Legit question wrote:
Bart Rutan wrote:I'll try it again. Would you agree that the tip of South America and Southernmost points of Australia/NZ are the closest points to The GREAT ICE WALL?
Answer that and I will continue.
I replied to the "I feel sorry for you" guy. Unless you changed handles on me.
I am not that guy. I am the guy that originally asked the plane question under a different handle. Please answer my questions.
Legit question wrote:
ssnsnnananannaan wrote:why does the center of the disc get cold like the outer edge of the disc? But then the middle of those two is really hot?
also why does the Sun illuminate only one half of the disc at a time if it is flat? When I shine enough light to illuminate one side of a frisbee on any part then all of the frisbee gets illuminated to some degree. Can you please answer these questions?
Ok, back from my run. For those of you who are genuinely curious about the flat earth model, please refer to the Flat Earth Wiki page (yes, there is one). It will answer many of your questions. The link is at bottom of post.
"Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below (link below) illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth. The apparent effect of the sun rising and setting is usually explained as a perspective effect."
"When the sun is further away from the North Pole, it's winter in the northern hemiplane (or hemisphere) and summer in the south. A more simplistic picture can be found below."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F(You will notice that the sun is equidistant from the North Pole as well as from the edge of the earth to account for the colder temps in the center of the earth and at edges as well)
In this model, how does a solar or lunar eclipse occur? I assume the radius of orbit for the sun must vary on an annual period to account for the seasons; what is the cause of this variation? Do the stars themselves rotate around the Earth in the same manner as the sun? If so, why is there a difference between sidereal and solar time? Do the other planets still go around the sun in this model? If the sun is a "spotlight" how do you explain the rotational motion of surface sunspots?
Hell, the geocentric model with a spherical Earth does a better job at reconciling many of these.
foiled again wrote:
snsnsnsnsnsnssnaanaan wrote:Hey I really appreciate the data for the distance of the sun to the equator (3,000) miles and the diameter of Earth's disk (24,000 miles).
This means that the poles are just over twice as far from the sun as the equator. We also know that radiation power is inversely proportional to the square of distance. So the poles are receiving less than 4 times the power as the equator. Since the difference in temperature between the poles on average is about 25K, I think that the sun may actually be much much cooler than we thought before. Possibly enough such that metal will not melt! Thus, we could repopulate on the son using metal skins to insulate us from radation!!!
What I really need are the temperature of the sun's surface and its diameter, based on the true science of flat earth theory.
Then I can prove once and for all that the earth is flat by using the earth's temperatures (
http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut40RadiationTutorial.pdf) - basis heat transfer stuff.
In the meantime, I still need to explain why the sun doesn't radiate like a sphere. More like a spotlight. That is one is tougher, but we need to prove these globe people to be the idiots they are.
It works like a spotlight because it too has a tinfoil hat. You will note that a flashlight is designed the same way.
I don't think you are taking this seriously.
As a bystander who has read the entire thread, the globe people haven't even presented an argument
The tip of South America/Cape Horn looks to be the closest to the ice wall. (Unless there is an island south of Cape Horn).
Flats are winning wrote:
As a bystander who has read the entire thread, the globe people haven't even presented an argument
And when I post replies with diagrams and videos to the globe believers, they immediately dismiss & refuse to watch them. Instead they ridicule, make jokes and leave. What does that tell you?
Flats are winning wrote:
As a bystander who has read the entire thread, the globe people haven't even presented an argument
An argument for something or an argument against something?
Taking a break to run and dinner. Continue the debate w/o me for a few hours....
Legit question wrote:
Taking a break to run and dinner. Continue the debate w/o me for a few hours....
I'm still standing and will take on anyone. So bring it on, globalists. Later....
Legit question wrote:
The tip of South America/Cape Horn looks to be the closest to the ice wall. (Unless there is an island south of Cape Horn).
Correct! (round of applause)
Now where do you think the fictional South Pole is relative to that?
Legit question wrote:
Flats are winning wrote:As a bystander who has read the entire thread, the globe people haven't even presented an argument
And when I post replies with diagrams and videos to the globe believers, they immediately dismiss & refuse to watch them. Instead they ridicule, make jokes and leave. What does that tell you?
I watched that video and it's nonsense. The atmosphere does rotate with the earth, despite it not having "a shell". His velocities are silly. Of course the velocity of the airplane is relative to the surface and not to some arbitrary point in space. The fly inside the train car is a good analogy and he's an idiot to dismiss it because "the earth doesn't have a shell". I ridiculed it because it's ridiculous. I made a joke because it's funny. It was entertaining but now I'm leaving because it's like watching the same skateboard face-plant over and over: it's funny at first but not so much after awhile.
bro I did the calculations with the standard data for the surface temp and diameter of the sun with the 3000 mile distance.
Running into some problems.
Really need help with the diameter and temp of the sun. I know we can get through to them bro.
Legit question wrote:
Here is another discrepancy that is right under your nose that you may have missed. The Moon's gravity is 1/6 that of the Earth's. What this means is that if you were on the moon, you could move faster and jump higher. But in the moon landing footage, the astronauts are actually moving SLOWER than they would the Earth! (oops, must be a major screw up there by the producers, or else they were not able to simulate low gravity in the studio?) Go figure.
The Apollo defenders have no argument against this simple discrepancy except by saying that the astronaut space suits were so heavy that it made movement slow. However, even if that were so, in 1/6 gravity, they still should have been able to move faster and jump higher than if they were on Earth. Further, the dirt being kicked up in the video of the lunar rover vehicle should have been shooting up higher in 1/6 gravity as well, than if it were on Earth.
Reposted for emphasis, and not of accurate analysis.
Mofong wrote:
Legit question wrote:Here is another discrepancy that is right under your nose that you may have missed. The Moon's gravity is 1/6 that of the Earth's. What this means is that if you were on the moon, you could move faster and jump higher. But in the moon landing footage, the astronauts are actually moving SLOWER than they would the Earth! (oops, must be a major screw up there by the producers, or else they were not able to simulate low gravity in the studio?) Go figure.
The Apollo defenders have no argument against this simple discrepancy except by saying that the astronaut space suits were so heavy that it made movement slow. However, even if that were so, in 1/6 gravity, they still should have been able to move faster and jump higher than if they were on Earth. Further, the dirt being kicked up in the video of the lunar rover vehicle should have been shooting up higher in 1/6 gravity as well, than if it were on Earth.
Reposted for emphasis, and not of accurate analysis.
If there is less gravity you would descend slower after each stride or jump. Hard to generate speed when your descent phase is like a falling leaf. It's like playing badminton with a feather.
Astronomical telescopes are designed for viewing planets, stars, nebulae, clusters, comets, etc. All things outside the bounds of the Earth. An equatorial mount has a movable axle and an attachment that holds the telescope allowing it to rotate around the axle. When you set up the mount, you orient the axle to parallel the Earth's axis. Basically you 'point' the axle to polar north in the sky, called the north celestial pole, the closest recognizable marker being the star Polaris. Polaris is about 3/4 of a degree offset from the NCP so you can be really picky when setting if precision is needed.
You use this type of mount of locate objects in the sky and help observing, especially if you want to photograph them. The rotation of the Earth is very apparent if you every tried to photograph the night sky just setting a camera up and opening the lens for a while, the stars will streak in a circular pattern in the photograph. If you want to photograph deep sky objects with any detail, you don't want this streaking since the objects gets blurred and streaked. This is where the EQ mount becomes a necessity. A motorized EQ mount rotates the scope around the axle at exactly the same rate the Earth rotates around it's axis thus cancelling out the 'drift' and allows long exposure photographs. You can buy a decent EQ mount for as little as a hundred bucks.
Since the gears are circular cut and the motors constant, it would only work if the Earth rotated on an axis. In other words, it would never work in a flat Earth scenario.
No shortage of links and info for this. Pop over to the Cloudy Nights discussion forum and gets gobs of images shot by amateurs.
I've been reading through this thread and finding it pretty enjoyable, but spent a lot of it thinking that referencing the right experiments could easily disprove this. However, I took the time to look at a couple of the videos posted and noticed some hand waving that conveniently "refuted" some of these results.
(P.S. I realize this is trolling, but its been interesting and funny so far. Hopefully a Flat earther can provide some entertaining and possibly even thought provoking response to what I'm about to post.)
For example, the fact that we can measure the gravitational constant "should" put to rest the idea that there is no such thing as gravity. This is something we've been experimentally able to do for a long time: in the 1790's Cavindish experimentally found the gravitational constant to be G = 6.74×10−11 (m^3 kg^–1 s^−2), which allows for calculations of weight that agree nicely with more "standard" ways of measuring weight. This would seem to "prove" the theory of gravity correct. (more info on the experiment here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
)
However, in one of the video series that legit question frequently references (Balls out physics, specifically this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heiznYx-Ryk
), there is seemingly serious doubt cast the results of this experiment. The person who made the video claims (around 20 minutes in, I don't feel like rewatching it so if anyone's interested they can find the exact quotes) that nobody has been able to use the same techniques to reproduce the experiment's results and goes on farther to say that Cavindish, being so confident in Newton's equation, just algebraically solved for the value of G based on known weights.
There are several things wrong with what he claims in the video of course. First, he states that Cavindish found our currently accepted value of G. He didn't: the value he calculated is different from the currently accepted value by about 1%. Furthermore, his claim that nobody has been able to replicate the results of this experiment are completely false, and discovering this requires going no farther than a basic wikipedia or google search. This experiment has been repeated several times with increasingly precise equipment, each time refining the value of G be more accurate. This is easily seen just from wikipedia, which talks about a couple experiments of this nature (i.e. a similar, more accurate one carried out by C.V. Boys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._V._Boys#Experimental_physics
, or an earlier but less accurate attempt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment
). Of course, if you don't want to trust wikipedia and are looking for more modern versions of the experiment, this is actually still an area of some research (since G is so small, physicists are still refining the results to be accurate past the first several decimal places). Examples of these expirements can be found here:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/RevModPhysCODATA2010.pdf
(pages 49-50) by googling the individual data points and IDs in table XXIV.
So Brian Mullin is seemingly lying about this fact in his video to dupe people not willing to do any research at all. If you don't trust scientists, some of the engineers who claim to be flat earthers could probably build the torsion balance themselves and confirm the results.
A couple other experimental things that support the earth's rotation or gravity include:
The Foucault pendulum, which seems to confirm that the earth rotates (again, just go to a museum or if you're really dedicated you can replicate this yourself):
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
The experimental confirmation of the theory of general relativity (which reduces to the classical gravity theory under "normal" conditions:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/a3.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Also, it's referenced several times in this thread that density is what causes things to fall or rise and in the quotes provided by legit question its stated that less dense feathers, one blown on or disturbed, won't fall at the same rate as more dense rocks. Even the Balls Out Physics video discusses how ridiculous this is and links the proof that it's wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs
Well, reading up on this stuff has been fun and interesting. Hopefully you guys have some good replies.
Neil Armstrong longjump wrote:
Mofong wrote:Reposted for emphasis, and not of accurate analysis.
If there is less gravity you would descend slower after each stride or jump. Hard to generate speed when your descent phase is like a falling leaf. It's like playing badminton with a feather.
They're also not wearing a track suit. You also have to take short little jumps, because once you leave the ground you can't control your motion and any mistake could have you landing face first when you hit the ground so it would be dangerous to take this big long strides a 1/6 gravity environment would allow.
This guy wrote:
Neil Armstrong longjump wrote:If there is less gravity you would descend slower after each stride or jump. Hard to generate speed when your descent phase is like a falling leaf. It's like playing badminton with a feather.
They're also not wearing a track suit. You also have to take short little jumps, because once you leave the ground you can't control your motion and any mistake could have you landing face first when you hit the ground so it would be dangerous to take this big long strides a 1/6 gravity environment would allow.
Exactly. Needless to say I was still better than Buzz and set the current lunar record. The mark is engraved on the wall of the studio, I mean on a rock on the Moon.
Legit question wrote:
Legit question wrote:Taking a break to run and dinner. Continue the debate w/o me for a few hours....
I'm still standing and will take on anyone. So bring it on, globalists. Later....
I already asked you several questions in regards to your proposed alternative theory of concentric orbits of the sun and moon over a flat Earth. You chose to ignore these questions, either because you did not see them, because your theory fails to reconcile them, or (most likely), the website that you are copying all of your posts from has failed to reconcile them.
Even with a lack of direct observational evidence, which the "globalists" have provided, as well as several repeatable experiments, any acceptable theory should be able to reproduce all observed phenomena. Your proposed theory fails to do so, as will any attempts to create a "flat Earth" model.
You are a very loyal sheep to NASA aren't you, supposed physicist. There are simple refutations to your so called "proofs" the Earth is round. The scales that show weights according to your gravitational theory are just another piece of NASA's cover-up. We flat earthers know better than to use scales that are programmed to make you gullible rounders actually believe in gravity. You claim that the Earth rotates. How come as I am sitting down now I'm not dizzy? Easy. I'm not rotating. Finally, I live in the Southern Hemisphere, but haven't fallen off the bottom of the "globe" yet. Put a quarter on the bottom of a globe model and it will fall straight off, yet here I am, sitting undisturbed, proving you wrong.
Good try, but you're going to need more advanced physics than that.