V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
Here is 15 minutes of flat horizon. 2:12 the U2 at 70k feet shows a flat horizon also.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
It's talking about the deviation at the top of tower relative to its base and the neighbouring tower not the fall of the Earth. In other words the radius of curvature at the tops of towers is greater than the radius of curvature drawn at the base.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
Again, at what altitude must I ascend to before the ball earth starts spinning under my feet at 1000+ mph? Why do the quoted numbers vary so widely? Does it slowly gain speed as I rise away from it or does it just jump from no rotation since I and the earth are one within the atmosphere, to the full speed as soon as I hit a certain altitude? Why does that altitude vary so radically depending on what source I consult?
Nobody will answer these questions because ball earth is bullshit and they are just repeating dumb crap they heard in a classroom taught to them by some teacher who was taught lies by another teacher. And so on and so on and scooby dooby do.
Nobody will answer these questions because ball earth is bullshit and they are just repeating dumb crap they heard in a classroom taught to them by some teacher who was taught lies by another teacher. And so on and so on and scooby dooby do.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
Right, so where are blueprints detailing the curvature calculations for the bridge's construction?
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Your grasp of things is too limited for me to waste any further energy explaining how things work. Go and learn physics and mathematics and come back to me.Again, at what altitude must I ascend to before the ball earth starts spinning under my feet at 1000+ mph? Why do the quoted numbers vary so widely? Does it slowly gain speed as I rise away from it or does it just jump from no rotation since I and the earth are one within the atmosphere, to the full speed as soon as I hit a certain altitude? Why does that altitude vary so radically depending on what source I consult?
Nobody will answer these questions because ball earth is bullshit and they are just repeating dumb crap they heard in a classroom taught to them by some teacher who was taught lies by another teacher. And so on and so on and scooby dooby do.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
Yes.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
The fact of the matter is ball earth is far from cut and dried science. It has it's own issues, just like every other claim about the nature of earth.
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
My initial thought on this is why would it matter for rr construction?
Travelling at a constant speed on a "level" section of terrain and on a straight section of rr, no matter how long, a train would experience exactly the same amount of gravity throughout... and in the same perpendicular direction too.
IOW, to my thinking, it shouldn't matter in the slightest.
One theoretical exception:
If trains were able to travel fast-enough they'd leave the tracks at the point that horizontal motion is sufficient to compensate for the effect of gravity but nobody's gonna be able to make a train that fast, at least in my lifetime.
If someone does it, sign me up for a ride.
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
Curious as to what those issues are brother.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Sorry mate - it's been done.If trains were able to travel fast-enough they'd leave the tracks at the point that horizontal motion is sufficient to compensate for the effect of gravity but nobody's gonna be able to make a train that fast, at least in my lifetime.
If someone does it, sign me up for a ride.
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower
Well-known member
Imagine that just saying things as if they're facts while providing zero evidence is somehow challenging anyone's worldview 
or that comprehension of a concept is the same as being told a concept. 
That kind of person who says that to others literally admits that everything they know themself they were told.
To this point in the thread there has been zero evidence posted of an Earth shaped like anything but a globe. This is why you stay in school, kids. Not to be told how things are, but to understand that 1+1= 2 and comprehend for yourself why that is. After that moment you don't need to question it as knowledge, because you can comprehend why it is using your own deductive reasoning skills. Surely there are those who will tell you that you're wrong without evidence to support their reasoning, but simply because it was "told" to you. That is the kind of person who has a severe learning disability and cannot discern the difference between knowledge and comprehension.
or that comprehension of a concept is the same as being told a concept. That kind of person who says that to others literally admits that everything they know themself they were told.To this point in the thread there has been zero evidence posted of an Earth shaped like anything but a globe. This is why you stay in school, kids. Not to be told how things are, but to understand that 1+1= 2 and comprehend for yourself why that is. After that moment you don't need to question it as knowledge, because you can comprehend why it is using your own deductive reasoning skills. Surely there are those who will tell you that you're wrong without evidence to support their reasoning, but simply because it was "told" to you. That is the kind of person who has a severe learning disability and cannot discern the difference between knowledge and comprehension.
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why it is that you can travel in a "straight" line in any direction and end up where you started if the earth is not a globe.
Only a globe works for this scenario... AFAIK...
Only a globe works for this scenario... AFAIK...
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower
Well-known member
Relativity allows for wormholes.
I would say perhaps a sort of nano technology could allow for this if using signal waves to form matter, but there would probably be a delay in loading back into the simulation. Although, I suppose you could account for that by scanning and loading the matter at the other edge of the world ahead of time. Even then, would feel like you would still need time to load and sync the consciousness back into it's shell. 
You know, if we're trying to play devil's advocate.
Monkey Man
Super Moderator
Of course. You gots ta be fair, after all.
7704A
Well-known member
If you pass by value with appropriate copy semantics you could pre-load an identical consciousness into the shell and garbage collect the old one once it clips the map.
Edit: actually you'd need to handle passing updates from the last few seconds before clipping to the new consciousness. Maybe keep a thread-safe data structure and just give each shell a reference to it. Saves on copying too.
Last edited:
NowYou'rePlayingWithPower
Well-known member
Without access to substantially faster than light signal travel; It's the last few seconds I'm referring to for the delay. The sim part was just added for an extra layer of fun. It doesn't need to be a sim, imo. We just have to figure out how to excite subatomic particles into constructing itself into complex matter on demand near instantaneously and we should be able to lend
Imo, it would make more sense for the viewer of the sim to have globe celestial bodies as to only have to render around half of each at any given viewing angle. That should free up excess processing power and energy consumption in order to run multiple sims or parallel ones to account for the vast number of sims within each level of sim and the redundancies needed to keep each sim alive or else whenever one sim gets powered off; it as well as any sim below it would also go bye bye. At least for that time. Anyways, what were we talking about again?
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
I will answer you but really you don't deserve it because you aren't serious about learning.
Within the atmosphere you will rotate with the Earth (forgetting the effects of wind that would push you around a bit to simplify things). Only once you leave the atmosphere and the effects of the atmosphere become negligible will the Earth rotate without you. So you'd basically have to be in something approaching the vacuum of space. Having said that you couldn't stay in that spot without continual thrust because you'd start falling back to Earth. There are geosynchronous satellites that fall around the earth at the same velocity as the earth spins btw - they have to be put in an orbit above the equator. A satellite not only goes up but it has a forward velocity so it falls around the earth effectively. Gravity is pulling down and the velocity is keeping it from falling in towards the Earth. Obviously eventually space isn't perfect in low Earth orbit and drag brings the velocity down and the satellite's altitude reduces and it spirals in towards Earth until it hits the atmosphere and that's it (without fuel and thrusters readjusting their altitude that is).
Last edited:
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
Again, at what altitude must I ascend to before the ball earth starts spinning under my feet at 1000+ mph? Why do the quoted numbers vary so widely? Does it slowly gain speed as I rise away from it or does it just jump from no rotation since I and the earth are one within the atmosphere, to the full speed as soon as I hit a certain altitude? Why does that altitude vary so radically depending on what source I consult?
Nobody will answer these questions because ball earth is bullshit and they are just repeating dumb crap they heard in a classroom taught to them by some teacher who was taught lies by another teacher. And so on and so on and scooby dooby do.
I feel like with this question you are envisioning yourself, or something just sitting still in space and watching the earth spin beneath you, yea?
Things that go into “space” have to still travel pretty fast to stay in “space”, as in to stay in the same spot relative to what you are looking at.
Anyways so what I think you are wondering about are called Lagrange points. Basically they are pockets in space where the gravity of large objects like the sun or a planet, are equal to eachother and you won’t get pulled either way.
For instance the James Webb is chilling in one to minimize the need to use fuel to stay in one spot.
So maybe this will help, but overall it’s a misconception that once you get out Earth’s atmosphere, you would just float aimlessly in one spot and watch the world turn. Something will pretty much always be pulling you one way or another