It's possible his ideas are free of curvature, I'd say. Probably torsion-free too.Are you saying his/her ideas might be warped?
It's possible his ideas are free of curvature, I'd say. Probably torsion-free too.Are you saying his/her ideas might be warped?
You don't suspect his nickers could be in a twist?It's possible his ideas are free of curvature, I'd say. Probably torsion-free too.
I would not expect the ball to hold on to a significant amount of air( or any air if the the ambient temp is normal room temp.) Let's say our ball is one cubic meter of lead. This gives it a radius of 0.62 meters and a mass of 11,343 kg. The gravitational force you'd expect at its surface would be 0.00000002 g (1/4976917 that of the gravity at the surface of the Earth). The escape velocity would be 0.0016 meters/sec (compared to over 11 km/sec for the surface of the Earth) Air molecules at room temp have velocites in the hundred of meters/sec. Many times that needed to escape the surface of the lead ball, but well short of that needed to escape the Earth. You'd have to cool the ball down to a amazingly low temp to get the air molecules speeds down below its escape velocity. For this same reason, smaller bodies in the Solar system do not have any significant atmospheres. Even the Moon, with 1/81 the Earth's mass only has the thinnest of atmospheres. This is because the ability of a planet to hold on to an atmosphere does not scale linearly. It goes up with mass and down with increased radius, However as you increase the radius of a body, its volume, and therefore it mass increases much faster( by the cube of the increase in radius, double the radius and the volume increases by a factor of 8). Basically, as we move to larger and larger bodies, the Mass to radius ratio gets greater and greater.I can understand your explanation, now show me the same experiment on a ball with air trapped on top of it and then swing the ball in a room of vacuum at the speed at which the earth is moving thru vacuum around the sun while rotating on the axis and also moving around another center (Galaxy) in another direction. Then show me the high pressure around that ball intact like we have on earth.
Again calling someone ignorant does not make you intelligent.
Say what, now?
So the engineers who build straight lines of pylons have to make them look curved if they build them across large bodies of water? Why do they do that, and more interestingly, how do they do it? How is the apparent curvature "false"?
I imagine you have no idea whatsoever. You just don't come across as a person who knows what an idea is.
In the image, the line of pylons looks curved at the far end. Are you blind?The Pylons are not curving
Correct! Put a ruler along the lines on that picture and they are all straight.Have you ever been to a long hotel corridor like in Vegas - you will see all the walls and ceiling converging to a small point - it does not mean the builder was curving because of hotel curvature. It also does not mean the floor is rising towards the ceiling.
The Pylons are not curving, do you understand perspective.
I suspect not. There are three possibilities here:Are you going to answer my questions, Guru? And David C's one about sunrise and sunset?
Yeah, I'd call that trolling. Any time you are intentionally dishonest (or you distort your own position) in order to create an angry response that's pretty much trolling.Or is he just using an indefensible position to exercise his disputational faculties?(which would also amount to trolling, I suppose)
I think I read somewhere that there is a class of people who one might call contrarian, who set out to espouse positions at variance with the mainstream, because they get a kick out of being part of what they portray (to themselves at least) as a persecuted minority. It can, I gather, be hard to determine whether such people genuinely hold the views they advocate, or whether it is an adversarial pose. Sometimes the people themselves don't seem to know: cognitive dissonance can be harnessed.Yeah, I'd call that trolling. Any time you are intentionally dishonest (or you distort your own position) in order to create an angry response that's pretty much trolling.
Yes, it has been done, and as expected the Earth curves.
Fun fact - the towers of the Golden Gate Bridge are not parallel to each other; their tops are two inches farther apart than their bases. But both are exactly upright when measured with respect to gravity. This, of course, is because the Earth curves slightly between them.
On the Earth, the air is not "trapped on top of it." The air is trapped by gravity, which acts in a vector towards the center of the Earth. There is no bottom or top.
To do that accurately you'd have to swing a ball the mass of Earth in a similar space the Earth orbits.
Fortunately we don't have to do that. We can use telescopes and probes to examine, say, Venus, which has a much denser atmosphere that it retains just as Earth does. And it is quite similar to Earth - the gravity on Venus 89% of Earth's, its orbit is 72% the distance of Earth's and the orbital speed is 18% faster. And as I mentioned it retains its atmosphere quite well.
You can do it yourself. Construct a chimney about 100 feet tall. Seal both ends. Now take a sensitive pressure meter (often called an altimeter) and measure the pressure at the top and the bottom. You will observe lower pressure at the top. Now you can extrapolate and get a rough estimate of what will happen up at 100 miles.
If you have the resources, build a chimney 100 miles tall and do the same measurement. The pressure at the top will be very close to zero.
Right. His intelligence is what makes him intelligent.
10 easy ways you can tell for yourself that the Earth is not flat (popsci.com)Really, please provide details of Earth curve experiment that proves earth curves.
I will answer your questions just this week is busy for me till Friday, I will answer with a nice warm sake. Short answer the Sun moves away and comes into view it does not rise over the horizon or sets behind one. It is funny, I used to be a glober till 2017 and in the past have discounted people.Are you going to answer my questions, Guru? And David C's one about sunrise and sunset?
Things that hold true for one planet do not hold true for others? What an odd claim.So you are missing the point your experiment to prove requires earth or venus. Sorry that does not hold true.
So how do you explain the fact that, in the chimney experiment, the pressure decreases as you go higher? And that at the top it is effectively vacuum?Secondly, the chimney experiment is not relevant you are trying to prove in vacuum the atmosphere settles in layer - we have the Sandusky Vacuum chamber show me one experiment that proves your theory - Chimney experiment is not needed because things settle down based on density and mass not because of gravity.
Sure. Here are a few simple ways:Really, please provide details of Earth curve experiment that proves earth curves.
Of course there is outside tension that pulls in both directions.o you are saying there is no outside tension on those towers like the heavy steel ropes - curve of earth is the only explanation.
Yes, you do. But since your eye cannot see a 2 inch difference over 12 miles (the length of Manhattan, which is 760,000 inches) you cannot perceive it with your eyes alone.Then if that is the case we should see the manhattan city skyline show the same curve when viewed from New Jersey