Originally posted by FreakyKBHIn other words you will only accept answers where I accede to your vastly superior knowledge and that is going to happen only when hell freezes over. This is not a dialog, this is a freaky monologue where there is no discussion only the quest for assurance Earth is flat. That is not going to happen EVER. You refuse to even think about the consequences of what you propose, the evidence against your fantasy world is overwhelming and there is no getting around it except for more words dissing NASA and thinking because a video sequence is not done in one take, that proves fakery.
Your "answers" are inadequate and do not agree with reality.
Take another swing.
Tell me one movie that was made in one take. I would assume then that all movies are fake also, documentaries, Oscar winners, and all that, all fake because they are not done in one single sequence.
You are pathologically unfit to comment on ANYTHING scientific. That is all I am going to say on it, I answered your questions to the best of my ability and that is just not acceptable, anything less than concession is no good in your mind so there is nothing more to talk about, we have been round and round this bullshyte long enough.
Crawl back to your flatasss hole and choke on your fantasy world.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCome on old chap, play fair. You asked 2 questions which a number of us have answered. Is your position truly that you will not move on until our answers tally with your own answers?
Your "answers" are inadequate and do not agree with reality.
Take another swing.
If we all adopted that strategy every forum discussion would grind to a halt and earwigs would lay waste to the planet. (In a spherical fashion).
2 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf I understand the question it seems that the controversy can be explained in that while stationary on the ground an aeroplane is also travelling at the same velocity as the rotating earth depending where it is on the earths surface. Is it not the same as if we were travelling on a train and jump into the air? why dont we back flip until we splat against the wall of the last carriage, because initially we were travelling at the same velocity as the train. Is it not the case?
Come on old chap, play fair. You asked 2 questions which a number of us have answered. Is your position truly that you will not move on until our answers tally with your own answers?
If we all adopted that strategy every forum discussion would grind to a halt and earwigs would lay waste to the planet. (In a spherical fashion).
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePost that to the thread dedicated to the Coriolis Effect.
If I understand the question it seems that the controversy can be explained in that while stationary on the ground an aeroplane is also travelling at the same velocity as the rotating earth depending where it is on the earths surface. Is it not the same as if we were travelling on a train and jump into the air? why dont we back flip until we splat ag ...[text shortened]... age, because initially we were travelling at the same velocity as the train. Is it not the case?
You're on the right track, though.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn a similar vane (vain?) if one was plummeting to the ground in a broken elevator and jumped out at the very last second (as if often seen in cartoons) one would still go splat on the ground; due to falling at the same velocity as the elevator.
If I understand the question it seems that the controversy can be explained in that while stationary on the ground an aeroplane is also travelling at the same velocity as the rotating earth depending where it is on the earths surface. Is it not the same as if we were travelling on a train and jump into the air? why dont we back flip until we splat ag ...[text shortened]... age, because initially we were travelling at the same velocity as the train. Is it not the case?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThe answers are not required to agree with "my" answers; they simply need to rationally and consistently agree with reality.
Come on old chap, play fair. You asked 2 questions which a number of us have answered. Is your position truly that you will not move on until our answers tally with your own answers?
If we all adopted that strategy every forum discussion would grind to a halt and earwigs would lay waste to the planet. (In a spherical fashion).
Instead, the answers given for the problem of the visibility of distant objects are indicative of those who wish to rationalize why as opposed to how when it is the how which is most important.
If the answer provided is insufficient or misapplied, shall we take it as an answer and simply move on?
I contend otherwise.
I've outlined the problems with the suggestion that refraction of light is the cause.
That's an answer: shall we move on?
Instead, if my counter rebuttal is in error, it is on those who suggested it in the first place to point out where my thinking is wrong... or accept it.
Had someone come in with convincing proof which fit the situation, it would be apparent and we could eliminate the question related.
It is not apparent because it is wrong, as I've demonstrated and as has been visually demonstrated as well.
Of course, it does require a minimum of two things to understand these concepts: the ability/discipline to read them and an open mind to consider them.
For those with both, the answers to the test have already been provided.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhat I am saying is...
Quick clarification. As you've conceded the Earth has a curvature (8 inches per mile) you are no longer 'indirectly' implying that the earth is flat, right?
assuming the dimensions of the earth are as stated, and assuming the formula for determining the rate of curvature is "miles distant squared times eight inches"...
we ought to be able to determine at what point any distant object would become too far below the horizon to be viewed any longer.
If the observer is standing at point A, how far distant ought he be able to see?
Considering his elevation and the elevation of the distant object, we can determine how much (if any) of the distant object should be visible to him.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm sure some clever bod (using the agreed formula of 8 inches per mile) can determine at what point a distant object would become too far below the horizon to be viewed any longer. (Not me alas, as maths is not my strong point).
What I am saying is...
assuming the dimensions of the earth are as stated, [b]and assuming the formula for determining the rate of curvature is "miles distant squared times eight inches"...
we ought to be able to determine at what point any distant object would become too far below the horizon to be viewed any longer.
If the observe ...[text shortened]... stant object, we can determine how much (if any) of the distant object should be visible to him.[/b]
I'm just content we have established the Earth has a curvature. The rest is just details.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhich is exactly the point of the inquiry.
I'm sure some clever bod (using the agreed formula of 8 inches per mile) can determine at what point a distant object would become too far below the horizon to be viewed any longer. (Not me alas, as maths is not my strong point).
I'm just content we have established the Earth has a curvature. The rest is just details.
We are seeing objects which--- according to the formula--- ought to be anywhere from a few feet to thousands of feet below the horizon somehow, inexplicably visible exactly on the horizon.
The most recent example discussed are the two islands in Hawaii.
Although the video demonstrates otherwise, the only "plausible" explanation (according to those with the humor to entertain the question at all) is refraction of light.
However, when one investigates the properties therein, one discovers how refraction of light clearly is not at play.
Therefore, in this case (as is relevant in nearly all others), refraction of light is not a satisfactory answer to explain what is clearly visible.