You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So the air above the train does move with the train?
Gah. Trolled.No, not at all. Just want you to explain it. How come you can stand on a train and feel wind but not feel the same when you stand on the earth
Again - air is not just 'above' the train. The train travels through air. Not through a vacuum (ie outer space) It also drags some of the (closest) air along with it. So some of the air around the train will be also moving at near the same speed as the train. Earth, meanwhile, travels through a vacuum and while rotating drags the atmosphere with it while gravity keeps the atmosphere 'stuck' to the planet.
Roughly speaking!
[quote=GrahamS ]You're probably right Cougar, but it's very hard to tell with conspiracy types, and even if he is just on a wind up, I guarantee someone else out there will be reading it thinking "That's a very good point actually"
I don't think Charlie is on a wind up here at all. I reckon he probably knows the answers to the questions he's asking, but what he's doing here is getting you to explain properly the answers to some of the fundamental flat earthers points about how things don't make sense, rather than just going "because it is".
Anyway, regarding the air moving thing, the air above the earth moves at the same speed as the earth because frictional forces acting on the bottom of the air layer drag it along. It's only slowed down by the frictional force from the layer above moving slower. But at the top of the atmosphere there is no resistance to slow the air down, so it will be accelerated by the layer below. Working back down, even if you started with all the air at rest, it would all eventually be accelerated up to the speed of the earth because of the lack of any resistance at the top edge to stop it doing so.
With the train, as suggested the boundary layer is dragged along at the speed of the train, but the difference with the earth is that there is lots of earth and other things not moving at the speed of the train where the boundary layer of air is stationary - this serves to slow down even air quite near the train. Of course it's all far more complex than this with turbulent effects, but clearly totally different to the air moving with the earth.
How did I do Charlie? Any obvious holes in that?
How did I do Charlie? Any obvious holes in that?
Absolutely, perfectly correct for the 1st paragraph!
In the second, you appear to agree with Malvernrider that the atmosphere moves with the earth? The third seems entirely reasonable, but start at the surface of the train and it is not so different to the earth
Charlie I have a question for you.
In a plane when it accellerates, you feel the thrust pushing you back in your seat, how come the air inside the plane doesn't all rush to the back too?
Charlie I have a question for you.
In a plane when it accellerates, you feel the thrust pushing you back in your seat, how come the air inside the plane doesn't all rush to the back too?
There must be the teeniest of tiny pressure increases at the back end of the plane during acceleration. The air won't need to move much though, so there won't be a noticeable 'rush' of air.
edit: Jenesuispascharlie, but whatever.
try putting a helium balloon in a car. When you accelerate it moves to the front, brake it moves to the back
That's all well and good, but does a lorry full of roosting pigeons weigh the same as a lorry full of flying pigeons?
Depends if it's two different lorries etc surely? Likelihood is a lorry doesn't weigh the same as a(nother) lorry, pigeons or no.
but does a lorry full of roosting pigeons weigh the same as a lorry full of flying pigeons?
What is the additional weight of the oven needed to roost the pigeons? Or is it present in the other lorry but not switched on?
I think the answer is; the weight would change every time the pigeons flapped
Some-one actually worked this out didn't they?
Depends how specific you are about the term 'weigh' but if you mean overall reaction force at the road/lorry interface, then on average 'yes'. Assuming there are enough pigeons.
Nice article about "Awake Dating" a dating site for conspiracy theorists.
Some quotes:
"I need to take this desire into a more spiritual realm. Then it might happen and hopefully we can live out the next ten years before the global extinction together."
...
and the other thing is being aware that there is a global genocide taking place to depopulate the earth."
...
both are avowed anti-vaxxers—believing that vaccinating children against common diseases like measles actually engenders the spread of disease
Should we really be encouraging these people to breed?! 😀
In a plane when it accellerates, you feel the thrust pushing you back in your seat, how come the air inside the plane doesn't all rush to the back too?
I expect it does. But there isn't that much of it so it probably doesn't increase much.
However, a train is much longer than a plane. If you find one without doors between the carriages you can feel a breeze towards the front of the train as it brakes into a station.
Anyway, regarding the air moving thing, the air above the earth moves at the same speed as the earth because frictional forces acting on the bottom of the air layer drag it along. It's only slowed down by the frictional force from the layer above moving slower. But at the top of the atmosphere there is no resistance to slow the air down, so it will be accelerated by the layer below.
Then there are jet streams moving at 2-300mph...
[quote=CountZero ]Then there are jet streams moving at 2-300mph...
Which is not only significantly slower than the speed of the earth surface at the equator relative to the centre of the earth, it's orders of magnitude slower than the speed of the earth around the sun, and another order of magnitude slower than the speed of the solar system around the centre of the galaxy.
Which is not only significantly slower than the speed of the earth surface at the equator relative to the centre of the earth, it's orders of magnitude slower than the speed of the earth around the sun, and another order of magnitude slower than the speed of the solar system around the centre of the galaxy.
Well, we don't need to worry about anything outside of our atmosphere really, do we?
somewhatslightlydazed - Member
...That's a point - airlines like to fly on a great circle as its the shortest point between any two places on a globe. If the earth was flat, their routes would actually be larges curves. So they'd be wasting a lot of fuel.Are the airlines in on this conspiracy?
Of course they are. That's why they are laying all those chemtrails.
really, all they need to do is go straight up, past the bit which is moving at the seed of the earth, then come back down when the world has turned.
This guy does a nice line in amusing flat earth debunking using basic geometry and logic. (Warning: swearing)
If nothing else, read the comments for an insight into the FE mindset. 😀
Seems we're about to discover the Truth.
Yeah someone mentioned that on the Fake Moon Landings thread Cougar, so I'll make the same reply here:
Love his quote there: [i]"I don't believe in science. I know about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics and how things move through the air, about the certain size of rocket nozzles, and thrust. But that’s not science, that’s just a formula. There’s no difference between science and science fiction."[/i]
Amazing stuff. Hope he survives.
I've met some of the https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/ team. Their stuff looks considerably less shonky than his and they are still not at the stage where they can put a person in it safely.
just read BBC's take on it. So he's going up to 1800 feet which will enable him to prove the earth's flat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/93f087a5-33e5-49a5-b36b-0605c3fd2820
would a cheap air ticket and a window seat not suffice?
1800 feet?
I can see a hill out of my window which he could walk up in an hour and be higher than that?
if there's a hill to walk up, then it's not flat 😉
that's not going to help his argument.
does copenhagen suborbitals still exist?
the guy that founded the rocket organisation, and then made a submarine clearly needs some help.
1800ft though.
that's higher than the guy from Hyde (whom I have had the misfortune of meeting more than once) managed on at least one flight. not sure which one I like best... the rocket that nearly reached the height of the trees? the one that chased worms on Dartmoor? the one where they dug a bunker in morecambe bay for the the launch controller (looks good on telly) but measured the cable wrong and had to dig another bunker 10m closer? or the one that washed out to sea?
some people need attention. I say give it to them, especially if it's going to be entertaining 😉
does copenhagen suborbitals still exist?
Well there were a bunch of them at Maker Faire UK last April with rockets parts and such. So I assume they are still going.
Seemed like nice guys.
the guy that founded the rocket organisation, and then made a submarine clearly needs some help.
It’s a bit late for that, I reckon
Peter Madsen, 46, faces a murder charge over the death of [Kim Wall], whose headless, dismembered torso was found floating off Denmark’s capital city 10 days after she boarded the inventor’s self-built submarine for an interview.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/03/denmark-submarine-trip-journalist-kim-wall-stabbed-15-times ]Article[/url]
I’m a convex earther, just to bring a second line of absurdity to proceedings. If it’s flat how come I have to ride up hill on my bike and why do I keep falling down holes?
And globally, why are there more upholds than downhills?
And why am I always cycling [i]into[/i] the wind?
Answer that globetards! 😆
Explain all the waterfalls flatards!
It’s a bit late for that, I reckon
Apparently he's not been part of them since June 2014 after some fall outs with other members:
https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/statement-former-copenhagen-suborbitals-member-peter-madsen/
Yeah, why don't miners fall out of the bottom? Eh?
Explain that Disctards
So he's going up to 1800 feet which will enable him to prove the earth's flat.
If he went higher he would see it's clearly not and that would never do.
GrahamS - MemberAnd why am I always cycling into the wind?
Answer that globetards!
This resonates with my experiences. Compelling argument....I'm going to have to look into this 🙂
I want to know why Australia is called down under. Explain that one. If there’s a big ice wall surrounding us, how come it can’t be seen from anywhere. I’m sorry to say I’m rather sceptical of this flat earth theory.
Apparently he's not been part of them since June 2014 after some fall outs with other members
Indeed, I read that earlier. My comment was in response to Andy suggesting that Madsen needs help. Not that he doesn’t currently need it, of course, just that it might have been more useful before he invted that journalist onto his submarine.
Why don’t planes keep flying off the edges?
The ice walls obviously! Duh!
If game of thrones has taught us anything it's that giant ice walls are **** all use.
For anyone still doubting that Flat Earth belief is a thing:
I'm current enjoying the comments on a Flat Earth debunking video that is trending on YouTube (829,314 views, 11k Likes, 8k dislikes!!)
Some excerpts from a conversation I had with one of the more lucid Flat Earthers:
[b]FE'er:[/b] ..every fact that ive found so far points to a flat stationary plane. You mention the stars but fail to mention they all revovle around the north star. Makes me think your liar, just saying. The constant movement of the stars proves helocentric theory to be wrong..(This struck me as a little odd as most FE'ers generally try to dodge questions about stars rotating around Polaris so I probed a little...)
[b]Me:[/b] Errr... except they don't! Go to the Southern Hemisphere and the stars appear to revolve around a completely different point in the sky, the Southern Celestial Pole, and they do so in the opposite direction. These are facts that anyone can check for themselves.?
[b]FE'er:[/b] I have already explained how water changes the perspective of everything get a clear glass glass fill it up with water draw Arrow on a piece of paper and look through the glass at the arrow it'll change direction.?
..
the firmament AKA ionosphere is water as it says in the Bible the water separating the water?[b]Me:[/b] So if I understand your response (to me) correctly, you believe that everyone in the Southern Hemisphere is looking at the night sky through water in the firmament/ionosphere and refraction in this water is what makes the stars appear to rotate in the opposite direction? Is that correct?
Okay, but it isn't just direction or rotation that changes. They are looking at completely different constellations of stars. Most notably they can see the Southern Cross (which is why it appears on so many flags in the Southern Hemisphere) and they cannot see the North Star/Polaris.?[b]FE'er:[/b] I live in Florida and I can see the north star and the Southern Cross in other words they're just too far away to see the North Star and some of the other constellations because when you look through water at certain angles it changes the angle that appears back at you.?
[b]Me:[/b] Great, so you are in a good position to take star trail photos that show the stars appearing to rotate around the North and South Celestial Poles at the same time. A good practical experiment for a truth seeker.
As for the North Star being too far away to see in the Southern Hemisphere: how can that be when people in Australia, South America and South Africa can all see the Southern Cross despite the fact that on a Flat Earth map they are about as far apart as they can get and they are facing different directions??
No reply for 14 hours 🙁 I'm looking forward to see what convoluted physics-defying logic he goes for next, but I suspect he'll either play the "God did it" card or just quietly walk away and post the same argument somewhere else.
And if you think Flat Earth is bad. Here's an analysis video of a guy that doesn't believe in atoms, mostly because he can't find a proper photograph of one 🙄
(swearing warning)
It's odd because he sounds like someone who could easily grasp atomic theory.
well, they are a bit of a theory. People have some very strange misconceptions about atoms and properties of materials
Not biting Charlie 😉
Did get a reply from my FE'er though. He's sticking with the idea that folk in the Southern Hemisphere see different constellations because of refraction. And can't see Polaris because they are too far away.
I've asked him to explain how that works given:
[img] 
[/img]
But so far he's not keen on that.
He also insists that [i]"There isn't a place in the world where the stars move in different directions, it's fake. They all go around the North Star."[/i] whilst also positing that [i]"people in the southern hemisphere see counter-clockwise because they're closer to the firmament and looking at a different angle will give you different perceptions when you are looking through water anyone that has gone fishing knows this."[/i]
So they don't go counter-clockwise, and when they do it's because of refraction in the magic space dome.
You can see why it is challenging to convince these people of anything approaching reality.
Not biting Charlie
it's not troll bait. I was making the point that lots of the scientific models taught in schools are misleading and people's conceptions of substance are often wrong, usually as a result of the education they had.
Fair enough but watch the above video. The guy wasn't criticising old textbook models of atoms as miniature solar systems, he was saying atoms literally don't exist because he can't find a photograph of one.
Anyways, my tame FE'er has just informed me of another startling fact: [i]"you can't see the Milky Way from the northern hemisphere"[/i]. 😯
I can only assume the guvmnt have some kind of massive space projector set up around here to fool the sheeples: http://www.newcastlephotos.co.uk/-/galleries/astro
every fact that ive found so far points to a flat stationary plane
Love the use if the word 'fact'. Has your new friend heard of Foucault's pendulum?
Isn't the point of flatearthers that they don't actually believe the earth is flat, but they don't realise that no one else believes it. So individually they all think they are subverting and trolling the true believers in a Colin Hunt "flat earth, whey hey, pull my finger" stylee. Not realising that they are trapped in a logical cage of their own construction.
Has your new friend heard of Foucault's pendulum?
Pretty sure that is too sciencey.
Museums and other places where you might find a working Foucault's pendulum are exactly the kind of places that have been indoctrinating sheeple with globe Earth propaganda y'see.
Honestly, if they can deny that they see the stars rotating in the sky then you have little hope of getting them to accept a special science pendulum. 😆
Isn't the point of flatearthers that they don't actually believe the earth is flat
Nope. Some are trolls. But many, like the guy I'm talking to, are bible literalists who talk about [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament ]the firmament[/url] citing Genesis as "evidence".
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NKJV
Others are just your general anti-science anti-"elite" conspiracy nuts.
Didn't even know all this was a "thing"!
So do they think other planets/moons Are flat too, out of curiosity?
It varies Poopscoop. Most think the sun and moon are balls but are only 3000 miles away, inside the firmament. The other planets are usually treated like stars, stuck to the firmament.
So why, in their eyes, is only the earth flat?
I know,I know, they must have that covered in some way...
It's an interesting insight into the human mind I suppose as much as anything.
For the Bible literalist ones it's because God created the world, the heavens and the stars. [i]cf[/i] Genesis
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NKJV
For the conspiracy loons, because it [i]explains[/i] what they see/feel, like flat horizons and no spinning sensation.
Most of them don't believe in stuff like space or gravity. That's all just part of the steeple brainwashing. 😆
Should we all join the flat earth society and troll them from within? It really is fascinating that people genuinely believe this.
For the conspiracy loons, because it explains what they see/feel, like flat horizons and no spinning sensation.
I’m sold
Oh dear, I might have accidentally broken my tame FE'er 🙁
We were discussing where the stars were in his belief, given that he said that water in the firmament alters what stars you see and their direction, and he offered up this image:
[img] 
[/img]
Spotting a slight flaw in his reasoning I asked for a clarification:
[b]Me:[/b] Interesting image. Does that match your belief? The stars seem to be shown on the inside the firmament there, "lights in the firmament of the heaven" as I think the Bible says?
So what water is it that causes them to diffract??
And he started to tip into standard tangential meltdown...
[b]Him:[/b] it isn't exact it's just a picture. But it matches what we see everyday 100% when it comes to day light in the summer, day light in the winter. Density not gravity. The lies of outer space because we all know you can't generate lift without pushing off of something. I don't have the answer to all the questions. But I am 100% sure HELIOCENTRIC theory is a lie, which includes your ball Earth, outer space, gravity, the big bang, and evolution. I said in the very first comment that I am a truther, not a flat earther. Just so happens that the truth points to a flat Earth which eventually proves that God is real and the Creator.?
I tried to soothe him back down...
[b]Me:[/b] I am just trying to better understand your position and that means asking you questions about how it all works. You are absolutely not obliged to answer them though of course.
Likewise I am happy to try to answer any questions you may have of the globe Earth.?
But it didn't work that well because he already knows all the answers...
[b]Him:[/b] the questions that I would ask would be rhetorical only because I have been spending years researching them and found my own answers like how does a rocket engine work in space without an oxidizer. I researched that you can't use liquid oxygen without oxygen around the surrounding area you can't just bottle it up and use it whenever or once a rocket gets into space what does it push off of to move. I've been researching how aircraft's work for a long time. Not to mention in a aircraft there is something called a gyroscope this instrument also proves the Earth to be flat. I guess here is a question that isn't rhetorical why doesn't a gyroscope lean if spun continueusly as the Earth rotates??
I offered an answer...
[b]Me:[/b] Yeah I can gladly answer that for you: The Earth rotates very slowly. About half the speed of the hour hand on a clock.
If you placed a gyro on the hour hand of a clock running at half speed would you expect it to lean over??
But got no response. So I thought I'd try Rob Hilton's suggestion and see if that got a nibble...
[b]Me:[/b] If you would like to see the Earth's spin imparting movement on something then you could look at a Foucault Pendulum. I believe there are 8 in Florida which you could visit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum?
But nothing back since.
Typically if you trigger them into full "all the theories at once" rant then it is a sign that the discussion is over.
Shame.
You can't argue with these people. It's pointless.
Keep going Graham you can break him 😉
Oh I completely agree it's utterly pointless.
These people are too far gone to listen to sheeple like me.
But.. it is fascinating to gently probe how deep the delusion goes and what they will convince themselves of (e.g. not being able to see the Milky Way, rockets being impossible, and stars [i]not[/i] rotating in the south).
I don't try to break them, I just gently pick at the edges to see what they say.
And it can be a rewarding intellectual exercise, like explaining quantum theory to a kitten - you learn far more than the kitten does. 😆
Ooh, a new reply, he's still (just barely) on the hook:
i don't think that pendulum proves anything. How could it.?
Where to start...? Read Wikipedia? I suspect inertial frames of reference are going to be lost on him.
Good effort Graham S. It's all totally pointless as has been pointed out. I think I enjoy it in an odd way though. I swing from reasoned responses and polite poking holes to all out condescending / ridiculing ****. Today I'm feeling t***ish:
[img] 
[/img]
LOL@Paul. Maximum Condescension Engaged! 😆
I try not to give into that temptation. It's hard sometimes, especially when you have some ALL CAPS guy screaming about GLOBETARD SATANIST MASONIC SHEEPLES etc, but that conversation rarely goes anywhere interesting.
The ones I like to speak to are the ones that manage a basic command of English in a reasonably polite tone. They will at least attempt to explain their barking views.
Dead link 🙁
Foucault pendulum?
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name
[edit]found it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum (looks the same)
No idea why that link doesn't work. Very odd.
Anyway I went with this gentle explanation:
Well the Foucault Pendulum demonstrates that [b]something[/b] external is operating which causes the pendulum's swing to slowly rotate in a very predictable manner that corresponds directly to its latitude on Earth. Agreed?
On a spinning ball Earth that rotational movement is explained and there is a simple formula that defines how many degrees the pendulum will appear to rotate each sidereal day, based on its latitude.?
No reply yet. It can take them a while if it contradicts their "reality" too much. I'm expecting accusations of scientific fraud, but hopefully we'll get a groovy explanation of some kind of special force at work.
Yep we're going with scientific fraud:
[b]Him:[/b] I'm going to have to disagree on what this thing says it proves the only way it could do what it say it can do is if the Earth was a ball and you place the pendulum on the axis points and you watched it from above but nowhere else on the ball would it work. So if the Earth is a ball the pendulum isn't going to work in Florida?..so I am going to have to assume they have these things around the world because they know it doesn't prove anything and they're trying to push an agenda
🙄
I researched that you can't use liquid oxygen without oxygen around the surrounding area you can't just bottle it up
What do scuba divers breathe then? Please ask him!
Well one thing they don't breath is liquid oxygen.
These people are too far gone
Agree, you would have to question their mental state. They are probably more in need of help rather than ridicule although to me they don't really differ from religious people who convince themselves of things that seem very strange/unbelievable to me and nobody offers help to them I suppose.
Awesome. In the process of him explaining why rockets can't fly in space he has sent me http://www.explainthatstuff.com/howplaneswork.html [i]"to help you understand Newton's third law"[/i]
😆
You might think engines are the key to making a plane fly, but you'd be wrong.
Newtons Laws proves this as well something about inertia being BS.
once a rocket gets into space what does it push off of to move
Credit where it's due, if you're not very hot on physics then that's actually a very good question.
its one kids ask, therefore, its not that clever, from an adult.
It's literally covered in this children's classroom explainer of Newton's 3rd law:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
But it's okay. He's currently wandered on to explaining why a bicycle doesn't work in a vacuum. 😆
I'll post a transcript tomorrow. It's fascinating.
why a bicycle doesn't work in a vacuum
Is it because you suffocate and fall off
is it because the cyclist cannot breathe?why a bicycle doesn't work in a vacuum.
I’m genuinely lol’ing at this. Great work
[quote=Paul@RTW ]Good effort Graham S. It's all totally pointless as has been pointed out. I think I enjoy it in an odd way though. I swing from reasoned responses and polite poking holes to all out condescending / ridiculing *. Today I'm feeling tish:
I reckon the only worthwhile thing to do is simply to troll them - as agreed, there's no chance of getting them to change their minds through the use of reason, so you might as well have a bit of fun. The aim being to take the piss and make it obvious to non-FE's that you're taking the piss without them realising.
BTW personally I tend to use "assertion" rather than "accusation" - slightly less confrontational.
edit: having checked out FB groups, it seems there is a "no trolls" thing and you get kicked out of the group for doing that - so the target has to be to see how long you can spend trolling one of the groups without getting kicked out. I reckon that should be a fun game 😆
[img] 
[/img]
Checkmate, Globetards.
Awesome. In the process of him explaining why rockets can't fly in space he has sent me http://www.explainthatstuff.com/howplaneswork.html
Off topic but...I had an "oh? Really?"(whilst smuggly grinning) conversation with a full of himself contractor in the office kitchen a while back. Polite conversation went from talking about uni degrees (I did aero engineering) to a full on "everything 'they' taught you about planes is wrong" nonsense within half a chocolate biscuit.
Some people have to find conspiracy or some kind of drama in everything. Despite explaining why the 'troof' is just another way to describe the same principles described by the 'traditional' explanation he didn't want to let go of the 'they lied to you' flag. It wasn't about reality, just the excitement of the conspiracy.
You might think engines are the key to making a plane fly, but you'd be wrong.
Pfft, duh...
It’s the conveyor belt it takes off from...