Jump to content

The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, alexa said:

 

I admit I can't solve the Equation of Motion, can you? 

 

2124805420_images(8).jpg.54164f582624d312de1050e87c380d7d.jpg

 

I could 30 years ago when I was doing my MSc in Control Engineering.

First you have to solve stuff like that the old way with a pencil and paper so you gain a full understanding of how to solve it and what the answers mean.

Then you either write your own computer programme to solve it using a book such as 'Numerical Recipes in C' or you have access to some really whizzo commercial software to do it for you.

Or you could use the free open-source programme Octave which is nearly as good as MATLAB that you can't afford.

Back  then I used parallel Fortran of all things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2020 at 11:47 AM, Avoiceinthecrowd said:

 

I dont need to do shit. You have not shown relevance. You some kind of boot camp sargeant?

I'm sorry  Somthinginthecrowd but you leave yourself wide open, so therefore if I was so inclined I would probably come back with ( for someone that don't have to do shit,  you certainly talk a lot of it ) but since I always try and be polite far be it from me to express those particular sentiments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2020 at 3:40 PM, chocomel said:

If this is true.... UK was a part of North America long time ago.

It seems like all the continents were bunched up in one side so probably earth span in a funny lopsided way? :classic_blink:

 

Paleogeographic history of plate tectonics

https://apl.esri.com/jg/PaleoMap/index.html

 

On 6/4/2020 at 3:53 PM, Nobby Noboddy said:

don't know but there alledgedly used to be a land bridge between the UK and Europe, doggerland I think.

 

I ought to go to bed but keep watching this guy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2020 at 6:42 AM, alexa said:

 

To your first Question.......No Humans are not the the only intelligent species in the Universe , We have God & his dominion

To your second Question ..........It was Nephilim......... They also built the pyramids...... Look it up

 

 

 

i love the videos from this targeted individual of gang stalking; i think he's in the high 90 percentile of accuracy and his thinking is that The Anunnaki & dinosaurs built the pyramids together

 

 

 

from what i've experienced and researched i rule nothing out anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for my money heres the state of play

 

1. spherist explanation wins for the Sun/Moon eclipse and half moon/fullmoon/quarter. the FE explanation of an unknown other sky body to cause the eclipse is weak

2. FE wins the horizon issue , Spherist explanation of 'not high enough' and 'light refraction' is weak

3. FE wins the land doesnt move argument. Doesnt feel like 1000mph, no bumps, no rattles, no 'weeeeee wot a ride!'

4. gravity is just a purely paper reality. density wins the issue

5. spherist explanation of tides just doesnt play out but there is no FE explanation.

 

so i am pathetically stuck between 2 (seemingly) incorrect or partially incorrect explanations trying to claim generalisation over the plane[t] we exist upon

 

i thank both sides for their input

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

let's talk about 4. gravity is just a purely paper reality and density wins the issue.

 

Density is what holds us down to the ground because we are denser than air.

Air is not very dense so when we use our powerful leg muscles to jump up we can leap over tall buildings!

Gravity is a theoretical concept but very useful for calculations.

At what speed does something dropped from a known height fall to earth? You will be using the gravitational constant 'g' of 9.8 metres per second squared.

When I want to calculate the maximum power I can put through the rear wheel of my motorcycle without pulling a wheelie I use 'g'.

When I want to calculate the maximum braking through the rear wheel, front wheel, or both I use 'g'.

When I want to calculate the required angle of lean to take a certain bend at a certain speed I use 'g' because I don't want to ground the footrests or exhaust and fall off.

The fact that 'g' is purely theoretical doesn't bother me. The square root of minus 1 is also theoretical and extremely useful for many calculations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gregory-peccary said:

At what speed does something dropped from a known height fall to earth? You will be using the gravitational constant 'g' of 9.8 metres per second squared.

 

hang on, that doesnt work in water or any medium other than air

 

gravitational constant is useless in all other scenarios. me thinks its not a gravitational constant but infact

 

air constant

then theres the water constant

then theres the argon constant

then theres the helium constant

Quote

When I want to calculate the maximum braking through the rear wheel, front wheel, or both I use 'g'.

 

when the surface is tarmac or sand?

the wheel is rubber or wood?

the brakes are steel or resin bond?

 

to apply a 'constant' to everything i.e to moon / plane[t] or sun / earth which is specific to certain conditions i.e air is ermmm ridiculous

 

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zArk said:

 

hang on, that doesnt work in water or any medium other than air

 

gravitational constant is useless in all other scenarios. me thinks its not a gravitational constant but infact

 

air constant

then theres the water constant

then theres the argon constant

then theres the helium constant

 

when the surface is tarmac or sand?

the wheel is rubber or wood?

the brakes are steel or resin bond?

 

to apply a 'constant' to everything i.e to moon / plane[t] or sun / earth which is specific to certain conditions i.e air is ermmm ridiculous

 

 

 

When the surface is tarmac or sand you still use 'g'.

What changes is the coefficient of friction, and that depends on the road surface, the tyre construction and rubber compounds used, and the tread pattern used.

Whether the wheel is rubber or wood is taken care of by the coefficient of friction.

Whether the brakes are steel or resin bond is covered by the coefficient of friction. If you use a poor material such as steel-on- steel that doesn't work very well you make them big enough so they do lock the wheel if you stomp on the brake lever heard enough.

'g' is the only way to do it - the centre of gravity is the point about which the motorcycle moves when accelerating hard to pull a wheelie and braking hard to do a front wheel stoppie.

Do explain how to calculate such things without using 'g'.

 

As for rocks failing through air and water - 'g' again.

The air drag and water drag, or if you prefer the coefficient of friction is why a rock falls slower through water than through air.

 

If applying a 'constant' to everything was ridiculous the sums wouldn't work. But they do. Engineers would find a better way if the sums didn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gregory-peccary said:

applying a 'constant' to everything was ridiculous the sums wouldn't work. But they do. Engineers would find a better way if the sums didn't work

as i said, in the medium of air... the constant works because its air

 

orherwise elaboration begins to make the theory fit and further into solar system and galaxy the objects are manipulated or created to fit the philosophy

 

i am not throwing out 1000s of years of physics, i am saying that the modern invention 'gravity' is not needed. it is only invented for spherist calcs. 

 

if you think physics and scoence falls apart without gravity you are completely wrong. 

 

gravity is a disease in science

 

 

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2020 at 3:31 PM, gregory-peccary said:

 

I could 30 years ago when I was doing my MSc in Control Engineering.

First you have to solve stuff like that the old way with a pencil and paper so you gain a full understanding of how to solve it and what the answers mean.

Then you either write your own computer programme to solve it using a book such as 'Numerical Recipes in C' or you have access to some really whizzo commercial software to do it for you.

Or you could use the free open-source programme Octave which is nearly as good as MATLAB that you can't afford.

Back  then I used parallel Fortran of all things.

 

I used a Commodore Vic 20 and Basic to solve a set of fourier transforms for a lab in my EE 305 Motors and Generators class, because that's all I had at home and I didn't want to drive all the way to school just for that.  It took that little sucker 15 minutes to spit out an answer, but she got'er done!  Man, those were fun days.  Seriously, what we're in right now looks like a dystopian nightmare compared to my life back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, motleyhoo said:

 

I used a Commodore Vic 20 and Basic to solve a set of fourier transforms for a lab in my EE 305 Motors and Generators class, because that's all I had at home and I didn't want to drive all the way to school just for that.  It took that little sucker 15 minutes to spit out an answer, but she got'er done!  Man, those were fun days.  Seriously, what we're in right now looks like a dystopian nightmare compared to my life back then.

:-)

 

for my a level computing final project (It was the first year such a  subject had been on the curriculum) I wrote a program to add subtract multiply and divide in different bases. The numbers could be in different bases 400 base 8 × 276433445 base 3 for example. We used BBC basic which was really simple to follow. I seem to recall logarithms were involved somewhere.

 

innocent times

Edited by kj35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol! 

 

I had a Vic 20, bought it with birthday money when I was a kid. The games were rubbish and it was superceded by the Commodore 64. My birthday was in January and after owning it for a year I was bored with it so I took it and some more birthday money from that year back to the store and asked to exchange it for a stereo system. The assistant must not have noticed the date was from a year before and allowed me to exchange it for the stereo system. I was young and didn't know there was a time limit on exchanges. I didn't think I was doing anything wrong and realised later how I had got away with it.

 

I remember the BBC computers too - it had a great flight simulator on it, but I couldn't afford one.

 

Ah computers, I [email protected] hate them!

 

Except now I understand how they work I do have a love hate relationship with them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, serpentine said:

A simple circumnavigation by Flat Earth Orbiter 1 would nail it.

 

Not really ....... this is a realm ....... you perceive a limited vector of a limited frequency which is also limited via your perception.

 

You are not in Kansas anymore ....... in fact you never have been.

 

All that 'most' ....... 'see' is confined by the 3d bubble created from the 2d foam of potential ....... nothing more although they (well many but not all) do have the innate ability to 'walk farther'!

 

Choice is a mutherfucker .... lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like my earth is a  sour cream Pringle theory. 

 

If I started a 'conspiracy theory ' I'd make everyone wear cardboard tube hats.

 

It's at least as plausible as others I've heard.

Edited by kj35
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2020 at 10:57 PM, zArk said:

for my money heres the state of play

 

1. spherist explanation wins for the Sun/Moon eclipse and half moon/fullmoon/quarter. the FE explanation of an unknown other sky body to cause the eclipse is weak

2. FE wins the horizon issue , Spherist explanation of 'not high enough' and 'light refraction' is weak

3. FE wins the land doesnt move argument. Doesnt feel like 1000mph, no bumps, no rattles, no 'weeeeee wot a ride!'

4. gravity is just a purely paper reality. density wins the issue

5. spherist explanation of tides just doesnt play out but there is no FE explanation.

 

so i am pathetically stuck between 2 (seemingly) incorrect or partially incorrect explanations trying to claim generalisation over the plane[t] we exist upon

 

i thank both sides for their input

 

 

I'm not going to comment on 123and 5 again ,however 4 is a crack up , let me ask you this , if gravity is just a purely paper reality and density is the governing factor, how come if we are heaver or denser  than air ,we don't float up into the sky because objects always move towards the point of least resistance and the higher you get the thinner the atmosphere and therefore less resistance.

 

 

However I will grant you the fact you can cause a high explosive pressure wave to go towards the point of most resistance in the form of a shaped charge but that is a totally different subject and I will concede that there may be some two legged unresolved pressure waves getting around after a bloody hot curry

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, peter said:

if we are heaver or denser  than air ,we don't float up into the sky

Because the body is denser

 

Water is below air

 

Some things float

Some don't

 

Spherist science makes everything far more complicated

 

Let me ask you, why there is no observed curvature when viewing land ahead? 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alexa said:

 

We need a more blue-sky approach to compatible strategic alignment.

 

A blue sky forum approach would mean a temperature of Nine Below Zero but that wouldn't stop cloud formation.

 

Here's a short clip of Russia's greatest living adventurer beating that earlier record breaking voyage.

 

 

Edited by serpentine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Grumpy Owl changed the title to The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)
  • Grumpy Owl locked, unlocked and locked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl unlocked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...