A question for flat earth people

[JacksBratt]

One could take advantage of the fact that triangles on a plane always have the sum of the angles add up to 180 degrees. Now consider the triangle consisting of the country of Equador, the country of Kenya, and the North Pole. What do the angles of that triangle add up to? If the earth is a globe, the sum of the angles will be considerably more than 180 degrees. If the earth is flat, then the angels have to add up to 180 degrees. So which is it?

It's been a while since I heard this topic. It has been argued before. I have heard all kinds of mathematical explanations for this from both sides... to the point that they both lost me...

It is definitely something that I haven't looked into enough..

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

It's been a while since I heard this topic. It has been argued before. I have heard all kinds of mathematical explanations for this from both sides... to the point that they both lost me...

It is definitely something that I haven't looked into enough..

Also something which would be a bit difficult to prove, either way.

 

[JacksBratt]

Seriously? Dude, we’re talking about a 3 inch drift over 1000 yards, not a 1000 yard drift over 3 inches.

Pilots make course corrections throughout the flight. You’re saying that because they can’t say “this specific nudge takes care of the 3 inch course correction”, that the correction doesn’t exist. Whatever course correction for the Coriolis Effect that comes about during flight would not be noticed over the more major corrections.

Seriously.... Dude.... I have just showed you two videos of professionals.... undeniable professionals talking about the intimate factors they use in long range shooting and not one of them mentioned the Coriolis effect... not a sniff.... not even once....

Meanwhile they talked about every other aspect and physical concept that would affect the trajectory and accuracy of a long range projectile....

"Coriolis" is a phsyop.... It's for people who have no clue or will ever have to use it or make corrections for it... it's false and non existent...

Now, before you go showing me a bunch of videos of people showing, specifically, the effect of this elusive force... consider that each and every one of them will have a single solitary purpose.... to convince everyone that it is real. Meanwhile... real experts have just showed you that it is never considered.

I'm willing to bet, however, that if they were asked, directly, they would then tow the line, follow their mandated script and tell the world how important it is....

Open your eyes.

 

[JacksBratt]

The difference might be trivial, but it is large enough to be measured, and it was not.

I posted the numbers. A 0.6g difference on a 500g object. 5.2✖10^-11 kg has nothing to do with it.

Somewhat of a contradictory claim, given gravity does not have the same effect on the object subjected to our experiment. The only consistent explanation to this apparent contradiction is that gravity is not responsible for the tides.

I have always found that "gravity" and it's "force" is somewhat fickle... it can hold Pluto in orbit... Pluto, which is the size of lake Michigan... it's, how many miles out there... and, yet the sun still hold on....

Meanwhile, two billiard balls can sit on my pool table for a year... only a millimeter apart.. and never get pulled together... One small puff of my breath between them and "click" they touch....

If gravity is strong enough to have a hold on tiny Pluto, from that far away... would it not yank the moon away from us?

It is inconsistent and does whatever the mathematician needs it to do at the time.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

It is inconsistent and does whatever the mathematician needs it to do at the time.

Actually not even that, or we wouldn't be able to disprove it with so simple an experiment.

 

[SPF]

Speaking of the moon, what is the FE explanation for the fact that we literally left reflectors on the moon and we can literally shoot a laser at the moon and see it come back.

 

[A_Thinker]

I posted the numbers. A 0.6g difference on a 500g object. 5.2✖10^-11 kg has nothing to do with it.

I checked the math (there is a gravitational force calculator at the link below) ... and got 5.2 X 10^-8 kg ... or .000052 grams

There's a difference of a 1,000 fold in my result ... but nothing close to .6 grams ...

https://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/newtons_law_gravity_equation_force.php#ajscroll

 

[A_Thinker]

Seriously.... Dude.... I have just showed you two videos of professionals.... undeniable professionals talking about the intimate factors they use in long range shooting and not one of them mentioned the Coriolis effect... not a sniff.... not even once....

They also didn't mention gravity ... which is undeniable as an affect of our lives here on earth ... and which would affect long range shooting.

We've lived our whole life on the earth ... with all of the attendant forces. We automatically adjust for all meaningful forces which impact our lives ... including gravitation and other attendant forces.

 

[JacksBratt]

Speaking of the moon, what is the FE explanation for the fact that we literally left reflectors on the moon and we can literally shoot a laser at the moon and see it come back.

Well, they were sending different signals and radio waves the moon and bouncing them back before the "moon landings".

The moon moves across the sky with an angular motion of about 14.5 degrees each hour, and the moon has an average diameter of 31.7 arcminutes. So it moves about 27.5 lunar diameters each hour, 0.45 diameters per minute or 0.0076 diameters each second. They say the moon's diameter is about 3476 kilometers, so that's about 26.4 kilometers (0.0076 * 3476) of lunar surface moving past each second from a fixed spot viewed from earth.

Light from the moon's surface takes ~1.3 seconds to reach earth, so any given spot a telescope is aimed at is actually behind the true position by about 34.32 kilometers (1.3 * 26.4) due to lightspeed delay. If a laser is aimed there, it will also take ~1.3 seconds to reach the moon's surface and miss the spot it was aimed at by double that amount - 68.64 kilometers.

Note that not one single description of the LLR experiments mentions taking this distance offset into account.

 

[JacksBratt]

They also didn't mention gravity ... which is undeniable as an affect of our lives here on earth ... and which would affect long range shooting.

We've lived our whole life on the earth ... with all of the attendant forces. We automatically adjust for all meaningful forces which impact our lives ... including gravitation and other attendant forces.

Oh.... OK... Ya... they didn't mention gravity.... Seriously? Like that isn't what they are incorporating into their calculations when they are measuring the distance? That is the only reason distance is a concern... due to the "Drop" of the projectile...

If there was no gravity.. there would be no "trajectory" necessary. Trajectory is the arch a projectile must follow to reach distances without simply going out of the barrel and descending to the ground right away.
To compensate.. for gravity... the barrel is on a slight incline.. the sight is dead level.. the bullet then rises and falls... forming an arch... to combat GRAVITY and reach further distances.


Nice attempt though.

 

[A_Thinker]

Oh.... OK... Ya... they didn't mention gravity.... Seriously? Like that isn't what they are incorporating into their calculations when they are measuring the distance? That is the only reason distance is a concern... due to the "Drop" of the projectile...

If there was no gravity.. there would be no "trajectory" necessary. Trajectory is the arch a projectile must follow to reach distances without simply going out of the barrel and descending to the ground right away.
To compensate.. for gravity... the barrel is on a slight incline.. the sight is dead level.. the bullet then rises and falls... forming an arch... to combat GRAVITY and reach further distances.


Nice attempt though.

Thanks for making my point ...

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I checked the math (there is a gravitational force calculator at the link below) ... and got 5.2 X 10^-8 kg ... or .000052 grams

There's a difference of a 1,000 fold in my result ... but nothing close to .6 grams ...

https://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/newtons_law_gravity_equation_force.php#ajscroll

Did you use the right numbers? The link you posted still gives the numbers I quoted. Probably you didn't convert kilometers to meters.

Force of Earth on 500g mass.

Force of sun on 500g mass.

Obviously, then you convert back using F = m.a, with 9.81 as the scale constant, to work out that the difference in measured mass of the ~500g object between day and night is 0.6g, as previously stated.

 

[SPF]

Well, they were sending different signals and radio waves the moon and bouncing them back before the "moon landings".

The moon moves across the sky with an angular motion of about 14.5 degrees each hour, and the moon has an average diameter of 31.7 arcminutes. So it moves about 27.5 lunar diameters each hour, 0.45 diameters per minute or 0.0076 diameters each second. They say the moon's diameter is about 3476 kilometers, so that's about 26.4 kilometers (0.0076 * 3476) of lunar surface moving past each second from a fixed spot viewed from earth.

Light from the moon's surface takes ~1.3 seconds to reach earth, so any given spot a telescope is aimed at is actually behind the true position by about 34.32 kilometers (1.3 * 26.4) due to lightspeed delay. If a laser is aimed there, it will also take ~1.3 seconds to reach the moon's surface and miss the spot it was aimed at by double that amount - 68.64 kilometers.

Note that not one single description of the LLR experiments mentions taking this distance offset into account.

This is where I find myself having difficulty engaging in discussion with FE proponents. First off, your comments about sending different signals to the moon and radio waves to the moon before the landings has absolutely nothing at all to do with the reflectors specifically designed to allow us to send lasers to the moon for measurement.

Also, your response is essentially saying that in the descriptions nobody mentions the equation involved in making it work, therefore it's false. Really? That's your proof that it's fake? The fact that when something you read about the LLR experiments didn't go into super detail about how they accomplish it?

Well then, here's the wikipedia page that does give us the details of how it works.

The distance to the Moon is calculated approximately using this equation:

distance = (speed of light × time taken for light to reflect) / 2

In actuality, the round-trip time of about 2.5 seconds is affected by the location of the Moon in the sky, the relative motion of Earth and the Moon, Earth's rotation, lunar libration, weather, polar motion, propagation delay through Earth's atmosphere, the motion of the observing station due to crustal motion and tides, velocity of light in various parts of air and relativistic effects.[9] Nonetheless, the Earth–Moon distance has been measured with increasing accuracy for more than 35 years. The distance continually changes for a number of reasons, but averages 385,000.6 km (239,228.3 mi).[10]

At the Moon's surface, the beam is about 6.5 kilometers (4.0 mi) wide[11] and scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime 3 kilometers (1.9 mi) away. The reflected light is too weak to see with the human eye. Out of 1017 photons aimed at the reflector, only one is received back on Earth every few seconds, even under good conditions. They can be identified as originating from the laser because the laser is highly monochromatic. This is one of the most precise distance measurements ever made, and is equivalent in accuracy to determining the distance between Los Angeles and New York to 0.25 mm (0.01 in).[8][12] As of 2002[update], work is progressing on increasing the accuracy of the Earth–Moon measurements to near millimeter accuracy, though the performance of the reflectors continues to degrade with age.[8] The upcoming MoonLIGHT reflector, that will be landed in 2019, is designed to increase measurement accuracy 100 times over existing systems.[2][13]

So again, what do FE proponents have to say about this? We literally left physical reflectors on the moon, and we literally are able to shoot lasers at them and have the lasers come back to us.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Speaking of the moon, what is the FE explanation for the fact that we literally left reflectors on the moon and we can literally shoot a laser at the moon and see it come back.

What's the heliocentric explanation for the fact that we could do that before the first alleged moon landing?

 

[SPF]

What's the heliocentric explanation for the fact that we could do that before the first alleged moon landing?

Again, another example of how hard it is to engage in discussion with FE proponents. You didn't engage the question. You dodged it.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Again, another example of how hard it is to engage in discussion with FE proponents. You didn't engage the question. You dodged it.

Scientists were reflecting lasers off the moon years before the alleged moon landing. Therefore, it logically follows, that Flat Earthers don't need the explanation that reflectors were left on the moon, to explain why the moon reflects lasers.

Unless you believe the reflectors allegedly left on the moon were left there prior to the alleged moon landings? Perhaps Flat Earthers just think a couple of steps ahead of you, and you interpret this as question dodging?

 

[CatRandy]

Seriously.... Dude.... I have just showed you two videos of professionals.... undeniable professionals talking about the intimate factors they use in long range shooting and not one of them mentioned the Coriolis effect... not a sniff.... not even once....

Meanwhile they talked about every other aspect and physical concept that would affect the trajectory and accuracy of a long range projectile....

"Coriolis" is a phsyop.... It's for people who have no clue or will ever have to use it or make corrections for it... it's false and non existent...

Now, before you go showing me a bunch of videos of people showing, specifically, the effect of this elusive force... consider that each and every one of them will have a single solitary purpose.... to convince everyone that it is real. Meanwhile... real experts have just showed you that it is never considered.

I'm willing to bet, however, that if they were asked, directly, they would then tow the line, follow their mandated script and tell the world how important it is....

Open your eyes.

"follow their mandated script"? Ok, you're either a troll or a conspiracy kook, neither of which are open to reason. Good bye.

 

[A_Thinker]

If gravity is strong enough to have a hold on tiny Pluto, from that far away... would it not yank the moon away from us?

The Earth has a much stronger hold on the moon, ... because it is much CLOSER ...

Also, realize that the sun's pull on the planets ... isn't enough to rip them from their orbits (as you propose that the sun should do to the moon) ... but just to hold them where they are ...

 

[SPF]

So when you (FE proponent) reads an article about China successfully bouncing a laser off the retrofelctor on the moon, and about their planned space launch to put something on the moon:

https://gbtimes.com/china-just-boun...on-the-moon-placed-by-nasas-apollo-15-mission

Do you read that and think that America had to at some point hold a secret meeting with the leaders of China and let them in on the secret of the fake moon landing? Then we had to convince them to play along in duping the entire planet about the actual shape of the earth and the reality of the location of the sun and moon?

I still can't understand why all the world governments would agree to propagate this hoax? How does spending trillions of dollars to dupe the regular people of the world about the shape of the earth make sense? It's virtually impossible to take an FE proponent seriously.

 

[JacksBratt]

This is where I find myself having difficulty engaging in discussion with FE proponents. First off, your comments about sending different signals to the moon and radio waves to the moon before the landings has absolutely nothing at all to do with the reflectors specifically designed to allow us to send lasers to the moon for measurement.

Sorry.. my mistake.. what I should have said was... "we never went to the moon and you don't need any special apparatus to bounce radio signals, beams of light or any laser off the surface....

It's a giant reflective ball...... OR.. so they say.

Others believe, and with good arguments.. that it is it's own source of light...

So... no... I'm not impressed with the hoax of some apparatus reflecting lasers.