Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2017 6:38 PM
350 online now:
Coragyps, Coyote, JonF, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 345 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 819,118 Year: 23,724/21,208 Month: 1,689/2,468 Week: 198/822 Day: 73/69 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Flat Earth Society
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 61 of 113 (819190)
09-07-2017 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by NoNukes
09-07-2017 4:12 PM


Re: Do the Math!
NoNukes writes:

By the way, heavy "objects hit the ground first due to air resistance" requires a lot of qualifiers.


Indeed it does, which is why I said "cannon balls'. Same density, same shape, different sizes.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 09-07-2017 4:12 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2017 3:08 AM CRR has responded
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2017 9:22 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 62 of 113 (819217)
09-08-2017 1:02 AM


Crepuscular rays
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?)

https://i.pinimg.com/...6b23c9d4b79bbb1ac14b1d327b38d7af.jpg

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2017 1:55 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2017 3:20 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 4:57 AM Porkncheese has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2951
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 63 of 113 (819219)
09-08-2017 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 1:02 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
(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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 1:02 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 4:21 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6149
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 64 of 113 (819224)
09-08-2017 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by CRR
09-07-2017 6:08 PM


Re: Do the Math!
CRR writes:

quote:
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.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by CRR, posted 09-07-2017 6:08 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by CRR, posted 09-08-2017 3:28 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6149
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 65 of 113 (819226)
09-08-2017 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 1:02 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
Porkncheese writes:

quote:
I don't buy the flat earth view but there is one argument that I cannot find a satisfying explination for. Crepuscular rays.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 1:02 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 4:40 AM Rrhain has responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 66 of 113 (819228)
09-08-2017 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rrhain
09-08-2017 3:08 AM


Re: Do the Math!
quote:
Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 158992,[1] the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei (then professor of mathematics at the University of Pisa) is said to have dropped two spheres of different masses from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass, according to a biography by Galileo's pupil Vincenzo Viviani, composed in 1654 and published in 1717.
[It] is accepted by most historians that it was a thought experiment which did not actually take place.[7][8] An exception is Drake, who argues that it took place, more or less as Viviani described it, as a demonstration for students.[3]:1921, 414416
The experiment did take place in Delft in 16th century the Netherlands, when the mathematician and physicist Simon Stevin and Jan Cornets de Groot (the father of Hugo de Groot) conducted the experiment from the top of the Nieuwe Kerk.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2017 3:08 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2017 8:15 PM CRR has responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 67 of 113 (819231)
09-08-2017 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by dwise1
09-08-2017 1:55 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2017 1:55 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 68 of 113 (819232)
09-08-2017 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Rrhain
09-08-2017 3:20 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2017 3:20 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2017 8:23 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13110
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 69 of 113 (819233)
09-08-2017 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 1:02 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 1:02 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 7:00 AM PaulK has responded

    
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 70 of 113 (819236)
09-08-2017 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
09-08-2017 4:57 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:
Do you understand why the fence posts don't seem to converge?

Because they are perpendicular to the observer as in this picture


The buildings remain plumb. They do not converge like the rays of the sun are.

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.


If there was a tower on the right and a tower on the left which way would their shadows be cast?

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 4:57 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 7:44 AM Porkncheese has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13110
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 71 of 113 (819240)
09-08-2017 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 7:00 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:

Because they are perpendicular to the observer as in this picture

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:

If there was a tower on the right and a tower on the left which way would their shadows be cast?

By the looks of it, toward the observer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 7:00 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 8:16 AM PaulK has responded

    
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 72 of 113 (819243)
09-08-2017 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
09-08-2017 7:44 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:
ARE the crepuscular rays perpendicular to the observer ? It sure doesn't look like it in your picture with the buildings?

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:
As for the experiment I'll just point out that false assumptions about the conditions will lead to false conclusions

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 7:44 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 8:42 AM Porkncheese has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13110
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 73 of 113 (819246)
09-08-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 8:16 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
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

The main body appears to be parallel and slanting down from right to left.

quote:

Can you please elaborate on what exactly is being assumed?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 8:16 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 9:36 AM PaulK has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9912
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 74 of 113 (819248)
09-08-2017 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by CRR
09-07-2017 6:08 PM


Re: Do the Math!
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 theyre not going to shoot me. This is what Im thinking theyre 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by CRR, posted 09-07-2017 6:08 PM CRR has not yet responded

    
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 75 of 113 (819250)
09-08-2017 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by PaulK
09-08-2017 8:42 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:
As for the experiment I'll just point out that false assumptions about the conditions will lead to false conclusions

quote:
I don't watch videos on mobile

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 8:42 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 9:57 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 10:55 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 92 by Rrhain, posted 09-08-2017 8:32 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017