-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Put a flat earthier into space
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
payne
Striker
To the secret place that the rest of of don't know about. It's where the real world leaders live.
Don't be silly, they don't exist it's all CGI and anyone who says they have seen a rocket launch is a liar
Wonder if it looks like a lemon squeezer.
Will just look round now as everything far away turns into a circle obviously.
Rockets?
Surely if you've watched space 1999 that therefore means they don't really exist.
Cbbc and blue Peter are in on the propaganda as well.
Shame on them.
You must be logged on to see external links
Shame on them.
Roman maroni
Midfield
I've heard them say that the astronauts enter the rockets and leave via a secret door, before takeoff, then the rocket takes of and ditches miles away at see, there's umpteen YouTube videos where they state this... f***ing hilarious. There's even a video where they state that nobody died on the challenger shuttle disaster, and are living there lives in secret.
Last edited:
Imagine training for years only to be told to jump through a stage trapdoor just before the most significant moment in your life and it’s all a sham.
Roman maroni
Midfield
They were actually tracking down people with the same names as the dead astronauts and confronting them.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Nothing wrong with a rocket launch. They just don't go into space.
Roman maroni
Midfield
Jesus Christ man, you really are beyond help.
bernardbresslaw
Striker
I reckon this is what he Universe looks like, what do you think mate?
You must be logged on to see external links
payne
Striker
where do they go oh wise one?
Where do they go?
nahwee
Winger
It would be interesting to see what others had acheived.
Nothing more than you have
DaveH
Striker
8 inches per mile squared is wrong, but interestingly when you look at it, it is a reasonable rule of thumb for less than 100 miles, on a planet of the size of earth.
Mixing feet, inches and miles does muddy the water a bit, because imperial just gets odd and frustrating, but when you compare the rule I put forward (and someone agreed with above) over relative short distances they are actually pretty close. However the further and further distance, the more inaccurate it becomes:
| Distance in miles | Distance in km | Drop in feet by sq rule (feet) | meters | Drop by reality (KM) | in feet | Difference |
| 35 | 56.3 | 816.7 | 248.92 | 0.24900 | 816.91 | -0.2 |
| 36 | 57.9 | 864.0 | 263.3 | 0.26343 | 864.26 | -0.3 |
| 37 | 59.5 | 912.7 | 278.2 | 0.27826 | 912.94 | -0.3 |
| 38 | 61.2 | 962.7 | 293.4 | 0.29351 | 962.96 | -0.3 |
| 39 | 62.8 | 1014.0 | 309.1 | 0.30916 | 1014.31 | -0.3 |
| 40 | 64.4 | 1066.7 | 325.1 | 0.32522 | 1066.99 | -0.3 |
| 41 | 66.0 | 1120.7 | 341.6 | 0.34168 | 1121.00 | -0.3 |
| 42 | 67.6 | 1176.0 | 358.4 | 0.35855 | 1176.35 | -0.4 |
| 43 | 69.2 | 1232.7 | 375.7 | 0.37583 | 1233.04 | -0.4 |
| 44 | 70.8 | 1290.7 | 393.4 | 0.39351 | 1291.05 | -0.4 |
| 45 | 72.4 | 1350.0 | 411.5 | 0.41160 | 1350.40 | -0.4 |
| 46 | 74.0 | 1410.7 | 430.0 | 0.43010 | 1411.09 | -0.4 |
| 47 | 75.6 | 1472.7 | 448.9 | 0.44900 | 1473.10 | -0.4 |
| 48 | 77.2 | 1536.0 | 468.2 | 0.46831 | 1536.46 | -0.5 |
| 49 | 78.9 | 1600.7 | 487.9 | 0.48803 | 1601.14 | -0.5 |
| 50 | 80.5 | 1666.7 | 508.0 | 0.50815 | 1667.16 | -0.5 |
| 51 | 82.1 | 1734.0 | 528.5 | 0.52868 | 1734.51 | -0.5 |
| 52 | 83.7 | 1802.7 | 549.5 | 0.54961 | 1803.20 | -0.5 |
| 53 | 85.3 | 1872.7 | 570.8 | 0.57096 | 1873.22 | -0.6 |
| 54 | 86.9 | 1944.0 | 592.5 | 0.59271 | 1944.57 | -0.6 |
| 55 | 88.5 | 2016.7 | 614.7 | 0.61486 | 2017.26 | -0.6 |
| 56 | 90.1 | 2090.7 | 637.2 | 0.63742 | 2091.28 | -0.6 |
| 57 | 91.7 | 2166.0 | 660.2 | 0.66039 | 2166.63 | -0.6 |
| 58 | 93.3 | 2242.7 | 683.6 | 0.68376 | 2243.32 | -0.7 |
| 59 | 95.0 | 2320.7 | 707.3 | 0.70754 | 2321.34 | -0.7 |
| 60 | 96.6 | 2400.0 | 731.5 | 0.73173 | 2400.70 | -0.7 |
| 61 | 98.2 | 2480.7 | 756.1 | 0.75633 | 2481.38 | -0.7 |
| 62 | 99.8 | 2562.7 | 781.1 | 0.78133 | 2563.41 | -0.7 |
| 63 | 101.4 | 2646.0 | 806.5 | 0.80673 | 2646.76 | -0.8 |
| 64 | 103.0 | 2730.7 | 832.3 | 0.83255 | 2731.45 | -0.8 |
| 65 | 104.6 | 2816.7 | 858.5 | 0.85877 | 2817.47 | -0.8 |
| 66 | 106.2 | 2904.0 | 885.1 | 0.88539 | 2904.83 | -0.8 |
| 67 | 107.8 | 2992.7 | 912.2 | 0.91243 | 2993.52 | -0.9 |
| 68 | 109.4 | 3082.7 | 939.6 | 0.93986 | 3083.54 | -0.9 |
| 69 | 111.0 | 3174.0 | 967.4 | 0.96771 | 3174.90 | -0.9 |
| 70 | 112.7 | 3266.7 | 995.7 | 0.99596 | 3267.59 | -0.9 |
| 71 | 114.3 | 3360.7 | 1024.3 | 1.02462 | 3361.62 | -0.9 |
You can see from the table above that over 50 miles it is pretty close, I ended my table on 71 miles and you can see that your approximation gets further and further away.
Now, my rule came about from me sitting with pencil and paper along with basic rules of trigonometry and working it out from first principals. As a result I can explain exactly how it works.
Is your rule something you have found on the internet by any chance, something you feel you have been schooled into believing perhaps?
Lets forget about Earth for a moment. If I asked your to provide a rule for the circular drop of any planet of radius r over a distance of d, what would your formula be?
But if you can't do that, suppose your method is correct, what would be the circular drop on earth be on something the length of a bath? Can you work that out and tell us how much the globe model earth drop by over 1.5m (or 5 feet in ancient language)?
Excellent but being pedantic asking him to do the maths for a planet is pejorative, he can have less complaint if asked to work it out for a globe of that size
A very good post and easy to understand.
payne
Striker
yeah if you believe fake maths . nee proof
