-Removed-If you're interested in finding a troll, simply find a mirror affixed to a wall in your little hobbit house approximately 3.5-4.5' off the floor and gaze intently into the soul-less eyes of an unrepentant one.
You have been asked to answer questions which do not rely on opinion (unless you have an opinion on math or basic physics), but you refuse to do so.
This isn't an inquiry on my opinion; this is a conversation about something which is readily determined.
I have corrected the formula for determining the rate of curvature of a sphere with the stated dimensions of the earth.
Do you agree with this formula?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLike the questions I asked YOU, why is the moon upside down in the southern hemisphere?
Great pronouncement from someone who has avoided answering the questions put you several months ago now.
In addition to your dishonesty I doubt your ability to answer the questions.
Why do the stars rotate backwards in the southern hemisphere compared to north of the equator?
You just ignore basic physics with no regard to actual critical thinking. Instead just say I am the one incapable of thinking.
We already answered your two 'big' questions several times but you just refuse to accept our answers. You don't want our answers, you want YOUR answers only.
Originally posted by sonhouseYour comprehension of the written word is crap.
Like the questions I asked YOU, why is the moon upside down in the southern hemisphere?
Why do the stars rotate backwards in the southern hemisphere compared to north of the equator?
You just ignore basic physics with no regard to actual critical thinking. Instead just say I am the one incapable of thinking.
I have consistently and unwaveringly, steadfastly, even, informed you of my absolute REFUSAL to entertain any other question relative to a FE model unless and until the two questions I have posed in the primary are resolved.
Yes, I made a concession for one person hell-bent on ascertaining hell's whereabouts, but otherwise, my resolution is unswayed.
Do you accept the commonly used formula for determining the rate of curvature of a sphere with the given dimensions of the earth?
In other words...
Do you agree that "distance in miles squared multiplied by eight inches and divided by 12 inches will provide the amount of loss in feet"?
In addition:
Do you concede you are unable to provide a single product from NASA which depicts the earth from space which is unaltered by any means?
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd no, you have not answered the questions.
Like the questions I asked YOU, why is the moon upside down in the southern hemisphere?
Why do the stars rotate backwards in the southern hemisphere compared to north of the equator?
You just ignore basic physics with no regard to actual critical thinking. Instead just say I am the one incapable of thinking.
We already answered your two 'big' quest ...[text shortened]... t you just refuse to accept our answers. You don't want our answers, you want YOUR answers only.
GOAD and finnegan are the only two posters who have attempted to respond with actual formulas and/or numbers related to either finding the loss of visibility due to curvature or the properties related to refraction of light.
GOAD's formula was close but needed slight modification to be more accurate.
The modified formula is spelled out in my last post before this one.
finnegan's explanation was acceptable, but it was shown how this phenomenon actually works against the objection instead of for it.
With respect to the second question, that of NASA's misrepresentation, only now have several people come forward to offer some reasons for the organization's duplicity.
Meanwhile, stuck in the 60's/70's, you maintain they have NEVER lied.
That doesn't sound much like resolve to me.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYet again refusing to even acknowledge OUR questions. Are you so afraid of the implications of the answer it will rock your cognitive dissonance?
And no, you have not answered the questions.
GOAD and finnegan are the only two posters who have attempted to respond with actual formulas and/or numbers related to either finding the loss of visibility due to curvature or the properties related to refraction of light.
GOAD's formula was close but needed slight modification to be more accurate.
The m ...[text shortened]... he 60's/70's, you maintain they have NEVER lied.
That doesn't sound much like resolve to me.
Are you still maintaining there are no such things as satellites? Are you still maintaining GPS is run from ground stations?
You still have not answered the question about a flat earth sun rotating above Earth and why there are sunsets and sunrises when a situation like flatassers want would have the sun visible 24/7.
You can't answer those questions can you?
Originally posted by sonhouseYour comprehension of the written word is crap.
Yet again refusing to even acknowledge OUR questions. Are you so afraid of the implications of the answer it will rock your cognitive dissonance?
Are you still maintaining there are no such things as satellites? Are you still maintaining GPS is run from ground stations?
You still have not answered the question about a flat earth sun rotating above E ...[text shortened]... e flatassers want would have the sun visible 24/7.
You can't answer those questions can you?
I have consistently and unwaveringly, steadfastly, even, informed you of my absolute REFUSAL to entertain any other question relative to a FE model unless and until the two questions I have posed in the primary are resolved.
Yes, I made a concession for one person hell-bent on ascertaining hell's whereabouts, but otherwise, my resolution is unswayed.
Do you accept the commonly used formula for determining the rate of curvature of a sphere with the given dimensions of the earth?
In other words...
Do you agree that "distance in miles squared multiplied by eight inches and divided by 12 inches will provide the amount of loss in feet"?
In addition:
Do you concede you are unable to provide a single product from NASA which depicts the earth from space which is unaltered by any means?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOne of the formula's I found from this site, which I already mentioned
Your comprehension of the written word is crap.
I have consistently and unwaveringly, steadfastly, even, informed you of my absolute REFUSAL to entertain any other question relative to a FE model unless and until the two questions I have posed in the primary are resolved.
Yes, I made a concession for one person hell-bent on ascertaining hell's whereabo ...[text shortened]... single product from NASA which depicts the earth from space which is unaltered by any means?[/b]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
is d=1.32 times the square root of height in feet (d=1.32* F^.5)
So 6 feet hight, horizon comes in at 3.23 miles.
Your formula using the miles I generated, 3.23 squared is 10.4329 times 8 is 83.4632 divide by 12 is 6.955 miles which is about 2X the other formula.
From what I remember 6 foot of height gives a horizon about 6 or 7 miles away so your formula sounds more correct than the one in the site I listed.
BTW, in the site I posted, they specified, this is the horizon "IGNORING ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION EFFECTS"
You seem to be unable to understand the effects of the atmosphere.
I keep telling you the horizon on an airless planet will ALWAYS be exactly what the formula's say, NEVER an inch more.
Also take a look at this video:
Totally unaltered video, no time lapses
Not possible on the vomit comet, WAY more than 30 seconds you get on that airplane.
So explain how that is done, you really think those people floating around are underwater? Watch what she does with the water. You think you can do that on Earth?
Originally posted by sonhouseI have a site which does the math for you; simply input the height (elevation) for the observation point as well as the distance in miles to the point being observed, and it calculates both the horizon and the loss of visibility due to curvature.
One of the formula's I found from this site, which I already mentioned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
is d=1.32 times the square root of height in feet (d=1.32* F^.5)
So 6 feet hight, horizon comes in at 3.23 miles.
Your formula using the miles I generated, 3.23 squared is 10.4329 times 8 is 83.4632 divide by 12 is 6.955 miles whic ...[text shortened]... g around are underwater? Watch what she does with the water. You think you can do that on Earth?
[I'm on my phone, so I won't bother linking it yet again. Google "earth curve calculator" and the first response will likely be the one from github.com]
The problem with using the link finnegan provided for explaining the visibility otherwise is two-fold.
One, the appearance of a greater distanced horizon doesn't negate the actual distance itself: the mileage between the points discussed up to this point have not been ascertained via appearance, but rather through actual measurements.
Additional to this point, if a distant object were to appear further than it actually is, this doesn't help the argument: if an object 83 miles distant appears even further away, it doesn't erase the fact that an object 83 miles distant is visible, when it should be well below the horizon.
Two, the explanation correctly informs that such phenomenon can only occur under certain atmospheric conditions, all of them temperature-related.
Because these distant objects are visible under all conditions save weather-related, and at all times of the day or night (thereby eliminating the sun's impact), and during all season, the "certain conditions" clause simply does not apply.
Originally posted by sonhouseNotice how there's an "up" in the ISS?
One of the formula's I found from this site, which I already mentioned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
is d=1.32 times the square root of height in feet (d=1.32* F^.5)
So 6 feet hight, horizon comes in at 3.23 miles.
Your formula using the miles I generated, 3.23 squared is 10.4329 times 8 is 83.4632 divide by 12 is 6.955 miles whic ...[text shortened]... g around are underwater? Watch what she does with the water. You think you can do that on Earth?
Weird, huh.
Originally posted by sonhouseI find it odd that man is so fixated on science and space travel and exploration when I know that one day soon all those gifted with eternal life will travel about the universe at the speed of thought.
I gather you didn't look at the video. She specifically mentioned when in the sleeping area there is no difference how you sleep, what orientation you use. You really have a hard on against NASA don't you.
NASA is child's play. Man's attempt to be like God with science as his vehical. Jesus raises a man from death, but where are the scientists? They're out there flying around the earth declaring there is no God, and creating an agency that benefits the wealthy while children starve to death under our noses because we have created a medium that focuses on the ones with charisma to feed our empty souls with vicarious experiences and illusions of grandeur.
Originally posted by sonhouseNot only did I look at the video, I listened to it, too!
I gather you didn't look at the video. She specifically mentioned when in the sleeping area there is no difference how you sleep, what orientation you use. You really have a hard on against NASA don't you.
I don't care what she says about orientation, there is CLEARLY an "up" orientation which both she and the cameraman default to... oh, plus that pesky water drop which also migrates "up."
That being said, what of the questions I put to you?
Originally posted by josephwAt the risk of sounding spiritual, amen.
I find it odd that man is so fixated on science and space travel and exploration when I know that one day soon all those gifted with eternal life will travel about the universe at the speed of thought.
NASA is child's play. Man's attempt to be like God with science as his vehical. Jesus raises a man from death, but where are the scientists? They're out th ...[text shortened]... ones with charisma to feed our empty souls with vicarious experiences and illusions of grandeur.