Help with flat earth facts and English language.

[atferrari]

I calculate that the surface is 2,23517E-8 feet lower at one foot away from a spot on the round 4000 mile radius Earth. At 1 mile, the surface drops 0.66 feet. At 10 miles, the surface drops 66 feet. Most large ships are not directly visible 15 miles out to sea.

Ratch

Simple proof albeit not practical for many. Seen that effect for more years than I like to remember.

 

[atferrari]

To be fair, the Bible should not be considered a reason for believing the Flat Earth theory. The language used in the Bible was only used so that people of that time would understand the concepts of the religion based on their understanding of the world. They did not know that the earth was round, so that is why the language used reflected that ("The four corners of the earth", "As far as the east is from the west", etc).

I'm betting that 99.9% of people who believe in the Bible also know that the earth is round, not flat.

Hola Matt,

To believe something, you do not actually need nothing else than faith, not a book of any kind, I think. Not being a religious person (gave up, way to many years ago), I care little if at all of holy books of any kind.

The two I've have read, deceived me enough to insist.

 

[tcmtech]

Matt its banter seriously, you known me long enough to know when i am playing and going for the throat . Just trying to make a grumpy old lonely man smile while he counts his $ sitting on a porch with his shotgun on his lap in dungarees.

Nothing is derailed, it wasnt a serious thread to begin with. But it did spin the weekend counter

I'm 43 and far from grumpy and as for your peer group, I'm a member of this forum who interacts with you which makes me part of your peer group here.

As for my money, when you go to make name for yourself someday do you think its going to be easier if you leave all those with the resources you don't have but need access to annoyed with your attitude towards them?

As far as the thread, it could have been serious and informative but you rather made it not because you keep resorting to personal attacks for derailment whenever anyone suggests your present knowledge base is limited or factually wrong so what that's say about your maturity and attitude towards life?

 

[tcmtech]

Hola Matt,

To believe something, you do not actually need nothing else than faith, not a book of any kind, I think. Not being a religious person (gave up, way to many years ago), I care little if at all of holy books of any kind.

The two I've have read, deceived me enough to insist.

I view them more as guidebooks and collections of parable educational stories on how to live as a more decent responsible respectful person and leave the scientific merit completely out of them given the timelines of when they were written and to what level of scientific understanding people of those time had, which by today's standards is well below what most 10 year olds have.

You don't need to know how to read, write, tell time, use a tape measure or what the shape of your planet is to know that acting like a disrespectful insufferable lying selfish spoilsport ass to everyone is a bad move in life and that's the underlying message that most decent formal religions are preaching.

 

[tcmtech]

I know it's banter but it is not contributing anything to this thread. You can banter over PM if you both agree to, but leave it off the open forum please.

He's just a kid being a kid and some have to learn the concepts of respectful formal interaction the hard way.

25 - 30 years ago I was just like him so I know where he's coming from, and were it goes too and where it goes is not very fun once you get there and life hands you the bill for your wrongful beliefs actions and attitudes toward others.

I paid mine and he will get to pay for his someday too.

 

[large_ghostman]

As far as the thread, it could have been serious and informative

Have you read the thread title?
Serious and informative!! Look TC your good, but even you oh holy one couldnt make a flat earth thread informative or serious. Practice on something a l;ittle more simple first, may i be so bold as to suggest fidget spinners?

Look go take a leak, wind your watch or whatever it is old men do, then come back more cheerful. 43!! That did surprise me, i had you down for late 90's minimum.

 

[tcmtech]

Have you read the thread title?
Serious and informative!! Look TC your good, but even you oh holy one couldnt make a flat earth thread informative or serious. Practice on something a l;ittle more simple first, may i be so bold as to suggest fidget spinners?

You are aware that many threads with questionable beginnings morph into informative fun and decent one when everyone chooses to play nice and keep the personal attack crap out, right?

Why the continuous passive aggressive personal hostility toward me and anyone who disagrees with you anyway? What are you thinking you are gaining with it? It isn't respect and credibility for acting mature, that for sure.

And BTW, in a way you are in fact being very relevant to this thread in showing the OP how one deals with flat earthers who refuse to accept that what they claim has way more complexity to it than they either understand or care to admit too because in accepting there's a greater level of complexity in things it undermines their emotional investments in their cause.

So far, everyone here but you is playing to formal standards of mutual respect for each others views and supporting info and the thread in general, so what's your excuse for continuing to take the low mans road when there is clearly nothing to gain from it?

Going snarky troll because you cant support yourself or refute someone else doesn't get you anywhere good, ever and you're more than old enough to know that.

 

[nsaspook]

Simple proof albeit not practical for many. Seen that effect for more years than I like to remember.

So have I and I've seen how flat maps over those long sea distances distort what to expect on the earth. Globes reflect the earth accurately but it's hard to put a real one in the back pocket on a cell phone or device.
Most of us use projections like this one.


When the real proportions of land masses looks like this. A geographically accurate depiction of Earth.

http://www.authagraph.com/projects/description/【作品解説】記事01/?lang=en

 

[atferrari]

So have I and I've seen how flat maps over those long sea distances distort what to expect on the earth. Globes reflect the earth accurately but it's hard to put a real one in the back pocket on a cell phone or device.
Most of us use projections like this one.


When the real proportions of land masses looks like this. A geographically accurate depiction of Earth.

http://www.authagraph.com/projects/description/【作品解説】記事01/?lang=en

Mercator did a good service to us for going at sea but distorted (not his fault anyway) the perception of common eathlings. That is why still a small globe is the way to explain how the real thing is.

 

[JimB]

Mercator did a good service to us for going at sea

I am not convinced.

One of the supposed advantages of the Mercator projection is that angles are shown correctly. (So I was taught at school).
This may be true for short distances, but consider a direct route (flying) from London to Tokio.
Look at a Mercator map and the route appears to be east from London.
But on a globe or a map with azimuthal projection based on London, the direction is 30 degrees east (of north).

JimB

 

[Ratchit]

Not a good topic to pick me up on.... I know how transporation works thanks, the problem with it is the stomata have to be open and that requires a fairly narrow band of humidity and temperature. As for bio availability via leaf or root..... Take your pick of studies, but before i supply one consider the following.

Many aquarium keepers add CO2 to the aquarium, it forms carbonic acid, most the plants in the aquarium are actually bog plants. While not really designed to live submerged all the time, they do ok mostly.

The dictionary and internet do not know the word "transporation". Are you sure you don't mean "transpiration"?
So what if they do? We do not live in a aquarium.
The stomata open when the plant wants them to open.

Your reference regarding leaf and root preference
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1971.tb01436.x

This one a bit tricky, it looked at inhibitors to CO2 up[take in roots, but does give you the mechanisms. Note all these methods work even when stomata of leaves are closed like say in very hot conditions.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01394749

Interesting one on rice and Co2 root uptake, note rice is one the few plants to take it up as a gas at root level, its also a transport oddball.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00380768.1982.10432389

This one the abstract is a bit misleading, if you want to read the whole thing shout me, but in a nutshell.......CO2 uptake by roots in willow trees makes then grow much faster than via leaves, its also more common than previously known..

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1985.tb01689.x

Right so thats the first one squashed i think you would agree?

All you have shown is that some aquatic plants like to absorb CO2 through their roots. That is not surprising.

Ermm not sure how to answer this, its alot like asking what has water got to do with getting wet! I dont know but maybe you should start here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0269749189901668

Answer what?

Or try wikipedia, many people are more comfortable with wikipedia than scientific journals, its not always as accurate but it might ease you in a bit.

I know about Wikipedia.

The role of CO2 directly affecting Ozone is via coupled reaction with mainly HCFL gases and anything with a Chlorine hanging off the molecule, getting a non book ref is a bit harder and they are pay walled, I will come back with a mechanistic reference showing how CO2 is not only a green house gas but actually enhances depletion of Ozone (not the same thing!)..

Erm as the above papers show, CO2 and water or water vapor produce Carbonic acid, water vapor actually helps solvate the process. Mitchell 1979 as ref, seeing as you havnt referenced anything but wikipedia i am less inclined to look for decent surces for you, when you return comment use a decent peer reviewed source please.

Do you mean hydrochlorofluorocarbons? Those and man-made, not found in nature, and not manufactured in nature.

Direcctly nothing, indirectly everything, 40 years ago or whenever they planned the barrier, was done because of 'new at the time' research into climate change, the basic models even then showed that increases in certain gases would lead to a warming and rising of sea levels.....Not sure if you really dont get what was written or are simply trolling here.

Refuting your assertions is not trolling. Forty years ago, folks were talking about "nuclear winter". Flood prevention does not mean man-made climate change.

I kind of argued against CO2 being the main focus myself, but to suggest the only way is solar wind......How about increasing or replacing the natural carbon sinks like rain forest?? Or you seriously telling me solar winds are the main problem and we are doomed whatever we do??? If so its time to go by some tinfoil.

How about explaining how CO2, which is 40 to 60 timers less present than water vapor, can affect the climate when water vapor is more of a heat insulating gas than CO2.

Just cope with it, not really a bad thing.......

Ok i want a decent reference for that please. or go sit with the OU guys

That is all you can do, unless you have the power to change the output from the Sun.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

No, he means 66 feet.

However, I just did a quick and dirty calculation and made it 132 feet.
Which is twice the figure which Ratch gave.

Ratch is usually spot on with his mathematicals, why are we off by a factor of 2 ?
(I used an earth radius of 4000 miles).

JimB

OK, here s my calculation for 10 miles away. The % means the previous result on the above line. //N means give the the result in rational numbers.

Ratch

 

[large_ghostman]

Ratch try and put some decent refs in, you wont get me bothering without them .

So looks like the climate change guys it all wrong! its water not gas to blame.

Do you mean hydrochlorofluorocarbons? Those and man-made, not found in nature, and not manufactured in nature.

See what a mean, sweeping statement no reference, its utterly pointless to discuss something with someone who cant find, or cant be bothered to make a statement or provide a decent reference when asked for one... Even more pointless when you make statements like the above, shows lack of knowledge.

https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=36066
Yes does include some hydrochlorofluorocarbons, if you want to know which dont ask me, instead go and get the information yourself. I am not here to fetch information to support your side, thats your job!

Oh and hydrochloroflurocarbons are probably not what you meant..
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+...x-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=eRjNWoiKA9DG8Afzjo6IAg


Couldnt find water mentioned, but maybe this might be worth you reading, yes does contain a couple of errors i am aware of that, but its not entirely upto date.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d242/f4c14bde640fa91d4b544d65b3a607f2dbc3.pdf

Sorry couldnt find much of use on wikipedia for you.

Anyway this water vapor being the main issue....did you actually find a ref for that? or is this something you pulled out your erm hat.

 

[large_ghostman]

OK, here s my calculation for 10 miles away. The % means the previous result on the above line. //N means give the the result in rational numbers.

View attachment 112198

Ratch

Yeah calculator error, i didnt put enough zeros in you can have that one

 

[atferrari]

I am not convinced.

One of the supposed advantages of the Mercator projection is that angles are shown correctly. (So I was taught at school).
This may be true for short distances, but consider a direct route (flying) from London to Tokio.
Look at a Mercator map and the route appears to be east from London.
But on a globe or a map with azimuthal projection based on London, the direction is 30 degrees east (of north).

JimB

Well Jim, I do not recall any difficulty using them in so many years at sea. No satellites, just sextant and chronograph. May I guess that your trouble / difficulty is created when you try to visualize a loxodromia vis a vis an ortodromia? For this last, when crossing, we altered course, 1º at a time. EDIT: swapped both types. Mistake corrected. /EDIT

They both do coincide only in the Equator.

AFAIK, majority of planes, flying (from W to E or viceversa) tend to use great circle navigation. It took me in surprise, flying from Los Angeles to Tokio, that I could see the islands in the Bering Sea. That confirmed we were flying along a great circle route (or close to it).

 

[Ratchit]

Ratch try and put some decent refs in, you wont get me bothering without them .

So looks like the climate change guys it all wrong! its water not gas to blame.

Water vapor and CO2 are both gases. What you should haved discerned is that the Sun controls the cloud cover and thereby the heat entering the Earth's atmosphere. I explained how that happens in previous posts. The Sun is the cause of the warming climate, but nothing is to blame.

See what a mean, sweeping statement no reference, its utterly pointless to discuss something with someone who cant find, or cant be bothered to make a statement or provide a decent reference when asked for one... Even more pointless when you make statements like the above, shows lack of knowledge.

No, I don't see what you mean. You first made reference to "transporation", which is a word that does not exist. Then you refer to HCFL, which also doesn't exist. That is why I asked if you meant hydrochloflocarbons.

https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=36066

Yes does include some hydrochlorofluorocarbons, if you want to know which dont ask me, instead go and get the information yourself. I am not here to fetch information to support your side, thats your job!

Oh and hydrochloroflurocarbons are probably not what you meant..
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+...x-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=eRjNWoiKA9DG8Afzjo6IAg

If not HCFL, then what did you mean?

Couldnt find water mentioned, but maybe this might be worth you reading, yes does contain a couple of errors i am aware of that, but its not entirely upto date.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d242/f4c14bde640fa91d4b544d65b3a607f2dbc3.pdf

Sorry couldnt find much of use on wikipedia for you.

Anyway this water vapor being the main issue....did you actually find a ref for that? or is this something you pulled out your erm hat.

No water mentioned? When water vapor is a more potent heat insulating gas than CO2. Tsk, tsk. That puts the credibility of that document into question, doesn't it? Did they even mention that the increase in CO2 is the effect of the warming climate and not the cause?

Ratch

 

[shortbus=]

You are aware that many threads with questionable beginnings morph into informative fun and decent one when everyone chooses to play nice and keep the personal attack crap out, right?

Why the continuous passive aggressive personal hostility toward me and anyone who disagrees with you anyway?

Boy, oh boy, that's the pot calling the kettle black. How many of our discussions have led to you calling me names and out right swearing? All because I don't agree with your point of view.

 

[large_ghostman]

TCM i am not being hostile in the slightest, your throat is in tact and your breathing!! see dont try and wind up stupid kids cause it backfires , i have smiled throughout this, not the slightest bit annoyed, go take a nap or something...

 

[large_ghostman]

Water vapor and CO2 are both gases. What you should haved discerned is that the Sun controls the cloud cover and thereby the heat entering the Earth's atmosphere. I explained how that happens in previous posts. The Sun is the cause of the warming climate, but nothing is to blame.



No, I don't see what you mean. You first made reference to "transporation", which is a word that does not exist. Then you refer to HCFL, which also doesn't exist. That is why I asked if you meant hydrochloflocarbons.


If not HCFL, then what did you mean?



No water mentioned? When water vapor is a more potent heat insulating gas than CO2. Tsk, tsk. That puts the credibility of that document into question, doesn't it? Did they even mention that the increase in CO2 is the effect of the warming climate and not the cause?

Ratch

Still cant find H2O on any green house gas list, help me out and give a ref for it please. I would really appreciate decent reading material i can cite to show that H2O is a major gas in climate change..... Several of the tutors i know for enviromental science are watching this thread, they wuld also like to see this source (seriously), we find your theory......fascinating and would like to fully understand the mechanism.

I did warn them first that your not big on giving out references.

 

[Fredski]

https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Millennials-flat-earth-theory-two-thirds-study-12813321.php

I give up.

#45 does not believe in climate change.