[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
Speaking of posts Billy missed - being an expert on SR, you must have a pretty solid grasp of tensor calculus, right, Billy? And differential equations generally? So if I give you a couple of simple PDEs, you should be able to solve them, right?
Just a matter of time before d2 asks me to do his homework for him. Shouldn't you be working on angles first?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Just a matter of time before d2 asks me to do his homework for him. Shouldn't you be working on angles first?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Oh dear, someone seems to be deflecting hard and doing a 180 on the whole special relativity expertise thing. A pi, if you like, you angle expert, you.
Gorgo does not know. He refers to lol-tubz, which is in Arabic (I think).
Let Billy help. The required variables are the dip angle* and the height of the mountain. The height of the mountain requires the elevation angle** between the flat*** baseline and the summit. Two angles in fact, to then calculate the height.
In the post you quoted, I'm talking about the paper discussing the altitude from which a human can perceive the curvature of the Earth. What the **** are you talking about?
*dip angle assumes a circular Earth surface.
**angles are measured between straight lines.
***Earth must be flat to measure the height of the mountain.
Lol did you do maths beyond year 7? An angle between a line and a curve is the angle between the line and the tangent to the curve at the point of intersection.
Of course you can measure an angle between a line and a curve, and I don't believe you even managed to pass the 11+, let alone are an expert in anything STEM related, if you do not know this. Ironic really, since you were just lecturing me about my understanding of angles.
Oh, and did I forget to mention? You're a ****ing dunce.
Did you quote the wrong post? What is it I need to keep up with, your increasing level of dementia?
Lol did you do maths beyond year 7? An angle between a line and a curve is the angle between the line and the tangent to the curve at the point of intersection. Of course you can measure an angle between a line and a curve, and I don't believe you even managed to pass the 11+, let alone are an expert in anything STEM related, if you do not know this. Ironic really, since you we
Falling off the wagon again I see.
A tangent is a straight line. An angle is measured between straight lines.
Except the tangent CA is in fact curved for the ball tards because of refraction. The light bends around the ball. Another reason for Al-Busted.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Falling off the wagon again I see.
A tangent is a straight line. An angle is measured between straight lines.
Except the tangent CA is in fact curved for the ball tards because of refraction. The light bends around the ball. Another reason for Al-Busted.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No dude, the fact that I don't understand your word salad is not a "me" problem. You seemed to be saying that you can't measure some angle between a line and a curve because the angle needs to be measured between straight lines. If that's not what you meant, then use words that convey what it is you actually ****ing mean.
If you can't explain what the **** you are talking about in plain English, I can't help you here.
Did you quote the wrong post? What is it I need to keep up with, your increasing level of dementia?
While you were triggering yourself into oblivion and self-ownership, gorgo provided a "globe proof" in characteristic loltubz form. Al-Busted's infamous radius calc that depends on light not obeying Snell's law and measuring elevation angles from a flat baseline, a flat earth.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
While you were triggering yourself into oblivion and self-ownership, gorgo provided a "globe proof" in characteristic loltubz form.
The post you quoted had nothing to do with that you dunce, it was about the paper he posted that was behind a paywall:
Good lord you are ****ing demented. How old are you, grandad?
No dude, the fact that I don't understand your word salad is not a "me" problem. You seemed to be saying that you can't measure some angle between a line and a curve because the angle needs to be measured between straight lines. If that's not what you meant, then use words that convey what it is you actually ****ing mean.If you can't explain what the **** you are talking about
Please show us an angle between a curve and a straight line.
But yes that is somewhat immaterial because we are measuring to the presupposed tangent. And yet tangent CA is not straight, remember your prior refraction story? The reason why the horizon never does what the globe predicts?
So we have curved tangents in the Al-Busto proof. And elevation angles from a ... *checks notes*.... flat earth.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Please show us an angle between a curve and a straight line.But yes that is somewhat immaterial because we are measuring to the presupposed tangent. And yet tangent CA is not straight, remember your prior refraction story? The reason why the horizon never does what the globe predicts?So we have curved tangents in the Al-Busto proof. And elevation angles from a ... *checks notes
I'm not responding to any of the refraction stuff since I haven't looked into it. I'm responding to your moronic objection about measuring angles to a curved surface. If you're just being pedantic that someone said "measuring the angle to the curve" instead of "measuring the angle to the tangent to the curve", that is accepted shorthand and you are a ****ing idiot for even bringing it up and thereby muddying the waters for whatever your real objection is.
The post you quoted had nothing to do with that you dunce, it was about the paper he posted that was behind a paywall:
Good lord you are ****ing demented. How old are you, grandad?
Ok my bad as the young 'uns say.
He (gorgo) also posted Al-Biruni's proof and complained I never addressed it.
So here we are, pooping all over it.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
We await your angle between a curve and a straight line.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
As above:
If you're just being pedantic that someone said "measuring the angle to the curve" instead of "measuring the angle to the tangent to the curve", that is accepted shorthand and you are a ****ing idiot for even bringing it up and thereby muddying the waters for whatever your real objection is.
If you're not being pedantic, you are a ****ing idiot for not knowing that you measure the angle to the tangent.
Either way, you are a ****ing idiot.
Why is it that on a flat earth an observer moving further away from the mountain loses sight of its peak (even with telescopes etc)?
Why is it that on a flat earth an observer moving further away from the mountain loses sight of its peak (even with telescopes etc)?
Oh boy are you in for a treat! (I asked this before)
I'd be interested to have a look to see what factors they take into account when calculating the altitude at which curvature is visible. I did ask Billy how he'd calculate it but unfortunately he must have missed that post and its dozen or so follow-ups.
Happy to share when I get to the office today. Looks like you are experiencing a double barrel example of why I'm not responding to the toddler anymore.
Threw it on my old dropbox account, let me know if it doesn't work:
I mean it sounds like Billy is generally correct that you can't see it from the altitude at which commercial airlines fly, so we'll give him that.
I assume Mr. Lynch will now be going on Billy's list of expert hostile witnesses and we have to treat everything he says as gospel. I wonder if he has a view on the tower collapse times.
Commercial airlines generally cruise between 30,000 and 40,000 feet so it can be seen from that height. The paper even proposes that you can discern it through careful observation of a photograph from as low as 20,000 feet.
Commercial airlines generally cruise between 30,000 and 40,000 feet so it can be seen from that height. The paper even proposes that you can discern it through careful observation of a photograph from as low as 20,000 feet.
I mean I skimmed the end but in the first few paragraphs it says "Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers revealed that few if any could detect curvature below about 50000 ft".
Yes, I think this is just different uses of the word "can." It can be done with sufficient care and FOV at elevations likely lower than 35,000. Can be detected casually/obviously without that care precision and possibly limited FOV is a different matter. The latter is likely what NDT was referring to, or he was just talking out of the wrong end.
