### 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 - Regicide

Pages: < Back  1 [2]
21
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 22, 2021, 02:18:38 PM »
Ahem... LIGO

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts

Especially notable is the part where they mention having to account for the curvature of the earth.

22
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Thork's Jack Russell challenge
« on: January 22, 2021, 02:14:37 PM »
So it looks like this: https://www.thedailytail.com/fastest-dog-breeds/ is the first page on the internet to mention the words 38 mph and Jack Russel in conjunction. I searched around a bit, but I can conclusively say that this is the origin of this myth: at least on the internet.

Tim Alphabeaver beat me to it, but I have verified this site as the one which originated this.

Of course, It's likely that this was actually originated on some now vanished blogspot, but without a suitable api for looking back, I can establish this as the oldest site findable.

23
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Let's do a Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 21, 2021, 08:36:56 PM »
The Banana Challenge is a hilarious idea, some of the responses seem to miss the point. The effect of gravity is indeed supposed to move all objects, proportional to mass and distance. I'll start with a thought experiment. According to the FDA, the average banana weighs 120 grams. So, let us place two 120 gram bananas a centimeter apart and calculate the gravitational force. I could calculate it myself, or I could usehttps://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/gravitational-force. Using the calculator, we can find that two bananas with center of mass 1 cm apart have a gravitational force of 9.611 × 10^-9 N, or a 9th of the force that a hydrogen nucleus exerts on it's electron. Oh dear. So bananas really don't attract each other very much. However, you asked me to demonstrate gravity, so I'll persevere. Assume a 1000 kg banana. When two of these are positioned with the centers one cm apart, the force of gravity is 0.66743 N, or around the force it takes to depress a key on a keyboard. So then, sir, you ask me to demonstrate gravity with bananas? Give me a couple of one ton bananas, then we can talk.

Anyways, the whole point of this thread is for Flat Earthers and Round Earthers to come to a consensus on a workable Cavendish Experiment, so I'll modify the writeup.

1. Suspend a wire (exact length, gauge, and material TBD) from the ceiling (Could be performed in a large empty space, such as an empty gymnasium to minimize outside gravitational influences, or could be performed in a vacuum chamber if it's practical.
2. On the end of the wire, attach a beam (properties TBD) and to either side attach a weight of mass (TBD). Allow the system to rest for one hour.
3. Place a digital dial gauge under the beam so that it is measuring the height of the beam, and rotate the beam 90 degrees without allowing the wire to swing. Release and plot the height over the next (length of time TBD).
Attach a mirror to the beam, and using a laser, establish the angle of deflection. Allow the system to come to equilibrium, and record the angle.
4. Place two empty containers of volume (TBD) (TBD m/cm) away, on scales of which the mass is already known. Wait one hour and measure the change in height angle of the beam.
5. Fill the containers with (material of extremely high density: lead, stone, etc.), so that the mass of each container is (TBD). Wait until the system reaches equilibrium and measure the height angle.
6. Remove the containers and allow the system to return to equilibrium.

Looking forward to further collaboration!

24
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Let's do a Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 21, 2021, 02:57:10 PM »
Flat Earthers and Round Earthers seem to disagree on a few points. One of these is gravity, which is essential for Round Earth Theory and anethema to Flat Earth Theory... or at least the current one. Luckily, there is quite a simple way to measure gravity: The Cavendish Experiment. There are a few videos of Cavendish experiments available, mostly performed by teachers in less than perfect environments. So, rather than performing a simple experiment and then dissolving into disagreement over fine points, let's come to a consensus on how to perform a controlled Cavendish experiment and then execute that plan. Let's please keep this on topic and civil: this is an investigation, not a debate. I'll list all of the things I can think of to control:

Air currents: With the weak forces experienced by the objects in a Cavendish experiment, any outside perturbation is enough to disturb a system. Thus, it is best to control air currents, either by performing the experiment in a vacuum, or if that proves impractical, testing a control with objects of the same shape but a lower mass.

Magnetism: The test needs to be performed with weights which do not experience magnetism, and for that matter won't exude a static charge either.

Place of rest needs to be found.: The original Cavendish experiment was performed not to prove the existence of gravity, although gravity is needed for it to work. Rather, it was performed to find the gravitational constant, which it did so with remarkable accuracy. It did this by suspending the weights from a long wire, and allowing them to rotate. This of course twisted the wire, which introduced a torsion force into the system. By finding how far the weights are from the height of equilibrium when they come to rest, a gravitational force can be found. The best way in my mind to perform this would be to place a digital dial gauge under the beam and allowing the beam to spin back and forth without external weights. The lowest height it reaches should be the place of rest.

With all these in mind, I'll do the first procedure writeup, which will doubtless be modified.

1. Suspend a wire (exact length, gauge, and material TBD) from the ceiling (Could be performed in a large empty space, such as an empty gymnasium to minimize outside gravitational influences, or could be performed in a vacuum chamber if it's practical.
2. On the end of the wire, attach a beam (properties TBD) and to either side attach a weight of mass (TBD). Allow the system to rest for one hour.
3. Place a digital dial gauge under the beam so that it is measuring the height of the beam, and rotate the beam 90 degrees without allowing the wire to swing. Release and plot the height over the next (length of time TBD).
4. With the equilibrium height established, allow the system to come to rest at equilibrium. Place two empty containers of volume (TBD) (TBD m/cm) away, on scales of which the mass is already known. Wait one hour and measure the change in height of the beam.
5. Fill the containers with (material of extremely high density: lead, stone, etc.), so that the mass of each container is (TBD). Wait until the system reaches equilibrium and measure the height.
6. Remove the containers and allow the system to return to equilibrium.

If the height with the high mass containers is different to the equilibrium height without containers, then gravity exists.

Let's do this.

25
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Question about the Sun in the flat Earth model.
« on: September 28, 2020, 11:28:58 PM »
Longitube, I see your point, but here's a better explanation
Einsteins theory of relativity states that you can never reach the speed of light. You can accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 forever, and still never reach the speed of light. It seems counter-intuitive, but there you have it. You can perceive an infinite acceleration. An outside observer would see your speed asymptotically approaching c, but you would perceive your acceleration as constant unless you change this.

This is due to the time dilation that occurs at relativistic speeds. As you approach the speed of light, your perception of time slows down. In other words, 1 year to you could be 10 years to an outside observer in a fixed frame of reference. Because of this, you perceive a constant acceleration even though you are accelerating at a slower rate to an outside observer.

Basically, with reduced numbers:

Let's simplify things and say that the speed of light is 100 m/s.
As you approach the speed of light, the speed at which you perceive time decreases, at a rate of 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) (I apologize for the messy formatting, I'm not the best with bbc.)

In other words, time runs 15 percent slower at .5 c and slows asymptotically as you approach c. As you approach c, your acceleration slows to an outside observer: however, because your perception of time is slowing at an identical rate, it cancels the slowing. You can perceive your acceleration to last forever. But you will seem to be going very slowly to anyone else.

26
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« on: September 25, 2020, 02:28:02 PM »
I think we are all missing the point here. All debate is being focused on one screenshot, and whether the observed curve (surely we can at least agree that there appears to be a curve) is a product of optics or an observation of a round earth. But I didn't post a screenshot. I posted a link to an unedited 2 1/2 hour-long video from the ground to the apogee to the ground again. If you look at the video right after the garlic bread breaks through the clouds, at about 3.1 km, you can see that the horizon essentially appears flat. Take a screenshot and kick up the contrast for a better view.

Then if you look again at 15 km, a subtle curve is visible.

Finally, at the highest point, you can clearly see a curve.

How could a camera artifact account for a changing curve? Just interested .

Additionally, I don't think anyone has made any claims to the diameter of the earth:
...claiming that the Earth is round but 5 times smaller than in RET, or demonstrating your excellent knowledge of geometry as you did above, you're guaranteed to blow me away.
Also, just wanted to point out this:
EDIT: I note that I've been referring to these curves as "arcs" which may be a bit hasty - they could be arcs, but they might not be depending on the specific situation. I'll leave the phrasing as-is since it doesn't particularly affect any of the underlying reasoning, but it's only fair that I highlight that inaccuracy.
Word choice does not necessarily affect an argument. I used the term "fairly straight" because if I had used the word "perfectly straight" I would have been lying. It's not perfectly straight, there's a slight distortion. However, it's much closer to straight than the screenshots from 35 km.

27
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« on: September 22, 2020, 02:20:38 PM »
I’m going to address some complaints.

First of all, extreme barreleye? I’m willing to accept that a camera will always have some barreleye, but this is hardly a matter of extreme distortion. Before it enters the cloud layer, draw lines along straight objects like the truck bed, table, roads, etc. They all seem fairly straight. This is hardly a fisheye lens.

Secondly, I am aware that this was done on a cloudy day. The creator who launched this lives in England, where it is cloudy for 320 days of the year. It’s going to be difficult to launch this on a day with clear skies.

Thirdly, I don’t understand how you are refuting my request for you to make an observation, I guess I worded it weirdly. Once the camera is above the clouds, draw a line next to the horizon, and you can see it appears fairly flat. Once it reaches its apogee, draw a line next to the horizon and you can see it appears curved. How can an observation of the horizon that changes over time be attributed to camera distortion?

Finally, I did not make this video. I have neither the time nor the resources to put together a weather ballon observation launch, but if I did I would do several things differently. I would use a camera that is as close to zero distortion as possible, even though this one is fairly close. I would also use a ruler for reference. I know the video isn’t perfect, but unlike many other videos it doesn’t have a jump from launch to apogee. In this one, you can observe the curvature of the horizon slowly increasing, relative to the box. There’s a bit of distortion at the edges of the frame, but if you look at the middle, there is hardly any. Note I said hardly, there will always be some.

P.S. Just wondering, what’s the official FE explanation for the sky fading to black from blue. Is it still a product of atmospheric scattering, or is there some alternate explanation.

28
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« on: September 17, 2020, 09:58:12 PM »
Had to get a new account, but here is my continued argument:

Once the camera is above the clouds, look at the horizon. It should appear flat.

Once the camera reaches its full height, look at the horizon. It should appear curved.

In both perspectives, look at the box in which the garlic bread is. It should appear identical in both.

The curvature observed at the full height is not a product of the camera. Otherwise, the horizon would appear equally curved at a low altitude.

Pages: < Back  1 [2]