1
Flat Earth Community / Farewell
« on: April 22, 2016, 07:33:23 PM »
I respect extreme skepticism and the basic idea behind questioning untested knowledge at first glance.
Take care, folks.
Take care, folks.
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.
Is it possible to limit how many threads someone can make per week?
One very simple proof that the earth isn't fllat is the flat earth definition of the horizon and the distance to the horizon on a flat earth compared with reality.
If the horizon you describe is your eyes are actually resolving the vertical curvature of the earth, wouldn't you be able to perceive the horizontal curvature as well?
That is absolute proof that the horizon isn't the curvature of the earth, just the resolution of your eyes or whatever apparatus you're using looking into the distance, subject to the rules of perspective.
If pictures from space are rejected, why would the completion and documentation of this experiment be accepted?
It probably wouldn't, which is why I advocate proofs that are easier for the average person to confirm. (Don't derail this thread by debating the proofs I linked to please!)
But that's beside the point. It's still an interesting experiment to discuss.
Yeah, you are right. Bad math.
Okay, so let us change the design of the experiment.
Picture this.
A triangle with three sides on the Salt Flat. From the starting point of stake one, travel a straight line 3 Km, using a laser as a guide. Drive a stake on arrival. Next, calculate a right angle and, using a laser as a straight line guide, travel another 3 Km. Then repeat the last step. What shape do I set up or draw out on the Salt Flat?
Well, non-euclidian geometry states that on the surface of a sphere, one can make a triangle with angles that do not add up to 180 degrees, so, if you were to spread three poles out over an extremely long distance, take their coordinates, and calculate the angles with some basic trig. If they were to come out to 180: flat earth, >180: spherical earth. <180: uh oh, concave earth. That would be a viable experiment.
Also, you might try googling the difference between movement and acceleration. They are not the same thing. You're really out of your element here if you're not willing to do some basic research.
Look, guys, I'm not a smart guy - especially scientifically. I already know this. I'm using argument ("argument" if you wish) to explore ideas.
Debate/arguing is a great way to further your understanding of a subject that you already have a basic understanding of. It is NOT useful if you don't already have a basic understanding of the subject.
I repeat, go learn basic kinematics first, then basic Newtonian physics, then come back to debate the ideas.
Stupid people are welcome. Wilfully ignorant people are not. That's my policy, anyway.
Look, guys, I'm not a smart guy - especially scientifically. I already know this. I'm using argument ("argument" if you wish) to explore ideas. This is only a sparring match to play with ideas.
Like I said, if you dont want to play then dont.
No one wants to spar, except you. There are no winners here. Either something is logically sound or its not.
Then you say you're not going to hold someone's hand to make them reply to you... but you are challenging them to hold your hand and explain complicated principles to you that from all appearances would be a total waste of time.
You need to go spar with a book.
Quick question: What happens to water on a hill?
I give up, what?
You really have no idea? It flows down. If a hill is the same as the horizon on the open ocean, then why isn't the water just falling away from you down this curve?
I'm just trying to highlight the absurdity of what you're saying.
Aberrations in terrain is not the same as the perceived curvature of the Earth via the horizon.
Also, you might try googling the difference between movement and acceleration. They are not the same thing. You're really out of your element here if you're not willing to do some basic research.
Acceleration is the change of velocity. Any object that is accelerating is moving. Acceleration is a type of movement.
You can accelerate with zero velocity.
No one here wants to hold your hand through an entire course on kinematics. If you have the entire internet at your finger tips, then use it. Learn kinematics before trying to debate it. No, a cursory glance through wikipedia isn't enough. You need a thorough knowledge of it, including the ability to correctly answer a wide range of related practice problems. There is nothing more annoying than arrogant ignorance.
Also, you might try googling the difference between movement and acceleration. They are not the same thing. You're really out of your element here if you're not willing to do some basic research.
Sputnik, please at least read the Wikipedia page on the equivalence principle before trying to argue further. We didn't say that the effect of constant acceleration would be exactly the same as the effect of gravity, Einstein did. Any arguments you have with this particular aspect of our model, you have with him. So I beg you to try to at least grasp the concept of the equivalence principle before posting again. It's not a difficult concept, you only need to read the Wikipedia page to have a basic understanding of the concept.
It is too bad that this conversation is unable to go anywhere
Alright, lets put the target close enough and below me at an angle such that the parabolic arch would be horizontal to the surface. I'll have to shoot downward and the bullet will definitely not increase its altitude. Then, I'll drop a bullet at the same time. The dropped bullet will hit the ground and the fired projectile will not. Why?
Ok, now I feel like you are probably just trolling... but just in case you aren't: The target is in the way. Also, you need to shoot horizontally for the experiment to be valid.
If you don't want to wait until your highschool physics course to learn this stuff, lookup a course in kinematics. Khan academy probably has some pretty good lessons on it. Then move on to Newton's laws of motion. Then special relativity. A bit of calculus wouldn't hurt. THEN you can come and argue this stuff to your heart's content.
Sputnik, I think I see where you've made the mistake here about bullets. If you fire the gun at a target above ground level, in order to hit that target and not hit the ground you have to aim somewhat up, above the horizontal. This immediately invalidates the comparison to a dropped bullet, because your fired bullet follows a mostly parabolic path first UP, then eventually down. (I say "mostly" parabolics because air resistance will shape the actual trajectory and deform the parabla)