161

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: January 06, 2020, 10:57:26 AM »

Then lead away , I am interested to see the logical steps .

I would like to point out again that R is assumed to be equal to 6370km , a value that cannot be arrived at by empirical measurement since it cannot exist if the earth is an oblate spheroid . This is why it will always be quoted as an assumption when used in experiment .

162

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: January 04, 2020, 04:28:41 PM »

Pretty equations but as the saying goes , you can't polish a turd. I see you are trying to distance yourself from the  imaginary k = R/r so prevalent in your original post in which these imaginary results are used in your "real world"

Please forget about that you say . But k , that imaginary coefficient with no basis in reality , is central to all your linked experiments . Hope you've learned a bit more about the silly pear shaped squashed orange model you think bears a resemblance to reality .

Also ,angles can be measured using something called "degrees" . Look it up along with the word " assumption " which is used several times in your not so empirical experiment links .

163

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: January 03, 2020, 10:35:31 AM »

Do you not read the articles you link . Ref 3 introduces big imaginary R in equation 10 and combines with equation 7 to give what can only be an imaginary answer . Big R is defined as 6370km -which apparently is a mean value which tells us that it is not a measured value .

Why bother measuring to the nth degree the pressure ,altitude , humidity etc over the surface of an area of land and then not measure the curve of the land over which the experiment is carried out.

Again the real value of big R is there to be measured but is ignored and a mean value ,which cannot be accurate over any part of the surface , inserted which invalidates the results. Pseudoscience . And mathematical trickery in plain language . Who, and when , carried out the measurements of our pearshaped squashed orange which allowed a mean value of 6370 km to be deduced . A curvature we cannot find or measure .

All any scientist has to do to find the shape of the earth is carry out a physical survey .

Insults are thrown when debates are lost .

164

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: December 30, 2019, 10:31:02 AM »

someled
Sorry that I was not careful enough in explaining the appearance of R in the equation in my submission from Dec 20. You were absolutely correct when you stated that what people perceive as the radius of a round earth should in no way affect the calculation of the amount of refraction of light in the atmosphere.

So let me try again :

As stated :

k = 503*p*(0.0343 + dT/dh)/(T*T)

divide that equation 6370,000 then by definition of k=R/r you get :

1/r = 79*10^{-6}*p*(0.0343 + dT/dh)/(T*T)

with r now in meters. The value of R does not appear anymore. You can verify the validity of this division by inspecting the equations ( through (10) in reference [3]. Feel free to calculate values for r for various values of dT/dh, the vertical temperature gradient, assuming standard atmospheric conditions.

Now, this equation and similar ones incoporating humidity, wave length of the light (think of lasers) and other effects have been used for decades. It seems to me somebody would have caught on to significant errors on the part of surveyors.

All this quarrel about refraction can of course be avoided by conducting a laser-based experiment inside a vacuum-filled, long tube. Maybe, if we were to look around, somebody has built already such a tube ? Maybe they did it for another purpose, but with the condition that the laser beam coincides with the tube's central axis all the way from one end to the other ? Did they consider earth's supposed curvature ?

Happy Holidays to you and everybody else ... Zack

I will make the point again , k is the coefficient of refraction deduced from the assumed (imaginary) curvature of a globe earth of R = 6370. Hence the silliness of using it anywhere in calculations . If these scientists wanted to carry out real experiments then the curvature , or lack of , would have to be accurately surveyed by good old proper measurement methods using real precision instruments and there would be no need to use imaginary values.
 
      I mean the earth is either pear shaped or squashed orange shape , depending on which greengrocer you believe so why use this R = 6370 since it doesn't exist . It's interesting that in the case of k=1 light follows the curvature ,or lack of , of the earth . If Rowbotham had used a better telescope he'd have seen his own arris since the light was clearly following the " curve " on globeworld.

     No one disputes that there are atmospheric effects but putting these down to refraction is pseudoscience . Refraction takes place at distinct boundaries dependent upon angle of incidence and differing density of medium involved . The atmosphere diffuses ,absorbs , diffracts etc.

Refraction calculated using this mathematical trickery is used to cover the fact that there is no curvature and the trick always provides an answer although it is nothing to do with reality . 



     

165

Flat Earth Theory / Re: HF Radio Signals, Propagation and DX.

« on: December 23, 2019, 03:27:37 PM »

A good internet search will show you that the atmosphere is not transparent to radio waves.
Bouncing a signal of the ionosphere/dome will be easier than line of sight since the atmosphere is only a thin layer which decreases in density rapidly as altitude increases.

Well that all depends on the wavelength in use. If you look above, i posted a picture from the good old internet which explains it a bit.

Im actually sat here now listening on 7mhz... quite a few stations coming in this evening

It will affect all wavelengths to varying degrees - higher frequecy more interference .Atmosphere hinders 7mhz signals - that's classed as a HF wave . That good old picture needs the bottom line straightening - the dome bits ok though ho ho. The  sun's interference on radio signals is a good indicator of  electrical interference of the local sun imo. Enjoy your listening to the signals reflecting from the dome .

166

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: December 22, 2019, 03:33:33 PM »

somerled,
sorry to say, you are wrong. R=6370km is merely used as a convenient reference for those surveyors who believe in a round earth. R has no influence on the amount by which a light beam gets refracted in terms of feet (or whatever units you prefer) for given atmospheric conditions and distance between target and observer. Personally, I would have chosen to not have R appear because it leads to confusion as it happened to you. It was more important to me to represent the equations in a form given by the authors.
The main point remains, experiments like the Bedford level experiment need to determine the temperature gradient with a very high accuracy and document carefully their measurements. Do you know of any such experiment ?

Don't talk bollards. The imaginary R is the basis for the coefficient k as stated in all those experiments so k is imaginary and this is then used in an equation with real atmospheric temperature measurements to give imaginary results.

Now if these scientists had surveyed the curvature across the land over which they took their pressure , temperature and altitude measurements then we might have had a real experiment rather than bumph designed to shore up the their imaginary model globe of 6370 imaginary km big R.

Still, tis the pantomime season I suppose . Have a merry Christmas and good new year .

167

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: December 21, 2019, 07:48:42 PM »

The whole bumph depends on the assumption that earth is a sphere where R = 6370km
 so use of an imaginary equation K=R/r to quantify any observation falls into the category of pseudoscience .

168

Flat Earth Theory / Re: HF Radio Signals, Propagation and DX.

« on: December 20, 2019, 08:56:04 PM »

A good internet search will show you that the atmosphere is not transparent to radio waves.
Bouncing a signal of the ionosphere/dome will be easier than line of sight since the atmosphere is only a thin layer which decreases in density rapidly as altitude increases.

169

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: December 18, 2019, 08:38:50 PM »

[/quote]

Exactly! thanks I will put your argument in my question as this debunks the travel limit of light through air.:

How come you don't see Mount Everest from the left most corner of Indonesia, but you can see the sun and moon set?

Can anyone answer?
[/quote]

170

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: December 18, 2019, 11:39:24 AM »

Time lapse images of rocket launches , including spacehoax and nasa . All lovely trajectories dictated by the loss of thrust as altitude increases . Link here .

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1175&bih=638&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=k6v4XYy9G-2mrgTilqZg&q=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&oq=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&gs_l=img.12...33453.65691..78612...0.0..0.268.4857.14j20j6......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i7i30j0i24.fjRNyi-yAJY&ved=0ahUKEwjM0qrAurzmAhVtk4sKHWKLCQwQ4dUDCAY

All for show .

first off, I didn't even consider long exposure rocket launches were a thing so thank you for these beautiful images.

Second, it's kinda funny how some flat earthers try to explain away how the sun visually sinks below the horizon because of 'perspective' or 'bendy light' but when a rocket vanishes into the distance in the sky (like the sun should on a flat earth) it's 'definitely falling back to earth'.

https://www.mnealon.eosc.edu/RocketSciencePage5.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of this page - it's about the saturn v5 flight path . At the end you will see the graph of altitude against range .

It's rocket science .

Thanks, I skimmed over it briefly for now and plan to go back to it later when I have time. Since I'm of the side of the fence that says rockets/moon landings are possible is there a point you were making with this link? I don't want to assume one.

171

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: December 17, 2019, 03:49:47 PM »

Time lapse images of rocket launches , including spacehoax and nasa . All lovely trajectories dictated by the loss of thrust as altitude increases . Link here .

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1175&bih=638&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=k6v4XYy9G-2mrgTilqZg&q=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&oq=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&gs_l=img.12...33453.65691..78612...0.0..0.268.4857.14j20j6......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i7i30j0i24.fjRNyi-yAJY&ved=0ahUKEwjM0qrAurzmAhVtk4sKHWKLCQwQ4dUDCAY

All for show .

first off, I didn't even consider long exposure rocket launches were a thing so thank you for these beautiful images.

Second, it's kinda funny how some flat earthers try to explain away how the sun visually sinks below the horizon because of 'perspective' or 'bendy light' but when a rocket vanishes into the distance in the sky (like the sun should on a flat earth) it's 'definitely falling back to earth'.

https://www.mnealon.eosc.edu/RocketSciencePage5.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of this page - it's about the saturn v5 flight path . At the end you will see the graph of altitude against range .

It's rocket science .

172

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: December 17, 2019, 10:57:41 AM »

https://archive.org/details/youtube-ek-Q0T9wK2g

Holograms in use .

9-11er  Huge surprise

Brainwashed believe any old government shoit sheep shows up . As expected .
The technology will be far in advance of where you think it is .

173

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: December 17, 2019, 10:45:37 AM »

Time lapse images of rocket launches , including spacehoax and nasa . All lovely trajectories dictated by the loss of thrust as altitude increases . Link here .

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1175&bih=638&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=k6v4XYy9G-2mrgTilqZg&q=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&oq=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&gs_l=img.12...33453.65691..78612...0.0..0.268.4857.14j20j6......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i7i30j0i24.fjRNyi-yAJY&ved=0ahUKEwjM0qrAurzmAhVtk4sKHWKLCQwQ4dUDCAY

All for show .

174

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: December 16, 2019, 06:28:41 PM »

https://archive.org/details/youtube-ek-Q0T9wK2g

Holograms in use .

175

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Which planets can we visibly observe to rotate on an axis ?

« on: December 13, 2019, 09:01:59 PM »

Cassini used a telescope built by Guissepe Campani - acknowledged best optical telescope builder of those days . Here is a test of one of his telescopes  .
 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004ESASP1278..133M

You can see that 11cm aperture scope has a resolution of 4.6 arcsec . Mag of 36x

My Celestron xlt 150 refractor gives a resolution 0.92 arcsec. Useful mag of 360x . Telescopes are better now . Technology improves , apart from rocket engines ( we can't put a man on the moon now) . Wasn't cheap either .

 I made no assertions about any of that history of the GRS , those are the facts stated in its history as taken from historical records and published in a mainstream science magazine .

Taking the movement of planetary atmosphere as a proof of rotation is assumption . Our atmosphere moves but no planetary rotation has been found by experiment

I've already upgraded my telescope eyepieces  - the figures I quoted were for the originals . Maybe  I'm just unlucky with viewing conditions . I will persevere but the original question still stands.

176

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: December 13, 2019, 07:37:52 PM »

Where is this explanation ? He says at the end of the video ( which was supposed to remove all experimental gaffes from his first rubbish attempt ) that he should have use a clear perspex tube.

11:15. He says he could have, not should. And he explains he was trying to keep the cost down. It’s not a blunder, the rest doesn’t need to be transparent, that wouldn’t affect the result. And the rocket design is irrelevant. You can see from both tests that it’s expelling propellant from one end, that moves the rocket up. And as he’s proved, it does so whether the tube is evacuated or not.

If you dispute his findings then I urge you to do your own tests and post them for review. I look forward to seeing your results.

To save a few bob he totally compromises his most important experiment !!!  hahahaha

177

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: December 13, 2019, 11:10:20 AM »

Air pressure provides a constant 14lbs psi at sea level = 14lbs psi resistance .

.. but it's not resisting.

Surely this is self-evident from the plumes of smoke, steam and AIR being driven at high speed away from the engine?

Of course it's resisting . Where do you think the reactive force of thrust comes from ?

If there was no resistance  then the plumes of smoke would travel for miles at high speed  .

178

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: December 13, 2019, 11:04:07 AM »

A 3m+ cylinder which we cannot see into ?

Yes. If you watch the video he explains why that is. But air is transparent so how would being able to see in it help you? You can’t tell from looking whether it’s a vacuum or not. The pressure gauge tells you that and it barely moves after the rocket fires. Conclusive proof that the rocket works in a vacuum. And your comments about combustion have been comprehensively dealt with too.

At this point I suggest you’re trolling so I’ll leave it there.

Where is this explanation ?  He says at the end of the video ( which was supposed to remove all experimental gaffes from his first rubbish attempt ) that he should have use a clear perspex tube . It's another huge blunder . Nowhere in that video can we see a 3.7m evacuated tube . And he refuses to show the rocket design . Why ? What is the little dangly bit hanging directly beneath the nozzle , if that's what it is ?This bufoon has plenty to hide and plenty of blind followers.

179

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Which planets can we visibly observe to rotate on an axis ?

« on: December 11, 2019, 02:42:54 PM »

Thanks for showing interest . Don't really know where else to start so here's what I've found out about Jupiter.

Great red spot (GRS) first seen 1664 by Robert Hooke and 1665 by Giovanni Cassini . Hooke placed the GRS in Jupiter's Northern hemisphere whereas Cassini views it in the Southern .
Note this is in the early days of telescopes with hand ground lenses , primitive by today's standards.
Cassini observed the GRS for nearly 50yrs always roughly in the same location . Astronomers then loose track of the GRS and it is not further observed until 1830 . All from https://www.universetoday.com/129968/big-great-red-spot/

So obviously are we observing just an atmosphere - how do we visibly observe a planet's rotation beneath an atmosphere?

I have a 4" reflector and 6"refractor - both give good views of Jupiter which always appears as a bright disc with two horizontal blueish bands . A friendly serious amateur astronomer with a 14" dobsonian and quality eye pieces has never seen the GRS in 40yrs of viewing the skies. He sees what I see when we observe . A lot depends on atmospheric conditions but if GRS was visible with rudimentary equipment in the 1660s why .

So far I haven't come across any info about how we visibly observe planetary rotation .

180

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: December 09, 2019, 05:15:12 PM »

14lbs p.s.i. atmospheric pressure at sea level .

But you have been shown several videos of this working in a vacuum
Have another look at the video I posted:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15502.msg201754#msg201754

I believe your latest "theory" is that the gases the rocket expels which create enough pressure for the rocket to then push off of?
Have a look at the end of the video where there's a slowed down video of the rocket working in a vacuum.
You'll note the pressure gauge barely flickers after the rocket has moved so no, after the rocket has moved it's still pretty much in a vacuum.
And the tube is over 3m long in response to the idea that it could have been pushing off the bottom of the container.
You then changed tack and started about combustion - that has been dealt with above by someone who knows what they're talking about.

A 3m+ cylinder which we cannot see into ? The prof will have to do better  .

14lbs p.s.i. atmospheric pressure at sea level .

... which is not providing any resistance at all to the rocket exhaust. That air is getting blown far, far away, and the result is that air to the above and side of the engine is being drawn in - rapidly - to fill the void.

The air below the engine at start up has been ejected out of the side of the building, with the air from above and side of the engine also being driven out when it gets in the way of the exhaust.





Thought experiment; a single particle of rocket exhaust leaves the engine and hits a single particle of air. How does that transfer forward motion back to the body of the craft? 

Air pressure provides a constant 14lbs psi at sea level = 14lbs psi resistance .