Very Wrong Math

Post by bryanrasmussen » Sat, Jan 11, 2025, 12:00 PM UTC

jbeninger wrote: post #57

nkrisc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mean it is actually accelerating constantly. My math might be wrong, but if we were accelerating at 9.8m/s/s for at least 4000 years (roughly as long as we have continuously recorded history and the minimum time “gravity” has been observed) then we ought to currently be traveling through space at over 1,000,000,000,000m/s. Now I’m no physicist, but I reckon that might end up violating causality.

Nah, when you move that fast, further acceleration stops increasing speed and starts squishing time instead, so you asymptotically approach C. So I guess what I'm saying is I see absolutely no problem with the flat earth arguments?

Post by rendaw » Sat, Jan 11, 2025, 12:17 PM UTC

munch117 wrote: post #23

seanhunter wrote: post #14

I have seen a very similar (incorrect) argument used to justify the idea of a flat earth. A builder on youtube made the argument (with a similar out of scale drawing of the earth) that if he drops a plumb bob and makes a right angle so he has a straight horizontal line and then goes across that line for a bit and drops another plumb bob, the two lines he has dropped are parallel, "proving" that the surface of the ear…

Ah, but would they actually be parallel on a flat earth? Say the earth is disc-shaped. Then the center of gravity is only directly beneath you if you're standing at the exact center. You get ever-so-slightly not parallel lines, just like on a round earth. The fun part of a disc-shaped earth comes as you move towards the sides, and gravity, still pointing towards the center, makes you stand at an increasingly acute an…

Post by freeopinion » Sat, Jan 11, 2025, 12:19 PM UTC

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #16

freeopinion wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For convenience, we set τ=2pi. :-) x = τ(r+1) - τr = τ(r+1-r) = τ(1) = τ

How do you pronounce that symbol?

Post by f1shy » Sat, Jan 11, 2025, 12:31 PM UTC

prmph wrote: post #64

f1shy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple answer: Zero. Because the planes move inside the atmosphere, which moves with the earth. A more nuisance would be that earth rotating generate all sorts of things in the atmosphere, including winds and Coriolis effect on the winds, and you can account for that considering the winds. Btw a flight from Chile to France and back, will have a leg significantly shorter (up to 2 hs in a 13hs flight) and which leg it…

Interesting to know about the Coriolis effect. I get that what really matters is the relative motion, but it still seems to me that there might be a gravitational/inertial effects at play, even if tiny. Consider this thought experiment: Planes cannot really fly into space, but assume they can. At a certain altitude, it cannot be said the the plane is moving perfectly in step with the gravity of the earth. At infinite…

Post by mp05 » Sat, Jan 11, 2025, 1:22 PM UTC

thombat wrote: post #28

munch117 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but would they actually be parallel on a flat earth? Say the earth is disc-shaped. Then the center of gravity is only directly beneath you if you're standing at the exact center. You get ever-so-slightly not parallel lines, just like on a round earth. The fun part of a disc-shaped earth comes as you move towards the sides, and gravity, still pointing towards the center, makes you stand at an increasingly acute an…

Standard flat-earther response is to scornfully deny the existence of gravity. It's all density/buoyancy you see... Gravity is a hoax promulgated by the notorious cabalist Newton, in service to his Illuminati/Papal masters, etc, etc.