FLAT EARFERS GET YOUR ASS IN HERE I WARNED YOU THIS DAY YOU GUYS FEARED MOST HAS COME. RIP FLAT DERPERS!
- Thread starter RoadRage
- Start date
Lol, you're scared to answer my questions??
I won't be answering any of your questions until you answer the questions I have for YOU.
And if you don't wanna do that, then....
Yes, using the Haversine formula you would be traveling South along a curved line with no turns, correct?
If its directly south, but if it veered to the left southeast and veered to the right southwest.
I know I've also learned a lot on BGOL. That's why I respect members who bring real knowledge to the board.
Lord Jamar got AIDS got something? I'vd been out the rap news loop for a minute.
That Dunce probably got COVID-19 the next generation.
What would be the height (in miles) of curvature between the North Pole and the target distance of 1000 miles?
We'll see.
Lol, you're scared to answer my questions??
I won't be answering any of your questions until you answer the questions I have for YOU.
And if you don't wanna do that, then....
the haversine formula is a distance calculation, you are traveling where you're traveling regardless of the formula used to calculate the distance traveled.
wtf is height of curvature in this question nigga this ain't dental school
you be running back up in here from youtube and don't even know how to use the bullshit you just watched
always wanna hit niggas with fugazi ass math but ignore every established proof by answering questions with questions and changing subjects
you a real piece of work buddy lol
From an altitude of 0 ft at the North Pole to a target distance of 1000 miles southward, what would be the target hidden height (in miles) resulting from curvature?
There is no height difference on a globe. Just imagine a basketball that is even all over, everything is level and smooth, and bouncing it on a level surface would give you a true dribble. Now if there were a bubble or what we called a tit on the ball that would make it uneven, not leveled, and the difference between the bubble on the ball and the leveled surface would be height.
Another way of looking at it is to imagine you had a cross of sticks the same size, one pointing up the next down, and north and south. Then you make it a star again with sticks the same size but this time they are in slightly different directions. Imagine you were to create a ball using a thousand sticks attached to the same center. Would any of the sticks be longer than any of the others? Now they would still be even even though they formed a ball. The more sticks you were to have the more definition or resolution the ball would be, without any height difference between each stick.
Now imagine introducing a stick that is twice as long. From the distance of the other stick, a height measuring the size of the original stick and no longer would the ball be leveled or even, and this ball would not be able to properly roll like an even one.
Kids stay in school!
Here is a question for you.
Assuming each one of these pins are the exact height and is centered perfectly.
How much in height would you expect to travel, in reference to each other, if you were able to move from one pin to the next?
Note: if you do not understand the concept of reference frames, then this will fly over your head.
I get all of the science, and its valid. But the one reason I can't believe in flat earth is because I can't believe that a conspiracy that large has no financial motivation behind it, and there's no way that many governments, agencies, an d organizations worldwide would bother holding onto a lie this long for no profit.
You are correct, not everybody good at science or mathematics, that doesn't make them dumb just like me being a poor speller dumb. But even without a vast knowledge of physics, most can tell the shit doesn't make sense, and mostly people with big egos who feel they have super sacred knowledge that no one but them and their fellow flatties get, are the ones who fall for the scam. Before you learn anything you must first humble yourself, something most flatties fail at.
Now that I've answered your silly "gotcha" question please answer my question I've been asking you for months, where do the new moon go on a flat imaginary pizza world, better yet please explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica.
There is no height difference on a globe. Just imagine a basketball that is even all over, everything is level and smooth, and bouncing it on a level surface would give you a true dribble. Now if there were a bubble or what we called a tit on the ball that would make it uneven, not leveled, and the difference between the bubble on the ball and the leveled surface would be height.
Another way of looking at it is to imagine you had a cross of sticks the same size, one pointing up the next down, and north and south. Then you make it a star again with sticks the same size but this time they are in slightly different directions. Imagine you were to create a ball using a thousand sticks attached to the same center. Would any of the sticks be longer than any of the others? Now they would still be even even though they formed a ball. The more sticks you were to have the more definition or resolution the ball would be, without any height difference between each stick.
Now imagine introducing a stick that is twice as long. From the distance of the other stick, a height measuring the size of the original stick and no longer would the ball be leveled or even, and this ball would not be able to properly roll like an even one.
Kids stay in school!
From an altitude of 0 ft at the North Pole to a target distance of 1000 miles southward, what would be the target hidden height (in miles) resulting from curvature?
Assuming there is no elevation in topography ( hills, mountains or bumps,) u there wouldn't be any elevation at all, just like if you were to make a globe using a bunch of sticks that were all the same height equally centered from the center, as you rotate this stick ball no point would elevate from the next from the reference point of that sphear.
Why do you struggle with this simple concept?
As far as hidden height it would be one degree per 69 miles, but that is subject to change due to refraction which can be calculated by the laps rate.
Do if you want the exact rate give me the laps rate do the amoun of what you see can be properly calculated.
again, you not even asking your own shit right. it appears that what you originally (and incorrectly) posed as a travel question you meant as a sightline question, and I'm guessing you leaning on that dumb ass [read: flawed] 8 inch rule. the answer to your question is 1000 miles from any point at sea level without elevation during travel is still sea level.
flat earth is neither valid nor science.
How is the 8 inch rule flawed?
No, it's wrong, if the eye height was zero then the viewer would be on the ground, plus there is no calculation of refraction, so any calculation would be off. Think about it, if the light were to bend just one degree up, then you'd see 69 miles further, so a refractive index of .07 of a degree you'd be able to see an additional ten miles beyond the geodetic horizon.Is this correct?
roadrage basically beat me to it
Indeed. A person standing 5 feet tall can have a visual range of just over 3 miles with respect to the curvature of the Earth.
Are you saying that depending on refraction you can see 1000 miles away from the North Pole with nothing hidden beyond the curve?
I bet the farm , he has no understanding of any of the crap he is regurgitating, and even if you were to get real technical on why the 8 miles per mile crap doesn't apply to measuring the hidden value due to Earth curve, he would simply move on to another question, totally ignoring the evidence presented, just like they do eclipses, midnight sun at Antarctica and the moon phases.
All that they have are stupid parlor tricks, lies and a bunch of denial of evidence that are geared to lure in other idiots to their cult. But at the end of the day a thousand idiots banded together are no smarter than one guy with decent common sense.
No idiot, I clearly said that if light were to refract down by 1 percent you'd see an additional 69 miles. Now I doubt if there are refractive conditions that extreme, but a bend of .07 would allow you to see ten miles further, and to accurately calculate how far one can see, you'll have to measure the laps rate to determine the refraction values, a common practice in geodesic surveying.
Without considering refraction, is it still incorrect?
Not for calculating the hidd n vault, but it's complicated even many professors struggle with, when I get home I will see if I can find a video that breaks it down real simple if not I may give it a try.
Without considering refraction, is it still incorrect?
