Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 8:39 PM
346 online now:
halibut, jar, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Rrhain (5 members, 341 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,364 Year: 23,970/21,208 Month: 1,935/2,468 Week: 28/416 Day: 28/24 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Flat Earth Society
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 31 of 113 (706542)
09-13-2013 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by New Cat's Eye
09-13-2013 12:14 PM


Re: Hard facts.
CS writes:

No, you mean it in an even more ridiculous way.

Ridiculous eh? We're not the ones suggesting that Australians play cricket while standing upside down, are we? Try doing that yourself if you think it's possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2013 12:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 32 of 113 (706543)
09-13-2013 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
09-13-2013 12:25 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

I think its so they can have the ice wall (Antarctica) surrounding everything and holding the oceans in.


Global warming is going to be a problem - if they believe in it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2013 12:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 33 of 113 (706557)
09-13-2013 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by bluegenes
09-13-2013 1:18 AM


Re: Hard facts.
bluegenes writes:

The coastline of the ice wall ("Antarctica") measures 17,968 km.

do they have "proof" of this?

The circuit that Round Earthers consider to be the "equator" measures 6,378 km.

more like 40,000 km.

measurement: also a conspiracy.

Edited by arachnophilia, : clarification


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by bluegenes, posted 09-13-2013 1:18 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 34 of 113 (706558)
09-14-2013 6:33 AM


Their beards have never felt the touch of Occam's razor, and grow long.

(Does rather smell like a Poe though).


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 35 of 113 (717284)
01-25-2014 9:43 PM


News: The Flat Earth Society's new website has launched and the Society is officially accepting new members for the first time since 2001!

I joined with the username flounder. Pancake was already taken.


Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2014 9:50 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 36 of 113 (717285)
01-25-2014 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by shalamabobbi
01-25-2014 9:43 PM


Should have joined as "The Square."

cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

Edit to add: Or "Faith."

Edited by Coyote, : Couldn't resist


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-25-2014 9:43 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-25-2014 10:25 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 37 of 113 (717286)
01-25-2014 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote
01-25-2014 9:50 PM


Oh, she's going to hunt you down for that one. Watch your back. Along with the rest of the EvC posters, you're probably already on her list of people who need to be stoned, science worshiper.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2014 9:50 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 38 of 113 (818976)
09-04-2017 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
09-09-2013 2:53 AM


I was surprised to find that Neil deGrasse Tyson believes in a flat Earth. Here's what he said;
quote:
A bullet fired level from a gun will hit ground at same time as a bullet dropped from the same height. Do the Physics.

Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) August 11, 2010 http://twistedsifter.com/.../best-neil-degrasse-tyson-quotes


Do the physics and you will find this is only true on a flat Earth. In fact, we Round Earthers believe that if a bullet is fired level fast enough (>11.2 km/s) it will never hit the ground!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluegenes, posted 09-09-2013 2:53 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2017 9:29 PM CRR has responded
 Message 43 by Stile, posted 09-05-2017 9:14 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 09-05-2017 12:38 PM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Rrhain, posted 09-06-2017 3:51 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2956
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 39 of 113 (818983)
09-04-2017 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by CRR
09-04-2017 8:06 PM


Do the physics and you will find this is only true on a flat Earth. In fact, we Round Earthers believe that if a bullet is fired level fast enough (>11.2 km/s) it will never hit the ground!

Do please name that firearm. I have a reference book describing many pistols and rifles (even some antique pieces). Each description includes that firearm's muzzle velocity in fps and range (both effective and maximum) in meters. Your stated muzzle velocity of 11.2 km/s translates to 36,745.4 fps. I would be extremely interested to know what firearm has a muzzle velocity that great.

Here are a few examples. For range, I will only give the maximum range since that is pertinent to this question:

quote:


Firearm Muzzle Velocity (fps) Max Range (m)
Pistols:
Tannenburg Hand Cannon (c. 1400) 400 1280
.54 Flintlock (1806) 725 500
Styer GB 80 (1981) 1214 2140
Mauser M1896 (1896) 1400 1800
P-08 Luger (1908) 1150 2012
Walther PPK (1930) 970 1360
Walther P-38 (P-1) (1938) 1150 2012
Beretta M92S (1976) 1155 2012
Colt M1911A1 860 1463
Rifles:
Styer SSG-69 (1969) 2820 3725
Heckler & Koch 33A2 (1968) 3150 2575
Heckler & Koch G-11 (1980) 3051 3266
Walther WA-2000 (1982) 3070 4084
Winchester Model 1873 1325 915
Winchester M1894 2410 2830
M1 Garand (1932) 2805 3155
M16A1 (1957) 3280 2653
AR 10 (1955) 2772 3690
Remington M700 (1960) 2800 3100
Sharps .50-140 (1874/1880) 1800 2552
M19 SPIW (1973) 4850 +2500


So the highest muzzle velocity I could find was 4850 fps (1.478 km/s). Not even close to your required muzzle velocity.

So then do please tell us what firearm is capable of that muzzle velocity. We would really want to know.

And just how much of a factor would the earth's curvature be at 4084 meters? Actually I would think that air resistance would be a greater factor, but then this was a basic physics problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by CRR, posted 09-04-2017 8:06 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 09-04-2017 9:47 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 41 by CRR, posted 09-04-2017 11:09 PM dwise1 has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8799
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 40 of 113 (818984)
09-04-2017 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by dwise1
09-04-2017 9:29 PM


Nit picking
But too lazy do to the arithmetic:

There might be a tiny bit of truth to the flat earth statement though.

Even if the fps is too low for escape velocity the fired bullet will travel a bit while the dropped bullet drops. The fired bullet will accelerate downward and drop at the same rate as the dropped bullet.

However, on an ideal spherical billiard ball earth the earth will have dropped away (relatively speaking) because of it's curvature.

Without doing the arithmetic I suspect that even under ideal conditions the difference will be too small to measure. On a real non billiard ball earth the local non-sphericalness will mean that the orginal statment about both fired and dropped bullet being equal is correct.

Of course, you'd still have to be firing on a several kilometer long mirror smooth fireing range for it to work out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2017 9:29 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 41 of 113 (818995)
09-04-2017 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by dwise1
09-04-2017 9:29 PM


It actually makes a bit over 1m height difference over 4084m. That should provide a measurable difference in the time it takes the bullet to reach the ground.
No rifle can fire a bullet fast enough but IF it could fire one at escape velocity plus a bit for air resistance (>11.2 km/s) then it would never hit the ground.

So when you do the physics Neil deGrasse Tyson is a Flat Earther!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by dwise1, posted 09-04-2017 9:29 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2017 7:51 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 51 by dwise1, posted 09-06-2017 2:39 PM CRR has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 42 of 113 (819011)
09-05-2017 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by CRR
09-04-2017 11:09 PM


You forgot the plus minus
Nope. . Unlike in pseudoscience, it means something.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by CRR, posted 09-04-2017 11:09 PM CRR has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2964
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 43 of 113 (819017)
09-05-2017 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by CRR
09-04-2017 8:06 PM


Swing and a miss!
CRR writes:

Do the physics and you will find this is only true on a flat Earth.

I believe you missed the point.
Some statements are strong in one context, and weak in another depending on the point attempting to be made at the time.

If Tyson always made all statements correct for all contexts, he would be extremely verbose and lose a lot of interest from his target audience.

What he said is obviously to be taken in context of whether or not horizontal motion affects vertical motion.
His statement, according to this point, is absolutely correct.

If you want to know his views on a flat Earth, or how curvature of the Earth affects gun shots, why don't you ask him about that context instead of trying to put together a weak 'gotcha' moment that really speaks more about you than it does about Tyson's views.

TL/DR: This isn't first grade. Put on your big boy pants and try to be honest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by CRR, posted 09-04-2017 8:06 PM CRR has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 44 of 113 (819044)
09-05-2017 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by CRR
09-04-2017 8:06 PM


CRR writes:

Do the physics and you will find this is only true on a flat Earth. In fact, we Round Earthers believe that if a bullet is fired level fast enough (>11.2 km/s) it will never hit the ground!


As long as gravity is orthogonal to the surface, I don't think it makes any difference whether the surface is flat or convex - gravity will pull the bullet toward the surface. To fit the physics, a flat earth would need "lines of gravity" that were parallel instead of convergent at the center of mass. The theory would be different but the observations would be the same.

As for escape velocity, the question is: What happens to gravity when you're beyond the edge of the flat earth? That would depend on the alternate theory of how gravity works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by CRR, posted 09-04-2017 8:06 PM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by caffeine, posted 09-05-2017 1:43 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 09-06-2017 9:42 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 45 of 113 (819047)
09-05-2017 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ringo
09-05-2017 12:38 PM


As long as gravity is orthogonal to the surface, I don't think it makes any difference whether the surface is flat or convex - gravity will pull the bullet toward the surface. To fit the physics, a flat earth would need "lines of gravity" that were parallel instead of convergent at the center of mass. The theory would be different but the observations would be the same.

The curvature definitely makes a difference - otherwise satellites wouldn't stay in orbit.

Consider the following childish drawing. The blue lines are the velocity vector at time A, the yellows at time B. The red lines are supposed to represent acceleration towards the centre of the earth due to gravity,

In the round earth case, the satellite is being accelerated towards the centre of the earth, but due to it's momentum orthogonal to the earth doesn't approach the surface, since the surface is curving away. Putting an object in stable orbit is all about calculating the right forward (orthogonal to the radius of the earth) speed (square root of the acceleration due to gravity multiplied by the distance to the centre of the earth).

In the flat earth case, in contract, acceleration due to gravity would eventually bring the satellite crashing to the ground regardless of it's speed (unless it overshot the edge).

By my count, a bullet would need to be travelling at only a little over 7.9 km/s a second to achieve orbital velocity and never hit the ground - at least if there was neither air resistance nor pesky things like trees, buildings and hills to get in the way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ringo, posted 09-05-2017 12:38 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017