Is Max Eberle as big as a goof as I now think?

Get_A_Grip said:
Nice try. Focus on the person and not the experiment. Here is a similar test to determine if something can be seen that is supposed to be below the curvature of the earth, if you don't like "mountains".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37t6iBS_q4

And if you prefer, here is an engineer that plans to perform more of a "physical" test of the curvature.
https://www.facebook.com/forcetheline
Click to expand...

No. You mentioned that you're a scientist. With As in math and trig. So...I'm merely asking what type of science you're involved in, because the experiment is so WHACKED, that a junior in high school with a basic understanding of perspective, angles and Pythagoras would "get" why he's wrong.
 
Get_A_Grip said:
Nice try. Focus on the person and not the experiment. Here is a similar test to determine if something can be seen that is supposed to be below the curvature of the earth, if you don't like "mountains".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37t6iBS_q4

And if you prefer, here is an engineer that plans to perform more of a "physical" test of the curvature.
https://www.facebook.com/forcetheline
Click to expand...

Do you believe in the Coriolis Effect? It's actually a scientific principle. Proven. And is caused by the rotational force of a sphere.

TONNES of experiments performed and have confirmed this phenomenon. But keep looking up whack jobs on YouTube. :)
 
BmoreMoney said:
I'm truthfully not really into " conspiracies,,but I must say I found this discussion most fascinating ( I have always been a huge fan of string theory! )
Click to expand...
The reason that I'm leaning towards a virtual reality instead of a holographic universe, has partly to due with the fact that a specific web browser error correcting code being found in the math related to string theory. Check out these vids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
Do you believe in the Coriolis Effect? It's actually a scientific principle. Proven. And is caused by the rotational force of a sphere.

TONNES of experiments performed and have confirmed this phenomenon. But keep looking up whack jobs on YouTube. :)
Click to expand...
Dude. Maybe you have reading comprehension problems. I'm not discussing anything to do with the Coriolis Effect.
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
No. You mentioned that you're a scientist. With As in math and trig. So...I'm merely asking what type of science you're involved in, because the experiment is so WHACKED, that a junior in high school with a basic understanding of perspective, angles and Pythagoras would "get" why he's wrong.
Click to expand...
I will make this easier for you. Please tell me at what distance the peak of the mountain (that he was seeing at 36 miles) would no longer be visible due to the curvature of the earth from where he was filming. That should be very easy for you to compute, because you have such a vast understanding of "math".
 
Last edited:
MuchoBurrito said:
I was just talking to my friend about this.

I realized how bizarre it is for me to have the interests that I have (MMA and Pool), because when I post on these forums, I find myself COMPLETELY out of place.



I honestly don't understand what attracts me to these hobbies... But here I am. :)
Click to expand...

I see a very strong connection between the two. Before the kids came along we did the ppv's for a couple of years. My wife would chat up all her girlfriends at work on Monday to their horror (social workers). As I grew to become fascinated by the ground game and submissions she'd give me that "is there something you're not telling me?" stare. I was able to see the beauty and purity within. Fast forward almost a decade, I was shown VNEA rules after starting in APA, and I immediately saw how the called safety could facilitate a mode of play and path to a win similar to a ground fighter.

(I am also guilty of staging a few spider vs prey events in my garage. Clever doesn't begin to describe them. Think Caesar enjoying the gladiators. And then a social worker making me defend my actions. Maybe that's a reason to do some AZB?)

Hit me up if you ever come my way, I think you'd be a fascinating conversation. i know a great taqueria.
 
Get_A_Grip said:
The reason that I'm leaning towards a virtual reality instead of a holographic universe, has partly to due with the fact that a specific web browser error correcting code being found in the math related to string theory. Check out these vids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA
Click to expand...

That is actually pretty neat. (I'm not a fan of String Theory, it has failed every experimental test that has been attempted so far, most recently at the LHC.) But this is still very cool.
 
Get_A_Grip said:
I will make this easier for you. Please tell me at what distance the peak of the mountain (that he was seeing at 36 miles) would no longer be visible due to the curvature of the earth from where he was filming. That should be very easy for you to compute, because you have such a vast understanding of "math".
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia, we have the relation:

... distance to the horizon from an observer close to the Earth's surface is about[5]

d = (about) 3.57*sqrt(h)

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

Assuming the observer is on a flat plain at sea level, the height of a mountain that he could see (or alternatively, an observer on the mountain could see him) is:

h = (d/3.57)^2 = (36 miles * 1.609km/mile /3.57) ^2 *3.28 = 864 feet, more or less.

If the observer is on a hill, the mountain doesn't need to be so tall, of course.

Here's the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon which also discusses the effects of refraction which can change the apparent horizon.
 
Get_A_Grip said:
Nice try. Focus on the person and not the experiment. Here is a similar test to determine if something can be seen that is supposed to be below the curvature of the earth, if you don't like "mountains".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37t6iBS_q4

And if you prefer, here is an engineer that plans to perform more of a "physical" test of the curvature.
https://www.facebook.com/forcetheline
Click to expand...

The thing that a lot of anti-science types don't always seem to understand, is that facts don't exist in a vacuum. Facts about the world/universe don't exist in individual silos, unrelated to each other.

If our planet were flat then many of the laws of physics as we know then are flat out wrong. That's an inescapable and obvious conclusion. This would include both Newtonian physics and General Relativity, because gravity as we understand it is incompatible with a disc shaped earth. But then how have these (Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics) been verified so well by experiment for hundreds of years? How is it that they work so well when we apply them in the real world to build airplanes, fire rockets, make GPS or conduct gravitational lensing?

And if gravity doesn't work the way we think, or doesn't exist (as many flat earthers say), then why do all the other planets in the solar system, moons, stars, galaxies, etc. behave in PERFECT accordance with these laws as we know them?
 
Get_A_Grip said:
I will make this easier for you. Please tell me at what distance the peak of the mountain (that he was seeing at 36 miles) would no longer be visible due to the curvature of the earth from where he was filming. That should be very easy for you to compute, because you have such a vast understanding of "math".
Click to expand...

Lol. At what elevation is he standing, relative to ocean level of Earth? And what is the height of the mountain, relative to the same? Give me those, and we can do the math together.

I actually have a degree in math. I still have yet to hear your credentials in the world of science, Beaker.
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
Lol. At what elevation is he standing, relative to ocean level of Earth? And what is the height of the mountain, relative to the same? Give me those, and we can do the math together.

I actually have a degree in math. I still have yet to hear your credentials in the world of science, Beaker.
Click to expand...

Math is a conspiracy.
 
app4dstn said:
... I am also guilty of staging a few spider vs prey events in my garage. ...
Click to expand...
I like to feed my carnivorous plants.

I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals. I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants. -- A. Whitney Brown​
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
Lol. At what elevation is he standing, relative to ocean level of Earth? And what is the height of the mountain, relative to the same? Give me those, and we can do the math together.

I actually have a degree in math. I still have yet to hear your credentials in the world of science, Beaker.
Click to expand...
Watch the video. He is basically at the same height as the peak of the mountain. 5400 feet. The curvature of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared. The video includes the calculation of how much of the top of the mountain would be hidden by dropping beneath the horizon. (~770 ft). I see no problems with his calculations.
 
Last edited:
Get_A_Grip said:
Watch the video. He is basically at the same height as the peak of the mountain. 5400 feet. The curvature of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared.
Click to expand...

It's not 8 inches per mile squared, it's just 8 inches per mile. (But like I said, Math is a conspiracy).
 
MuchoBurrito said:
It's not 8 inches per mile squared, it's just 8 inches per mile. (But like I said, Math is a conspiracy).
Click to expand...

Well, no, the drop off (or elevation required) does actually go as the square of the distance away. I did the math above. See the Wiki page on "Horizon".

As for how much of the mountain in the goof-ball's video should be visible, that depends on the exact topology of the land between the sites. If there is a depression the whole thing could be visible. If there is range of hills between then less might be visible. Without the topo profile of the line of site, the simple calculation is too simple.
 
Get_A_Grip said:
Watch the video. He is basically at the same height as the peak of the mountain. 5400 feet. The curvature of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared. The video includes the calculation of how much of the top of the mountain would be hidden by dropping beneath the horizon. (~770 ft). I see no problems with his calculations.
Click to expand...

Okay, I watched (parts of) the video related to this point. If you don't see the problem with his calculation it's because you aren't thinking clearly.

at 27:40 he sets the "eye height" to ZERO, as though his eye height were at sea level, when he's actually at 5400 feet! According to him, whether you're at exactly sea level, or at the top of a mountain, your "eye height" is always ZERO. He thinks that the "eye height" is relative to the thing you are observing. It is not. That is simply not how this calculation works. Your eye height is relative to ground or sea level. Fact. he completely misunderstands how this works.

Go to https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=34&h0=5400&unit=imperial yourself. He's at 5400 feet of altitude, which means his "eye height" in order to determine his horizon distance is 5400 feet. Because the horizon distance is a function of your altitude relative to ground / sea level. At a height of 5400 feet, and a distance of 34 miles from the thing he's observing, you will see that there are 0 feet hidden by curvature, since the horizon at 5400 feet is 90 miles.

But don't bother because math is a conspiracy.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Well, no, the drop off (or elevation required) does actually go as the square of the distance away. I did the math above. See the Wiki page on "Horizon".
Click to expand...

Oh my bad, I did just look this up. I was misinformed.

It's surprisingly easy to admit when you made a mistake. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top