I'm not sure. I don't know for sure but I have reason to believe it's something like this.
This shit is really getting out of hand..can the alien bro come in here and set the record straight and stop all this shit please
See you use incorrect scienceWhat I find fascinating about this "flat earth" theory is its' inability to explain motion within the atmosphere.
In a spherical model I will explain my argument and I will pose questions for you.
You say the earth does not rotate, so how do you explain the motion of wind within the atmosphere? How is wind created in your theory.
So let me consider you answer of the earth not rotating. Wind is created because the difference of temperature between two positions. If you do not think that is true then please debut. Continuing; think of the slope formula: slope=m=(y2-y1/x2-x1). Slope explains direction and steepness of a line or gradient. Since the earth has shape, we can mathematically measure or approximate atmospheric processes using the rectangular Cartesian coordinate system of x,y, and z that explains dimensions. Agree? In this case, let's look at surface temperature only. Going back to the creation of wind, considering no rotation of the earth, the horizontal (x-direction) gradient of temperature can be written as m=(t2-t1/x2-x1). Now we have run into a problem, what causes the wind to move? You claim no rotation, so what force is cause the wind to move? Is it this?
Of course not. To simply, put cold air is heavier than warm air, so when warm hair is replaced with cooler air, it causes wind to blow. Does this work on a flat earth model? To your benefit, it does!But I'm, not finished
The slope (gradient) example for temperature just horizontally (x-direction). What about the other directions, y and z? How do we express total wind? By adding all the slopes together for all directions? Yes, you're right. Good job. Since wind can change over time (do you agree), we can express the total rate of change of wind caused by temperature using the total derivative: where T is temperature, t is time.
So now we have a solid equation for wind that works for the flat earth model. You really can't deny that temperature changes as you rise into the atmosphere. This change in temperature also changes air pressure. Ya'll do believe in air pressure right? So basically the change in temperature also changes the air pressure and since pressure can be measured as well, we can express this using the ideal gas law:
Here is how the gas constant was derived (gas constant), with yo' doubtful ass.
So since we can layer the atmosphere with pressure, we can get the averaged layer temperature between two pressure levels:
So now we can get a mathematical average of temperature and pressure up in the atmosphere. How do we measure temperature of the atmosphere? With balloons with sensors (weather balloons). All this math and we haven't even seen a satellite picture of anything! By the way, I'm still working my way of disputing your claim that the earth doesn't rotate.
So we are able to diagram the pressure levels. Here is a conceptual model and a figure to that calculates the levels of that may not be so easy for you to read.
So now we have established the temperature layers, the pressure levels, the math on how it is derived we can get to WHY wind moves are different layers and there is ONLY one reason why.
The conservation law for momentum (Newton’s second law of motion) relates the rate of change of the absolute momentum following the motion (as well as temperature) in an inertial reference frame to the sum of the forces acting on the fluid (or air). For most applications in meteorology it is desirable to refer the motion to a reference frame rotating with the earth. In other words, the force that causes wind to move throughout the upper layers of the atmosphere is the earth rotating. Now here is the math behind it.
The Coriolis parameter is defined as:
Twice the component of the earth's angular velocity about the local vertical, 2Ω sinφ, where Ω is the angular speed of the earth and φ is the latitude.
Since the earth is in rigid rotation, the Coriolis parameter is equal to the component of the earth's vorticity about the local vertical. If the Coriolis parameter is denoted by f and the speed of a horizontally moving fluid parcel by V, then fV is the magnitude of the horizontal Coriolis force per unit mass on the parcel.
So my question to you. All this shit to ask this fucking simple as question. I showed you the math and science as clear as I could to dispute your claim that the earth does not rotate when in fact it does based on the math alone.
How does the wind move throughout the pressure layers in a flat earth system? Without rotation of the earth, how does wind move? What causes it to move? And your math has to be able to dispute my claims. Good luck, sir.
Here we go!!
We live on a sphere, that's what you guys say....
Not this....
But this....
I'm sure will you agree with that.
The earth is 24,901 miles in circumference.
This means the earth curves at 8" per mile.
So let's look at a clean sphere...no mountains, no obstructions, everything at sea-level.
According to this Earth Curve Calculator, , at a height of 6ft , the horizon will be 2.9995471525609774 miles away, or we'll just round up to 3 miles.
Based on a sphere-earth model, I also assume you would all agree.
This illustration is from the EC calculator site I just posted. The flaw with this illustration is that if h0 is a person and h1 is a building, the person is leaning towards the horizon looking downward while the building is also leaning in the opposite direction towards the horizon. Looks like this.....
h0 (the person) is leaning forward and looking downward (dashed line).
If gravity keeps you stuck to a sphere, then no matter where you stand on the sphere, you are on top of the sphere from your perspective. From whatever point you’re standing, the ground will curve downwards in any direction.
@blackras9 said:
Yes, using this logic and as illustrated above, h0 at 6ft would ALSO have to look downward to keep from looking into the stratosphere.
h0 = 6ft.
If you're 6ft tall looking straight ahead, you are indeed looking into the stratosphere as illustrated by the horizontal red line above.
As stated before, the earth curves at 8" per mile. This means that if the distance to the horizon is 3 miles and the earth curves at 8" per mile, the horizon would be 2ft below the h0. This is what the slanted, dashed line represents.
Next, lets take a look at things from the building's perspective......
Okay, so that's the Leaning Tower of Pisa.....And that building is 486 feet tall, based off the EC calculator.
Remember, if gravity keeps the building stuck to a sphere, then no matter where the building stands on the sphere, it is on top of the sphere from it's perspective. From whatever point on the sphere it's standing, the ground will curve downwards in any direction.
Likewise, if I straighten up the building and stand on the roof, the horizon will be 27 miles away. At 8" per mile of curvature, the horizon would be 18ft below the ground level of the building.
So I would use this hallway for my next point, especially in illustrating how the sun behaves, but I know y'all hate hallways.....
So I'll use railroad tracks.
This is what we actually see when looking to a horizon at 6ft tall.
As above so below, the lines converge to a vanishing point which SHOULD BE 3 miles away. The thickness of the atmosphere makes the mountains less visible, but the key is that the picture is not looking down at a horizon. The horizon is eye level.
As I've stated before, no matter how high you go,
the horizon stays at eye level.
At the h0 (height) of 35,000 ft on a commercial flight, according to the EC calculator the distance to the horizon is 229 miles. At 8" per mile of curvature, the horizon would be 35,152ft below the air plane and you would have to look down to see it because the higher you are on a round earth, the lower the horizon.
This is the math for the sphere model:
I do not yet have a formula to determine the distance to the horizon on a flat plane, because unlike the sphere model, there is no radius. So I'm working on that. It comes down to measuring it physically in my opinion, which you can do using railroad tracks in place that's really flat with no hills, valleys or mountains. (http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...by-florida-are-flatter-than-a-pancake/284348/) You have to measure the distance to the vanishing point at various heights to see how much the horizon extends, because it definitely does extend the higher you go.
But what I do believe I've proven,
is that the earth is definitely NOT a sphere, it is flat.
I'm going to supplement this presentation with a video.
Alright!
I'm gonna give y'all a quiz on Friday. Be prepared, study in groups.
Plus NASA didn't come up with this anyway.
HOW TO DETERMINE THE EARTH’S CIRCUMFERENCE
Geometry For Dummies, 2nd Edition
By Mark Ryan
You can figure out the earth’s circumference using a geometric formula that’s over 2,000 years old! Contrary to popular belief, Christopher Columbus did not discover that the Earth is round. Eratosthenes (276–194 B.C.) made that discovery about 1,700 years before Columbus.
Eratosthenes was the head librarian in Alexandria, Egypt, the center of learning in the ancient world. He estimated the circumference of the Earth with the following method: He knew that on the summer solstice, the longest day of the year, the angle of the sun above Syene, Egypt, would be 0°, in other words, the sun would be directly overhead. So on the summer solstice, he measured the angle of the sun above Alexandria by measuring the shadow cast by a pole and got a 7.2° angle.
The following figure shows how Eratosthenes’s earth measurement worked.
Eratosthenes divided 360° by 7.2° and got 50, which told him that the distance between Alexandria and Syene (500 miles) was 1/50 of the total distance around the Earth. So he multiplied 500 by 50 to arrive at his estimate of the Earth’s circumference: 25,000 miles. This estimate was only 100 miles off the actual circumference of 24,900 miles!
