|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flat Earth Society | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Indeed it does, which is why I said "cannon balls'. Same density, same shape, different sizes. By the way, heavy "objects hit the ground first due to air resistance" requires a lot of qualifiers. Except for a bit of variation with Reynolds Number; Drag is proportional to Dia^2 Weight is proportional to Dia^3 So the heavy one will fall faster, although as I said the difference would have been undetectable for Galileo. Incidentally, I remember seeing/hearing that Galileo was repeating an experiment performed by someone else. Good science to replicate the experiment. Edited by CRR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 295 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
I don't buy the flat earth view but there is one argument that I cannot find a satisfying explination for. Crepuscular rays.
They claim these rays ought to be vertical and parallel (as I also envisage) but that their angled rays show that the sun is not far from us. A few demonstrations are presented in the final clip Im posting. The best explination, from what I found, relies on optical perspective and always shows a picture of train tracks. (Can't seem to paste pictures. Any tips?)
Im yet to find a demonstration of this. I've seen animations trying to apply this to crepuscular rays unconvincingly, such as this animation which at 0:37 tries to show parallel lines when in fact their not. The animation is also missing the most common view of seeing these rays from a distance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTPLqbl-HGY Their counter argument is that vertical objects such as the fence posts in the train track picture do not converge up at angles, they still appear vertical.This clip explains their point well although I don't totally agree with his explination of light at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhY8k9t9Fs Can anyone refute this? Preferably by giving an example or demonstration.Or does anyone have any thoughts on crepuscular rays? Again... Flat earth is not something I believe and Im not arguing their view. So save the finger pointing and name calling again.These are not complaints. These are questions as I find this phenomena interesting and would like to understand it more. Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given. Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
(Can't seem to paste pictures. Any tips?) Look at the lower-right corner of any message. You will see two buttons: Reply and Peek. As you finally learned, clicking on the Reply button allows you to reply to a specific message while linking to that message, something which benefits everybody here, so it is very much encouraged. As for Peek. Are you familiar with HTML (Hyper-Text Markup Language)? That is the formatting markup language for web pages. Tags, which tell you the functionality, are encoded within "angle brackets" ( > and <, the first one being the "open functionality" and the second "close functionality"). This forum's software recognizes them. There are also bbCode codes ("bulletin board codes"? -- some history there that I could inform you of) which function very similarly to HTML, only with square brackets ( [ ] ) instead of angle brackets ( < > ). There is a reference link somewhere on each page, but I forget where it is. Now for the easy answer. Do you see that Peek button in the lower right-hand corner? If you click on that, then you will see the HTML and bbCode tags embedded within that message. So then, if you ever want to know how one of us had done something in a message, all you need to do is to click on that Peek button and all will be revealed. What you are trying to do involves the img bbCode tag. Here is the basic syntax with key character substitutions: {img}URL of the image{/img}. In that construct, replace the { and } with [ and ]. Now the tricky part is the actual location where the graphic file resides. As far as I know, the forum has no capacity to store your files. That means that you need to upload your own files (eg, graphics files) onto a site where you do have some kind of storage privileges. I have a site or a few on GoDaddy. You need to use whatever you have. Or are you just going to dismiss all that I tell you as "bullshit"? Idiot! Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
CRR writes:
quote: Nope. Everything you have said regarding Galileo is wrong. That isn't the experiment he was talking about. I asked you directly if you could describe it for us and so far, you have failed to do so. Second, he never actually did the experiment. Again, that's because he wasn't talking about what you are claiming he was. So let's try this again: What was the specific thought experiment that Galileo described? Hint: String.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
Porkncheese writes:
quote: Why? Where do you think those rays reconverge? That is, if the light were strong enough and the atmospheric conditions were right such that you could see them go all the way across the sky, where do you think they would go? Just radially out forever? No, they don't. If the conditions are right, you can see it and you get what are called "anticrepuscular rays." And sure enough, they converge at the antisolar point. That's the spot directly opposite the sun. For example, if it's noon and the sun is directly overhead, then the antisolar point is directly below you. So you have lines that appear to originate from the sun, wrap around the earth, and then reconverge directly opposite that point. That only happens if they are parallel...just like what you see regarding parallel lines receding into the distance like the typical example of train tracks. If you could change your orientation regarding those shadows and rays, you would see them directly as being parallel: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/...-parallel/#.WbJESsh94vg If you could be more specific as to why you are having difficulty projecting a three-dimensional effect into two dimensions, we will be better able to assist.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
quote: OK, Happy now? If it wasn't Galileo then it was Simon Stevin and Jan Cornets de Groot. And if Galileo did perform the experiment then he was replicating Stevin & de Groot. However the fact remains that because the experiment took place in a fluid (air) the heavy one would fall faster due to the effects of drag. This would have produced an undetectable difference for observers in the 16th Century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 295 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
Now thats better. Apart from the rude ending see how helpful and informative you were. Much appreciated.
I didn't find your previous posts informative or helpful. They were just rants and false claims of creationist despite explaining my upbringing and position.Very frustrating. I never used religion as a defence. Besides my question about early and pre primate evolution wasn't so silly for someone who is admittedly uneducated on ToE.It led to conversation between members over the finer details of early and pre primate evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 295 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
All your questions are answered in the link i provided including practical demonstrations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhY8k9t9Fs Some kind of example or demonstration using an alternate light source as they have done would be ideal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I think that understanding this point would help you a good deal. Why do they say that this is a relevant point ? Do you understand why the fence posts don't seem to converge ? Think about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 295 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
quote:Because they are perpendicular to the observer as in this picture But like I said b4 to someone. All of this is on the link i posted with an experiment using an alternate light source and a demonstration using street lights which support thier view of a close sun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhY8k9t9Fs Watch it first at least so you understand their evidence in order to properly try to explain it. Remember im not making the argument, they are.
Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That's not the whole reason. The height is also relevant. (It all comes down to distance - if the difference in height between bottom and top makes the distances to them significantly different then you should see convergence - or divergence) But then we come to another question ARE the crepuscular rays perpendicular to the observer ? It sure doesn't look like it in your picture with the buildings. As for the experiment I'll just point out that false assumptions about the conditions will lead to false conclusions.
quote: By the looks of it, toward the observer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 295 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
quote:The crepuscular rays don't appear perpendicular to the observer but they are in fact perpendicular from what I understand. Or parallel at least quote:Can you please elaborate on what exactly is being assumed? And why can't we replicate this in an experiment? Shouldn't we be able to demonstrate that? Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given. Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The main body appears to be parallel and slanting down from right to left.
quote: I don't watch videos on mobile so I can't say for sure, but the geometry is vital. And, in fact, if the geometry is known the experiment is probably redundant. I can't think of any other relevant factors they could easily include.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Indeed it does, which is why I said "cannon balls'. Same density, same shape, different sizes. Not correct. You have not consistently limited your statement to cannon balls. Here is your initial statement on the subject.
In a similar vein I also say Galileo was wrong in his experiment dropping weights off the leaning tower of Pisa; the heavy one should hit the ground first. Just for some background, the pre-Scientific method conclusion was that objects would fall at speeds proportional to their mass. Galileo's experiments were performed with balls rolling down ramps and were conclusive that gravity did not work this way at all. To complain about the effect of air resistance, which was the reason why the Aristotle view survived so long, is to miss the entire point of Galileo's creation of the scientific method. In short Galileo's contribution was to separate the force of gravity from other forces like air resistance. Your contribution is to be a buffoon. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 295 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
quote: quote:Well, dissmissing or criticising an experiment without even viewing it is hardly objective is it. In fact its an assumption in itself. I listened to the arguments presented by these flat earth believers. (objectively as I could given I thought this idea was ludacris) One by one i dissmissed all the evidence and their whole view. But this one argument they present regarding crepuscular rays, the experiment and examples they give against the "perspective" explination is a very good one.I'm yet to find a decent counter for it. And even if we simply dissmiss their evidence as garbage or whatever I don't think perspective can account for such a wide spread of rays covering almost 180 degrees as shown here
Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024