Proof the Earth is round

  • Thread starter Thread starter 311boogieman
  • Start date Start date
Thumbpicker said:
You're Japetus
Click to expand...
Don't know what that is but I will ride your Harley out of your garage and bring it back tuned up and purring...look at my brothers 66 GMC....kinda a Tyler paintjob lmao
IMG_8414.jpeg
 
VonBonfire said:
You don't have any information to spread, that's worse. :LOL:
Click to expand...
I have consistently done my best to only quote from the Bible. Unlike the rubbish mythologies, conspiracies and heresies you seem to be so fond of.
 
Thumbpicker said:
I have consistently done my best to only quote from the Bible. Unlike the rubbish mythologies, conspiracies and heresies you seem to be so fond of.
Click to expand...
You'll jump translations when it suits you so you aren't remotely consistent.

Bad Brain said:
I've done more quoting from the Bible on this topic than you and I'm not Christian.
Click to expand...
He only agrees with the bible when it agrees with secular science.
 
VonBonfire said:
He only agrees with the bible when it agrees with secular science.
Click to expand...
No I just don't deny what is plainly correct like the earth being a sphere. I've said it before the Bible is not a science textbook. It has to be interpreted in the context of the time it was written and the cultural context.
 
Thumbpicker said:
No I just don't deny what is plainly correct like the earth being a sphere. I've said it before the Bible is not a science textbook. It has to be interpreted in the context of the time it was written and the cultural context.
Click to expand...
So you don't believe that man can rise from the dead then since science says so. Complete bollocks from you, daily.
 
Thumbpicker said:
No I just don't deny what is plainly correct like the earth being a sphere. I've said it before the Bible is not a science textbook. It has to be interpreted in the context of the time it was written and the cultural context.
Click to expand...
It is hard really fathom it.
 
VonBonfire said:
So you don't believe that man can rise from the dead then since science says so. Complete bollocks from you, daily.
Click to expand...
I believe GOD will raise us from the dead. Science has nothing to say when it comes to what God can and can't do because it doesn't generally acknowledge God. The difference between believing God can and will raise us from the dead and believing in a flat earth is that God gave us a brain to see the world around us and we can see that the Earth is round. I guess God could make it flat if he wanted to but we know he hasn't. We can see he made it a sphere. We cannot see if God is going to raise us from the dead because it hasn't happened except for a select few that the Bible has said it happened to and especially but not limited to Jesus. So I will take the Bible's word for that because there were witnesses and we can't currently say it didn't happen because there's nothing in front of our eyes to say it didn't happen. That is a matter of having faith. The shape of the Earth however is before our very eyes and we know it round for other reasons. God is not playing some trick on us. You need to interpret the Bible accordingly because the Earth being a sphere as a fact isn't going to change. Saying otherwise is just making you appear idiotic.
 
Actually I'll add one more thing. The Bible doesn't say the Earth is flat but it does say believers will be resurrected.

Even today we say sunrise and sunset but that's a matter of perspective from the Earth. We all know it's actually due to the Earth rotating. So are you going to take "sunrise" and "sunset" literally.
 
VonBonfire said:
1) how can water curve? Why does a zoom lens somehow overcome a ship disappearing miles out behind a supposed curve of water?

2) s the actual calculation of earth's curve 8 inches per mile squared? There seems to be a lot of debate around the exacting formula and as to whether a bridge builder or tunnel digger would need to take that into equation in the planning phase. No one here seems to be an engineer or architect.

3) Coriolis effect. A sharpshooter has to make a correction at long ranges for the supposed spinning of the earth. Or is that related to earth's pull or something? I was reading pilots or flight path planners also have to arrange their flight path as a result? We are told that we can't feel it, ok, but when I jump in the air and come straight down technically I have actually moved a miniscule amount then? And taking that further, if I jumped up and down enough eventually I'd be at the end of my driveway due to earth spinning beneath my feet as the cumulative amount added up over time spent suspended between earth and sky?
Click to expand...
Itemized lists are appreciated, thank you. Brief answers for now, if you want more details ask and I'll get to it when I can, some of these are off the cuff and might need refining. Plus they might be jargon-y.

1) Water curving: water is just a pile of molecules hanging out together. The shape of the surface is determined by the shape of the force pulling on them, it'll pull the molecules around until all the molecules have the lowest energy possible. For a flat surface with a uniform downwards force, that's a level surface. For a sphere with a spherically symmetric force pulling towards the center of the sphere, the water forms a spherical shell around the sphere. For a 5 gallon bucket that you spin round-n-round, creating the imaginary "centrifugal force" pointing towards the bucket bottom in the water's perspective, it sticks to the bottom of the bucket even as the bucket passes above your head.

Zoom lens: If the lens is able to make it visible again, that would mean the object was not hidden by the curve and it wasn't visible for some other reason. Possibly resolution limits on the camera, or if we're talking about the eye then the object being too small for the eye to resolve at that distance.

2) I'm not certain about the 8 in/ sq-mi thing yet, still looking into it. Looks like that is an approximation that assumes we're dealing with very small distances relative to the earth's radius though. One thing that catches people out with this is doing the math as if your eyeball was on the ground, instead of calculating based on your eyes being 5-6ft off the ground.

I'd think CivE projects would have to take this into account depending on scale. Digging a ditch in my small backyard is likely unaffected, but if you're doing a canal through a city you'd have to make sure that you're constantly getting closer to the surface of the earth for water to flow down. Not following the curve would result you getting farther from the surface of the earth as you went along, so the water wouldn't flow properly. I'm not an engineer or architect either so never had to train for CivE projects, but I'd imagine you can dig up textbooks, or planning documents for projects of sufficient size and see how things are compensated (I think with something called a "datum"). I also found some engineers claiming they do have to compensate, using that thingy I mentioned, but that should be fairly easy to run an internet search for.

3) I'd have to review it, but I think the answer is no. It's not that the earth moves under your feet when you jump, it has to do with the fact that angular speed (which should be constant for every part of the globe, basically how many degrees you rotate each second) is related to linear speed (how many feet you travel each second) by a factor of the radius. In SI units it'd be r ✕ ω, where r is the radius of the circular path you're moving along, and ω is the angular speed. The circle you travel gets bigger as you get closer to the equator since you're farther from the earth's axis, so things on the equator have a higher linear speed than things at the poles, and the in-between bits are in-between. If this speed difference isn't compensated for as you move from pole to equator or vice versa, then your path will be screwy. Wikipedia has a cool gif:

Corioliskraftanimation.gif

Caption:
1750307410104.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force

So if you started levitating (so you're not touching the earth, meaning it can't nudge you faster as you travel) then traveled towards the equator you'd have a problem, but just hopping straight up and coming back down won't be an issue.
 

Attachments

  • 1750307388020.png
    1750307388020.png
    63.2 KB · Views: 13
What is a VB and what happened to Japetus?

And can we please keep God out of this thread? We have a thread for that. "Proof their is a God" or some such nonsense some idiot here brought up. :lol:
 
Bad Brain said:
I like Floyds even thought I don't use really use the bar. I learned to avoid whammys in general on the POS guitars I had as a teen as tuning immediately went crap.
Click to expand...

I've always shy'd away from Floyds due to stories about restringing hassle. The vintage trem on my MIM strat works great with no tuning problems. But like you, the older I get the less I use it. Like I use maybe 2%
 
7704A said:
water is just a pile of molecules hanging out together. The shape of the surface is determined by the shape of the force pulling on them, it'll pull the molecules around until all the molecules have the lowest energy possible. For a flat surface with a uniform downwards force, that's a level surface. For a sphere with a spherically symmetric force pulling towards the center of the sphere, the water forms a spherical shell around the sphere.
Click to expand...
This makes sense but it can't be demonstrated. In your example, the water in the spun bucket would be level with the base of the bucket. Would be great if you could devise a gravity machine and stick it in the center of a ball and then pour some water on it!
7704A said:
Zoom lens: If the lens is able to make it visible again, that would mean the object was not hidden by the curve and it wasn't visible for some other reason.
Click to expand...
The object would be hidden because of the limitations of human sight and perspective. There is plenty of amateur footage of ships hidden by 'earths curvature', yet are brought into view with a powerful enough zoom lens.
7704A said:
2) I'm not certain about the 8 in/ sq-mi thing yet, still looking into it. Looks like that is an approximation that assumes we're dealing with very small distances relative to the earth's radius though. One thing that catches people out with this is doing the math as if your eyeball was on the ground, instead of calculating based on your eyes being 5-6ft off the ground.
Click to expand...
Take a look here. Refraction effects also play a role in observable distance. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
7704A said:
So if you started levitating (so you're not touching the earth, meaning it can't nudge you faster as you travel) then traveled towards the equator you'd have a problem, but just hopping straight up and coming back down won't be an issue.
Click to expand...
Yet if you shoot a cannonball straight up it will land within a few feet of where it was launched. You will say the Coriolis effect is negligible at this scale, but that is basically the same answer for everything about globe earth -- everything becomes apparent at scales too vast to directly demonstrate (Except for the nonsense about the direction of toilets flushing I guess).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top