/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8803060]

Since Newton's equation for for displacement is: [math]v=ut-1/2at^2[/math], and since acceleration is a vector, doesn't that mean the acceleration is constant throughout the whole earth, and as a result, the earth has to be flat?

This is just more proof that since the late 1800s the government have been trying to trick people in believing in a round earth, as even newton knew that the earth was flat.

What are you roundtards going to say to disprove newton? NOTHING BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.8803064]

roundtards on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.8803065]

>>8803060
Hey i think you meant: [math]d=ut-0.5at^2[/math].
But good theory though.

[Anonymous No.8803068]

fuck newton he was a fucking jew who's theories were designed by jewish overlords and shit

[Anonymous No.8803075]

Kill all roundtards. They are retards, newton proved the earth was flat but roundtards still believe that the earth is round.

[Anonymous No.8803080]

>>8803060
>doesn't that mean the acceleration is constant throughout the whole earth, and as a result, the earth has to be flat?

No it means the Earth has to be roughly spherical. Distance from the planet's core determines the acceleration, and therefore the potential energy.

A flat Earth would have fucked up gravity, unless your rule for gravity is wildly more complicated than F=Gm1m2/r^2

[Anonymous No.8803086]

>>8803080
Hold on there mate, your little theories are inconsistent. Your claiming the distance from the centre of mass determines gravitational acceleration, if that is the case, why is the direction of acceleration always in the same direction. Your roundtard equations don't make sense.

[Anonymous No.8803098]

>>8803086
distance from the center of mass determines the strength of the acceleration, not the direction

the direction is always towards the center of mass because gravity appears to pull things towards the center of mass

[Anonymous No.8803099]

>>8803080
>falling for bait
Let the thread die.

[Anonymous No.8803100]

>>8803099
i'm writing a book where i find the lowest hanging fruit on the internet and argue with them
it would be economically disadvantageous for me to let this thread die

[Anonymous No.8803108]

>>8803098
Look at this chart. Displacement in newtons equations is ALWAYS the same direction where ever you are on earth. This either means Newton's formulas are wrong (which they are not), or that the earth is flat, (which it is).

[Anonymous No.8803118]

>>8803099
This is not bait. I know that S=ut−0.5at^2 is correct as a fact, as I've tested it. But the only way it can be right mathematically is that the earth is flat. That is why i have a very high certainty in the belief that the earth is possibly disk shaped.

[Anonymous No.8803133]

>>8803108
>Displacement in newtons equations is ALWAYS the same direction where ever you are on earth
It's not, though.

If we take Earth and M1 and small objects on Earth (like your brain) as M2, you should be able to understand that the center of mass for any M1-M2 system is almost identical to the position of M1 in 3 dimensional space.

So here's a question for you, flatman. If gravity is a constant acceleration perpendicular to the surface of the earth, why do planets orbit stars?

[Anonymous No.8803141]

>>8803133
Okay buddy I've got a great diagram coming up for your, give me a couple of minutes.

[Anonymous No.8803160]

>>8803133
If this doesn't make sense, then your IQ has to be X<75

[Anonymous No.8803181]

>>8803160
am I understanding this properly?

[Anonymous No.8803188]

>>8803181
That's our type of orbit, but the earth is slightly below the sun's south pole, so it's facing upwards towards it.

There are many types of orbits planets can have, here is a similar one to the earth.

[Anonymous No.8803192]

>>8803181
The diagram in >>8803160, is slightly different from >>8803188 since they're showing two type of star systems, i'll clear up the >>8803160 model right now

[Anonymous No.8803205]

I believe I'm gaining all sorts of insight into what physics would be like without primary school geometry. This is a good thread.

If the earth's orbit is circular about a point directly beneath the disk sun's center, how does the day/night cycle work?
Certainly if the disk earth rotated on an axis perpendicular and through the center of the disk earth, the disk sun would never drop below the horizon. Please clarify this mystery for me.

[Anonymous No.8803224]

>>8803205
okay this took awhile, sorry. But there is a difference in voltage between the earth and sun, thats why there is a force, gravity only works ON the planet.

[Anonymous No.8803245]

>>8803205
Get rolled buddy

[Anonymous No.8803261]

>>8803205
You cannot deny coulombs law.

[Anonymous No.8803266]

>>8803224
>>8803245
>>8803261

When /pol/ tries to do physics

[Anonymous No.8803273]

>>8803245
So the rotation of the earth over the course of a day makes the sun appear dimmer and dimmer, because the sunlight has to travel through more and more ozone

So why does the sun appear to go below the horizon instead of just gradually fading out, and appear to rise on the other side of the horizon instead of just gradually fading in?

[Anonymous No.8803292]

>>8803273
The real solar system is much more complicated than you think, it's not easy to learn but once you do, you'll realize that you've been lied to the whole time

[Anonymous No.8803294]

>>8803273
>So the rotation of the earth over the course of a day makes the sun appear dimmer and dimmer, because the sunlight has to travel through more and more ozone
Which is not true, because that would mean a change of color to blue instead of to red when the sun is fading away (as the ozone has the absortion minima around 400 nm http://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/609/2014/amt-7-609-2014.pdf))

[Anonymous No.8803302]

>>8803292
ah, of course. "they" have been lying to me
maybe i should have spent my formative years staring into the sun so I could have learned the truth

I heard that the reason "they" tell you not to stare into the sun is because you will eventually learn the truth about disk earth and disk sun. And then "they" come to your house in the middle of the night and blind you with surgical tools.

[Anonymous No.8803306]

>>8803302
Friend, it is now obvious you lost this scientific argument, as now you're throwing insults towards me.

[Anonymous No.8803315]

>>8803060
The correct equitation is v = u + at.
Clearly, as time goes on, you move faster and faster. So velocity is not constant.

Integrating with respect to distance, you get x = at^2 + vt + c

Again, the distance between time interval 1 and time interval 2 is not constant.

In the case of gravity, a flat earth would still have its center of mass in the middle of the disc, or we would all float away.

The coLor of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering.

[Anonymous No.8803321]

>>8803306
You don't "win" arguments on the internet, comrade. They are negative sum games. Both players lose merely by participating.

The argument is hardly scientific. I would describe it as purely mathematical. And if it was a math game you lost with >>8803292 when you failed to explain why the sun doesn't fade to black instead of going below the horizon.

[Anonymous No.8803338]

>>8803292
Who are "they" in this fantasy of yours?

[Anonymous No.8803343]

>>8803100
They're always coming up with something new. A few weeks ago someone had this idea of gravity as "buoyancy" which made no sense.

[Anonymous No.8803346]

>>8803321
Well i think you're the anon that said he's writing a book about debating on the internet (can't tell since no IDs), would you be able to tell me the name of the book you'll be releasing because it might be interesting to read.

>>8803338
>pic related

>>8803343
This made perfect sense, it relates to coulombs law

[Anonymous No.8803347]

>>8803060
I am disgusted by round earthers. When will they understand the earth is a rectangle?

[Anonymous No.8803349]

>>8803347
It's more likely that the earth is a triangular prism than a sphere.

[Anonymous No.8803354]

>>8803060
That only holds for uniformly accelerated motion.

[Anonymous No.8803356]

>>8803354
Then how did newton figure it out by using the acceleration of earth?

[Anonymous No.8803368]

>>8803356
I've no idea what you're trying to ask since that doesn't follow on from anything I've posted. What's written in the OP only works near the earths surface, ie when [math] h << R_E [/math], if you want to move to a sector where [math] h \approx R_E [/math] then you'll have to use the fact that acceleration decreases as [math] 1/R_E^2 [/math]

What's posted in the OP assumes a constant acceleration.

[Anonymous No.8803375]

>>8803368
Don't bullshit me mate. Newton invented calculus and (((they))) tried to say that someone else invented it on the other side of England first. (((They))) hated newton because he knew the truth about the shape of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.8803413]

>>8803375
But Newton also discovered his law of universal gravitation [eqn] F = \frac { G M m } { r^2 } = ma \\ \implies a = \frac { GM } { r^2 } [/eqn]Where r is some height above the earth. Further if [math] r^2 = (R_E + h)^2 [/math] where [math] R_E [/math] is the radius of the earth and [math] h [/math] is the height above the surface, then we can expand [eqn] \left ( R_E + h \right )^{-2} = \frac { 1 } { R_E ^2 } \left ( 1 + \frac { h } { R_E } \right )^{-2} \approx \frac { 1 } { R_E ^2 } \left ( 1 - 2 \frac { h } { R_E } \right ) [/eqn]So for small [math] h [/math] we have: [eqn] a = \frac { G M } { (R_E + h )^2 } \approx \frac { GM } { R_E ^2 } \left ( 1 + \frac { h } { R_E } \right ) = \frac { GM } { R_E ^2 } + \mathcal { O } \left ( \frac { 1 } { R_E ^3 } \right ) [/eqn]So for small heights above the surface of the earth we find that acceleration is approximately just a constant. If you had sensitive enough equipment you'd detect the small additional term even with small h.

I would report this thread, but I've long since given up on competent moderation.

[Anonymous No.8803421]

>>8803292
Awesome graphics!

[Anonymous No.8803474]

>>8803413
This is a jewish lie, newton never ofund the value for G

[Anonymous No.8803487]

>>8803474
He didn't need to. He was a theorist, in particular he was able to show how Keplers third law followed from his laws.

[Anonymous No.8803603]

>>8803474
someone btfos your entire argument, what's your response gonna be?

>the jews did this

[Anonymous No.8803692]

>>8803603
Are you shocked?