Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Enoch 2021

So The Earth Is A Sphere Spinning @ 1000 Mph, Ok...

Recommended Posts

Why an earth tat is a flat disc as you suggest would require a god any more than a spherical one. I asked and quoted my question several times.

 

My thought on the matter is that any sufficiently massive object will form a sphere, or sphere like object, because gravity is essentially pulling every particle of the object towards the center of that object. This is why stars and planets and even sufficiently massive asteroids have a spherical shape.

 

If an object like the Earth was not a sphere but a disk, that would be an incredibly hard feat for science to explain. It would defy the laws of nature as we understand them. I can see how that could be seen as evidence of divine creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Goku: My thought on the matter is that any sufficiently massive object will form a sphere, or sphere like object, because gravity is essentially pulling every particle of the object towards the center of that object. This is why stars and planets and even sufficiently massive asteroids have a spherical shape.

 

It's a non-sequitur that they are that shape BECAUSE of gravity alone. Don't forget, the gravity is already presented by the fact that the object is large and is there, if the object does not yet exist the gravity caused by the large object can't exist either. (putting the cart before the horse). The gravity is caused by the large object not the large object being caused by the gravity.

 

 

If you are implying accretion is proven I have news for you;

 

 

 

 

CMI: But according to Blum, these required conditions—low velocity and aggregation—have not yet been observed in lab settings. Similarly, Armitage concluded: “For pairwise collisions to work fast enough, meter sized objects need to efficiently stick together upon collision rather than breaking up. This has not been demonstrated in laboratory experiments.â€11 Thus experiments have failed to show that mere collision of particles can make them stick and grow into larger bodies under conditions believed to exist in the early solar system.

 

 

 

CMI: For over 200 years there has been the belief that the sun, planets and moons originated from a vast cloud of gas and dust, the primordial nebula or solar nebula (Lat. nebula = cloud). Celestial bodies allegedly formed when gas and dust particles coalesced in a process called accretion, forming protoplanets or planetesimals. Accretion theory is part of the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation. Experiments have not demonstrated that accretion occurs. God created heavenly bodies by His spoken word (Ps. 33:6), not a process—rapid or not—conforming to post-creation scientific laws. Experimental challenges to accretion theory are presented, followed by discussion of the lack of astronomical observations for it.

 

 

 

 

CMI: In other words, even if colliding particles could stick, the resulting growth into planetesimals would be extremely slow, requiring longer than the millions of years allotted for it. Slusher estimated 30 Ga as the time for a single interstellar grain to form by collisions—of the order often times the age of the solar nebula

 

 

Keysi, I would say that the reason the earth is a sphere, from an intelligent designer-God's perspective, is obvious. It's a  neat way of having lots of space. If you want planets like the earth to exist, whereby life can walk on it, gravity is the perfect design. As we speak those on the opposite side of the earth are standing upside down in relation to us. Also if you have a large sphere, that is so large that it is flat to small lifeforms, then obviously that is also another contingency plan of design. Also the atmosphere is specifically created for photosynthesis, and deflects harmful rays such as gamma rays. Our atmosphere basically lets in the correct light for life. The sun also is the type of sun that gives the correct rays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for speaking to me as if I'm a simple child Mike. That made me chuckle. It was just the theology of it I was curious about.

 

Edit- I did have emoticons in that post to show that I was genuinely laughing and not being snarky but they don't seem to be showing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Keysi: Thanks for speaking to me as if I'm a simple child Mike. That made me chuckle

 

Huh?  :think:

 

Don't remember doing that. Just thought you hadn't thought much about designer-reasons for a planet rather than a flat-earth. I know some of those reasons are obvious of course such as gravity. I mean I know you know there are people down under, standing upside down relative to us, but I say that because we tend to forget what a good design that is. It seems simple but is it? I mean, if God wants a period of one day what is the best way to do it? Have us circle a sun? circular systems are tremendously good design because cycles prevent stop/start issues. Reproduction for example, stops God from having to come down each time a new animal is needed. The best way to have a day and night is have a ball (the earth) spin around a sun. All of these problems are like killing two birds with one stone, only God has killed many birds with one stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...  only God has killed many birds with one stone.

Is that an acknowledgement of the K-T event? 

:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, can you answer this coherently...

 

This is a Picture of the Chicago Skyline taken from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville across Lake Michigan 60 Miles Away ....

 

7602503_G.jpg

 

 

If we are on a "Ball", with a circumference of 25,000 miles ---

 

Spherical geometry proves the following elevation loss in all directions from a fixed point observer on a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference:

 

  1 mile - 8 inches

  2 miles - 32 inches

  3 miles - 6 feet

  4 miles - 10 feet

  5 miles - 16 feet

  6 miles - 24 feet

  7 miles - 32 feet

  8 miles - 42 feet

  9 miles - 54 feet

10 miles - 66 feet

20 miles - 266 feet

30 miles - 600 feet

40 miles - 1066 feet

50 miles - 1666 feet

60 miles - 2400 feet

70 miles - 3266 feet

80 miles - 4266 feet

90 miles - 5400 feet 

100 miles - 6666 feet

 

That means Chicago should be 2400 Feet BELOW the Horizon (Technically, the Sears Tower is 1454 Feet so...it should still be out of sight by 1,000 feet).  Errrr, can somebody please tell me What in The World is going on here ??   :think: 

 

This alone brings the Entire House of Cards Down.

 

 

 

 

So does the ball and the person on the opposite side of the Carousel. 

 

 

 

1.  Thanks for Simplifying.

 

2.  I didn't ask you what the EFFECT of the 'something' was, I asked you WHAT the 'something' IS....?

 

2a. "Space-Time" and "Gravity-Well" Nonsense is already falsified: SEE Quantum Mechanics and Common Sense.

 

3.  Equations merely "DESCRIBE" they don't "SHOW" anything.

 

4.  Show the Experiments...?

 

 

 

So you conjure a trip to the Antarctic-Circle and say "see", eh?  :laugh_point:  You been there?  :gigglesmile:

 

Admiral Byrd was there... "an area as big as the United States that's never been seen by a human being", "It's by far the most important and valuable place in the World", "an Untouched Reservoir of Natural Resources"...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzWHqooAJtM

 

 

 

Operation Highjump commenced 26 August 1946 and ended in late February 1947. Task Force 68 included 4,700 men, 13 ships, and 33 aircraft. 

 

Guess what happened as a result of this Expedition.........Absolutely NOTHING!  Accept No Fly Zones and Restricted Areas!!!

 

I suppose Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Hundreds of the rest.... just lost Interest  :funny:

 

 

 

Sure they do.

 

I have some burn-marks on my Garage Wall with most places unscathed; this difference is explained by the exiting of Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragons.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I also have 25 hour 'Time-Lapse' video of the Earth Spinning  :laugh_point:  It's a Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher...

 

 

 

 

regards

Important variables to consider here are the altitudes of Chicago and the person taking the photograph. Using Google earth, I found Chicago's average altitude to be about 600 feet. Stevensville beach varies quite about from 600 to 680 feet. Midway between the two the altitude dips to about 380 feet.

 

So, doing a visual horizon calculation, it ranges from 55.4 miles to about 61 miles depending on the photograph's altitude. But, even if we assume the photo is at 600 feet, we should still be able to see buildings 200 feet tall 60 miles away....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? :think:

 

Don't remember doing that. Just thought you hadn't thought much about designer-reasons for a planet rather than a flat-earth. I know some of those reasons are obvious of course such as gravity. I mean I know you know there are people down under, standing upside down relative to us, but I say that because we tend to forget what a good design that is. It seems simple but is it? I mean, if God wants a period of one day what is the best way to do it? Have us circle a sun? circular systems are tremendously good design because cycles prevent stop/start issues. Reproduction for example, stops God from having to come down each time a new animal is needed. The best way to have a day and night is have a ball (the earth) spin around a sun. All of these problems are like killing two birds with one stone, only God has killed many birds with one stone.

It's OK mate I was joking, I don't think when I hit edit it actually went through till just now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Keysi: It's OK mate I was joking, I don't think when I hit edit it actually went through till just now. 

 

Oh I see what you meant now..I am a bit under the weather so my concentration isn't so high, I think I need to go to bed and......

 

 

post-2116-0-79680600-1463501617.jpg

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike the Wiz (and other creationists out there), if a literal reading of the bible would indicate a flat earth rather then a round earth, would you conclude the earth to be round, or would you conclude the literal reading of the bible isn't correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fjuri: Mike the Wiz (and other creationists out there), if a literal reading of the bible would indicate a flat earth rather then a round earth, would you conclude the earth to be round, or would you conclude the literal reading of the bible isn't correct?

 

 

If the bible indicated the earth was flat then because we know it is round, I would be forced to accept that a literal reading would be incorrect. 

 

Truth is truth isn't it. If something is factual and we deny it, I can't see why God would want us to do that. Personally I would have to reject the bible, at least a literal version.

 

Do you think it says the earth is flat, Fjuri? :) (in your opinion does it seem to indicate that). I for one don't see any definite statement either way other than statements that God created it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bible indicated the earth was flat then because we know it is round, I would be forced to accept that a literal reading would be incorrect. 

 

Truth is truth isn't it. If something is factual and we deny it, I can't see why God would want us to do that. Personally I would have to reject the bible, at least a literal version.

 

Do you think it says the earth is flat, Fjuri? :) (in your opinion does it seem to indicate that). I for one don't see any definite statement either way other than statements that God created it.

There are some indications for it. But I'll leave it to Enoch for now to give them if he feels like it. And it should be discussed in the bible discussion forum. I was more interested in your answer, thanks for it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Important variables to consider here are the altitudes of Chicago and the person taking the photograph. Using Google earth, I found Chicago's average altitude to be about 600 feet. Stevensville beach varies quite about from 600 to 680 feet. Midway between the two the altitude dips to about 380 feet.

 

So, doing a visual horizon calculation, it ranges from 55.4 miles to about 61 miles depending on the photograph's altitude. But, even if we assume the photo is at 600 feet, we should still be able to see buildings 200 feet tall 60 miles away....

 

Incorrect.  They are both roughly the same elevation.  60 miles2 x 8 inches/12 =  2400 feet of curvature; i.e., it should be hidden by 2400 feet of 'Water' in this case.

 

btw, Channel 57 Chicago's Weather Guy got a hold of this picture and gave his 'spiel' on it to the viewer's....Mirage:laugh_point:

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't mean it like that. I won't use that term if you want. 

 

 

There's a conjured "Negative Connotation" with the Phrase

 

 

However obviously there are conspiracy theorists such as the guys who say the moon landings are faked....

 

 

There's also the Writer of Psalm 2 to add to the list. 

 

The Moon Landings are Fake, they're a tear jerkin belly laugher.  Refute the points in the video.

 

I have another question:  How is it that you're breathing right now?  :gotcha:   According to the Laws of Entropy --- if not purposely hindered, High Pressure to Low Pressure...ALWAYS!!  You're surrounded by the Vacuum of Space -- nearly a perfect vacuum, with 'No Boundary'. 

 

"There's no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space, says Dr Kevin Pimbblet, lecturer in astrophysics at the University of Queensland."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/01/13/2791372.htm

 

 

Outer Space should be sucking the air out of the atmosphere @ break neck speed until equilibrium is reached: 

 

 
Sea Level =  760 Torr
 
> 105,000 Feet (32 km) turbojets no longer function ≈ 8 Torr
> 264,000 Feet (80.5 km) = U.S. definition of space flight ≈ 10-3 Torr
 
Low Earth Orbit (300km/186 miles)) Pressure = 10-9 Torr:

 

Moon Pressure = 10-12 Torr:

http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/ladee-measuring-almost-nothing-and-looking-for-the-almost-invisible-692321/?no-ist

 

Interstellar/Deep Space ≈ 10-17 Torr

http://www.orbitec.com/documents/Orbitec_Vacuum_Reference.pdf

 

 

Let me guess 'gravity', right?  Mirage?  Refraction?  Let's have a look see...

 

The Four Fundamental Forces (Strength): 

 
Strong Nuclear = 1
Electromagnetic = .001
Weak Nuclear = .0000000000000001
gravity = .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001   :laugh_point: 

 

So that's 'the force' allegedly holding the air in from the ground to 186 miles and above ?  :blink:  ...Yep, and I'm a Mau Mau Fighter Pilot.

 

This may vault to the #1 position before too long  :D 

 

 

It just seems to me it would not matter what anyone argued. I also believe if I took a flat-earther up into space and he was shown the earth and orbited it he would still find a way to say it was not a planet.

 

 

Conjured Anecdotal Hypothetical's aren't arguments Mike

 

 

But, I still believe if we took you up into space to orbit the entire thing, that you would accept the earth was not flat.

 

 

It wouldn't even take that, just put me on a Flight @ 500mph/35,000 feet and allow me to experience the 2777 feet of descent every minute!!   :gotcha:  

 

Or.... have Gilbo get on a boat/ Ice Breaker and head south then jump up onto Antarctica and head to the 'South Pole' without getting stopped by certain people sporting Machine Guns, worrying about 'Jodies'... and a sorry disposition  thumbsup.gif

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why an earth tat is a flat disc as you suggest would require a god any more than a spherical one. I asked and quoted my question several times.

 

It wouldn't.

 

Why didn't you answer any points refuting your debunked 'spinning ball' position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fjuri: here are some indications for it. But I'll leave it to Enoch for now to give them if he feels like it. And it should be discussed in the bible discussion forum. I was more interested in your answer, thanks for it.

 

No problem. One thing I will say is that anyone can elephant-hurl a list of bible-passages so as to make it seem the bible agrees with them. That's what usually happens when someone argues that, "the bible says X", then what tends to happen is the two Christians debating each other will have a kind of bible-verse war. Bob will list his bible verses that support him, and Sally will list hers. This does not achieve much in my view. There has to be a genuine desire to understand what the bible really means.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't.

 

Why didn't you answer any points refuting your debunked 'spinning ball' position?

You said it would at the beginning of this thread. In a reply to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, well in this particular case.... if the Earth is a Circle "Flat" and not spinning, then --- If you're saying there is No God....You sorta have some Problems, REAL FAST!! :kaffeetrinker:

 

Dont'cha Think ?

 

 

regards

See? Loosing track of your yourself a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. One thing I will say is that anyone can elephant-hurl a list of bible-passages so as to make it seem the bible agrees with them

 

Listing Numerous Bible Passages isn't Elephant Hurling.  :blink:

 

Elephant Hurling (Fallacy):  a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument.  

http://www.astorehou...lephant_hurling

 

e.g.,

 

Harry: "Please support your claim.....?"

 

Sally: "You have Google/NCBI, don'tcha ??"

 

 

Your appeal is tantamount to calling every and any Bibliography/Works Cited page.... Elephant Hurling, AND /OR...

 

The Prosecutor stating, "He's Guilty due to:

 

1. Murder Weapon

2. Finger Prints

3. DNA

4. Footprints

5. Eyewitnesses

6. Cell GPS

7. Car GPS

8. Video Surveillance

9. Credit Card Statement

10. Nasty Letter to the victim the day prior.

11. Tire Tracks

12. Self Admission to: Wife, Father, Mother, 8 Kids, Grandmother and Grandfather 

13. No Alibi

14. Diary Notation claiming responsibility

15. Nasty Text Message to Victim 5 minutes prior.

ect ect" 

 

Then the Defense Claiming his client is innocent and petition for immediate case dismissal due to The Prosecutor... "Elephant Hurling" (Fallacy)  :gigglesmile:

 

 

That's what usually happens when someone argues that, "the bible says X", then what tends to happen is the two Christians debating each other will have a kind of bible-verse war. Bob will list his bible verses that support him, and Sally will list hers. This does not achieve much in my view. There has to be a genuine desire to understand what the bible really means.

 

 

 

That's not the case here....just Another Conjured Generalized Anecdotal Hypothetical.  I already listed the Scripture Verses ("Compare Scripture with Scripture") to Support my position, here:

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6598-so-the-earth-is-a-sphere-spinning-1000-mph-ok/page-4&do=findComment&comment=131573

 

 

You have not provided any support for yours: 

 

Enoch2021 -- "Can you post the Scripture where HE said it was a Ball -- wobbling and spinning on it's axis @ 1000 mph, rotating around the sun @ 67,000 mph, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way while the entire Galaxy rockets 670,000,000 mph through the universe all originating from a 'big bang' --- Every Year the Earth is traversing 5.8 Trillion Miles!!   :blink: "

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6598-so-the-earth-is-a-sphere-spinning-1000-mph-ok/page-5&do=findComment&comment=131593

 

 

Scripture does say... 

 

(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

 

Are you saying we shouldn't follow this admonishment?

 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't even take that, just put me on a Flight @ 500mph/35,000 feet and allow me to experience the 2777 feet of descent every minute!!   :gotcha:

What do you imagine you'd experience in that scenario? What forces you be experiencing in what directions that would make a rollercoaster feel like placid serenity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Enoch: You have not provided any support for yours: 

 

But do I really have a position?

 

My position is that the bible doesn't give literal descriptions of any great detail about the physical nature of the earth as a planet or as a disc, therefore how can I support my position since my position would be supported by the absence of any mention of these things?

 

When I read the verses you provide Enoch, I don't "get" from them what you seem to get from them. It seems to me the flat-earthers have created a flat-earth and THEN once they have established that belief, they have hunted for verses they will argue that support it.

 

People read all kinds into the bible, some say it gives proof the earth is a spherical planet, but when I read the verses they provide, I just don't "get" what they get from those verses. Derek Walker of the Oxford bible church for example, gives talks about the bible proving the earth is round. For me, I understand why he is convinced the bible proves that but like I say, when I read the verses he provides they just seem so very equivocal or poetical and could mean anything. In all honesty I wouldn't know what to make of them but had I read them without listening to his lecture I doubt I would have inferred that the bible was describing a planet.

 

I just don't think the bible includes much in the way of scientific description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect.  They are both roughly the same elevation.  60 miles2 x 8 inches/12 =  2400 feet of curvature; i.e., it should be hidden by 2400 feet of 'Water' in this case.

 

btw, Channel 57 Chicago's Weather Guy got a hold of this picture and gave his 'spiel' on it to the viewer's....Mirage:laugh_point:

 

 

regards

 

Ummm, E, I'm not really following your calculations here.  So you have 60 miles x 60 miles which is 3,600 miles2 or square miles. Then you multiply that by 2/3 feet and get 2,400 feet???  Couple of comments:  1) whatever you end up on the right-hand side should be something-cubed and not linear since you are multiplying a distance by a distance by a distance.  2) You haven't normalized your units, e.g., miles, feet, inches, within your calculations.  And 3) even if you fix 1) and 2), it's not at clear to me what you are calculating here.

 

Also, if you are calculating the visual horizon of a spherical object, then the radius of that object must be part of your calculations.  Right?  That's what dictates the degree of curvature between two points on the sphere, e.g., the smaller the radius -> the more curvature; the larger the radius -> the less curvature.  So, again, I don't follow what you are calculating here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See? Loosing track of your yourself a bit?

 

Actually No, it's your Head-Space and Timing.

 

Ya see sir, Errr...

 

Enoch 2021: Many years ago, I thought I ferreted out the lions share of THE LIES... then @ the request of friends, I dropped it.

 

Keysi: What is the reason for all these lies, do you think?

 

Enoch 2021: Ahhh, well in this particular case.... if the Earth is a Circle "Flat" and not spinning, then --- If you're saying there is No God....You sorta have some Problems, REAL FAST!!  :kaffeetrinker:  Dont'cha Think ?

 

 

THEN, you asked a Different Question:

 

Keysi: Why an earth tat is a flat disc as you suggest would require a god any more than a spherical one.

 

Enoch2021: It wouldn't.

 

 

Ya see sir, your second attempt to Quibble (Fallacy) was a General Question:  why would either require "A god".... as opposed to the first, because I was expressly speaking to "THE GOD". Ergo...either scenario would be good, i.e.,  "THE GOD" could do anything HE wished....so it makes no difference. Hence my retort... "It Wouldn't".

 

However, in the first case I was Specifically Speaking (SEE: "In this Particular Case...") to "THE GOD" (Jesus Christ, because you are well aware I'm a Christian ) where HE said EXACTLY what HE did.  Voila

 

Ergo, your feeble attempt to catch me in your incoherent little "Trap" has kinda blown up in your face.   :shock:

 

 

Oy Vey Sir

 

Do you have a coherent substantive argument regarding the facts of the case in lieu of nonsensical tangled webs of incoherent Quibbling (Fallacy) self-induced Back-Fires ?

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually No, it's your Head-Space and Timing.

 

Ya see sir, Errr...

 

Enoch 2021: Many years ago, I thought I ferreted out the lions share of THE LIES... then @ the request of friends, I dropped it.

 

Keysi: What is the reason for all these lies, do you think?

 

Enoch 2021: Ahhh, well in this particular case.... if the Earth is a Circle "Flat" and not spinning, then --- If you're saying there is No God....You sorta have some Problems, REAL FAST!! :kaffeetrinker: Dont'cha Think ?

 

 

THEN, you asked a Different Question:

 

Keysi: Why an earth tat is a flat disc as you suggest would require a god any more than a spherical one.

 

Enoch2021: It wouldn't.

 

 

Ya see sir, your second attempt to Quibble (Fallacy) was a General Question: why would either require "A god".... as opposed to the first, because I was expressly speaking to "THE GOD". Ergo...either scenario would be good, i.e., "THE GOD" could do anything HE wished....so it makes no difference. Hence my retort... "It Wouldn't".

 

However, in the first case I was Specifically Speaking (SEE: "In this Particular Case...") to "THE GOD" (Jesus Christ, because you are well aware I'm a Christian ) where HE said EXACTLY what HE did. Voila

 

Ergo, your feeble attempt to catch me in your incoherent little "Trap" has kinda blown up in your face. :shock:

 

 

Oy Vey Sir

 

Do you have a coherent substantive argument regarding the facts of the case in lieu of nonsensical tangled webs of incoherent Quibbling (Fallacy) self-induced Back-Fires ?

 

 

regards

Utter nonsense and you're taking a bit of a strange, combative attitude with me for not reason. I was not saying you were wrong, I was asking why you were putting forth the arguments that you were.

 

Please bear with me here as copy and quote doesn't work so well on a phone.

 

You claimed to be uncovering and blowing all the lies.

 

I asked why secular science and governments etc would lie.

 

You said because they are under the influence of satan/they don't want people to know about your god.

 

I asked why deceiving about the shape of the earth would suit their purposes, to which you replied -

 

Ahhh, well in this particular case.... if the Earth is a Circle "Flat" and not spinning, then --- If you're saying there is No God....You sorta have some Problems, REAL FAST!! :kaffeetrinker:

 

 

It's all their if you want to go back and read over it.

 

All I asked for was an explanation WHY this is the case. Your speed to jump down my throat and think I was trying to trap you is rather bizarre and unfounded.

 

This has happened many times on this board, for some reason several people here take a question as an attack on them. Quite weird.

 

At least goku managed to explain your argument when you clearly didn't have the ability to and chose to become both defensive and rather offensive at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm, E, I'm not really following your calculations here.  So you have 60 miles x 60 miles which is 3,600 miles2 or square miles. Then you multiply that by 2/3 feet and get 2,400 feet???  Couple of comments:  1) whatever you end up on the right-hand side should be something-cubed and not linear since you are multiplying a distance by a distance by a distance.  2) You haven't normalized your units, e.g., miles, feet, inches, within your calculations.  And 3) even if you fix 1) and 2), it's not at clear to me what you are calculating here.

 

Also, if you are calculating the visual horizon of a spherical object, then the radius of that object must be part of your calculations.  Right?  That's what dictates the degree of curvature between two points on the sphere, e.g., the smaller the radius -> the more curvature; the larger the radius -> the less curvature.  So, again, I don't follow what you are calculating here. 

 

Maybe this will help ( ... http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.02/shirley3.html )....

 

In April 2004 we received an message from Jerry, a retired Engineer, who pointed out an error in my solution above. What follows is a slightly edited version of what Jerry sent.

 

It is true that Harley showed quite correctly that the earth curves approximately 8 inches in one mile. The solution presented then goes on to find out over how many miles does the earth curve 72 inches or 6 feet. Then this distance is doubled which is required (and would be easy to forget), because each man looks this distance to his horizon, where the line of sight is tangent to the earth's surface midway between them. All of this reasoning is correct so far.

However, it turns out that while the earth does curve 8 inches in one mile, it does not take 9 miles to curve 72 inches.

 

To show this, let us return to the Pythagorean Theorem method used by Harley, but using 6 feet for the curvature. Here is a copy of Harley's diagram with the 1 in the diagram replaced by x, since in this case the distance is unknown.

shirley3.1.gif

Again, using the theorem of Pythagoras

Solving for x,

a2 = 39632 + x2 = 15705369 + x2

a must be 3963 miles + 6 feet (Let's say the men are actually 6'3", so their eyes are six feet above ground.). Thus

a = 3963.001136 miles

x2 = a2 - 15705369

 

Now, remember that each man looks 3 miles to the horizon, giving their distance from each other as 6 miles.

x2 = 15705378 - 15705369 = 9

x = 3 miles

This shows that at eye level of 6 ft. the horizon is 3 miles (at sea or on a level plain).

 

A rule-of-thumb for line of sight problems such as this, where the distance is small in comparison to the size of the earth is

c = (2/3) times x2, where x is distance in miles and c is curvature in feet.

 

For the problem at hand, we then have x2 = (3/2)c

 

This is the same result that the more lengthy solution yielded.

x2 = (3/2) multiply.gif 6 = 9

x = 3

 

--Jerry

 

 

Basically, to find the Curvature for a Sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference (In Feet) it's...

 

Distance in miles2 x 8" per mile /12... 

 

"They give their law for this fancied curvature, based on the world being 25,000 miles in circumference at the Equator, as being 8 inches for the first mile, 2 feet 8 inches for the second, 6 feet for the third, and so on, the rule being to square the number of miles between the observer and the object, then multiply that square by 8 inches and divide by 12 to bring it into feet, the quotient being the supposed curvature."

David Wardlaw Scott; Terra Firma; Cornell University Library, p. 123

https://thechosenites.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/terra-firma.pdf

 

"NASA and modern astronomers claim we are living on an oblate spheroid 25,000 statute miles in equatorial circumference with a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on.  Therefore, if we wish to prove or disprove the validity of their convexity claim, it is a fairly simple, straight-forward matter of measurements and calculations."

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/search?q=oblate+Spheroid

 

 
"Spherical geometry proves the following elevation loss in all directions from a fixed point observer on a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference:
 
  1 mile - 8 inches
  2 miles - 32 inches
  3 miles - 6 feet
  4 miles - 10 feet
  5 miles - 16 feet
  6 miles - 24 feet
  7 miles - 32 feet
  8 miles - 42 feet
  9 miles - 54 feet
10 miles - 66 feet
20 miles - 266 feet
30 miles - 600 feet
40 miles - 1066 feet
50 miles - 1666 feet
60 miles - 2400 feet
70 miles - 3266 feet
80 miles - 4266 feet
90 miles - 5400 feet (over a mile now)
100 miles - 6666 feet"

 

 

Follow Now?

 

Please don't attempt to Quibble over the obvious so as to quagmire my topic.  K ? 

 

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utter nonsense and you're taking a bit of a strange, combative attitude with me for not reason. 

 

 

I don't think so.

 

 

I was not saying you were wrong, I was asking why you were putting forth the arguments that you were.

 

 

Actually you said....: "See? Loosing track of your yourself a bit?"

 

Clearly as outlined, I wasn't losing track of anything.

 

 

It's all their if you want to go back and read over it.

 

 

No need, I know what I read and wrote.  Thanks.

 

 

 

Your speed to jump down my throat and think I was trying to trap you is rather bizarre and unfounded.

 

 

It was pretty obvious to me and there's precedence in your case.  However, I could be wrong....if so, I apologize.  

 

Peoples motivations/motives are not of Primary Importance just yet...I'm trying to establish The Empirical FACTS first. As in, there's no sense chasing the rib-eye steak without establishing the existence of the Cow first.

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms