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.
I made an assumption and responded according to it. If Rama feels that I misunderstood him, I'm sure he'll correct me without you introducing your own assumptions to the bag.Here's a concept you might consider: Ask for clarification before making an assumption and accusing someone of a crime. You know, consider ethics.
... there isn't another hypothetical tower over 4000ft high within 100 miles to look at.To the contrary, by definition, there are hypothetical towers of every height everywhere.
: involving or based on a suggested idea or theory : involving or based on a hypothesis
: not real : imagined as an example
Your last post is all requests and questions.Well, I guess my job here is done. You've demonstrated even to the casual reader of this thread your failure.
The only statement you made about flowing bodies not curving on a round earth is demonstrably wrong. Consider the river Nile. A flowing body over thousands of miles. Are you saying it does not bend with the curvature of the earth? You are being particularly stupid today. A canal or river that flows over 6 miles should still curve, flowing has nothing to do with it, another red herring.
You still haven't read about weather so I'll ignore your protesting about wind. Unequal pressure = wind. It is not instantaneous else we'd be hit by light speed gushes of wind at every discrepancy of pressure. And that doesn't happen, so unequal pressures prevail until the wind equals the pressure and the wind ceases. If it is windy, the pressure is unequal. Wind always travels from high pressure to low.
My drawings of tubes show how pressure effects water levels. Google manometer to find out how they work and the science behind it. Go on, google that one. You'll stop asking questions that show your education ceased at high school.
No. Please read. I used the word "consider".Are you saying there are two CN Towers?If you solve for h in my formula and allow d to be 100, as round-earthers claim, you arrive at the same 6660 foot height required that Thork found in his online calculator. So I guess I'm wrong, the formula is wrong, the internet is wrong, trigonometry is wrong, and only Gulliver is right; all alone laughing at us lunatics.Again, you are wrong. The formula does not calculate how far you can see. It's quite obvious.
For the confused... Consider two towers each 1000 feet high on the near shore of a still ocean separated by 50 miles. Does the astronomical horizon formula that Pongo and Thork used consider that the height of both towers which makes it possible to see the top of the other from each? No. both Pongo and Thork fail, again.
Tell me why you think they'd leave them open, and why that would make a curved bulge even if they weren't? In a flat earth you'd expect and straight diagonal line of surface water, you still need a bulge on a round earth. And there isn't one. Also I read Wallace's account and they definitely shut the gates. It is in his autobiography so you can check that for yourself.So you don't know. You only assume. I figured as much. No, RET allows for flowing bodies of water not to bulge. Do provide the source of Wallace's account about shutting the gates and how long they did so. Did they allow enough time? Were the sluices perfectly tight?
In the photo, I can see the clouds forming over the lake. So I know the lake is evaporating. I can also see its a warm day from the haze in front of the buildings.
Tell you what about friction? The wind would not exist if all places have the same pressure at once. I'll bet there was a nice breeze on the day the photo was taken. Where land meets water you often get a breeze giving rise to the meteorological terms 'sea breeze' and the reverse 'land breeze'. Both very googlable. Knock yourself out.
Tubes? Are you retarted? Read about localised meteorology and come back. This is the very basics of how weather works.
If you solve for h in my formula and allow d to be 100, as round-earthers claim, you arrive at the same 6660 foot height required that Thork found in his online calculator. So I guess I'm wrong, the formula is wrong, the internet is wrong, trigonometry is wrong, and only Gulliver is right; all alone laughing at us lunatics.Again, you are wrong. The formula does not calculate how far you can see. It's quite obvious.
It was and still is a drainage canal with sluices. Ergo, there is no gradient and no flow when the gates are shut. It is a canal, not a river.Tell us how you determined that the sluices were perfectly tight and closed during the experiment please. Maybe you're just guessing again.
A large lake will have the same localised low pressure in warm weather. In fact more so as the area itself is very localised.
Yes, it does evaporate at night, so that covers night pics too. Thanks. It is the air pressure across the region you are looking that you need to consider when you have water. If the pressure is not equal, the water will bulge ... obviously.
Basic fluid dynamics.
And finally wind is a balancing of that, but wind suffers from friction meaning not all places are equal at the same time. You can see that from any weather chart you like.
Again, calculating the distance to the astronomical horizon over a still ocean is not the way to determine how far one can see from the CN Tower Observation Deck. Please pay attention and try harder.Erm, you can use any calculator on the internet to tell you how high you must be and how far the horizon will be. Like the one below.Wrong. Please read the thread and try harder. There's nothing in RET to say that you can't see 100 miles from a tower of 1000 feet or so. You must consider where you are and where you're looking to predict how far you can see.It doesn't matter. In order to see 100 miles on a flat earth, you need to be at a height of 6660 feet. In other words if you can see 100 miles from the top of the CN Tower, the earth is flat, case closed.As you said, h is "Height of the observation deck = 1,118 feet", though you mis-typed it as 1128 in your calculation. You really do need to try harder.Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"The foundation, the base, of the CN Tower is above sea level thus R is not just 20,925,524.9 feet, as you incorrectly stated. The height of that side of the triangle is more than R+h. You really do need to try harder.
Again, because of the pedantry, what do you think h represents in the diagram?
http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm
Bellowing wrong in every thread doesn't make us wrong. It just means you can't work out these things for yourself.
Of course you can't see the base. It is the middle of the day. Its hot and sunny.Since the canal flows and has a gradient, it was a poor choice. Since Lake Ontario is not an ocean, your "low-pressure" claim is faulty. Even if Lake Ontario were an ocean, you'd still need to document several facets, including that the effect exists and is large enough to explain your outlandish claim.
When it is hot, water from the sea evaporates. And this causes localised regions of low pressure. And that causes ocean swell. The air pressure is less so the water bulges.
That's why they did it on a canal, Dummy.
You don't even plug numbers into your equation! For all you know, it could yield the same results, but we don't know because all you're capable of saying is, "wrong formula," and, "do try harder." All you can really say is that the observer can see further because the sun is x million miles away (something you've yet to demonstrate). And that's not even the furthest thing you can see in the round-earth model when you take stars into account. When your primary arguments are "nuh uh," and, "the world is round because you can see the sun," you had best rethink your stance.I made only the claim that you're using the wrong formula, not that I had calculated an answer using the right formula. You, not I, made the claim in the OP that you've proven an FE. You have the responsibility to deal with the critique and to try harder to save your proof--or you could whine that I need to do your work for you like you are in your last post.
This, sun-distance argument is so asinine that you not only embarrass yourself, but all of round-earth theory as well.
Wrong. Please read the thread and try harder. There's nothing in RET to say that you can't see 100 miles from a tower of 1000 feet or so. You must consider where you are and where you're looking to predict how far you can see.It doesn't matter. In order to see 100 miles on a flat earth, you need to be at a height of 6660 feet. In other words if you can see 100 miles from the top of the CN Tower, the earth is flat, case closed.As you said, h is "Height of the observation deck = 1,118 feet", though you mis-typed it as 1128 in your calculation. You really do need to try harder.Because you're being ultra-pedantic, can you describe what you mean by "foundation?"The foundation, the base, of the CN Tower is above sea level thus R is not just 20,925,524.9 feet, as you incorrectly stated. The height of that side of the triangle is more than R+h. You really do need to try harder.
Again, because of the pedantry, what do you think h represents in the diagram?
There are other ways to "lose" than to "lose a bet". Do pay attention.No, the bet was null and void as decided by a court. Hampden did not lose.I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.
I always find it staggering that this experiment has been done 3 times. Once by Rowbotham, once by Hamden and Wallace, and once by Lady Blount. And twice the earth was proved flat and once the result was declared null and void because the arbitrator was in cahoots with the round earthers. And yet its always the Wallace/Hampden experiment round earthers clutch at as a proof of rotundity. Strikes me as very desperate.
Oh, and just to clarify. The "Niagara Falls" that can be seen from the CN Tower's Observation Deck is just the taller buildings of the City of Niagara Falls. See: http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g155019-d155483-i32613999-CN_Tower-Toronto_Ontario.html
This photo [offrom the] CN Tower is courtesy of TripAdvisor
So T is actually much longer. Shall I assume that FEers have had enough debunking of their sophomoric proof of a FE in this thread? Please do try harder.
I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.
Didn't Hampden lose the libel case that Wallace brought?I imagine you are much like Hampden when he lost to Wallace.Hampden never lost to Wallace. ...
Okay, here we go. Apologies for the poor quality, that's what I got from The Times' archive:
You can read the whole page here. I'll update our Wiki and the library at some point soon.
...1) You're right. Your argument that FET distances matter in Pongo's proof about RET is indeed irrelevant. Thanks for agreeing.
1) This entire argument is irrelevant
2) Nope. It's more like 92,956,000 miles away. Lrn2pedantic
3) No. It doesn't. Pongo's formula only applies to things on the Earth's surface. Obviously. It's about the curvature of the Earth hiding things, not some fundamental law of RET.
Of course, lol. Still, none of this makes the arccosine formula incorrect.Again, you use that formula incorrectly. It does not predict how far one can see on an RET. Please do try harder.
So, are you arguing that GR's prediction was somehow "fitted" to the answer before it was known? So, are you arguing that FET is superior to RET in its predictive powers? When will the sun set according to FET this evening? Do you need some time to go fit that up first? RET doesn't.
If you manage to fit General Relativity up to explain the precision of Mercury, those equations you used can't be used predict the precision or aphelions of stars or galaxies. You took a puzzle piece and were able to fit one piece into a slot on the board, but in doing so the three other slots on that piece do not fit. It screams failure.
Really? Are you claiming the experiment showing the predicted procession of the aphelion of the Mercury was not in the actual Universe?It doesn't model everything. They tried to use GR and RET astronomy to model the movements of the stars and galaxies and failed utterly.No, they don't utterly fail. GR passes many amazing tests. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Except the test of applying to the actual universe.
Why aren't you accounting for the foundation of the tower? I was told that was super necessary...I did. It's in the altitude of the base of the tower.
