Jump to content

michel123456

Pseudoscientist
  • Posts

    6258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by michel123456

  1. And the power of Autocad. And some experience on how to cut pieces (of wood or marble) in order to make a circle.
  2. 465m Well that sounds huge and made my eyebrows raise. So I took some time to check it with Autocad as you did. Here below in sketch (a print from Autocad gives only overlapping lines unless printed at huge scale and still not very much understandable) What you did corresponds to sketch 1. The lake is 77km long. You stand on one side of the lake and send a laser beam horizontally** through the 77km and measure the level on the other side. It is indeed 465m on the basis of Earth radius 6371 km. But on sketch 2, with the exact same dimensions, if you draw a straight line between the sides and measure the bulge, it gives a value of 116m. That is the eight of "hill", the height that is an obstacle for viewing the other side, not 465m. -------------------------- I made the same for 6km transverse, I get a bulge of 70cm. (0,7063m from Autocad) IOW at normal height (human eye approx 150cm from ground) the other side of the lake is entirely observable. **edit added the word horizontally which means perpendicular to the radius at this point.
  3. That makes me remember the sheep in scotland joke.
  4. A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are riding a train through Scotland. The engineer looks out the window, sees a black sheep, and exclaims, "Hey! They've got black sheep in Scotland!" The physicist looks out the window and corrects the engineer, "Strictly speaking, all we know is that there's at least one black sheep in Scotland." The mathematician looks out the window and corrects the physicist, " Strictly speaking, all we know is that is that at least one side of one sheep is black in Scotland."
  5. The Greek system is shifted in height by 246.62m (from the same link in Wiki) It is written exactly after the NUDTZ in the same post NUDTZ non uniform density transition zone What a relief! I couldn't sleep all night. I thought I was hit by Alzheimer. Please next time put your warning immediately. Thank you.
  6. Maybe. There is no logic in it, it is a reaction that comes from deep inside .I think we call that anger, lawyers have a word for that. After anger is finished it may be that you are right: when I see a smoker next to me I should simply turn to him and say very politely "you SOAB stop smoking NOW"..."Please"
  7. It doesn't work like that.
  8. I have no experience in smoking. However I have been a passive smoker for years, when I was young at home with my father & brother who smoked a lot, and at work for 20 years long before it became forbidden. I have become a smoker hater.
  9. I don't know. What I know is that each country has its own reference system which may not coincide with the ellipsoid. In Greece where I am the national system is the ΕΓΣΑ 87.
  10. You are correct. But that was not all I wanted to say. Here below a quick sketch After the bottleneck, around the outflow, the water surface is (suggested to be) like a funnel. Or a very soft vortex (maybe). If you take a transverse section of a funnel, you get a conic curve, as in the sketch of section AA'. That is what I meant by the word "concave" in my previous post.
  11. From the given data, it looks the Balaton lake is not level. It flows like a river. It has a level +150.55 at inflow (left on the picture) and 149.65 at outflow, a difference of 90cm from level. (I have added labeling on the maps provided in the OP) The experiment was taken at a point after a bottleneck, transverse to the lake. From the color legend, the lake shows a slight level difference transverse also. If the experiment has been correctly conducted, then the surface lake is concave along the experiment. Eventually the concave of the lake surface and Earth curvature would cancel each other and gives an almost perfectly flat section. But that would be a extraordinary coincidence that a F.E. knew about this and decided to take an experiment right at this spot and at the right time of the year.
  12. He is using a disco laser for showtime. (pointed out in the other forum I was talking about).
  13. This thread is a waste of time No. He is a flat earther. He is not searching for a flaw. He wants to make points on this forum (getting upvotes from friends) and use it afterwards as a reference (that nobody could debunk the experiment). IOW it is a trap.
  14. I begin to wonder. What is that last column about?(enhanced in red) If the Earth was flat, why are the values diverging? If the laser beam is send horizontally from 1.26m high, all the values should be the same 1.26m. -------------------- (edit) Now I don't wonder anymore after googling "Lake Balaton laser experiment", it appears that you have tried this on another forum. Who is behind this?
  15. From your diagram I get the feeling that Heights & distances are not exactly in the correct direction. For example, the 3.3 ft on the right should be on the earth's radius. I wonder for other distances (as the 14.3 miles for example, maybe is is an arc and not a straight line, or a straight line but not in this direction). Guessing. Also the point of tangent is very difficult to catch in practice. The lake surface is a mirror. ------------- edit: and your sketch is too much unscaled. If the height on the right is 3.3 ft and on the left 97.2 ft, it means the sketch is not symmetric, the point of tangent is very much on the right and therefore will produce a large measurement error. ------------------ edit2. Notice that the errors (the red numbers in your table post#1) start approx at the distance to the tangent. Before that point everything seems OK.
  16. Yes I use a draftman ruler constantly, I am an architect. About scale factor, a very simple example: here below a back of the envelope sketch made on my coffee table at breakfast this Sunday morning. You have a stool Sp close to you with a sphere M. An identical stool Sp' a few meters away with an identical sphere M' At the same instant, the 2 spheres fall out of the stool. It is evident that as seen from Sp and Sp', the 2 phenomena will be seen as identical: 1.Distance d = d' 2.Time T=T' 3.So from each Point of Vue (POV), velocity is conserved d/T = d'/T' However, as it is drawn on the paper & as it is observed) 4.M' is apparently smaller than M 5.d' is apparently smaller than d 6.T' is conserved T=T' 7.Which means that apparent Velocity is not conserved. At the horizon, d'=0 and apparent velocity 0/T'=0/T=0 However, as per point 3, velocity is the same from each point of vue. Also it is remarkable that the point of vues of Sp and Sp' can be interchanged. It is fully symmetrical That is an example of scale factor. --------------- Now, what are the differences with Relativity: In order to introduce the velocity conservation in each frame, it is stated that 8. d' is smaller than d d'<d (no problem with that) 9. because d' < d, it means that Time has changed T'<T so that d/T=d'/T' (in the above example it is unnecessary) 10. M is observed smaller than M' !!!!** So maybe you understand my scepticism. Especially concerning point 10. Point 9 is also interesting. Edited the labeling in the text to correspond to the sketch. ** I forgot to mention that Relativity states that the moving object is smaller (contracted) only in the direction of motion. That is another substantial difference when one talks about scale factor. Usually, a scale factor concerns all the 3 dimensions.
  17. If it is about a kind of scale factor, then there is something abnormal about it.
  18. So you get 3 measurements from Earth. You divide the first (path length), you divide the second (time) and you multiply the third (object length). And those 3 results combined give you the "reality" in the frame of the object. IOW it has nothing to do with a kind of scaling: it is not a "short reality" to compare with a "large reality". It is a short "path&time" with a large object that transforms into a large "path/time" with a small object (contracted object). If you understand what I mean.
  19. I mean: (on the basis of the following) Here the proper length of the atmosphere is the directly measurable length as seen from Earth. Why don't we take the directly measurable length of the moving object, as measured in Earth's frame, and divide this measure by γ?
  20. OK, The time in the Earth's rest frame divided by γ. Well understood OK, The travel length in the Earth's rest frame divided by γ. Well understood Here is my problem: why have you replaced "The length of the moving object as observed in the Earth's rest frame" by "the object's rest frame length" in the same sentence? Why is it not simply "The length of the moving object as observed in the Earth's rest frame divided by γ gives you the length of the moving object in the moving frame " ?? How do you know the object's rest frame length in the first place? If I understand correctly, Relativity presents a set of equations that transform what is experienced in one frame to another.
  21. I have emphasized some part in blue color, So we have a "less distance" as the result of Relativity. And a "less time" Now, the muon at rest, that sees this "less distance" passing through it, has a proper length M0, it is not contracted, in its own frame S'. Everything is as usual for the muon, nothing special happens. So, you have some equations that give you the transform of this situation in Earths frame: 1.It is "less time" multiplied by γ = more time (34μs) 2. It is "less distance" multiplied by γ = more distance (10km) and 3. you say that we have M0 divided by γ = less length. Why?
  22. Sure, it is not length contracted in its own frame. But for the frame S, it is contracted together with its path. If the path itself was a solid object, you would say that it is contracted. Here below the formula of contraction is applied to the path: When the equation gives a value of 2km instead of 10km, it means that the muon also is affected by the same equation. There is no equation A for the path and equation B for the muon, as far as I know.
  23. Do you mean something like this? It does not correspond to the equations, it makes no sense. It is wrong. What really happens is that the contraction of the path from 10km to 2 km takes the muon with it. How else to say? You cannot state that the path is contracted and the muon is unaffected. It is wrong. The contraction of the path takes the muon with it.
  24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBH-uD8N-nE
  25. It is amazing indeed. But I am afraid it is a spark. Doing mathematics is coping for the most. It could vanish just like that and then humanity would be dumb. And lost forever.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.