It's not rocket science

Separate forum to permit easy exclusion when searching for serious information !
broadway
Posts: 788
Joined: 9 Mar 2010, 1:49pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby broadway » 16 Jul 2016, 11:34am

Manc33 wrote:The density of the balls is the only variable. Drag is not a variable in the first place, to need eliminating.


Density is not the fundamental unit so describe it's effects you have to consider mass and volume ie kg/m3. For 2 balls of the same size mass is the only variable for the density of an object.

Manc33 wrote:Drag itself could only be viewed as a variable as long as the density of the objects passing through it are different. Even then you have to ignore the physical demonstrability of each ball being different densities in the real world and instead choose to believe in things like gravity that aren't proven. All I am doing is following logic.


So to correct your view it should say:

Drag itself could only be viewed as a variable as long as the mass of the objects passing through it are different.

Even then you have to ignore the physical demonstrability of each ball being different masses in the real world and instead choose to believe in things like gravity that aren't proven.

All I am doing is not following logic. :roll:

kwackers
Posts: 15447
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby kwackers » 16 Jul 2016, 12:58pm

broadway wrote:All I am doing is not following logic. :roll:

You won't find any logic here. :lol:

FWIW, I think he's confusing buoyancy with drag or at least combining them. What drag has to do with an objects density I've no idea...

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 18059
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 16 Jul 2016, 1:12pm

kwackers wrote:
broadway wrote:All I am doing is not following logic. :roll:

You won't find any logic here. :lol:

FWIW, I think he's confusing buoyancy with drag or at least combining them. What drag has to do with an objects density I've no idea...

Drag is completely unrelated to density,mor mass.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby reohn2 » 16 Jul 2016, 1:43pm

There's a lot of density on this thread :mrgreen:
-----------------------------------------------------------

Manc33
Posts: 1716
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Manc33 » 16 Jul 2016, 3:46pm

kwackers wrote:FWIW, I think he's confusing buoyancy with drag or at least combining them. What drag has to do with an objects density I've no idea...


Are you being serious?

If an object is denser, it falls faster, which creates more drag.
If an object is less dense, it falls slower, which creates less drag.

So drag must have something to do with density if it changes when density changes (assuming the same size object and they are spheres).

Here's one that never got answered even with a fabrication... it just never got answered:

At night time at the equator, you would be (on a spinning ball Earth) facing 180 degrees away every six months, but some of the same stars can be seen though, which kinda proves the claim that we orbit the sun to be completely wrong. I mean light can bend slightly... but what it cannot do is a 180 degree U-turn. You can ask me to believe it but I will laugh and with good reason.

People turn into absolute idiots when these questions are asked. People that provably (for other reasons) aren't idiots.

Look at these arrows:

January <--- O ---> June

Can the observer (O) face left (night time at the equator in January) and actually see anything to his right (night time at the equator in June)?

Of course not, he would need eyes in the back of his head. In fact even then it wouldn't matter, he needs Earth to be totally transparent so he can look back through the Earth to the stars that are now 180 degrees away.

In this case, why would anyone choose to think it is possible to see even one star from the equator you could see six months back?

Six months in the above example means facing the other way and in the heliocentric model it is exactly the same situation.

Complicated maths and physics gets discussed by people that, when hearing these questions, turn into people with the mentality of an orangutan, which doesn't add up. What we have is people ignoring things they don't like thinking about, which isn't science, it never was and never will be.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

kwackers
Posts: 15447
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby kwackers » 16 Jul 2016, 4:04pm

Manc33 wrote:Are you being serious?

If an object is denser, it falls faster, which creates more drag.
If an object is less dense, it falls slower, which creates less drag.

you're mixing drag with energy loss due to drag which does increase with velocity (hence why the terminal velocity of different objects in't the same) with coefficient of drag which is the drag an object has.

When an object is stationary it still has a coefficient of drag which you can calculate and then use to figure out how much energy will be lost trying to move it at a velocity through air, or water or whatever you want.
It's coefficient never changes.

How much energy it uses in moving through a medium depends on that medium and it's velocity through it. Once you know the density of the medium then you can calculate it's terminal velocity in free fall using the gravitational constant.

It's all trivial stuff.

53x13
Posts: 524
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 6:41pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby 53x13 » 16 Jul 2016, 4:20pm

kwackers wrote:
Manc33 wrote:Are you being serious?

If an object is denser, it falls faster, which creates more drag.
If an object is less dense, it falls slower, which creates less drag.

you're mixing drag with energy loss due to drag which does increase with velocity (hence why the terminal velocity of different objects in't the same) with coefficient of drag which is the drag an object has.

When an object is stationary it still has a coefficient of drag which you can calculate and then use to figure out how much energy will be lost trying to move it at a velocity through air, or water or whatever you want.
It's coefficient never changes.

How much energy it uses in moving through a medium depends on that medium and it's velocity through it. Once you know the density of the medium then you can calculate it's terminal velocity in free fall using the gravitational constant.

It's all trivial stuff.


I can't believe an intelligent person is trying to argue the toss with someone who cites cartoon fiction YouTube videos as their first reference material and source of 'proof'.

It's like arguing with a Ham Sandwich. All the sense you'll get :lol:

kwackers
Posts: 15447
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby kwackers » 16 Jul 2016, 4:24pm

Manc33 wrote:Here's one that never got answered even with a fabrication... it just never got answered: <snip>

I'm only guessing here but if they were stood on one of those stupidly high mountains that obscure the sun then they'd be able to see under the horizon - although they'd also spot that the sun never sets.
I'd also guess Edmond Hilary was pretty peeved when he got to the top of Everest and spotted an even higher mountain!

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14162
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby gaz » 16 Jul 2016, 4:59pm

53x13 wrote:It's like arguing with a Ham Sandwich.

Ham Sandwich on Google Streetview. About 100 mile round trip for me to get a picture. I currently have neither the time nor the fitness for a day trip to check that it hasn't been faked. Can't we just accept that it is real and not argue about it :mrgreen: .
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

53x13
Posts: 524
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 6:41pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby 53x13 » 16 Jul 2016, 5:22pm



This is the ham sandwich I was talking about. Although seeing as it's an internet derived ham sandwich, its probably a lot of made up, badly contrived old cobblers.

A lot like this thread :lol:

Manc33
Posts: 1716
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Manc33 » 16 Jul 2016, 5:32pm

You'd get more sense from a ham sandwich if you asked it for believable answers to how the heliocentric model is physically possible.

My question about facing the other way after six months was ignored again.

How can you see some of the same stars at the equator after six months have passed by when you would (in a heliocentric model) be facing 180 degrees away from those very stars?

Instead of scrolling up and chancing missing it here it is again:

January <--- O ---> June

Can the observer (O) face left (night time at the equator in January) and see anything that was to his right six months back (night time at the equator in June)?

Nope.

Why do you believe it then?

No sorry... why do you carry on believing it once you are aware of the above fact about facing the other way?

What is there to gain from endlessly repeating the same debunked answers?

Or better yet just not even answering it at all.

Your answer to it was a ham sandwich, which shows you don't have an answer. It would have been just as quick and easy to post an answer (but you don't have one) than it would be to find a picture of a ham sandwich and post it. :lol:
Last edited by Manc33 on 16 Jul 2016, 5:37pm, edited 1 time in total.
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

kwackers
Posts: 15447
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby kwackers » 16 Jul 2016, 5:36pm

Manc33 wrote:Can the observer (O) face left (night time at the equator in January) and see anything that was to his right six months back (night time at the equator in June)?

I don't see any fuss from amateur astronomers about this - are they all in on this too?
I'm pretty sure they'd know.

What stars can you see and from where?

Manc33
Posts: 1716
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby Manc33 » 16 Jul 2016, 5:45pm

kwackers wrote:I don't see any fuss from amateur astronomers about this - are they all in on this too?


No they just put it down to "Earth's tilt" all the time.

On the subject, how can Morocco have a 14h longest day when it doesn't meet up with the area that is affected by the tilt?

Morocco is about 30 degrees North, with the tilt that means it can only ever be 53.4 degrees North... which isn't enough to be having different day lengths, it would need to be 66.7 degrees North or more.

kwackers wrote:I'm pretty sure they'd know.


Since they believe the heliocentric model up one side and down the other (with not even three seconds of time spent thinking about any other model in their whole life) why would they be alarmed or notice it? They have the "tilt" excuse to roll out anytime things get tough and it makes the question go away.

kwackers wrote:What stars can you see and from where?


The Milky Way is visible from Hawaii all year round and shouldn't be.

If a constellation (or the Milky Way) is seen in six months and anyone asks how, they will just say "Earth's tilt" and the question goes away. You guys aren't concerned with answering something, you're concerned with the question not being asked again.

Same with Morocco needing to have 12h daylight and 12h darkness for 365 days a year yet it actually has a 14h longest day, you'll just say a magic tilt means shadows can be cast around a ball (of all objects). :lol:
When two cyclists get married, they should throw anodized cable crimps instead of confetti.

kwackers
Posts: 15447
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby kwackers » 16 Jul 2016, 5:55pm

Manc33 wrote:Morocco is about 30 degrees North, with the tilt that means it can only ever be 53.4 degrees North... which isn't enough to be having different day lengths, it would need to be 66.7 degrees North or more.

Errr, it's not an on/off switch, only at the equator is the day/night length roughly equal, from there on in the further north/south you go the bigger the difference. Just moving from London to Glasgow makes a heck of a difference!
Manc33 wrote:The Milky Way is visible from Hawaii all year round and shouldn't be.

You know the milky way isn't a point light source? It's got significant 'width' too and spans most of the sky in a plane that doesn't coincide with the equator.

If you want to prove something here then find a point light source, i.e. a single star, not a broad sweep of stars angled across the sky.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 18059
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: It's not rocket science

Postby [XAP]Bob » 16 Jul 2016, 6:05pm

You do realise of course that the milky way is a complete circle around us, since we are *in* in the milky way. It's our galaxy.

In your example of course you can look 'up' or 'down' and see the same stars each time - You get pretty much 180 degree visibility across 180 degrees of rotation through the night.
there is a thin slice of sky near the sun you can't see each night, and that slice rotates throughout the year. As you'd know if you ever studied the skies...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.