anything to the thread, it is still low-content. And I know this next part might be hard for you to believe, but that is actually frowned upon in the upper (FE discussion) fora. It is even in the rules, which given how smart you are I know you have read (especially since there aren't very many).
Now that I am no longer lost on your style of sarcasmTM I will ask you to try keep your brilliantly witty posts on topic in the upper fora. You are free to enlighten others with your style of sarcasmTM as much as you'd like in the bottom two fora. I know since you are one of the top minds here you won't have any trouble finding them, but if you do happen to find yourself struggling just let me know!
-
okay thanks