Message from @🎃Oakheart🎃

Discord ID: 632018443864113153


2019-10-11 00:52:09 UTC  

we're not on curvature either

2019-10-11 00:52:20 UTC  

you guys are shifting the goalposts so much I'm just going to stop talking

2019-10-11 00:52:20 UTC  

It related to empirical observations, which you neglect to make.

2019-10-11 00:52:26 UTC  

come back to me if you're going to have a decent debate

2019-10-11 00:52:31 UTC  

And so, going up in an elevator to the top of a tall building already proves that you don't need a "firmament" to contain the atmosphere.

2019-10-11 00:52:44 UTC  

I am not familiar with that law.

2019-10-11 00:52:58 UTC  

Unless the earth is flat...

2019-10-11 00:53:10 UTC  

Well it essentially defines the conductivity of a material and the vector flow heat rate

2019-10-11 00:53:27 UTC  

It applies directly to the ISS and the thermosphere

2019-10-11 00:53:27 UTC  

Don't state that it's too complicated to understand

2019-10-11 00:53:35 UTC  

I never stated that.

2019-10-11 00:53:41 UTC  

I know

2019-10-11 00:53:44 UTC  

I'm saying don't do that

2019-10-11 00:53:47 UTC  

Fair.

2019-10-11 00:54:13 UTC  

Ill link it again, the math is post-highschool so its not that bad: http://www.tak2000.com/data/Satellite_TC.pdf

2019-10-11 00:54:14 UTC  

"If I used flat earth equations on a globe model, it wouldn't fit.
So how is this remotely making sense." - you

2019-10-11 00:54:24 UTC  

it doesn't make sense, so I'm not going to believe it

2019-10-11 00:54:34 UTC  

don't do that in the future

2019-10-11 00:54:34 UTC  

You cant make math work in certain situations and not elsewhere

2019-10-11 00:54:42 UTC  

Decaying pressure as a function of altitude proves you don't need a firmament, and also logically predicts that if you keep going up, you will reach 'outer space' without ever needing to hit a firmament.

2019-10-11 00:55:39 UTC  

I'm not saying math wouldn't work, it just needs to be adjusted to fit this model, unless of course it has no relation to the earth's shape at all.

2019-10-11 00:55:45 UTC  

So a universal model perhaps.

2019-10-11 00:56:04 UTC  

One where the shape of the planet doesn't matter.

2019-10-11 00:56:08 UTC  

Newtonian mechanics works well for speeds much less than the speed of light

2019-10-11 00:56:53 UTC  

Newtonian mechanics loses accuracy as you deal with speeds comparable to the speed of light.

2019-10-11 00:56:54 UTC  

No, you cant literally derive these equations to a more rudimentary example. And the Fourier law and Planck's and Boltzmann's laws all apply in human life

2019-10-11 00:57:07 UTC  

You cant say that it is altered to fit the globe

2019-10-11 00:57:11 UTC  

it doesnt make sense

2019-10-11 00:57:20 UTC  

And so, equations or models serve as approximations.

2019-10-11 00:57:48 UTC  

And there are boundaries where one model or equation loses its accuracy and another model or equation takes over.

2019-10-11 00:58:32 UTC  

And so some equations are just good approximations that only work within certain boundaries

2019-10-11 00:58:41 UTC  

i will admit, black body calculations look like hieroglyphics if you dont know how they work

2019-10-11 00:59:03 UTC  

The only theoretically-true black body is a black hole.

2019-10-11 00:59:12 UTC  

This still doesn't explain why the earth is a globe, we are getting sidetracked.

2019-10-11 00:59:18 UTC  

So, black body calculations make good approximations

2019-10-11 00:59:34 UTC  

The main arguments for a globe are curvature (easily disputed), and the mathematics which we discussed.

2019-10-11 00:59:36 UTC  

No we arent, you were talking about ther thermosphere but then switched

2019-10-11 00:59:42 UTC  

But we can switch

2019-10-11 00:59:42 UTC  

but haha, sorry I mentioned black hole, because black holes are contradictions to them being black bodies

2019-10-11 00:59:49 UTC  

Black holes are interesting

2019-10-11 00:59:50 UTC  

No problem.