Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7

Author Topic: Reacting to some FE memes  (Read 5518 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline poenitens

Reacting to some FE memes
« on: November 12, 2023, 01:25:02 PM »
Ave María purísima:

I am undecided on the FE vs. GE question. I would like FE to be true but there are many facts that cannot be simply swept under the rug.

However, I checked the memes from another thread and a couple called my attention a little bit. I have some objections to them but I am open to refutations.



This is a good one but it ignores the fact that the radius that a point on the surface of the Earth describes is much larger than the radius one kid would describe when riding the merry-go-round.

The centrifugal acceleration is v^2/R, where v is the velocity and R is the radius of the circle. Assuming R = 1m = 0.001km for the merry-go-round we get:

6^2/0.001=36,000km/hr^2 = 2.78m/s^2.

Now plugging the Earth's data in the formula (R = 6400km) we get:

1600^2/6400 = 400km/hr^2 = 0.03m/s^2

which is significantly smaller than the acceleration of the merry-go-round. 

This does not necessarily neutralize the argument, the question is: how noticeable should be the effects of a 0.03m/s^2 centrifugal acceleration? Probably not much, considering that that's 300x smaller than the acceleration of gravity g = 9.8m/s^2 which is relatively low.



More than an objection to this one is only a question: How does the man disappearing behind the ground can be explained by perspective? Maybe I'm missing something...

I would expect that by perspective the level at which the feet of the man appear raises in photo 2 with respect to photo 1 and in 3 with respect to 2. Like this:



The level of the feet of the second kid looks like it is above the level of the feet of the kid in the gray sweater.

I think that the man disappearing behind the grass can only be explained by a crease in the terrain or the observer being below the ground level, both causes are tantamount to curvature in the case of the ship. Am I missing something?
Logged

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Reacting to some FE memes
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2023, 01:52:21 PM »
Quote from: poenitens on November 12, 2023, 01:25:02 PM
Ave María purísima:

I am undecided on the FE vs. GE question. I would like FE to be true but there are many facts that cannot be simply swept under the rug.

However, I checked the memes from another thread and a couple called my attention a little bit. I have some objections to them but I am open to refutations.



This is a good one but it ignores the fact that the radius that a point on the surface of the Earth describes is much larger than the radius one kid would describe when riding the merry-go-round.

The centrifugal acceleration is v^2/R, where v is the velocity and R is the radius of the circle. Assuming R = 1m = 0.001km for the merry-go-round we get:

6^2/0.001=36,000km/hr^2 = 2.78m/s^2.

Now plugging the Earth's data in the formula (R = 6400km) we get:

1600^2/6400 = 400km/hr^2 = 0.03m/s^2

which is significantly smaller than the acceleration of the merry-go-round.

This does not necessarily neutralize the argument, the question is: how noticeable should be the effects of a 0.03m/s^2 centrifugal acceleration? Probably not much, considering that that's 300x smaller than the acceleration of gravity g = 9.8m/s^2 which is relatively low.



More than an objection to this one is only a question: How does the man disappearing behind the ground can be explained by perspective? Maybe I'm missing something...

I would expect that by perspective the level at which the feet of the man appear raises in photo 2 with respect to photo 1 and in 3 with respect to 2. Like this:



The level of the feet of the second kid looks like it is above the level of the feet of the kid in the gray sweater.

I think that the man disappearing behind the grass can only be explained by a crease in the terrain or the observer being below the ground level, both causes are tantamount to curvature in the case of the ship. Am I missing something?


Your questions are very good and highlight the “slight of hand” *some* FEers on the internet use to confuse those not too acquainted with science and are somewhat gullible. The guy walking on the football field is obviously ridiculous, but there are people who fall for it.
Logged

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Reacting to some FE memes
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2023, 02:35:56 PM »


What is sad is that all those who pontificate about the Earth supposedly being flat, will not take a single hour of their time to investigate, observe, and test the veracity of the videos they submit as evidence and spend countless hours watching.
Logged

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
Re: Reacting to some FE memes
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2023, 02:50:51 PM »
Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on November 12, 2023, 01:52:21 PM

Your questions are very good and highlight the “slight of hand” *some* FEers on the internet use to confuse those not too acquainted with science and are somewhat gullible. The guy walking on the football field is obviously ridiculous, but there are people who fall for it.

Does all that math apply to the entire earth?  Because the effects at the poles is not what it is at the equator.  

Logged

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
Re: Reacting to some FE memes
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2023, 02:52:19 PM »
Quote from: poenitens on November 12, 2023, 01:25:02 PM
Ave María purísima:

I am undecided on the FE vs. GE question. I would like FE to be true but there are many facts that cannot be simply swept under the rug.

However, I checked the memes from another thread and a couple called my attention a little bit. I have some objections to them but I am open to refutations.



This is a good one but it ignores the fact that the radius that a point on the surface of the Earth describes is much larger than the radius one kid would describe when riding the merry-go-round.

The centrifugal acceleration is v^2/R, where v is the velocity and R is the radius of the circle. Assuming R = 1m = 0.001km for the merry-go-round we get:

6^2/0.001=36,000km/hr^2 = 2.78m/s^2.

Now plugging the Earth's data in the formula (R = 6400km) we get:

1600^2/6400 = 400km/hr^2 = 0.03m/s^2

which is significantly smaller than the acceleration of the merry-go-round.

This does not necessarily neutralize the argument, the question is: how noticeable should be the effects of a 0.03m/s^2 centrifugal acceleration? Probably not much, considering that that's 300x smaller than the acceleration of gravity g = 9.8m/s^2 which is relatively low.



More than an objection to this one is only a question: How does the man disappearing behind the ground can be explained by perspective? Maybe I'm missing something...

I would expect that by perspective the level at which the feet of the man appear raises in photo 2 with respect to photo 1 and in 3 with respect to 2. Like this:



The level of the feet of the second kid looks like it is above the level of the feet of the kid in the gray sweater.

I think that the man disappearing behind the grass can only be explained by a crease in the terrain or the observer being below the ground level, both causes are tantamount to curvature in the case of the ship. Am I missing something?
I meant to answer your post directly and accidentally responded to the response. 


Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
« previous next »