My math might be wrong, but if we were accelerating at 9.8m/s/s for at least 4000 years (roughly as long as we have continuously recorded history and the minimum time “gravity” has been observed) then we ought to currently be traveling through space at over 1,000,000,000,000m/s.
Now I’m no physicist, but I reckon that might end up violating causality.
We should see this as all the celestial bodies traveling "down" at relativistic speeds by now. Unless maybe they are also experiencing 1 G in the same direction as us in addition to whatever other accelerations.
I imagine whatever magical force has been constantly accelerating the disc Earth for 4,000+ years also magically accelerates everything else uniformly in the exact same direction, at the exact same speed, and also magically solves every other hole in the theory.
The problem with trying to "explain" this is that fundamentally, flat-earthers, to the extent that they could be said to have a coherent world view at all, are usually a kind of occasionalist[1]. They don't _believe_ in natural laws or cause and effect. For the most part, they believe that god is in complete control of all events, and things go down because god wants them to go down. There's no required explanation for _anything_. The sun moves across the sky because god wants it to, and he could stop it or make it go backwards if he wanted it to, etc.
Indeed, that a flat earth is incompatible with physics is part of the appeal of believing in it to begin with. They _want_ to overthrow Newton, because a clockwork universe is incompatible with their belief system.
It's also sort of immune to any kind of argumentation. The result of any experiment is simply that god wants it that way, that they're predictable and testable doesn't _prove_ anything, because you can do an experiment a million times, and god could still cause it to fail any time he wants to. God just doesn't want to argue with Netwon right now, for his own reasons, you see.
In a modern hospital, depending on how healthy a baby is, it might get as many as 15 minutes before the not-removable-except-by-cutting RFID-enabled tag is attached to the wrist or ankle and it becomes part of the hospital inventory and the movements are tracked religiously. They are deathly afraid of accidentally mixing up babies between parents (with a side of worry about them getting stolen). Each of my kids were born at a hospital that averaged a delivery every 15-20 minutes. A nurse may see 50 deliveries in a shift and keeping track is going to be a challenge.
Very cool. After a minute I was able to focus on the false “third” image of the overlap of each side, but I couldn’t notice any difference. It did appear to be closer to me than the screen though.
I would wager that Blender's geometry nodes are over all a net saving in screen real estate when compared to the amount of code they abstract away. Sure, in a trivial example they seem unnecessarily large, but there are some nodes that do a lot of heavy lifting, and are no bigger than any other node. Overall a strange metric to track, IMO, unless all your variable names are one letter.
Which is why i wrote that last paragraph: for high level stuff with nodes that abstract the heavy lifting they are fine. Sometimes you may even need these "add" and "dot product" nodes to glue these together. The issue is when you start using a lot of "low level" nodes.
Think of it like using a shell script vs something like Python: you can do a ton of things in shell scripts and write very complex shell scripts, but chances are if a shell script is more than a few lines that glue other programs together, it'd be better to use Python (or something similar) despite both being "scripting" languages.
There are times when using Blender's shading node graph that I'd really just rather be writing GLSL/HLSL. But overall I still like it.
Geometry nodes, on the other hand, I think are amazing. They really do provide a very useful abstraction over what would be a lot of tedious and error-prone boiler plate code.
With just a few nodes I can instances and properly rotate some mesh on every face of some other mesh. Boom, done in two minutes. And you can do so, so much more, of course.
The obvious downside is in complex scenarios the graph can be more difficult to manage and because of the nature of how its evaluated there are times you need to think about "capturing" attributes (basically a variable to hold an older value of something that gets changed later). But nothing is perfect.
In unity shadergraph there's a "custom node" that just lets you type in hlsl/glsl or choose a file. You set its inputs and outputs and that becomes its handles. It's pretty nice.
I don't know if this was during the same time period or not, but in some parts of the city (mostly residential or smaller commercial areas) they didn't bother raising the buildings, they just built the streets up higher and added flying walkways from the new sidewalk height to the new front entrances on the second story of the houses. Many of them had stairs that went down to the old ground level and I think in most of them they had been converted to separate apartments.
My dad's small commercial building in Pilsen looked normal, but if you peeked into the holes in the sidewalk out front you could see a vaulted space underneath where the old sidewalk used to be, which was kind of unnerving when you realized the sidewalk was crumbling. You could even access it from the basement of his building (which I suppose used to be the ground level?), but he never let me go down there as a kid.
I also know of one or two old homes from around this time period in the neighborhood I grew up in (which wasn't part of Chicago at this time) that were later moved off what became the main avenue through the area to new locations about a block away. I think that happened much later though.
New construction will generally follow the old footprint as well.
My house was built in 1994 and the lower level is roughly 4ft or so below street/sidewalk/alley grade.
We call ours the basement, but in a 3 flat building in the same footprint it would typically be called a garden apartment as it opens to the same level as my backyard and front 'patio' area.
My garage is built to street grade, so my backyard is sunken about 4ft from the street to the alley. This holds true for all my neighbors on the block, thus water retention isn't quite as horrific as it might sound during heavy rains. Lots of sump pumps on the block that are 100% required during storms, but strangely mine had none installed and it's been fine.
Utilities (sewer) run about 1 foot or so under my foundation to the street, where they are about 5-6ft deep under the street if they need to do work.
New construction (tear downs) will typically build below street grade as well since you get an extra floor (4 stories vs. 3) for your new home while remaining under the zoning height restrictions for the neighborhood.
I love houses like that. There are (or were, when I was in high school), quite a few like that in Logan Square and a shrinking number in Lakeview as well that I remember fondly from decades ago. There were even a few like that on an Irving near Damen that I think finally went away, sandwiched between the standard brick and limestone condos. There’s lots of houses like that all over city but those in the gentrifying neighborhoods that I spent a lot of time in stand out to me.
My math might be wrong, but if we were accelerating at 9.8m/s/s for at least 4000 years (roughly as long as we have continuously recorded history and the minimum time “gravity” has been observed) then we ought to currently be traveling through space at over 1,000,000,000,000m/s.
Now I’m no physicist, but I reckon that might end up violating causality.
reply