Random Thought Thread

[Nathan the Machinist]

I have to finish up for blade show tomorrow. Why am I spending time on this

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Why am I spending time on this

Because this is very entertaining

 

[tinfoil hat timmy]

We don't need to build it because we literally prove it many thousands of times a day - all sorts of transportation, engineering, navigation, etc. is based on calculations of the curvature of the Earth, and if they were wrong, there would be consequences that would force us to change those models. It's kind of like saying, "we need to build this thing to prove gravity." We prove that gravity exists millions of times per day, and in all sorts of different ways.

Have you ever been to a really big, open, relatively flat part of the country, where you can see for a lot farther than just the two miles suggested in this so-called "experiment?" How about, for example, a stretch of perfectly straight highway across the Mojave desert, or sections of Hwy 50 in northern NV, that has a row of power lines along it? If so, why do you think those poles appear to get shorter as you look farther down the line, miles ahead?

PERSPECTIVE

And that they continue to do so as you advance in that direction? That is literally proving the exact same thing that this guy is attempting to say remains unproven.

How does perspective prove a globe earth? you're making yourself look stupid just stop.

How would you explain the Coriolis effect, if the Earth isn't round and rotating? It's an honest question.

It won't shut them up. Because none of the proof that already exists has done that. They'll just grasp at some other straw. The phenomenon of people stubbornly clinging to their beliefs in the face of fact is just as well documented as a round Earth is. And almost as old.


"All the people?" Really? I think that's what happens when you spend too much time down a rabbit hole and don't come up for air - you start to believe that a relatively tiny group of people somehow constitute a widely-held view of the world.


I agree - that's one problem. But another problem is that too many people don't believe stuff for which proof already abundantly exists. Cognitive disconnect cuts both ways.

Timmy, you are a machinist. You know how tolerances work, you know how levels work, and you know how the tolerance stack up would add up across that distance across that many components.

I have master precision levels that are an order of magnitude more accurate than that level he has and precision ground hardened steel beams that are orders of magnitude more precise than any component that some contractor is going to put together. And I know that I could not develop meaningful measurement with these small dimensions and large dimensions. The signal to noise ratio would render any outcome meaningless. And surely you know that too. That guy's a fucking idiot, why are you listening to him?

The amount of precision needed to measure the curve is less than you think. you wouldnt need more than 8 miles.

This does make me think of an experiment that a person could do to prove that a earth is flat or round


Maybe somebody could check me on this one and tell me if I'm thinking about this right


You could use a master precision level and a laser beam on a tower above the ground high enough to reduce ground level refraction (the mirage effect)

and set that laser beam to be shooting as perfectly horizontal as possible towards another tower some large distance away. Another level at that distance would be referencing the Earth slightly different. It would be slight, but it would be meaningful and significant and reproducible. That laser would hit that tower at a spot and you set up another laser at that spot and shoot it back to the original tower. If the Earth is flat that second laser will shoot straight down the first laser. But if the earth is round the second laser will be elevated.

This should be simple enough for some flat earther to actually do.

I really dont understand how this is any different than the experiment referenced would be.... I mean... at the last pole you could just hang a plumb bob and see just how far off it is from the original level and that would solve it. If the top of every pole were level with the first two and the earth is a ball the last one would be off plumb by a measurable amount, right?

 

[Hammer67]

PERSPECTIVE

How does perspective prove a globe earth? you're making yourself look stupid just stop.

No it's not just "perspective." It also literally demonstrates curvature.

you're making yourself look stupid just stop.

Now that's rich.

Still waiting for your explanation of the Coriolis Effect?

....And why global navigation, satellite and missile tracking, large-scale engineering, etc. are all accurate, if the model is so deeply flawed? These things would not work if the calculations about curvature were not accurate. There is no other explanation for why they work, other than they are correct.

And I'm not asking for some repost of video link from some bizarre corner of the interwebs - I'm looking for your response.

 

[Matthew Gregory]

Why can’t you trust atoms?














They make up everything.

 

[snuffle]

To me the worst irony when one of these conspiracy theorists or the Qanon type refer to other people as "sheep" is that they are in fact the sheep.

The only way to understand a significant fraction of the population's politics is to notice it is chiefly about projection.

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

We don't need to build it because we literally prove it many thousands of times a day - all sorts of transportation, engineering, navigation, etc. is based on calculations of the curvature of the Earth, and if they were wrong, there would be consequences that would force us to change those models. It's kind of like saying, "we need to build this thing to prove gravity." We prove that gravity exists millions of times per day, and in all sorts of different ways.

Have you ever been to a really big, open, relatively flat part of the country, where you can see for a lot farther than just the two miles suggested in this so-called "experiment?" How about, for example, a stretch of perfectly straight highway across the Mojave desert, or sections of Hwy 50 in northern NV, that has a row of power lines along it? If so, why do you think those poles appear to get shorter as you look farther down the line, miles ahead? And that they continue to do so as you advance in that direction? That is literally proving the exact same thing that this guy is attempting to say remains unproven.

How would you explain the Coriolis effect, if the Earth isn't round and rotating? It's an honest question.


It won't shut them up. Because none of the proof that already exists has done that. They'll just grasp at some other straw. The phenomenon of people stubbornly clinging to their beliefs in the face of fact is just as well documented as a round Earth is. And almost as old.


"All the people?" Really? I think that's what happens when you spend too much time down a rabbit hole and don't come up for air - you start to believe that a relatively tiny group of people somehow constitute a widely-held view of the world.


I agree - that's one problem. But another problem is that too many people don't believe stuff for which proof already abundantly exists. Cognitive disconnect cuts both ways.

The answer to all of this is given at 1:17 in this video . . .

 

[ferider]

If I'm doing my math right, the earth curves about 66.7 ft in 10 miles. So you could shoot a laser out to a tower at 10 miles and then shoot it back and it should raise 133 ft

If I'm doing my math right, this is .0012" per foot on the level. Mine is good to .0005" per foot. So it actually should be possible to do this.

Take a big lake in winter, when it's frozen. Put up 3 posts. At zero, 1 km, and 2 km. Use Chip's green laser. Shoot from post 1 to post 3 at the same height, say 1m. Measure the height of the laser at the middle post, should be 92cm. If the lake is larger and the ice is rough, scale up for more accuracy.

Don't break through the ice when you put the posts in .... in case of doubt use camera tripods instead.

 

[Blues]

Take a big lake in winter, when it's frozen. Put up 3 posts. At zero, 1 km, and 2 km. Use Chip's green laser. Shoot from post 1 to post 3 at the same height, say 1m. Measure the height of the laser at the middle post, should be 92cm. If the lake is larger scale up for more accuracy.

Don't break through the ice when you put the posts in

He can prove or dispute global warming at the same time.

 

[ferider]

.

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

This does make me think of an experiment that a person could do to prove that a earth is flat or round


Maybe somebody could check me on this one and tell me if I'm thinking about this right


You could use a master precision level and a laser beam on a tower above the ground high enough to reduce ground level refraction (the mirage effect) and set that laser beam to be shooting as perfectly horizontal as possible towards another tower some large distance away. Another level at that distance would be referencing the Earth slightly different. It would be slight, but it would be meaningful and significant and reproducible. That laser would hit that tower at a spot and you set up another laser at that spot and shoot it back to the original tower. If the Earth is flat that second laser will shoot straight down the first laser. But if the earth is round the second laser will be elevated.

This should be simple enough for some flat earther to actually do.

I have an even easier experiment.

You could get in a boat and head west and just keep going and see what happens. If you fall off the edge, then the Earth must be flat (you can radio back to base to report your results just as you're heading over the edge). If you wind up right back where you started, then the Earth must be generally spherical.

Oh, wait. Crap! Someone already did that one. More than 500 years ago.

Since then the "experiment" has been repeated by airplane (1924), by zeppelin (1929), non-stop by bomber aircraft (1949), non-stop by jet aircraft (1957), by non-refueled aircraft (Dick Ruttan, 1986), by balloon (Picard & Jones, 1999), and by a flying tin can (Yuri Gagarin, 1961).

Of course, they could all be lying. But then, how much can you really trust and believe anything that you don't experience personally?

 

[Richard338]

If nothing else this thread reminds me that I was planning to rebarrel my 338 in left hand twist so that Coriolis (Northern hemisphere) and spin drift would somewhat cancel.

 

[beeinak]

A Dodge Durango Hellcat just floored it in front of my house while I was out on the porch...holy shit!

Coming home from my cabin Thursday there was a Charger Hellcat going the speed limit on the highway. The sound of it just cruising at 65 was pretty mesmerizing. When I got close enough, my initial thought was ‘Oh Damn!’. He must have had a bunch of tickets to be driving it like that- I know I couldn’t resist punching the throttle if I had one!

 

[beeinak]

I always find it interesting that artillery shelling at long ranges need to consider rotation of the earth (amongst other things) for accuracy. Prior to a career in intelligence, my father was an artillery officer in the Korean war, fresh out of the Citadel and his stories were amazing. We take computers so for granted now- to think of all the amazing feats accomplished prior. Ballistic calculators… now do it in your head or on scratch paper.

 

[bluemax_1]

It started out as a joke on 4chan with people "believing" it ironically and then delighting in confusing and tricking gullible people and then it grew into this self-perpetuating embarrassment that it is today.

Things like this, 'The Tide Pod Challenge', young women getting cosmetic surgery to emulate the Kardashians (saw an article about one of these 'influencers' who was recently found dead, after receiving a cut-rate 'derriere enhancement' procedure in a hotel room ), show just HOW many sheeple are easily led/misled.

It's pretty crazy how uncommon actual logic, reasoning and rationale are, nowadays. It doesn't matter WHAT the topic is, you'll encounter PLENTY of folks who've arrived at their position through emotion, not reasoning. Emotions are highly resistant to facts and data, because no matter what you try to show them, or how you attempt to explain it, the person will simply ignore anything that doesn't fit the position that they feel is right/correct (and the funniest/saddest part is that they think that everyone else is the gullible one).

*** that emotion is stronger than logic, is a well-researched aspect of marketing. It's used to manipulate consumers all the time. It's been proven time and again, that establishing an emotional connection is far more effective than demonstrating superiority. In fact, when an emotional connection is made to a product, the sucker buyer will continue to prefer said product, even when they've been shown irrefutable data that another product is just as good, at a far cheaper price (or even demonstrably significantly better).

One of my favorite quotes encountered many, many years ago (when the pursuit of hifi acoustics was a hobby/passion), is by an acoustic engineer:

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence."~Floyd Toole. Is it bad form to quote oneself? I like it because one sees evidence of it everywhere: in life . . . and in what I call "faith based" audio.

Not a comment on religion per se, but on mentalities. In the Ultra HiFi world, there have been $$,$$$ interconnects and $$$,$$$ speaker cables, because there are people who will buy them.

I laughed when I first encountered the phrase, "Who cares what the sheeple think? They don't do it often". It's not so funny anymore.

 

[Richard338]

We don't have yoko roasting chicken to lighten the mood so I just hacked up some watermelon. The cimeter is perfect for the job.

 

[bluemax_1]

We don't have yoko roasting chicken to lighten the mood so I just hacked up some watermelon. The cimeter is perfect for the job.
View attachment 2202946

Looks like yours is longer than Yoko's.

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

I always find it interesting that artillery shelling at long ranges need to consider rotation of the earth (amongst other things) for accuracy. Prior to a career in intelligence, my father was an artillery officer in the Korean war, fresh out of the Citadel and his stories were amazing. We take computers so for granted now- to think of all the amazing feats accomplished prior. Ballistic calculators… now do it in your head or on scratch paper.

What year did your father graduate from the Citadel? Must have been early 50s? My dad (RIP) graduated from there, too. In 1955. I still have his class ring . . . and I think (?) his diploma, somewhere (I believe General Mark Clark signed it). And my uncle coached the football team (along with Al Davis, who later coached and then owned the Oakland Raidahs!) in the 1950s.

 

[The Amazing Virginian]

We don't have yoko roasting chicken to lighten the mood so I just hacked up some watermelon. The cimeter is perfect for the job.
View attachment 2202946

My family loves watermelon but I'm terribly allergic to it. Just a few bites and my throat starts swelling and closing and . . . where did I put that epi pen? I think I can feel it starting to itch just looking at that picture. LOL.

 

[tinfoil hat timmy]

No it's not just "perspective." It also literally demonstrates curvature.

if you can zoom in on it with a camera that has high magnification and see it when math based on a spherical earth says that you shouldnt be able to, it actually proves against curvature.
videos like those that I provided above are really the only way to show that phenomenon.
How would you explain that phenomenon? It literally CANT BE that the things being zoomed in on are behind a curve. You would be zooming in on ''space'' behind where the earth curved away.
do you u understand why?

Perspective is a thing. it's why stuff gets smaller the further away it is from your eyes.

Now that's rich.

Still waiting for your explanation of the Coriolis Effect?

the only thing I have for you there is questions. Like why does it work for airplanes and not bullets? or is it the opposite?

....And why global navigation, satellite and missile tracking, large-scale engineering, etc. are all accurate, if the model is so deeply flawed? These things would not work if the calculations about curvature were not accurate. There is no other explanation for why they work, other than they are correct.

did you watch this video listing all of the government documents stating that they dont use a spinning ball model to calculate things?

it's less than 2 minutes. you can choose to watch it or not. its willfully ignorance if you choose not to.

And I'm not asking for some repost of video link from some bizarre corner of the interwebs - I'm looking for your response.

sometimes the best most consice response is a 1 minute 47 second video. there are numerous GOVERNMENT agencies that use a flat stationary earth model for calculations. the above video lists them. feel free to check against the list.