Thumbpicker
Well-known member
If you click on his name you can see what other names the person has had here previously
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Plus you can get long exposure star trail photos (or even time lapse video) around two different points in the sky - the north and south celestial poles... eg. close to Polaris and Sigma Octans. It's obvious that would only happen with a rotating object like a sphere with two polesI get what you are saying, and I think a healthy dose of skepticism is good. But by that same logic you just outlined, if someone sends me a video from their iPhone that shows them zooming into the moons of Jupiter while simultaneously speaking - I have no reason to believe that what I've seen up to this point in my life, tells me objects in space are mostly round. Minus asteroids and even most galaxies appear to be oblong or oval.
Lastly, I'm pretty steadfast on the idea that there seems to be more of an impossibility that China, Russia and host of other countries are all conspiring to trick 8 billion people on this planet (for that last 100 years almost), regarding something that just seems, well.... naturally obvious
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
Of course, but that's not the point here.
In the globe-earth case there'd be no steering angle whatsoever. In the flat-circle model there would, albeit a minuscule one.
Well yeah. At least in our and the greater human experience, every solid and liquid thing has boundaries. In the case of gases its a stretch 'cause you'd have to define the outer limit at which a single molecule of a given flavour of gas occurs. You release a gas and it travels outwards with no theoretical limit.
Yes but not directly-right or left. You're travelling the perimeter of a circle so no matter how-large it is, there'll always be a degree of steering involved, meaning that you're not travelling in a straight line anyway, which is the base requirement of the experiment.
You can't travel in a straight line without eventually falling off the edge, let alone circumnavigate the shape; there's just no way to do it.
It goes without saying that the downwardly-curved line you'd be travelling on a globe earth can't be a disqualifier because in order to circumnavigate something on its surface you have to "stay on-the-ground". Just thought I'd throw that in in anticipation of the only attempted gotcha I can think of.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
No-one liked MC Hawking - I used to think that was hilarious stuff
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
No it doesn't.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
"The magnetic south pole is not fixed and wanders, currently located in the southern ocean off the coast of east antarctica"
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
It's the same thing as globe earth in that respect. Going east at the equator on a ball earth, when "viewed" from the North Pole would be essentially the same trip. You're traveling the outer perimeter of a sphere, eastward. but following a circular route. "East" in either case is just a compass heading of 90 degrees. The compass points magnetic N-S it doesn't care what the shape of the object it's on is.
You can't travel in a straight line on sphere earth either because it's curved. I'm having a hard time visualizing you not visualizing this stuff.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
It did but somehow it's been changed.
@Monkey Man You used to be able to see previous names on people's profile. Right? Well I know you could because I have done it.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
I am tired of your conspiracy theories today.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Of course he is refering to an arc of a great circle the shortest distance between two points on a sphere (not including being able to go through the surface of the sphere).
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
It's not that same thing at all. Here's why:
If it were a flat circle, in order to not be steering you'd have to travel around its edge - on the side. In addition to this, you'd have to have gravity pulling you towards the centre in order to keep you from shooting off in a straight line into space... with a tiny bit of angular momentum thrown in to spin you very-slowly.
In order to have gravity it'd have to have volume. In order to have sides it'd have to have volume. Therefore in order to be a circumnavigable circle, it'd have to have sides.
Interestingly, in that example there'd only be one basic path. In the globe model you could start anywhere and still end up where you started.
Dude, I anticipated this ridiculous argument, which is why I addressed it as the last section of my previous post, the one you quoted.
Anywho, I'm done for now. I can't make the logic any-clearer and my tiny monkey brain is chock-full of useless data so I cannot envisage anything else.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
"Arc" isn't a straight line though. There are no straight lines to a destination other than naturally occurring depressions (that aren't water filled) if earth is curved at 8" per mile squared.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Arc is straight in the XY axis just not the Z axis. Since you are conforming to the surface of the sphere the Z axis is a given.
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
... and the argument is superfluous to the "travel in any direction in a straight line and end up where you started" experiment.
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
I mean, we're talking about a purely-practical method of demonstrating that it's a ball.
Duh.
Duh.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Tell @Floyd Eye you used to be able to see people's previous names by clicking on their profile. I know you could do this.
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
OK just tested it and Bad Brain's 2 former names were displayed, so definitely working.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
I tried on Bad Brain/Acceptance and the functionality has disappeared.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
I must be doing something wrong.