The Rod of God -- (!) Pages 33 and 34 (!)

[R-Jack]

It surrounds us.

For example, if Felcho's asshole was the earth, the Santorum would be Antartica.

[Jay in Phoenix]

It would be nice if someone could answer the question as to when a flat water surface starts to bend over the earth's (roundish) surface.

A nice question, though a distracting and incorrect one.

Water doesn't "bend", as you well know. Water will always remain flat in or on an undisturbed surface or any other medium you choose to measure it with. Disturb it, even minutely (see your own reflection) and it moves, ripples, shifts or waves. What happens with water, like anything else on Earth, is affected by gravity, that troubling little aspect of physics that poptwat doesn't recognize.

So then Sale, try asking your question again, this time taking actual physics and logic into account.

I have mentioned point of perspective a couple of times now. Goober crystalized this perfectly with his photo contrast.

So counselor, try reiterating your point again, this time asking the correct question.

If you cannot ascertain what that is, you can join 'tart in cleaning the classroom erasers.

[Moving Sale]

Fine don't answer the question, but if it was so simple one, would think it would be easy to answer.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Fine don't answer the question, but if it was so simple one, would think it would be easy to answer.

Holy fuck, are you going poptart now? I just answered the question Sale.

Water does not bend.
Gravity affects water and the way it moves.
Pictures and views are impacted by the perspective(s) of the viewer.
Water is wet.
Earth can be flat, curved, pyramidal, bumpy, blah, blah whatever. An anthill, hillock or mountain is conical, yet it is made of sand or dirt or rock. in other words, earth. A water bubble is liquid, yet also round, as are drops of rain.
Bubbles can stretch and bend, they are elastic. It's all variable depending on conditions.
A horizon can appear in multiple aspects, once again, dependent upon perspective, distance, etc.

What color is the sky Sale?

Clouds appear solid to the eye, but are not. Why?

Lake or seawater can appear blue, brown, green or black, are any of these colors correct?

I will repeat the word perspective and allow you to go back to eraser duty with dullardtart.

Do you require any more obvious and redundant questions answered, or are you just being obtuse?

[Moving Sale]

Yea that's not math. I know I can see almost all of Harvey's casino, which is on the south shore of Lake Tahoe, from Incline Village 20+ miles away. The old building is 11 stories tall, but I can see (nearly)the whole thing. If Tahoe is curved with the earth it would be hardly visible. I was just wondering if anybody knew any math to explain that.

[poptart]

Just could not resist...

Yea that's not math. I know I can see almost all of Harvey's casino, which is on the south shore of Lake Tahoe, from Incline Village 20+ miles away. The old building is 11 stories tall, but I can see (nearly)the whole thing. If Tahoe is curved with the earth it would be hardly visible. I was just wondering if anybody knew any math to explain that.

Nobody is going to explain it, MS -- or if they do, they'll pull complete bullshit out of their ass and call you the idiot.

The earth supposedly curves at the rate of 8" per mile.
Use the earth curvature calculator.
http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

At 20 miles away, and with someone viewing from a height of 6', 64 yards-worth of the casino is supposed to be UNDER THE HORIZON.

From what you say, it clearly is NOT.


Btw, total fail, Gobbler.
Embarrassing fail.

Stop posting stupid bullshit, open your eyes, and THINK for a change.

[poptart]

According to How it works you have to be at 35,000 ft to see the curvature

I flew into Seattle yesterday. It was too cloudy to see

Was hoping to snap a pic and post it - though I'm pretty sure now the field of view on the lens isn't wide enough

None of us will probably ever get a meaningful pic from an airplane - and as I posted previously, the windows are built with a bend on them, for aerodynamic reasons, so things tend to appear more round through them to begin with.


But SuperJay said he could see the earth's curvature when he was skydiving at 10,500 ft.

Total friggin' blowhard, the guy is.

[smackaholic]

Yea that's not math. I know I can see almost all of Harvey's casino, which is on the south shore of Lake Tahoe, from Incline Village 20+ miles away. The old building is 11 stories tall, but I can see (nearly)the whole thing. If Tahoe is curved with the earth it would be hardly visible. I was just wondering if anybody knew any math to explain that.

I am going to assume that your viewpoint (incline village) has a fair bit of elevation, just as the Toronto pic had. Do me a favor, hop in a kayak 20 miles away from Harvey's. I assure you that a fair chunk of the Casino will not be visible. Then, do us a favor and drown yourself.

[Moving Sale]

No I'm talking from the dock or from a boat just offshore.

[poptart]

I am going to assume that your viewpoint (incline village) has a fair bit of elevation, just as the Toronto pic had.

Plug some numbers in and have fun with your bullshit.
http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

Even if we assume the Toronto pic was taken from 20 ft high (which it wasn't) - street level would be nearly 150 yds under the horizon (which it isn't).
Nearly 1/4 of the Toronto Tower would be under the horizon, which it clearly IS NOT.

[Jay in Phoenix]

According to How it works you have to be at 35,000 ft to see the curvature

I flew into Seattle yesterday. It was too cloudy to see

Was hoping to snap a pic and post it - though I'm pretty sure now the field of view on the lens isn't wide enough

None of us will probably ever get a meaningful pic from an airplane - and as I posted previously, the windows are built with a bend on them, for aerodynamic reasons, so things tend to appear more round through them to begin with.


But SuperJay said he could see the earth's curvature when he was skydiving at 10,500 ft.

Total friggin' blowhard, the guy is.

If by that you mean it was something I actually did, have the certificate to prove it and saw the curvature myself, then okay, I can accept that.

What have you ever done in the real world that comes close to comparison?

As soon as you do, we'll continue this discussion.

Until then, you remain a perpetual liar and a fraud.

Enjoy your troll job or delusion or whatever it is that is twisting your water-logged mind into pudding.

Until you look in the mirror and see the hypocritical blowhard string back at you, continue to fuck off.

And say you are done and the come back an hour or two later.

Again and again.

Liar, liar, thy name is poptart.

He who is without lies and hypocrisy may cast the next stone.

That ain't you pops.

[Left Seater]

The earth supposedly curves at the rate of 8" per mile.
Use the earth curvature calculator.
http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

At 20 miles away, and with someone viewing from a height of 6', 64 yards-worth of the casino is supposed to be UNDER THE HORIZON.

open your eyes, and THINK for a change.

Pop, you are asking us all to open our eyes and THINK. Go back and reread the above section I quoted here and then THINK hard on what you have posted.

If the earth is supposedly curving at a rate of 8 inches per mile, there is no possible way that app is providing correct info. Seriously THINK about this. Go back and look at your curvature calculator. Still don't see it? Let's go look at your calculator. Put in an eye height of 6 feet. Then put in the target distance of 20 miles. If the earth is curving at 8 inches per mile, then someone should be able to see something at ground height 9 miles away, not the 3 miles your app claims.

[math]1 foot = 12 inches; 6 feet = 72 inches; earth curvature of 8 inches per mile; 72 inches in height divided by 8 inches per mile = 9 miles; or in other words the horizon is 9 miles away from someone with an eye height of 6 feet. If we then draw a circle with a radius of 9 miles from that horizon point it will intersect where our person with an eye height of 6 feet is standing. The opposite point of that circle will be 18 miles from where our person is standing. That means anything over 6 feet high would be visible at 18 miles from the original person with an eye height of 6 feet.[/math]

So either your 8 inches per mile is wrong or your app is wrong or both. But they both can't be correct. THINK about it don't just punch in numbers and vomit out what it says.

[poptart]

This was addressed previously.

The 8" drop per mile is not CONSTANT.
It compounds as distance from a target increases.

This diagram illustrates it...



Let's say O is our viewing target.

As we stand 1 mile away at point A, the line B represents the 8" drop.

Then as we move further away, to point B, look how the drop increases -- as represented by line b.


Again, the 8" drop per mile is not constant.
It compounds as the distance from our viewing target increases.
Hence the curve calculator I linked to.

[poptart]

I had noted in my thread at .net that the globe is supposedly tilted at a 23.4 degree angle.



This leaves 66.6 on the other side.


Isn't that neat?!?

And just a little more math fun for those who are... awake.

You know, this insignificant, one-in-billions little rock we happen to be on is *streaking* through space at breakneck speed.

We're told that the orbital velocity of the earth around the sun is 18.5 miles per second.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae548.cfm

Did you know that = 66600 miles per hour?


Isn't that also neat, kiddies??

[poptart]

Psalms 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork



*chortle*

- Wernher von Braun

[poptart]

If the earth is curving at 8 inches per mile, then someone should be able to see something at ground height 9 miles away, not the 3 miles your app claims.

Another Distance to Horizon Calculator.

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

Same result.
The horizon is at approximately 3 miles -- for someone 6 ft tall.



And another...

http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~bcd/shadowworld ... rizon.html

[poptart]

It'd be nice if MS would get a picture of the casino.

[smackaholic]

Pop,

Do you believe we have satellites up there, in the uhhhhh, firmament?

Do you believe in gravity and basic laws of physics regarding acceleration?

Can you come up with an explanation of just what it is holding these satellites up there? The normally accepted, by sane folks anyway, explanation is that you get this body moving real, real fast around the sphere that is generating the gavitational field and viola, it magically stays up in the sky.

[Goober McTuber]

Btw, total fail, Gobbler.
Embarrassing fail.

Just be cause you say so?

[Goober McTuber]

Perhaps there's just a problem with the photo that you claim is taken from 31 miles away.

Distance to the horizon

Ignoring the effect of atmospheric refraction, distance to the horizon from an observer close to the Earth's surface is about

d is approx 3.57 time the square root of h

where d is in kilometres and h is height above ground level in metres.

Examples:
For an observer standing on the ground with h = 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in) (average eye-level height), the horizon is at a distance of 4.7 kilometres (2.9 mi).

For an observer standing on the ground with h = 2 metres (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).

For an observer standing on a hill or tower of 100 metres (330 ft) in height, the horizon is at a distance of 36 kilometres (22 mi).

For an observer standing at the top of the Burj Khalifa (828 metres (2,717 ft) in height), the horizon is at a distance of 103 kilometres (64 mi).

For an observer atop Mount Everest (8,848 metres (29,029 ft) in altitude), the horizon is at a distance of 336 kilometres (209 mi).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

So at sea level the horizon is going to be about 3 miles away. Your photo is bullshit, pops.

There's an interesting photo on that website taken across a harbor that's about 12 miles wide where you obviously can't see the base of the buildings on the other side.

[Goober McTuber]

And btw, pops, if you've ever watched a ship sail off to sea, it disappears bottom to top, as it goes over the horizon. Or maybe it just sank.

[Jay in Phoenix]

And btw, pops, if you've ever watched a ship sail off to sea, it disappears bottom to top, as it goes over the horizon. Or maybe it just sank.

Dammit Goober, there you go using perspective, physics and logic again. You know those things make poptart's head go kaphlooey. If it isn't in Scripture or a little made up graphic or innacurrate chart, then it couldn't possibly be real.

After all, HE says so.

Reality be damned.

[Moving Sale]

So if you are looking at point C from point A, if A and C are the right distance apart, you would be able to see another person's line of sight (their head) but anything at point B would be above the horizon. Do I have that right?

[smackaholic]

So if you are looking at point C from point A, if A and C are the right distance apart, you would be able to see another person's line of sight (their head) but anything at point B would be above the horizon. Do I have that right?

waaahhhh?

[Moving Sale]

If you move the yellow line of sight so that it intersects A&C there would be a hump in your line of sight. I think that is what LS was saying. Right?

[poptart]

For an observer standing on the ground with h = 2 metres (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).

lol

pssst... Goob,

I've ALREADY linked to three separate calculators which verify this exact thing.

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~bcd/shadowworld ... rizon.html

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html



And look at Jayne chime in with more nonsense, as if Goober just got me there.





Clueless with a big mouth.

The worst kind of idiot.

[poptart]

If you move the yellow line of sight so that it intersects A&C there would be a hump in your line of sight. I think that is what LS was saying. Right?

A could obviously not see C.

[Moving Sale]

But a person standing at A would be able to see the face of someone the same height standing at point C if the distance from A to C was the right distance.

[poptart]

What do you mean by "the right distance?"

[Moving Sale]

If the distance was too small the hump would not but be visible (perceptible)
If too far the hump would be too big to see over.

[poptart]

If the distance was too small the hump would not but be visible (perceptible)
If too far the hump would be too big to see over.

Yes, I think that's it.

[poptart]

Pop,

Do you believe we have satellites up there, in the uhhhhh, firmament?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati ... ebris.html
There are more than 20,000 pieces of debris larger than a softball orbiting the Earth. They travel at speeds up to 17,500 mph, fast enough for a relatively small piece of orbital debris to damage a satellite or a spacecraft. There are 500,000 pieces of debris the size of a marble or larger. There are many millions of pieces of debris that are so small they can’t be tracked.

And...

http://www.universetoday.com/42198/how- ... -in-space/
there are 1071 operational satellites in orbit around the Earth. 50 percent of which were launched by the United States.






So...
Have any of our space stations ever taken even a SINGLE picture of any of these satellites or pieces of space junk?

[poptart]

Jayne has crapped the bed in hilarious fashion on numerous occasions in this thread, but the turd he dropped today has to be his FINEST turd of all.


On page 11, I posted this (and note the wikipedia link included)...

And what exactly are you people doing with this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
-- For example, for an observer with a height of 1.70 m standing on the ground, the horizon is 4.65 km away. For a tower with a height of 100 m, the horizon distance is 35.7 km. Thus an observer on a beach can see the top of the tower as long as it is not more than 40.35 km away. --

If you're 6' tall and are viewing a tower which is 109 yds high, once you get to 25 miles away from the tower, ALL OF IT has gone under the horizon and is NO LONGER VISIBLE to you - due to earth curvature.
So we are told.

It's 31 miles away.

To which Jayne came in and immediately said (without thinking, as usual)...

Stupid is as stupid posts.

Wiki, short for wikipedia, is simply put, a sight that any dumb ass can post to and edit on a whim. The simpleton fact that this is your current source of "information" is a joke. Congratulations on crashing head first into a brick wall of idiocy.

Well okay, Jay...
lol

Goober then came in today and posted THE VERY SAME WIKIPEDIA PAGE I HAD, and cited info there, to which Jayne responded...

Dammit Goober, there you go using perspective, physics and logic again. You know those things make poptart's head go kaphlooey. If it isn't in Scripture or a little made up graphic or innacurrate chart, then it couldn't possibly be real.

After all, HE says so.

Reality be damned

LMAO!!!

The guy posts things, full of insult and self-importance, yet he doesn't even know what he's saying.

Not even aware that his arrogant bluster has firmly kicked his own ass all over the place.

[poptart]

Jayne, seriously stfu and go into read only mode.

[poptart]

I posted this previously and maybe someone here is ready to pause, quiet preconceived notions and think clearly.

Do something...

Click this page and do a comparison of the supposed real difference in size between the sun and the moon.

http://sciencenetlinks.com/interactives ... tSize.html


What would the odds be that these two objects, one 400 times bigger than the other, would be situated just perfectly in distance from us (93 million miles for the bigger one and 137,000 miles for the smaller) that they would be very nearly the identical size when we view them in our sky?





It is an incredible coincidence.





Genesis 1:16-17
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

[poptart]

Another pic of Toronto, from St. Catharines, approximately 31 miles away.
And note the CN Tower.





The tower is 1,800 ft.
The round observatory area is at 1,100 ft up


The photo from St. Catharines is not taken from a high elevation.
Just to be generous to the skeptics, let's assume it was taken at a height of 20 ft -- but I do think it is really less than that.

Using the earth curve calculator -- based on us being at 20 ft up and the earth being 25,000 miles in circumference, we see that 434 feet of the tower is supposed to be hidden below the horizon.
http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

So well over 1/3 of the portion of the tower below the observatory is supposed to be gone from our view.

Is it?

Look at the building on the right of the tower.
The darker colored building should be almost GONE from our view.

Is it?

[Moby Dick]

^^^

[poptart]

Pop,

Do you believe we have satellites up there, in the uhhhhh, firmament?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati ... ebris.html
There are more than 20,000 pieces of debris larger than a softball orbiting the Earth. They travel at speeds up to 17,500 mph, fast enough for a relatively small piece of orbital debris to damage a satellite or a spacecraft. There are 500,000 pieces of debris the size of a marble or larger. There are many millions of pieces of debris that are so small they can’t be tracked.

And...

http://www.universetoday.com/42198/how- ... -in-space/
there are 1071 operational satellites in orbit around the Earth. 50 percent of which were launched by the United States.






So...
Have any of our space stations ever taken even a SINGLE picture of any of these satellites or pieces of space junk?

Just to hit at this one more time...

From the NASA space junk link that I posted (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stati ... ebris.html), it says this...


-- NASA has a set of long-standing guidelines that are used to assess whether the threat of a close approach of orbital debris to a spacecraft is sufficient to warrant evasive action or precautions to ensure the safety of the crew.

Debris avoidance maneuvers are planned when the probability of collision from a conjunction reaches limits set in the space shuttle and space station flight rules. If the probability of collision is greater than 1 in 100,000, a maneuver will be conducted if it will not result in significant impact to mission objectives. If it is greater than 1 in 10,000, a maneuver will be conducted unless it will result in additional risk to the crew.

Debris avoidance maneuvers are usually small and occur from one to several hours before the time of the conjunction. Debris avoidance maneuvers with the shuttle can be planned and executed in a matter of hours. Such maneuvers with the space station require about 30 hours to plan and execute mainly due to the need to use the station’s Russian thrusters, or the propulsion systems on one of the docked Russian or European spacecraft.

Several collision avoidance maneuvers with the shuttle and the station have been conducted during the past 10 years. --



They say they are continually monitoring and are on alert for junk, have encounters with junk, and have made maneuvers during the past 10 years to avoid contact.
Of course they should, based on the number of objects that are supposedly up there.
And with the said speed of 17,500 MPH for objects, contact could be catastrophic.

So again, are there ANY pictures of any junk or of any satellite as taken from our space stations -- which first went up in 1973?

I've searched and can't find any pics at all of any pace junk, ever, as taken from our space station.
No pic at all of any satellite as taken from our space station.

If a pic(s) of this is out there, help a bro' out.

Hook me up.

[smackaholic]

So, there aren't satellites then?

Got it.

Obviously, another big charade.

[poptart]

Did you know...


There is exactly ONE... yes, ONE picture of Neil Armstrong on the moon?
lol



That's it.
A pic of his ass.

Arguably the most historic event -- and man -- in U.S. history, and that's it for him and the event.

There are some grainy TV images of him, yes, but as for real pics of the first man on the moon, that all folks.
A pic of Neil Armstrong's ass on the moon.

If you go somewhere, anywhere, significant, you get some pics of yourself there, right?
But no Neil Armstrong pics on the moon?

"He was doing the camera-carrying," is NASA's answer to that.

Neil almost never gave interviews after he came back from the moon.


I'd like to see what kind of classified release form the Apollo astronauts had to sign before being put on the mission.
What they agreed that they were allowed to say (and not say) about their mission.
And what kind of penalties they agreed to face if they broke free from their signed release form.

I just have a curious mind, perhaps.