Recent Posts

1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on Today at 05:05:13 PM »
Now someone else's turn!
Go on then. I don't think this has any quotes from him, but it's an interesting article about the multiple ways they have of measuring gravity:

https://www.nature.com/articles/35050187?foxtrotcallback=true

For such a weak force it's impressive how accurate they can get the value of G and multiple methods of measuring it show that it can't be coincidence. It will be interesting to see if some of the newer experiments which claim a smaller error margin can do better still.
2
My original question still has not been answered and can be posed re the picture of sailboat and skyline posted above. I can see the water for miles, and the tops of the mountain/buildings. If I draw a side view diagram, the rays come up from the water and down from the building/mountain tops meet at my eye. What happened to the light rays between? No haze, no big waves.

I'm surprised no one invoked Bendy-Light in response to your question.  Here's what I believe would be the Bendy-Light explanation for what you see:



On the left is the object being viewed.  Should have drawn it a little taller for clarity.  The red line shows what would be the height at which the object can start to be seen.  It travels to the green horizon line and then continues to the viewer (you).  Above the red line the object is visible.  The blue lines show how the image of the object would crash into the ground and thus disappear below the horizon.  The black lines show how the image of the water beyond the horizon would curve up above the viewer thus not being seen at the viewers elevation until you get to the horizon line at which time the water becomes visible.
3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Roundy on Today at 03:44:37 PM »
https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-threaten-leave-gop-if-doesnt-split-trump-2021-5

More than 100 Republicans who are no longer relevant to politics have threatened to leave the GOP and form a 3rd party if the GOP doesn't split from Trump.

I'm sure this will have a huge impact. /sarcasm
4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?
« Last post by existoid on Today at 03:43:31 PM »
To continue to control the public and keep the public from realizing that there is a creator.

You can believe in a creator regardless of the shape of the Earth.
None of the religious people that I know believe that the Earth is flat.

For example, I'm very religious and yet accept RET as true...
5
Your assumed distances are fallacious for a few reasons:

- People aren't walking across the oceans
- Planes use jet streams to reach far off locations
- The calculated of speed is s = d/t and requires a known distance. Distances are fundamentally in contention in this discussion

The translation to a FE model may be attributable to a number of possibilities. For example; if the outer edges of the FE celestial system are moving at a quicker speed over the Earth like the outer extremities of a record on a record player, then it stands that the upper atmosphere may be as well. A plane traveling in a high region of atmosphere may move faster in certain regions of the Earth than another.

And indeed, the winds are said to be anomalous in the South - https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis

Please show a paper by a scientist that shows what you said to be true.

That page contain almost nothing except quotes and citations from contemporary sources. Feel free to go through them.

Yet not a single quote says anything that changes the fact that distances are known and flight times are predictable save one that talks about ground and taxi time.
6
I have similar doubts as to the true nature of the moon, including its eerie glow.  It does not reflect light the way a spherical reflector does/should, and may well be an ionization effect or some sort of reflection.

How should it reflect light, and how do you assert that would differ from what we all see at present?
I wonder if he's going to go down the "hot spot" route, but that of course is a feature of a smooth spherical object which the moon isn't.
7
I have similar doubts as to the true nature of the moon, including its eerie glow.  It does not reflect light the way a spherical reflector does/should, and may well be an ionization effect or some sort of reflection.

How should it reflect light, and how do you assert that would differ from what we all see at present?
8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« Last post by Iceman on Today at 01:04:48 PM »
Yes that's great, the more quotes we can get from Dr. Quinn the better :) hes smarter than all of us on the matter!

"Could these unresolved discrepancies in G hide some new physics? This seems unlikely. I believe undiscovered systematic errors in all or some of these new experiments is the answer — G is difficult to measure but it should not be too difficult!"
- from the nature piece linked above

Now someone else's turn!
9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 12:01:44 PM »
...Terence Quinn is a British physicist who spent many years studying gravity and was emeritus director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. If he says it, it's golden.

Okay great, he said this in a nature piece:
"Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3651?proof=t


 I guess were done here?

Here is his quote:

"Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value6 is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment, but being apparently unable to converge on a value for G undermines our confidence in the metrology of small forces. Although it is true that the orbits of the planets depend on the product of G and the mass of the Sun — the structures of all astrophysical objects are determined by the balance of gravity and other forces produced by, for example, gas, photon or degeneracy pressure — ab initio models of the Sun are still an order of magnitude away from predicting a value of G at a level comparable with laboratory determinations. We do not need a value of G to test for departures from the inverse square law or the equivalence principle. There is as yet no prospect of a theory of quantum gravity that would predict a value for G that could be tested by experiment."

The part you cut out after "nobody for the moment..." says that this value undermines their science in the metrology of small forces. He clearly suggests the recommended range is invalid and questionable there, rather than your suggestion that he is supporting it wholeheartedly. This is another point against you.

Trivializing the need for G doesn't directly address the matter of whether he thinks that he measured it. He is talking about the practical purpose for the such a measurement, in non-cavendish situations and measurements. He is correct that G is not needed for the equivalence principle tests. That's something else, showing that gravity does not depart on various ranges and situations from the concept that the Earth is accelerating upwards. The EP tests are highly and accurately verified.

Quinn's "we should be able to measure gravity" statement says that he cannot measure gravity in the Cavendish Experiment. In the quote you referenced we see a statement that the recommended range undermines their science in the metrology of small forces, showing that he is certainly not endorsing it. You're right. We are done here. We have talked about this for pages and you are still unable to substantiate your argument.
10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cavendish experiment
« Last post by Iceman on Today at 11:52:26 AM »
...Terence Quinn is a British physicist who spent many years studying gravity and was emeritus director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. If he says it, it's golden.

Okay great, he said this in a nature piece:
"Who needs a more accurate numerical value of G (the current recommended value is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2)? The short answer is, nobody, for the moment..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3651?proof=t


 I guess were done here?