Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - SteelyBob

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Investigations / Ring laser gyros
« on: September 07, 2021, 08:13:31 PM »
I noticed that wiki is somewhat brief in its look into RLGs - the data comes from an experiment conducted in the early 20th century, a very early commercial RLG in the the early 1990s, and a MEMs gyro (like the one you would find in a phone, which work on coriolis and not lasers).

I thought people might be interested in this one:, which is a large, ultra precise RLG capable of measuring tiny variations in the rotation, as well as the rotation itself.

Given that the wiki rejects the notion of a grand-scale conspiracy (in favour of a smaller space-travel one), are the scientists who wrote this paper and who worked on the device wrong?

Suggestions & Concerns / Personal attack?
« on: January 31, 2021, 10:49:28 AM »
In this thread in FE Investigations -

...Tom says of JSS:

You've come here to lie before. You had previously claimed that you were a computer programmer who has programmed gravity simulations and knew that Numerical Solutions accurately simulated gravity. You lied to us

The forum rules say:

1. No personal attacks

Keep your posts civil and to the point, and don't insult others. If you have run out of valid contributions, simply do not post. The exception to this rule is in Complete Nonsense and Angry Ranting, where personal attacks are par for the course. If you do not like this, then don't post in those fora.

Anyone seen personally attacking another member will be immediately warned. After two warnings, a ban with length determined by moderator discretion will be issued.

Can you confirm whether this is acceptable or not? It looks very much like a personal attack. I don't see much FE debate in there, just ad hominem accusations of lying.

Flat Earth Theory / Behaviour of water under FET
« on: January 23, 2021, 09:21:10 AM »
[n.b. this has been split off from Questions about Flat Earth Theory by young students by SteelyBob's request. ~pete]

The natural behavior of water, and the laws of hydrostatics, unchallenged for centuries to today, that establish it cannot (due to its fundamental properties) and does not curve in the sustained convex curvature the globe model requires.  Water's surface is only ever flat, level, and horizontal at rest (of non miniscule quantity/surface area) and the believed sphericity of water is in no way a part of empirical science (in fact it would contradict it, and violate many laws - like these in hydrostatics for instance). 

One of FET's more strange facets. If the world is flat, and I'm by the sea somewhere where the tide is in, and you're by the sea somewhere where the tide is out, then there must be a difference of several metres between our respective sea levels. But it's one continuous body of water, so somehow the two levels have to resolve. Which means the water can't be flat, level and horizontal. Which means the above 'fundamental property' isn't really a fundamental property as such, but rather something that's been made up.

There is nothing about the properties of water, or indeed any other liquid, that would preclude it from adhering to the surface of the earth under the force of gravity.

Does Earth´s rotation exit?

No.  This is a common misconception.  In fact, the gyroscope was invented to convince people that the world was spherical and rotating.  There is LOT's to discuss on this one - as there are many reasons we came to the wrong conclusion regarding this and the incorrectly interpreted phenomena that appear to support it.

And yet directional gyros in aircraft have a 'drift nut', adjustable for latitude (because the error gets worse with the sine of your latitude), to compensate for the earth's rotation. If the earth wasn't rotating, this would induce an error in the instrument. These have been in use for 80+ years, and yet no complaints from angry pilots wondering why their DGs are wandering off heading more than they should.

Suggestions & Concerns / Moderation question
« on: January 10, 2021, 07:59:05 PM »
Hello all

I recently posted in the FE Theory forum in response to a new OP ( My post was removed for some reason, and I was banned for a week.

I'd really like to better understand why this was. The OP asked a question about an idea for a new map. I came up with a particular problem I could see with the map. I'm at a complete loss as what is wrong with this, especially given what was said in some of the subsequent posts - it certainly doesn't seem to be 'off-topic', as my ban message says.

Here's the post that got me banned, containing the tail end of the OP's question:
What do you guys think about this map ? Is it in any way realistic ?

Aside from the stuff beyond the ice wall which I'll leave for others to discuss, like most FET maps, I would ask how two people, one in South Africa and the other in Western Australia could be looking at the night sky at the same time, observing the same southern pole star, Sigma Octantis, looking due south from both of their positions, despite 'south' being roughly 90 degrees apart according to that map. How would that work, exactly?

I'd be really grateful if @Pete, or whoever it was who decided to ban me, could explain why my post was 'off topic' in a little more detail. I genuinely want to add to the discussion here, and I'd clearly like to avoid being banned.

Flat Earth Theory / Stars, latitude, elevation angle and perspective
« on: December 07, 2020, 10:11:56 PM »
Hello all,

I'd consider myself to be a strong RE proponent - for me the FE theory simply lacks credibility. There is, from what I can see, simply no credible FE model that adequately explains the observations that we can easily make - it seems to have no meaningful predictive power.

One example of this, that I'd really like an FE view on, is the relationship between celestial bodies and navigation. For many centuries now sailors have been using the stars to determine latitude (longitude took a lot longer to crack, as it requires accurate timekeeping). At its simplest, in the northern hemisphere, we can pretty accurately determine our latitude by measuring the elevation angle of the north star, Polaris. As this sits almost perfectly in line with the earth's rotational axis above the north pole (declination angle of over 89 degrees), its elevation angle is directly related to our latitude - directly above us at the north pole, reducing to being barely visible around the horizon at the equator. The same would be true in the southern hemisphere, although there isn't a clearly visible star that aligns with the south pole. For this reason most people use the Southern Cross, although this has a declination angle of about -60 degrees, which is why it is visible in large parts of the northern hemisphere, and you have to do a bit of extrapolation to find true south using it.

These things are observable without sophisticated instruments. Go out in your garden with a protractor and a weight on a string and try it - the angle will roughly equate to your latitude. You can go further too - you can measure the elevation of Polaris, then drive 60 nautical miles north and observe a one degree change.

The response to this in the wiki here ( is simply not plausible. It tries to explain the disappearance of, for example, Polaris as you move into the southern hemisphere, as being caused by perspective - the star is getting further away and therefore lowers to the horizon and vanishes at some distance from the observer. Aside from this not being how perspective actually works, the fundamental flaw with this argument is that, if it were true, the stars close to the horizon would appear to get progressively closer together, just as the observed angle between equally spaced street lamps reduces as they get towards the 'vanishing point' that the wiki author mentions. But this doesn't happen - the angle between the stars remains exactly the same whether they are overhead or 'setting' at the horizon.

Furthermore, if you accept that there are 60 nautical miles in a degree of latitude, and therefore 5400nm from the equator to the north pole, then the FE model, with a distance of only some thousands of miles from the earth to the stars, doesn't work, because that distance, as calculated by intersecting any two observed elevation angles from points a known distance apart would change depending on which latitudes you chose for your observations.

These things seem pretty fundamental to me. Interested in your replies. Thanks

Pages: [1]