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.
The link provided by totallackey clearly states that one can discern curvature at 35,000 feet.Try reading the actual source which was even listed in the article. It has been gone over on this forum repeatedly:
Do you doubt I flew military jets at 35,000 and above?I have no way of knowing if you did or not.
I provided that information as a baseline for how far on can see at that altitude. If the horizon is that far away at night, that means it is that far away during the day.So you didn't actually see curvature on the horizon, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.
I would suggest you address issues you have with things people say with the people who said those things, instead of deflecting to strawmen when your made up stories fall apart.
Right here in this thread:
" I have witnessed Chicago from Michigan City, IN, at a distance of over 30 miles. I have witnessed the shoreline and steel mills of Gary, IN, from Michigan City, IN, a distance of over 20 miles."
Seems to be a perfectly accepted argument. But an "I have seen X which shows or implies curvature" is summarily dismissed.
First of all, why is "I saw such and such" a perfectly acceptable piece of information from your side, while "I saw such and such" is not from the other? Rather convenient, wouldn't you say.Please keep your strawmen arguments out of the upper fora, as all it does is derail the topic and makes it look like you are avoiding the discussion. If you can't can't answer, just say so. Trying to deflect by arguing against a claim no one is making gets us nowhere.
Secondly, I did provide detail. I have seen the lights of Oklahoma City from Omaha while flying in a USAF T-38 at night. That is just one example of many. Check the distance between those 2 cities. If one can see that far straight ahead, it stands to reason that one can see twice that distance from left to right.How is that remotely relevant to personally seeing the curvature of earth's horizon at 45K feet. That is what I am asking about, not what cities you claim to have seen while flying. I am also very interested in understanding how you saw curvature on the horizon while flying at night.
QuoteAt 45,000 feet, according to RE math, you would not be able to see any curvature.
False. As I said above, I could see a city 400 miles away. That implies I can see an 800 mile horizon at 45,000 feet. The circumference of the earth is about 24,000 miles. Thus, 800 miles has 12 degrees of arc (800/24,000 X 360 = 12), which is easily discernible by the naked eye.
What is the equivalent to gravity in the infinite plane model?
Please correct me if I am wrong, the word infinite means "limitless or endless". If that is true, how can the flat earth be an infinite plane? Given that UA is accelerating the flat earth plane upward at a constant 9.8 m/s, what force could possibly be moving an infinite plane at a constant 1G?
Not sure a flat earther is a physics reference lol
Help me: how close? 50%, 90% ?
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% ?
Flat earthers in similar threads
I suggest you address tooics you have a clue about
That really narrows it down
Says the flat earther
It's more than you can do
100 yrs at 1 g
V = 0.999999999999999999+ c
Mass x billions
Size / billions
Density bil x bil
Yes, the earth is travel~ c and not 18 mi/sec
Lol
As opposed to just ignoring the source of the UA?I am not trying to do that. It needs to be addressed as well. I was simply responding to your question regarding the plausibility of gravity because you asked someone to. I certainly don't have all the answers.
BTW, according to Einstein, gravity/gravitation is not a force. It's simply the natural movement of an object through warped space-time.Yes, I know/agree. I meant to type the word in quotes for context or to imply a psuedo-force, but I see it made things more confusing.
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. Velocity is speed in a direction. Speed is the rate of change of distance per unit time. If the FE is accelerating upwards, then it must be moving upwards. Again, where is the FE universe going is such a hurry?For another thing, acceleration implies that the FE and the accompanying visible universe is going somewhere. Where is the FE universe going and what will happen when it gets there?I fail to see that implication.
On the other hand, warping space-time is an innate property of matter and energy.That seems like a convenient way to avoid explaining how gravity gets to be an infinite attractive 'force (acceleration).
For another thing, acceleration implies that the FE and the accompanying visible universe is going somewhere. Where is the FE universe going and what will happen when it gets there?I fail to see that implication.
Sure thing Pete.Just because we may or may not have had this discussion before, that doesn't necessarily mean that I ever got a satisfactory answer out of you.Indeed. Now, please do stay on topic and take your amateurish trolling attempts to the lower echelons.
Would anyone else care to explain why an active upwards acceleration lasting for many, many years should be more plausible than a relatively passive phenomenon like gravity/gravitation?
You doubt the globe earth, so not a good arbitrator of physics knowledge.Says the person with grad-level physics knowledge who doesn't know how to apply SR...
32.17 ft/sec^2 x 365 days/yr x 24 hrs/day x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min / 5280 ft/mile = 192e3 mile/secExcellent, you can do basic arithmetic. Did you have another point to make?
So 353/365 x 192e3 ~ 186e3 ~ c
The earths mass and all on it would approach infinity and dimensions would approach 0At least you are somewhat giving it a try here. Very lazily, but a try nonetheless.
That is not happening
Lorenz
If you accelerated 5000 yrs at 32.17 ft/sec^2 how close would you be to c?Close, but less than c. Let me know if you need help with this.
Others have said c in not an absolute limitWho are 'others.'
I suggest you grab concepts instead of parsing minutia and missing the pointI suggest you take my earlier suggestion.
You would reach c in 353 days
I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.Doubtful.
If the earth is moving up as asserted at 32.17 ft/sec^2 you would reach c in 353 days.No, you would not.
So either you stop at c and lose gravity or exceed c.No.
I have done many time thanks and found numerous points in it which are a little dubious to say the least. In fact the cosmology section is probably the part of FE Wiki where I have found the most holes if I'm honest. Any particular points that you have in mind?
I'm not sure where this stuff comes from. But it certainly makes for interesting.. no that's the wrong word, entertaining reading. The sections of the Moon and lunar phases for example. Really?
