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

 

Astonishing. 

 

How is my calculation wrong?

 

 

 

Ahhh no.  For the 89th TIME...

 

It's Miles2 x 8 inches per mile/12 = Feet of Curvature for a Spherical Ball with a 25,000 Mile Circumference.

 

"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
 
Try again
 
regards

 

You have a quadratic equation for approximation the curvature of the Earth (a circle). This is fine for small distances, not for larger. But lets say I'll agree with this approximation for the distance you've provided, mainly because I'm lazy, but also because you don't use SI units.

 

Now you have y = a * x².

y = curvature in feet

a = 8/12 feet/miles²

x = distance in miles 

 

Let us fill in 60 miles. y = 8/12 * 3600 = 2400ft.

Let us fill in 10 miles. y = 8/12 * 100 = 66ft.

Let us fill in 1 mile. y = 8/12 * 1 = 0.66ft.

In your evaluation you look at a larger distance (ex the 60 miles) and divide it by 60 to find the curvature in feet for the smaller distance (ex the 1 mile). From the example above you can clearly see that your linear approximation of the quadratic function is flawed. The estimate you're making is 2400ft/60ft = 40ft, which is much larger then what the equation would give if it was filled in at the 1 mile.

 
So the correct curvature is 2777/60 feet = +/- 55 feet per minute, the first minute. Still doable, right?
You then reset the clock. Look at the new horizontal level and you can drop this level per minute again, without any problem. Repeat 60 times and you'll have dropped your 166,666 feet when compared to the original position, without problem.
 
Correcter even, is looking at the force on the object because of the "descend". The Force in a 100kg person would be: F=M*a = M * v²/r = 100kg * (800km/h)² / 6,375km = 100km * (222m/s) / 6,375,000m = 0.77N. Most people will not even be aware of this force.
Compare it to the force of the attraction that pulls or pushes a man towards the ground is 100kg * 9.81m/s² = 981N. 
Ah, the joy of SI units. The civilized west FTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets continue with the 200 point debunk continuation. I will make use of the link Popoi provided, which has a text version of the video. It is found here.


 


Items 001-010 in post #40.


Items 011-020 in post #44.


There were objections to the following points (per post #46):


My rebuttal was in post #158.


 


21) (and 22 and 25 and 26 and 27) If the Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, helicopters and hot-air balloons should be able to simply hover over the surface of the Earth and wait for their destinations to come to them!


Both flying machines will be launched with a angular speed equal to the rotation of the earth. Atmosphere will also push the aircrafts in that direction. Coriolis will have some effects, but its negligible. 


 


23) (and 27 and 28 and 31) But rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles disproof the atmosphere spinning at 1000mph.


The speeds of the earth's rotation and atmosphere are the same. so the resultant is zero.


 


24) Canons ignore this though.


No they don't. Everything from 21 and 23 is also true for canons.


 


29) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone.


The Force in a 100kg person would be: F=M*a = M * v²/r = 100kg * (1600km/h)² / 6,375km = 100km * (444m/s)² / 6,375,000m = 3.08N.


 


30) Wind is different in different layers of the atmosphere.


Sure it is. So? It really doesn't proof a flat earth.


 


32) (and 33) The force of gravity is strong enough to bind us to the earth, but not birds.


You have to calculate the resultant force.


Ftotal = Fgravity + Fwings. If Fwings > Fgravity and in an opposite direction, a resultant force up will exist and the bird will accelerate in an upward motion. There is a reason birds bones are hollow (lower Fgravity) for example.


 


34)  Ship captains in navigating great distances at sea never need to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their calculations. 


They use Mercator projection maps. This already does the factorization of the curvature for them.


 


35) The fact that many captains navigating south of the equator assuming the globular theory have found themselves drastically out of reckoning, moreso the farther South travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball.


Source? I assume this is made up.


 


36)  (and 37)During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal the charts were wrong.


During exploration missions, charts aren't that good? No surprise here.


Was the distance 10 around the Antarctic times as large as presumed however?


 


38) Navigation difficulties around Cape Hope.


Yes, where the Atlantic and Indian Ocean meet, there are dangerous waters. Its not a navigational error though.


 


39) (and 40 and 41) Sidney and Nelson distance is 1550 statute miles and 2'14".


They're not on the same latitude. This isn't in the calculations.


 


20.5% done!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets continue with the 200 point debunk continuation. I will make use of the link Popoi provided, which has a text version of the video. It is found here.


 


Items 001-010 in post #40.


Items 011-020 in post #44.


There were objections to the following points (per post #46):


My rebuttal was in post #158.


Items 021-041 in post #203.


 


42) In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers clocked 50-60,000 miles around.


The length of a circle is the minimum length around an area. These 12,000 miles is the minimum length. The explorers kept going closer and farther away from the center of that circle, increasing the length to go around.


 


43) (and 44 and 45 and 46 and 47 and 48) Flightpaths don't go over the Antarctic.


Flight paths are based on more then distance alone. There are accords in place to keep out of the Antarctic, they depend on the traffic there is for that particular connection etc. Ignoring geopolitical information is never a good thing when examining global data.


 


49) If Earth were a spinning ball heated by a Sun 93 million miles away, it would be impossible to have simultaneously sweltering summers in Africa while just a few thousand miles away bone-chilling frozen Arctic/Antarctic winters experiencing little to no heat from the Sun whatsoever. 


The sun has a different impact based on the angle at which the sun rays travers the atmosphere. A lot of heat is "wasted' by going through the atmosphere. Also the angle in which the sun impacts the surface is different for both area's.


To proof this is relevant, I'd challenge you to check the effect of solar panels and the angles at which you install them, before discussing the geometry.


 


50)  (and 51) Antarctic and Arctic should be the same in temperatures, seasonal changes, length of daylight, plant and animal life. In reality, however, the Arctic/Antarctic regions and areas of comparable latitude North/South of the equator differ greatly in many ways.


No they don't. And the differences there are can be easily attributed the presence of land under the Antarctic and the closeness to other area's of the world.


 


52) Iceland at 65 degrees North latitude is home to 870 species of native plants and abundant various animal life. Compare this with the Isle of Georgia at just 54 degrees South latitude where there are only 18 species of native plants and animal life is almost non-existent. 


Iceland is a vulcanic island. Not only geographical location vs solar impact plays a roll, also the access to other heat sources..


 


53) (and 54 and 55) At places of comparable latitude North and South, the Sun behaves very differently than it would on a spinning ball Earth but precisely how it should on a flat Earth. 


Citation. My personal experience teaches me otherwise.


 


56) (and 57 and 58) If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles.


Another straight out lie (assuming the first were lies, this one at least is). 


Basic geometrie allows us detect the line where a globe model would have no sun-set in midwinter or midsummer. If you don't believe this, I'll educate you on the condition you'll admit I was right on this after I'm done.


 


59) It is said that the rotation takes twenty-four hours and that its speed is uniform, in which case, necessarily, days and nights should have an identical duration of twelve hours each all the year round. 


Erm, not when the axis around which the globe rotates has an angle with the sun-rays.


Basic geometrie shows this again. If you don't believe this, I'll educate you on the condition you'll admit I was right on this after I'm done.


 


60) The horizon should be curved, even at sea level. With an experiment.


The problem with this experiment is that it only shows that the horizon at different points, the horizontal plank and your eye are approximately on the same mathematical plane.


 


61) The horizon should be curved, even at sea level. Buildings would look like the tower of Piza.


If you can see 40km far away. The buildings you would still perceive at an angle of <0.1. An inclination away from you. The building height/length would be 99.99% of there normal size . You would not perceive it. 


 


62) (and 63 and 64 and 65 and 66) Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch.


Repetition of the experiment showed the curvature though. They also identified the flaws from Samuel Rowbotham's first trial.


 


Up next: Refraction!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20.5% done!

 

 

You call that done?   :rotfl:

 

Thanks for posting, Sincerely  thumbsup.gif 

 

 

From here on out, I will only answer those responses that breach the threshold of 'somewhat' coherent and above.

  

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain why this is a problem for a spherical Earth but not a problem for a flat Earth.

 

Well it's more of a proxy.... "No Vacuum", then say goodbye @ light speed to...

 

1. nasa and all sub-contractors.

2. other countries 'nasa' facsimiles.

3. every Observatory and University Astrophysics Division (Cosmology/Astronomy) --- Pseudo-Sciences on the PLANE-t.

 

That's just in the first 10 minutes.

 

Then when all 7 Billion or so people come to the realization that they've been " DUPED 1000000----->" ....what pray tell, do you suppose will happen next?

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, do you acknowledge the existence of the ISS ? 

 

I then asked you...

 

Can you tell us how a Vacuum can be attached to a Non-Vacuum... and still be a Vacuum??   :laugh_point:

 

Do you see how the Obvious answer to my question... answers your question, instantaneously ??

 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the ISS (International Space Station) Orbiting Mars ??  ...

 

MarsISS.jpg

 

 

This shot was taken from a window seat on Spirit Airlines @ 37,000 ft of the Nevada Desert with an iphone, then the ISS "Photo-Shopped" in. (Photo from Rob Skiba)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's timeline shall we (I'll attempt to keep it short),

 

So All ancient cultures/religions (Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism ect) believed that the Earth was the Center of the Universe, Flat, and Domed for a few thousand years.  Then somewhere around Pythagoras (~ 500-600 BC) some started floating "The Ball"/Sphere model.  

 

Since we are looking @ this from a Christian Perspective, this is the picture (From Numerous Scriptures)...

 

hebrew_conception_of_the_universe2.jpg

 

 

1512:  Copernicus (Free Mason ) published his Heliocentric Model.

 

1519: Ferdinand Magellan (Free Mason ??) circumnavigates the Earth (See previous discussions on circumnavigating a Flat Earth).  

 

1687: Isaac Newton (Free Mason) published the 'Honored' ahem: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) which in short helped explain (i.e., quantitative descriptionnot only elliptical planetary orbits but nearly every other motion in the universe: how the planets are kept in orbit by the pull of the sun’s gravity; how the moon revolves around Earth and the moons of Jupiter revolve around it; and how comets revolve in elliptical orbits around the sun. Which all coincidental like supported the Unbridled Conjured Speculation from Copernicus.

 

btw, Lets keep this in mind... 

 

Leading cosmologist and highly esteemed George Francis Rayner Ellis honestly admitted the role of philosophical assumptions....

 
‘People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations … For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. … You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.'
Gibbs, W. Wayt, 1995. Profile: George F.R. Ellis; Thinking Globally, Acting Universally. Scientific American 273(4):28, 29
 
1773 and 1839 respectively: Captain Cook and James Clark Ross each circumnavigate Antarctica and both come up with 60,000 Nautical Miles.  :blink: 
 
1928:  Admiral Richard Byrd (Indiana Jones on Nuclear Steroids) conducts his First Expedition to Antartica.
1934:  Admiral Byrd's Second Expedition to Antarctica.
1938:  Admiral Byrd's Third Expedition to Antarctica.  (First Official backing by us government).
 
1946: Operation Highjump:  Organized by Rear Admiral Richard Byrd commenced 26 August 1946 and ended in late February 1947. Task Force 68 included 4,700 men, 13 ships, and 33 aircraft; Basically an Armada. Operation Highjump's primary mission was to establish the Antarctic research base Little America IV.
 
Admiral Byrd on National TV 1954 (SEE: Video previous post)...
 
"an area as big as the United States that's never been seen by a human being that's beyond the pole on the other side of the south pole", "It's by far the most important and valuable place in the World", "an Untouched Reservoir of Natural Resources"...
 
He then discussed the recon mission which was ongoing as he spoke, in preparation for...  
 
 
1955: Operation Deep Freeze: November 1955 to April 1956. The impetus behind Operation Deep Freeze I was the International Geophysical Year 1957–58. IGY as it was known was a collaborative effort among forty nations to carry out earth science studies from the North Pole to the South Pole and at points in between. The United States along with New Zealand, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Norway, Chile, Argentina, and the U.S.S.R agreed to go to the South Pole, the least explored area on Earth.
 
Then guess what happened?  Absolutely Nothing!!!  Save for a Treaty among 40 nations agreeing to No colonization of Antarctica, basically restricting the Entire Continent.
 
I suppose Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Hundreds of the rest....just lost Interest.
 
1957: 'nasa' is born and Militarized. (Mainly staffed by Nazis resulting from Operation Paperclip... the ones the Russians didn't get)
 
1958-1962: The US and Russia begin a Nuclear Bombardment of the Upper Atmosphere, that make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like Tiddlywinks !!! 
  

1969: Apollo 11 Lands on the Moon  :laugh_point:  (all Astro-nots Free Masons) and confirms Pythagorus/Copernicus/Newton et al...

 

10075248.jpg

 

SEE, We TOLD YOU!!

 

If you think this is real, I got a Bridge for Sale near some pristine beach front property.  :gigglesmile:

 

The End.  Welcome to Shangri-La

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the ISS (International Space Station) Orbiting Mars ??  ...

 

MarsISS.jpg

 

 

This shot was taken from a window seat on Spirit Airlines @ 37,000 ft of the Nevada Desert with an iphone, then the ISS "Photo-Shopped" in. (Photo from Rob Skiba)

 

 

So you don't think the ISS exists ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't think the ISS exists ?

 

So I reckon you didn't understand the Question?  I'll ask it again in a moment.

 

It "exists' in Photoshop or a Cardboard cut out.  

 

 

OK Now, do you have an answer...

 

How can you have a Vacuum (Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) and still retain the properties of a Vacuum ....?

 

Related Question...

 

So Space is a Vacuum and being there is no Physical boundary between Space and Earth's Atmosphere, then:

 

 

How are you still breathing !!  :gotcha:

 

 

Please, Enlighten us...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't think the ISS exists ?

 

So I reckon you didn't understand the Question?  I'll ask it again in a moment.

 

It "exists' in Photoshop or a Cardboard cut out.  

Probably. But it also exists as the real deal. 

 

There are numerous ground based images of the ISS but I know you would claim they are photoshopped. From what you've been saying, I get the clear impression that you see the entire space program is little more than an elaborate and expensive hoax.

 

According to spaceweather.com the ISS will pass over central Missouri seven times between May 24 and May 27. More exact times are available if you go to their website and enter your specific zip code.  Go out and see it for yourself.  If you know someone with a strong telescope, you can detail such as the solar panels and major module assemblies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Now, do you have an answer...

 

How can you have a Vacuum (Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) and still retain the properties of a Vacuum ....?

1) IIRC, it was you who provided a table showing that space is not a total vacuum.

2) There is not an instant demarcation between the vacuum of space and the (relative) high pressure of Earth's atmosphere.... as that same table documents.

3) You have also provided citations showing that the transition between Earth's atmosphere and the extreme low pressures of deep space does not have a clear boundary.

 

Why do you continue to treat this as if we should explain this as some kind of instant transition when sources provided by you say it isn't?

 

And before you ask, the atmosphere is held to the Earth by gravity.  While gravity is an extremely weak force, it is still strong enough that if you were to submit yourself to its power without restraint you can be killed in less than 100 feet (30 m).... (Hint:  Think of falling off a hundred foot building.)

 

How are you still breathing !!  :gotcha:

 

 

Please, Enlighten us...?

 Differential pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You call that done?  

 

Thanks for posting, Sincerely  thumbsup.gif 

 

 

From here on out, I will only answer those responses that breach the threshold of 'somewhat' coherent and above.

  

 

regards

You so stumped you have no rebuttal at all? You're just going to ignore it? Just like when I provided you with experiments you could do yourself in order to show yourself the ball earth?

 

I took the time to go over 31% of the video you provided which would demonstrate the flat earth model. I'm starting to think you just don't want to know anything.

I'm disappointed in you.

 

Now do the follow experiment for me, or show me the flaw:

If you point a light at a stick and look for the position where the end-point is projected at a wall you can see the point on the wall. If you move the light source in a plane parallel to the wall, it'll create a point reflection of the trajectory.

PTREFEX.gif

Similarly, according to the flat earth hypothesis, the sun moves in a plane parallel to the earth's surface. If you stick a stick in the ground and follow the sticks end's position, you'll get a point reflection of the sun's orbit.

If the sun would move in a circle above the surface, this would be reflected in a circle in the reflection. You can mark each hour where the shadow of the stick hits the ground. Furthermore, since the sun travels about 15° each hour, each hour these 15° of the circle should be represented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, if I sit at my window and look into the distance there is a school, I can't see the playground but if I rise to my feet, adding three foot or so of height, I can see most of the playground even though it is plan-flat. 

 

That's just three feet! If something far away is hundreds of feet high, and you are at 75 foot above sea level, I would in no way be confident that you could assert that you could not see those islands.

 

You also commented about the height of those islands pointing away, but that ignores the logic of my cartoon, where I shown that the curvature over about 375 miles, would be so slight as to be almost straight, or do you think something like this following picture would be a good example of a true-to-scale image? ;)

 

 

 

(as you can see, their height would point away at the above scale, but the below picture shows something I drawn which is real-life scale, I measured Everest (in the centre) to be about 5 miles high, and this scale is according to the 100X magnification from your own diagram, so you can't accuse me of inventing the scale;

 

 

 

(Corsica and Elba would not even be visible, to zoom in on them, the magnification would have to be so large that the earth would be totally flat in order to see them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably. But it also exists as the real deal. 

 

There are numerous ground based images of the ISS but I know you would claim they are photoshopped. From what you've been saying, I get the clear impression that you see the entire space program is little more than an elaborate and expensive hoax.

 

According to spaceweather.com the ISS will pass over central Missouri seven times between May 24 and May 27. More exact times are available if you go to their website and enter your specific zip code.  Go out and see it for yourself.  If you know someone with a strong telescope, you can detail such as the solar panels and major module assemblies.

 

I've seen the ISS many times, it's very bright. As a bit of an amateur astronomer, I've even tried taking a picture of it, though the result was not impressive, because I think my focussing was slightly off. Its a bit tricky because you've got to manually aim the scope at the ISS while it rapidly tracks across the sky while taking a video via a camera attachment in the eyepiece socket. Due to the very small field of view at high magnification the resulting video is mostly blank except for fleeting frames (maybe a dozen or so out of couple thousand). I then use various software to extract the good frames and then stack them all together into one image. I think I will try again in a few days when there is a decent pass and perhaps post on here if its good enough. I will look forward to Enoch claiming that I must be part of the Grand Conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen the ISS many times, it's very bright. As a bit of an amateur astronomer, I've even tried taking a picture of it, though the result was not impressive, because I think my focussing was slightly off. Its a bit tricky because you've got to manually aim the scope at the ISS while it rapidly tracks across the sky while taking a video via a camera attachment in the eyepiece socket. Due to the very small field of view at high magnification the resulting video is mostly blank except for fleeting frames (maybe a dozen or so out of couple thousand). I then use various software to extract the good frames and then stack them all together into one image. I think I will try again in a few days when there is a decent pass and perhaps post on here if its good enough. I will look forward to Enoch claiming that I must be part of the Grand Conspiracy.

 

I intend to get into a bit of amateur astronomy myself. There's a few associations for it in the area I've just moved to. Apparently you can also sometimes see the northern lights too which will be quite cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) IIRC, it was you who provided a table showing that space is not a total vacuum.

 

 

That's right, it's not a Perfect Vacuum.   That doesn't help you @ all (lol)

 

 

2) There is not an instant demarcation between the vacuum of space and the (relative) high pressure of Earth's atmosphere...

 

 

That's right, there is no Physical Barrier.  ERGO....How are you still BREATHING?

 

You heard of the Law of Entropy by chance? 

 

 

3) You have also provided citations showing that the transition between Earth's atmosphere and the extreme low pressures of deep space does not have a clear boundary.

 

 

Yea, that's right.  Again you're just nailing the coffin shut tighter.

 

 

Why do you continue to treat this as if we should explain this as some kind of instant transition when sources provided by you say it isn't?

 

 

Are you on Shrooms?   :blink:

 

I'm not asking you to explain some fairytale transition, I'm asking you: HOW ARE YOU STILL BREATHING ??  :acigar:

 

There is no transition or barrier SO.... Errr how can you have a Vacuum attached to a Non-Vacuum and still be a Vacuum??

This question is easier than 1 + 1 = ???

 

And before you ask, the atmosphere is held to the Earth by gravity. 

 

:rotfl3:

 

Gravity??

 

What's that?  Then, what is the Cause of Gravity....?

 

Can the Weakest "force" known to man (Which is bs to begin with), Overcome Entropy and the suction power of a Vacuum???  If yes, the you need to turn your tricycle in @ the next depot and report to the Who and Where am I institution, IMMEDIATELY!

 

 

While gravity is an extremely weak force,

 

 

Ya think....

 

The Four Fundamental Forces (Strength): 
 
Strong Nuclear = 1
Electromagnetic = .001
Weak Nuclear = .0000000000000001
gravity = .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001    :laugh_point:  

 

But your contention is it's strong enough to spin the Upper Atmosphere uniformly @ a Few Thousand mph??  :shock:  

 

 

it is still strong enough that if you were to submit yourself to its power without restraint you can be killed in less than 100 feet (30 m).... (Hint:  Think of falling off a hundred foot building.)

 

 

You heard of DENSITY and the consequences thereof ?

 

Density explains it MUCH MUCH BETTER.

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, if I sit at my window and look into the distance there is a school, I can't see the playground but if I rise to my feet, adding three foot or so of height, I can see most of the playground even though it is plan-flat. 

 

 

Yes, it's called the Law of Perspective on Flat Planes.

 

Didn't we already go over this?? (Start @ 1:19:43)...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg

 

 

Also, you forgot to answer the question of how far you think this Buoy is (1:20:48) ....?

 

You also commented about the height of those islands pointing away, but that ignores the logic of my cartoon, where I shown that the curvature over about 375 miles, would be so slight as to be almost straight, or do you think something like this following picture would be a good example of a true-to-scale image?

 

 

Yes, more Cartoons (lol).

 

I also commented that you accidentally on purpose "Dodged" the other 3 islands which are perfectly visible...which should be thousands of feet below the Horizon from the point of Observation WITH Elevations taken into account. 

 

Do I need to post those Calculations again?

 

 

That's just three feet! If something far away is hundreds of feet high, and you are at 75 foot above sea level, I would in no way be confident that you could assert that you could not see those islands.

 

 

Your reasoning here is a Trainwreck.  You post an Incoherent Straw Man of 3 Feet with your fairytale School Playground with no distances then stumble into a False Comparison Fallacy juxtaposing it with a Baseless, Already Falsified Conjecture, 'bare' Assertion Fallacy wrapped in Ambiguity.

 

Are you Familiar with....The Pythagorean Theorum gives 8 inches per mile as the curvature on a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference. 

Spherical Trigonometry dictates that it varies inversely with the square of the mile so the first mile establishes line of sight, the second mile would fall 8 inches, the third mile 32 inches, the fourth mile 72 inches ect ect.

 

I can post the FULL Illustration and explanation again if you wish...? 

 

 

(Corsica and Elba would not even be visible, to zoom in on them, the magnification would have to be so large that the earth would be totally flat in order to see them).

 

 

Ahh you're already seeing them....

 

genova.jpg  

 

Ergo...The Earth is Flat.  Thanks for confirming again thumbsup.gif

 

The island of Elba, from Genoa (with Elevation of Elba and of the Observer already taken into account) can be seen an incredible 125 miles away! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Elba should be forever invisible behind 8770 feet of curvature.  It doesn't matter how much ZOOM ya got.

 

Your only recourse is A Mirage or Refraction  :laugh_point:

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right, there is no Physical Barrier.  ERGO....How are you still BREATHING?

 

You heard of the Law of Entropy by chance? 

Please state what the law of entropy is, and how it is relevant for this particular problem.

 

Gravity??

 

What's that?  Then, what is the Cause of Gravity....?

 

Can the Weakest "force" known to man (Which is bs to begin with), Overcome Entropy and the suction power of a Vacuum???  If yes, the you need to turn your tricycle in @ the next depot and report to the Who and Where am I institution, IMMEDIATELY!

If gravity is a force, it is expressed in units N (for Newton).

What are the units of Entropy and "suction power of a Vacuum"?

What is the suction power of a vacuum?

 

The Four Fundamental Forces (Strength): 

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

 

But your contention is it's strong enough to spin the Upper Atmosphere uniformly @ a Few Thousand mph??   :shock:  

Gravity diminishes with r² (r being the distance). There are only forces with a single sign. There are a lot of 'actuators'.

Strong Nuclear diminishes with r*exp(m*r). So it becomes much smaller much quicker with distance.

Weak Nuclear diminishes with r*exp(mu*r). So it becomes much smaller much quicker with distance as well.

Electromagnetic requires a positive and a negative charge. Overall there are an equal amount, so they cancel out.

 

 

You heard of DENSITY and the consequences thereof ?

 

Density explains it MUCH MUCH BETTER.

So how does density cause an acceleration of 9.81m/s² towards the earth?

And how come both high density and low density objects have the same acceleration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You so stumped you have no rebuttal at all? 

 

More like laughing too hard to respond

 

I took the time to go over 31% of the video you provided which would demonstrate the flat earth model.

 

 

You need to start over @ #1

 

Now do the follow experiment for me, or show me the flaw:

If you point a light at a stick and look for the position where the end-point is projected at a wall you can see the point on the wall. If you move the light source in a plane parallel to the wall, it'll create a point reflection of the trajectory.

PTREFEX.gif

Similarly, according to the flat earth hypothesis, the sun moves in a plane parallel to the earth's surface. If you stick a stick in the ground and follow the sticks end's position, you'll get a point reflection of the sun's orbit.

If the sun would move in a circle above the surface, this would be reflected in a circle in the reflection. You can mark each hour where the shadow of the stick hits the ground. Furthermore, since the sun travels about 15° each hour, each hour these 15° of the circle should be represented.

 

 

1. The Flaw...You don't even have an Argument other than a Begging The Question Fallacy.  :laugh_point:

 

"In this model, the sun acts like a "point light" with a limited throw of light, leaving the unexposed areas in the dark. This effectively gives the same results as a rotating earth would in terms of time zones. It also helps to explain the vertical meter stick and shadow experiment. If the much smaller and closer sun is standing over one meter stick, the shadow will be straight down, whereas the one further away will be casting a longer shadow. It's not rocket science."

http://testingtheglobe.com/quest2.html 

 

 

EarthSunMoon.gif

 

 

You also haven't even watched the 200 Proofs yet, where he explains it many different times, (Check 1:00:55)...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg

 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please state what the law of entropy is, and how it is relevant for this particular problem.

 

 

So 6th Grade Science is in, eh?  Well basically...Unless it is purposely hindered:  Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Pressure to Low Pressure (Always!). Good?

 

You can learn more here and many other places: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html

 

 

If gravity is a force, it is expressed in units N (for Newton).

 

 

Begging The Question Fallacy: it's not a Force. " N " is for Nitwit.

 

 

Gravity diminishes with r² (r being the distance). There are only forces with a single sign. There are a lot of 'actuators'.

 

 

Begging The Question Fallacy.  SEE above.

 

So how does density cause an acceleration of 9.81m/s² towards the earth?

 

 

It doesn't.

 

Cause an Acceleration of what?

 

 

What is the suction power of a vacuum?

 

 

GINORMOUS!!

 

Next block of Instruction:  How to Make a Sandwich.

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you point a light at a stick and look for the position where the end-point is projected at a wall you can see the point on the wall. If you move the light source in a plane parallel to the wall, it'll create a point reflection of the trajectory.

PTREFEX.gif

Similarly, according to the flat earth hypothesis, the sun moves in a plane parallel to the earth's surface. If you stick a stick in the ground and follow the sticks end's position, you'll get a point reflection of the sun's orbit.

If the sun would move in a circle above the surface, this would be reflected in a circle in the reflection. You can mark each hour where the shadow of the stick hits the ground. Furthermore, since the sun travels about 15° each hour, each hour these 15° of the circle should be represented.

 

 

"In this model, the sun acts like a "point light" with a limited throw of light, leaving the unexposed areas in the dark. This effectively gives the same results as a rotating earth would in terms of time zones. It also helps to explain the vertical meter stick and shadow experiment. If the much smaller and closer sun is standing over one meter stick, the shadow will be straight down, whereas the one further away will be casting a longer shadow. It's not rocket science."

http://testingtheglobe.com/quest2.html 

 

 

EarthSunMoon.gif

 

 

Making a claim is not the same as proving it.

I have provided with a method that could determine the path of a point light. I even explained the (very simple) geometrie behind it.

 

Now look at the claims made in the text you quoted:

"This effectively gives the same results as a rotating earth would in terms of time zones."

Sure it can. The animation provided doesn't show this though. :) But I've seen other animations that do.

 

'It also helps to explain the vertical meter stick and shadow experiment. If the much smaller and closer sun is standing over one meter stick, the shadow will be straight down, whereas the one further away will be casting a longer shadow."

The text you provided simplified the shadow experiment so much that it was no longer the shadow experiment. As I've explained above, one of the properties of 2 parallel planes (straight surfaces, the point-light is supposed to be in a plane that is parallel to the flat earth according to you) is that if you make a point reflection around a point in between the planes, the shape of the figure is unchanged (A mathematical FACT). So indeed the closer sun standing over the stick will create a straight down shadow, whereas the one further away will be casting a longer shadow. However, the shape of the end positions of the shadows over the different hours will give you exactly the same shape as the trajectory of the sun.

 

"It's not rocket science.

I like the pun. Though this was 1st or 2nd grade mathematics I think. But before you go out and test in the real world, you can validate the mechanics behind it. If you have a building with 2 parallel interior walls, place a stick in a jar in the center. move a light on 1 wall and see the exact shape on the other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making a claim is not the same as proving it.

 

 

Yea, when are you gonna start?

 

 

I have provided with a method that could determine the path of a point light. I even explained the (very simple) geometrie behind it.

 

 

So have I...explains it perfectly.  As you just admitted...

 

Now look at the claims made in the text you quoted:

"This effectively gives the same results as a rotating earth would in terms of time zones."

Sure it can. 

 

 

The animation provided doesn't show this though.  :) But I've seen other animations that do.

 

 

Then why did you ask?

 

 

These Nonsensical Quibbling's (Fallacy)  :fly: from you are getting old, FAST!

 

Post a Coherent Argument or be ignored.  mmm K ?

 

regards

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 6th Grade Science is in, eh?  Well basically...Unless it is purposely hindered:  Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Pressure to Low Pressure (Always!). Good?

 

You can learn more here and many other places: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html

But apparently, whatever you stated does not come from that source, nor is supported by it. Example of a quotes from that website:

"One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems."

So you're making things up, it seems.

 

Begging The Question Fallacy: it's not a Force. " N " is for Nitwit.

 

Gravity diminishes with r² (r being the distance). There are only forces with a single sign. There are a lot of 'actuators'.

Strong Nuclear diminishes with r*exp(m*r). So it becomes much smaller much quicker with distance.

Weak Nuclear diminishes with r*exp(mu*r). So it becomes much smaller much quicker with distance as well.

Electromagnetic requires a positive and a negative charge. Overall there are an equal amount, so they cancel out.

 

 

Begging The Question Fallacy.  SEE above.

I've illustrated the different forces and how a theoretical weaker "gravity" would still have such large effect.

 

 

 

 

And before you ask, the atmosphere is held to the Earth by gravity.  While gravity is an extremely weak force, it is still strong enough that if you were to submit yourself to its power without restraint you can be killed in less than 100 feet (30 m).... (Hint:  Think of falling off a hundred foot building.)

You heard of DENSITY and the consequences thereof ?

 

Density explains it MUCH MUCH BETTER.

 

So how does density cause an acceleration of 9.81m/s² towards the earth?

And how come both high density and low density objects have the same acceleration?

 

It doesn't.

 

Cause an Acceleration of what?

So how does density explain you being killed if you step from a 30m high building.

 

 

What is the suction power of a vacuum?

 

GINORMOUS!!

How is that an answer to the question?

 

 Are you trolling because you can't formulate coherent answers anymore?

 

 

 

What is the suction power of a vacuum?

 

GINORMOUS!!

 

Next block of Instruction:  How to Make a Sandwich.

 

 

regards

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignored

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