Legit question wrote:
You're reaching.
"It was as if a million irony meters were silenced at once."
Legit question wrote:
You're reaching.
"It was as if a million irony meters were silenced at once."
I'm watching hockey and a tad bored tonight so I though I'd do some math and a link from someone presenting their 'proof' of their flat earth.
First, the link:
This person shot the Toronto skyline from Beach Road in Hamilton, it's 31 miles away. He shows the skyline, noting how much of the city can be seen, and indicates it's proof of a flat Earth. He indicates that 600 feet should be obscured from his view point 30 miles away. Actually, and I map measured, he's 31 miles away but didn't quite account for curvature correctly since he calculated from lake level at his viewing point, not standing height. Assuming 6 feet up, you should measure from the horizon point in view, about 3 miles out, and then from their. This is because the horizon is not straight across but slightly downwards. Keep this in mind when you calculate the amount of fall-off later on.
The best shot of the skyline zoomed in is at about 10:04. I paused it, captured and took out some paper, pencil and a ruler.
The top of CN tower sits at ~1814 feet. To it's left is the First Canadian Place, it rises to 987 feet. He shot the video from about 6 feet off the ground. When you calculate what should be missing, you need to calculate for both curvature and refraction. Even without refraction you'll end up with about 500 feet should be missing from the view. Refraction accounts for a bit more, I used this link:
http://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html
These calculations are for level view. Adjust for the slightly downward angle of the camera, level view starts at the visible horizon, 3 miles away if viewing from 6 feet up, so subtract the initial 3 miles from 31 leaves 28 as this is your level horizon view point from position. I calculate out for 28 miles and get ~456 feet should be obscured from the horizon.
Now I take the image from the video at max magnification, screen capture it, measure out the difference between the top of the tower to the top of the First Canadian Place and then the horizon. For my screen capture I get 23.5 mm from horizon to the top of the tower, 9 mm from horizon to the top of the First Canadian Place. This is a 14.5 mm difference. The height for this section is 1814'-987' or 827 feet and works out to 57 feet per mm (827/14.5). Now let's see how much of the First Canadian Place is in view. Take the 9mm for water level to top of the First Canadian Place, multiply it by the 57 f/mm, I get 513 feet. So, how much of the First Canadian Place, and thus the Toronto skyline, is obscured by the curvature of the Earth? 987-513 = 474 feet. Pretty close to the 456 I calculated out. Even if you ignore the effect of refraction, it's pretty close to correct. Same for the CN Tower height (1814-(23.5*57))=474 feet.
Ironic that he indicates this is proof of a flat Earth. A casual view makes it kind of look like the city is fully viewable. But when you actually measure things out, it's about right for the Earth's curve.
nope wrote:
If the water is flowing, it slopes down. Don't know if there is any water body still enough to conclude anything about its curvature at a small scale.
Obviously. In general it flows south until it eventually freezes and adds to already-miles-long Antarctica.
But water level is useless to prove anything. Go to any beach and you will see the water flowing down from the sea onto the beach. Then when the tide turns, the sea drops lower than the land, and so the water flows back down off the beach. Thanks to the tides water is never level for long.
GPS is LEO. I only asked about GEO orbits and previously about Polar orbits. What is the orbit of GEO satellites with respect to the sun and the moon and the earth (given the repeated observations that both the sun and the moon often pass behind the earth). What explains the massive acceleration and deceleration required to explain the orbits of many man-made polar orbiting satellites as they go past the south pole, many times per day?Of course all satellites, including GPS, have ground based networks to communicate with.The GPS algorithms depend on the location of the satellites, and their orbits, calculated using various ranging techniques and a world geodetic (the pear shaped sphere) model. In a ground based system, what would be the input for the algorithms? Calculated using which model?Speaking of orbits, why is the Sun and Moon's orbit, in a flat model, circular around the north pole? Why is the downward adjustments of the nose of a plane a perceived issue, while the constant leftward or rightward adjustments of the sun and the moon (and BTW planes) not addressed or explained by flat earthers? In a globe model, a continuous downward force due to gravity explains with formulas, the constant earthward adjustments. Where is the analogous explanation for the sun, the moon, and planes, in a flat earth model, explaining the needed left or right adjustments? Flat earthers have seemingly just replaced the downward adjustments with left-right adjustments.
Legit question wrote:
Mark Sargent interviews Australian intelligence officer (ASIS)- GPS is ground based for Southern Hemisphere.
http://truthfrequencyradio.com/strange-world-mark-sargent-61937/
I did say "they might have a few" -- you didn't name any though. In the GEO world, NASA plays a very minor role at best, for all those functions. They had the shuttle, but that was not a very good launcher for GEO satellites, as the orbit was too low. As a government funded agency, "NASA is very much not a business".
This guy wrote:
rekrunner wrote:I don't know about NASA launching GEO satellites -- they seem more in the weather game, and shuttles to the low-earth orbit, and the space station, and planetary missions to neighbouring planets, or outside the solar system. None of these are GEO missions, but they might also have some communication satellites. I do know of many GEO satellites launched by public companies, like Direct TV, Echostar, and International consortiums, like Intelsat, and Eutelsat, not to mention any number of countries including Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Sweden, Indonesia, Australia, India, Japan, and China.
NASA has a few, they launched the first geosyncs in the early 60's to test viability. They also play roles in commercial launches, through facilities, support, tracking and so forth. They are a business too, and money is money.
Experiments in space show the surface of standing water forms a sphere.Can you be more precise about these flat water experiments? Who did these experiments? How did they measure levelness? All measures suffer from accuracy - do they discuss accuracy, precision, or other sources of meauserment errors, in order to place upper bounds on uncertainty. Do they list their assumptions?Can you be more precise about these lunar eclipses happening with both above the horizon? Where and when was this observed?In a globe model, down is towards the center of the earth. Water flows from high elevations to low elevations. Any discussion of north, south, east, or west is nonsense.
Legit question wrote:
Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.
The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
There are rivers which flow east, west, north, and south - that is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth's surface, and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-hill and others down; however, rivers cannot flow uphill. This is another proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Experiments in space show the surface of standing water forms a sphere.Can you be more precise about these flat water experiments? Who did these experiments? How did they measure levelness? All measures suffer from accuracy - do they discuss accuracy, precision, or other sources of meauserment errors, in order to place upper bounds on uncertainty. Do they list their assumptions?Can you be more precise about these lunar eclipses happening with both above the horizon? Where and when was this observed?In a globe model, down is towards the center of the earth. Water flows from high elevations to low elevations. Any discussion of north, south, east, or west is nonsense.
Legit question wrote:
Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.
The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
There are rivers which flow east, west, north, and south - that is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth's surface, and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-hill and others down; however, rivers cannot flow uphill. This is another proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Water always seeks its own level irregardless of gravity. Tests have shown this in space to be true. All these arguments about curving water don't matter.
GeneR wrote:
Water always seeks its own level irregardless of gravity. Tests have shown this in space to be true. All these arguments about curving water don't matter.
What does this mean? I teach university fluid mechanics and haven't the foggiest idea what "seeks its own level irregardless of gravity" means.
rekrunner wrote:
I did say "they might have a few" -- you didn't name any though. In the GEO world, NASA plays a very minor role at best, for all those functions. They had the shuttle, but that was not a very good launcher for GEO satellites, as the orbit was too low. As a government funded agency, "NASA is very much not a business".
Splitting hairs I see
Post Hole Digger wrote:
GeneR wrote:Water always seeks its own level irregardless of gravity. Tests have shown this in space to be true. All these arguments about curving water don't matter.
What does this mean? I teach university fluid mechanics and haven't the foggiest idea what "seeks its own level irregardless of gravity" means.
Perhaps you need to study more. Go look it up and then get back to me.
A water droplet is curved as has been mentioned before. The Planet Earth is basically a big water droplet on a grand scale.
Next question?
GeneR wrote:
Post Hole Digger wrote:What does this mean? I teach university fluid mechanics and haven't the foggiest idea what "seeks its own level irregardless of gravity" means.
Perhaps you need to study more. Go look it up and then get back to me.
You tell me. According to my studies, gravity is very much involved. I've heard "seeks its own level" many times, but I've never heard that gravity is not involved and I have no idea what you're talking about.
Post Hole Digger wrote:
GeneR wrote:Perhaps you need to study more. Go look it up and then get back to me.
You tell me. According to my studies, gravity is very much involved. I've heard "seeks its own level" many times, but I've never heard that gravity is not involved and I have no idea what you're talking about.
I doubt you teach anything. It's basic stuff taught in HS.
GeneR wrote:
Post Hole Digger wrote:You tell me. According to my studies, gravity is very much involved. I've heard "seeks its own level" many times, but I've never heard that gravity is not involved and I have no idea what you're talking about.
I doubt you teach anything. It's basic stuff taught in HS.
They taught you that irregardless is a word?
best irregards wrote:
GeneR wrote:I doubt you teach anything. It's basic stuff taught in HS.
They taught you that irregardless is a word?
No. Merrim-Webster did. Let me guess. You're an English professor. Lol
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardlessGeneR wrote:
best irregards wrote:They taught you that irregardless is a word?
No. Merrim-Webster did. Let me guess. You're an English professor. Lol
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
No, you only need grade 6 English to know the correct form.
Stay in school, son!
best irregards wrote:
GeneR wrote:No. Merrim-Webster did. Let me guess. You're an English professor. Lol
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardlessNo, you only need grade 6 English to know the correct form.
Stay in school, son!
Correct. Only the uneducated/dropout crowd thinks irregardless is acceptable.
GeneR wrote:
I doubt you teach anything. It's basic stuff taught in HS.
Translation: "I now realize that 'irregardless of gravity' is nonsense so I'll avoid saying anything further about it".
If the Earth is flat why doesn't water percolate through it like a giant coffee filter?
Shouldn't it all just drip right out the bottom of the dirt clod?