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 - junker

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 170  Next >
OP, please see the stickied thread for the FET forum:


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« on: August 01, 2019, 05:56:12 PM »
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:

So, again, what field of view did you personally have when you observed the earth's curvature on the horizon (at night...), and at what altitude?

Do you doubt I flew military jets at 35,000 and above?
I have no way of knowing if you did or not.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« on: August 01, 2019, 05:23:32 PM »
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.

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.
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.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« on: August 01, 2019, 05:08:06 PM »
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.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« on: August 01, 2019, 03:42:32 PM »
At 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.

It absolutely is not easily discernible unless you have a rather large field of view, according to RE maths. You would have to provide more information than just saying you were at 45,000 feet (like where you were and what you were looking out of) What is more likely, is that your bias let you perceive that you saw something that you did not. Or, you are just making things up. As an engineer, you should be more thoughtful about these things. So far, it seems you are just posting arbitrary math problems that you think support your position, when in fact you likely did not take any time to validate any of the maths or measurements.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 01, 2019, 03:18:19 PM »
Reminder that this isn't a healthcare debate thread, regardless of how many personal anecdotes alleged boomers like totallackey have (which totally isn't a larp).

Discussing the topic of drug import/export from the Trump admin is fine. But lets not keep going down rabbit holes that have nothing to do with the orange god emperor.

You can make another thread if you want to discuss how objectively dysfunctional American healthcare is compared to other 1st world countries.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about the "infinite plane"
« on: July 30, 2019, 09:46:34 PM »
What is the equivalent to gravity in the infinite plane model?

I don't know the infinite plane model all that well, but can direct you to where you can find more information. The gist is that some people well-versed in maths worked out that gravity can work on an infinite plane just as it does in RE. The alternate theory is more philosophical in that "things fall down."

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about the "infinite plane"
« on: July 30, 2019, 09:21:26 PM »
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?

UA and infinite plane are separate FE models.

inb4 Parsifal cricizes every sentence of the OP. Also inb4 Parsifal quotes it in his AR thread.

On the actual topic, Ansible. But it would probably help to know what your goal is (aside from making a lab for the sake of making a lab). You can certainly use those tools, but I believe that method is a bit "dated."

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 24, 2019, 07:36:06 PM »
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

Okay, do me a favor and refrain from posting in the upper fora if all you have are lazy, low-effort posts and insults. Have a warning.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question
« on: July 24, 2019, 07:34:15 PM »
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


You are going to have to attempt coherent sentences if you want anyone to talk to you. I get that you don't understand the topic, but spattering gibberish is rather lazy. I won't warn you for low-content since I was attempting to engage with you, but this is very much lazy and low-effort posting.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question
« on: July 24, 2019, 03:09:32 PM »
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.

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.
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?
Yes, and I am not disagreeing. I am just failing to see the implication that there is any sort of destination to reach.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question
« on: July 24, 2019, 03:58:40 AM »
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.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question
« on: July 24, 2019, 02:15:31 AM »
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.
Sure thing Pete.

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?

Why would an infinite upward acceleration be any less plausible than an infinite inward acceleration? Both seem to be active rather than passive.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question
« on: July 24, 2019, 01:26:10 AM »
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/sec
So 353/365 x 192e3 ~ 186e3 ~ c
Excellent, you can do basic arithmetic. Did you have another point to make?

The earths mass and all on it would approach infinity and dimensions would approach 0
That is not happening

At least you are somewhat giving it a try here. Very lazily, but a try nonetheless.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 24, 2019, 01:23:14 AM »
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 limit
Who are 'others.'

I suggest you grab concepts instead of parsing minutia and missing the point
I suggest you take my earlier suggestion.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 23, 2019, 11:32:34 PM »
You would reach c in 353 days

No, you would not. I would suggest taking a minute to learn something new instead of just posting something incorrect over and over.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question
« on: July 23, 2019, 11:31:10 PM »
I have had grad level physics courses in relativity.

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.

Anyway, with SR you can accelerate constantly forever and never reach c (you will asymptotically approach c). I am not sure why you would invoke Newtonian mechanics for this. Someone with grad-level knowledge of relativity would certainly understand.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: July 21, 2019, 10:39:06 PM »
The Lion King (2019)

It was fine. If you love the original, you probably won't care for this one. My personal complaints, in order of of being problematic...

1) The music is roughly 69,420 times worse than the original. They include the original opening and closing, then everything in between is a worse version (especially 'Be Prepared...'). The recent Aladdin remake included some new girl power songs that were actually decent, this movie should have done the same. The exception is 'The Lions Sleeps Tonight,' which was great.

2) There is an awkward disconnect between the voices and the CG animals. I can't quite place it, but if you watch it you will understand what I am saying.

3) Jeremy Irons is a much more believable villain (did I mention how they ruined 'Be Prepared?'). In the remake it is hard to tell the male lions apart, which is dumb no offence.

4) Let's talk James Earl Jones, since he is back for the remake. In the original, he sounded incredibly passionate and his voice carried powerfully. Now, his voice is flat, and it borderlines on him sounding disinterested. The scene where he comes back to talk to Simba is probably the worst of it...

It is worth watching, but doesn't do anything better than the original (which I think Aladdin did in a few places). I'd still suggest watching it, but keep your expectations low.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: July 21, 2019, 05:03:00 PM »
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?

I'd suggest you argue thos points you disagree with, then. Saying you won't explain why the sun and moon look the same size in the sky is pointless. The FE folks here have a good understanding of RE mechanics. They already know that in the RE model the sun has 400 times the diameter and is 400 times farther away, which is why they appear to be the same size.

Saying that it's "dubios" is a hollow, lazy statement. Address the points and make your arguments. Otherwise you'll end up warned again.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 170  Next >