[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
Evidence for ball-tards seems to be snowballing, Billy. These horizon dip observations are going to have to do a lot of heavy lifting to refute all that, they'd better be bulletproof. Speaking of which, where are they then? Experiment report, please, like you just said.
The famous Qantas Flight 28, from Santiago to Sydney via coastal Antarctica, is in the air as we speak. It's been up for about 3 hours and covered 1,500 miles. It has about 5,500 miles and 11 hours to go. This wouldn't be possible on the flat-Earth model, not just because the time and distance would be far greater but because airliners can't refuel in flight, as they would have
Sounds like this is part of the worldwide (tee hee, I nearly said "global") conspiracy by physicists, civil engineers, surveyors, airlines, space agencies, cruise lines, and countless others to make everyone think that the earth is a ball (LOL) for unknown reasons. They probably have secret fuel supplies and a go-faster-turbo-boost button for the engine to make you think it's closer than it really is.
The famous Qantas Flight 28, from Santiago to Sydney via coastal Antarctica, is in the air as we speak. It's been up for about 3 hours and covered 1,500 miles. It has about 5,500 miles and 11 hours to go. This wouldn't be possible on the flat-Earth model, not just because the time and distance would be far greater but because airliners can't refuel in flight, as they would have
Santiago to Sydney is the most obvious example. But far from the only one. The flight from Buenos Aires to Capetown and the flight from New York to Naples, Italy take about the same amount of time, which makes sense because they are about the same distance apart on a spherical globe. Try that on a flat Earth where the "North" pole is at the center.
The flat-Earth model also of course fails to explain why cyclones and anticyclones each turn in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres, which is caused by the Earth's rotational speed gradient from pole to equator and the commensurate drag effect this has on the atmosphere as the Earth pulls it around.
The flat-Earth model also of course fails to explain why cyclones and anticyclones each turn in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres, which is caused by the Earth's rotational speed gradient from pole to equator and the commensurate drag effect this has on the atmosphere as the Earth pulls it around.
If we started listing things that a flat earth model can't account for, we would be here all day and all night.
billy,
Are snowballs generically spherical or would you say that, contrary to popular belief, they are disk-shaped as well?
We had this chat already as well. We agreed that pool balls, for example, are spherical, but only if you talk of their form, not of their shape. We established Billy will go off on philosophical tangents and refuse to answer directly when asked about the shape of something, but will respond to questions about the form of that same thing.
Luckily, I have plenty of experience debugging others' shitty code, so I am used to having to find the right inputs to make capricious programs do what you want them to do through a process of elimination.
We had this chat already as well. We agreed that pool balls, for example, are spherical, but only if you talk of their form, not of their shape. We established Billy will go off on philosophical tangents and refuse to answer directly when asked about the shape of something, but will respond to questions about the form of that same thing. Luckily, I have plenty of experience deb
I see. So billy understands what the words "spherical" and "disk-shaped" mean, which rules out one easy explanation for his apparent lunacy.
I see. So billy understands what the words "spherical" and "disk-shaped" mean, which rules out one easy explanation for his apparent lunacy.
Yeah, we're a bit beyond that. Billy appears to have a grasp of basic trigonometry and calculus (well, at the very least he knows what a Taylor expansion is and how to use it to to approximate the value of a transcendental function), and he has even formulated his own theory of "terrestrial" gravitation, which appears to be some parts Newtonian universal gravitation and some parts Billy special, in particular those parts where the usual theory would dictate radial gravitational field lines, thereby ruling out a flat Earth.
Exhibit A: see attached.
Observer location: Grand Mere Park, Michigan.
Target: Chicago skyline.
Observer height:
10 feet = 120 inches. (Grand mere park is 581 feet above sea level. Lake Michigan is 577 feet above sea level. Observer is recording from 6 feet high, hence camera is 10 feet above Lake Michigan.)
Distance to the horizon:
sqrt(120/6.8) = sqrt(17.65) = 4.2 miles.
Distance from observer to target: 57 miles.
Distance from horizon to target = 57 miles - 4.2 miles = 52.8 miles.
Predicted vertical drop at target distance from the horizon, accounting for standard refraction:
52.8^2 × 6.8 inches = 1579 feet.
The street level of the Chicago skyline is 23 feet above Lake Michigan. Hence the predicted obstruction of the buildings by earth bulge is:
1579 - 23 = 1556 feet.
The Willis tower is the tallest building in chicago at 1451 feet. This should be totally obscured by earth bulge.
Yet we see the entire skyline. As predicted if Lake Michigan is flat.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Exhibit A: see attached.Observer location: Grand Mere Park, Michigan.Target: Chicago skyline.Observer height:10 feet = 120 inches. (Grand mere park is 581 feet above sea level. Lake Michigan is 577 feet above sea level. Observer is recording from 6 feet high, hence camera is 10 feet above Lake Michigan.)Distance to the horizon:sqrt(120/6.8) = sqrt(17.65) = 4.2 miles.Distance fr
billy,
Are you making progess on that flight time brain teaser?
I cited an academic paper. Download it and read it. What more do you want? Also, we do a natural experiment on this point 365 days a year by, you know, taking airplanes that have flight times that obviously are inconsistent with a flat earth.This is third grade stuff. Use whatever map of a flat earth you believe is best. Plot the major cities of the world on that map. Loo
I got as far as a dailymail (the daily fail as it is colloquially known in the UK) article that said "scientists..."
Perhaps you should have separated the serious stuff from the clickbait.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
10 seconds of googling explains this:
This is a form of Superior Mirage, superior in this meaning the mirage or image of the skyline is seen above where it's actually located. The clear skies, and cool weather (aided even more by the cool lake water) creates an inversion. A layer of air near the surface that's cooler than air higher in the atmosphere. This creates a bending or ducting effect where the light (image) instead of going in a normal straight line into space, curves back towards the surface of the earth.
More detail here:
Surely according to your theory we should be able to replicate (reproduce?) this phenomenon any time for any city skyline on Earth, thereby lending credence to your theory and refuting the idea that in this one particular location at a specific time there was atmospheric refraction beyond that which can be accounted for by normal atmospheric conditions. You know, that reproducibility that you find so important.
I got as far as a dailymail (the daily fail as it is colloquially known in the UK) article that said "scientists..."
Perhaps you should have separated the serious stuff from the clickbait.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Here you go, Billy:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?...
10 milliseconds of looking and I found the serious stuff for you.
Also:
A picture of the Chicago skyline taken almost 60 miles away, is actually a mirage. Joshua Nowicki (@StartVisiting) snapped the pic Tuesday night from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville. Under normal conditions, even when extremely clear, this should not be visible, due to the curvature of the earth. The Chicago skyline is physically below the horizon form that vantage point, but the image of the skyline can be seen above it.
This is a form of Superior Mirage, superior in this meaning the mirage or image of the skyline is seen above where it's actually located. The clear skies, and cool weather (aided even more by the cool lake water) creates an inversion. A layer of air near the surface that's cooler than air higher in the atmosphere. This creates a bending or ducting effect where the light (image) instead of going in a normal straight line into space, curves back towards the surface of the earth.
This same phenomena can also be seen on the radar in the form of "ground clutter" the inversion is taking the radar beam (light) and bending back towards the surface of the earth, creating a "ring" effect.
Please see attached screenshot of the abstract.
They claim
"without using any physics".
While physics is strictly experimental, not using ANY physics, even without experiment, is rather a stretch. It is highly likely that any assessment will apply at least some physical principles. So that is a little concerning. Let's read on...
"In particular, a formal hypothesis test resolutely rejects the flat-Earth model, whereas it does not reject the orthodox spherical-Earth model."
Oh boy. I don't know who is worse, these pretender verified dunning-kruger paint drinking 7 year old science acumen pathetic excuse for academia strip them of all qualifications morons, or YOU, for bringing this toilet paper "thesis" to my attention and ruining an otherwise ok day.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Here you go, Billy:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?...
10 milliseconds of looking and I found the serious stuff for you.
Oh boy, again.
Word: this is not serious. See above.
You are forgiven, somewhat, as a maths bod.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Oh boy, again.
Word: this is not serious. See above.
You are forgiven, somewhat, as a maths bod.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I briefly looked through the paper. The premise seems sound, and I am sure their calculations check out. Do you have any issue with the paper itself, or just the wording of the abstract?
Flight 28 is still in the air, Billy. You can track it in real time as it disproves your thesis. Which it does on the regular, as does Flight 27 in the other direction.
I briefly looked through the paper. The premise seems sound, and I am sure their calculations check out. Do you have any issue with the paper itself, or just the wording of the abstract?
An abstract is expressly for the purpose of seeing if it is worth reading the paper. It saves academics countless hours.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
10 seconds of googling explains this:More detail here:
Surely according to your theory we should be able to replicate (reproduce?) this phenomenon any time for any city skyline on Earth, thereby lending credence to your theory and refuting the idea that in this one particular location at a specific time thereAnd there's the hand wave right on cue.
There are of course countless examples. It takes time to do this.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
