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.


Messages - edby

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51  Next >
1
Perhaps someone else can deal with this. I can provide proof that I taught at the University of Bristol. I no longer teach there, and I am now retired from any other institution I worked at.

2
And now he is on some stalking at the University of Bristol website. I can provide proof that I studied and taught there as a graduate, although it was some time ago.

But in any case, why the stalking, why the harassment, why the claims? Can someone put a stop to this?

3
Pete is again claiming I have falsified my academic credentials. See here

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16802.msg218856#msg218856

Can someone tell him sternly to knock it off, or I will do something about it. Happy to discuss my credentials with anyone privately, but as you see they are stated clearly in my most recent book.

4
Nobody has ventured significantly past the Ice Wall, or at least they never came back to tell the tale.
OK I’ll bite. The wiki identifies the Ice Wall as “discovered by Sir James Clark Ross, a British Naval Officer and polar explorer who was among the first to venture to Antarctica”. So that would be the Ross ice shelf. If you are asserting that nobody has ventured significantly past the Ross ice shelf and lived, then that is demonstrably false. There was Scott’s Discovery expedition of 1901-4, then the ill-fated Terra Nova expedition of 1910-13.

There is now a road linking McMurdo station just off the Ross shelf, and the South Pole. Last year at the Royal Geographic Society I met Felicity Aston who travelled that road alone to the South Pole. Clearly she came back to ‘tell the tale’.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: August 12, 2020, 03:34:20 PM »
The question I have is how can we determine if your position in relation to the north star is based on a flat earth and refraction or a globe earth and refraction to determine if the claims that it's based entirely on a globe earth are supported or refuted by the evidence. As of now I don't know.
The fact that the North star has a certain altitude is merely an observation. You measure it in angles. How would that tell you anything about the shape of the earth?


I tend to agree after seeing the videos about it but it's a common belief that latitude is based on the earth being a sphere instead of based on how far you are away from the north star. What test could we devise to  determine if this is true or not.
What test could we devise to determine whether the apparent angle of Polaris to the horizon is in fact the apparent angle of Polaris to the horizon? Question makes no sense. Latitude by definition is the angle we observe, whether correct or not.

Quote
But add the fact that its angle changes by 1 degree for every 111km you travel towards it or away from it, may tell you something. Nothing is certain of course, but the very simplest theory to explain that observation is that the earth is (approximately) spherical. Doesn't mean that it is spherical, and absolutely nothing can prove it for certain. But that hypothesis is one very simple explanation.

couldn't that also mean that the earth is not a sphere with the light from the north star propagating outward in a circle?
It could mean that. If you allow enough curvature of light, anything is possible.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Erathosnes on Diameter (from the Wiki)
« on: August 12, 2020, 01:58:51 PM »
Quote
Hockey players can still hit them into a net

It takes practice and skill to become good at hockey. You are describing an intelligent process with your analogies, not nature.

Aiming, controlling, keeping something on course, are all artificial acts of man, and unrelated to whether straight line trajectories between points are or are not natural.

Just so I understand, Tom, do you agree with the standard claim that momentum p is a vector quantity and equal to mv, where m is mass, and v is a vector, i.e. a speed in a specific direction? Obviously all objects have forces acting upon them, and so their momentum will change all the time. Is that your point?



7
Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 12, 2020, 12:56:11 PM »
If you're going to suggest mechanisms which explain why observations fit what you'd expect on a globe then what experiment can you do which would actually discriminate between the two models? That has to be the starting point.
A quantitative approach would be a good start. There are many long discussions about how much of the height of a building has been obscured, or how tall a chimney might be. Find a way of clearly labelling a structure so that the points which are obscured (if any) are clear from a distance. Take temperature, pressure and humidity readings, document the height of the camera and make many many measurements at different times.

If FE research is going to be successful and make an impact on the scientific world, it needs to follow the scientific method, i.e. careful attention to how you are measuring things.

[EDIT] The time lapse below is a good example of the problem. Both sides claim it supports their model, because it is not clear how much of the buildings are obscured, nor do we know the height above lake level the film was taken.


8
Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 12, 2020, 11:30:09 AM »
This seems to cover two of your big concerns, atmospheric pressure and seismic zones.

All indications are that these devices certainly are measuring gravity directly, they time the speed an object falls, either a weight or using quantum measurements on atoms like this device. If an object falls faster, that is a very clear indication that gravity is pulling that object with more force, thus stronger gravity.
See also this project https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/final_reports/M/G-K1/EURAMET.M.G-K1.pdf and this https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/final_reports/M/G-K1/SIM.M.G-K1.pdf which are specific projects to determine the uncorrected numbers from high precisision gravimeters. Table 3 in the first link gives the measurements at Walferdange. Table 5 in the second link gives measurements at Colorado.

I checked both sets of measurements against the IGS formula which is a theoretical value using inputs of just latitude and height. They agree closely, although the absolutely gravimeter values are clearly going to be ‘correct’.

The results conclusively indicate

(i) that observed acceleration changes significantly both with latitude and height. Thus the acceleration at Walferdange (lat 50.884635, elevation 405) is 980.96395 cm/s^2. At Colorado (lat 40.13080, elevation 1682) it is 979.62274 cm/s^2.

(ii) that observed acceleration agrees closely with predicted acceleration. My predictions were 981.02707 for Walferdange and 979.66495
for Colorado.

So to some extent Tom’s experiment is repeating existing scientific results, although I like the idea of an old school approach using spring based mechanisms that people can understand, and I fully support his idea for a project.

9
Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 12, 2020, 07:22:17 AM »
It is possible that the gravimeter isn't directly measuring gravity. The gravity anomalies are generally associated with the seismic zones, and have a negative association with mountain ranges and continents.
We have discussed this at length elsewhere. A ballistic gravimeter simply drops a weight in a vacuum over a known distance, and measures the time the drop takes. Knowing the distance and the time you can then infer the acceleration. The more sensitive devices can even compensate for the difference in gravity over the drop itself.

So a gravimeter is an accelerometer. Of course, an accelerometer can also be used as a seismometer, no one ever denied that.

10
Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 12, 2020, 07:19:36 AM »
It would be pretty tough for me to determine. The variations could just be caused by the variations of the non-pressure elements.
Wrong way round. If you find, after an exhaustive series of measurements at the same elevation, that change in pressure and temperature have no effect on the reading, then you can reasonably safely conclude that change in pressure and temperature have no effect on the reading.

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 11, 2020, 09:45:30 PM »
In this example we are measuring the variations though, not the full affect of pressure.

- A barometer is a scale that weighs the atmosphere, and produces a reading which tells us the weight of the atmosphere, and this reading shows the 'atmospheric pressure'.

- A barometer changes slightly over the course of the day

Therefore, if you are describing the variations, you are not describing the total weight of the atmosphere, which averages 14.7 lb/square inch at sea level.
I understand that. My point is that if you find that variations in atmospheric pressure do not affect the measurement, then they do not affect the measurement. Right?



12
Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 11, 2020, 09:39:17 PM »
Any assessment of an element of the atmosphere is an analysis, and is less empirical than experimental demonstration. An analysis just brings in more questions.
My point was that the effect of atmospheric pressure is very very tiny.

You could easily test this by getting a precision scale and a good barometer and weighing the object over a long period while monitoring air pressure and temperature. If change of air pressure and temperature make no difference then they make no difference.

[EDIT] Have you thought about the price of scales? A really good instrument with the precision you require would cost at least $5,000.

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 11, 2020, 08:57:52 PM »
What type of weighing instrument do you propose using? I checked out the Kern (‘gnome’) results again, and the accuracy was not great, probably due to it being an ordinary weighing machine with an ordinary spring. The change in g per 1000 metres of height is about 0.30 Gals, the change per 5 degrees of latitude is 0.45 Gals at 45 degrees latitude, so you need an instrument with accuracy of about 0.1 Gal, otherwise the experiment is meaningless.

For that type of experiment getting reliable readings from a scale put into a vacuum would be the most difficult part, so there would need to be a discovery stage which will determine which type of equipment is most appropriate for a vacuum and pressure changes - as it is possible that calibration can be messed up in that process to produce an unreliable result if they are not designed for that. That's the part I have doubts on. Reaching out to precision scale manufacturers would probably be best for suggestions. It is also possible that there might already be special precision scale devices on the market that have a built-in vacuum chamber, and would be the best case scenario.
 

But why do you need the vacuum chamber?  Just to illustrate, suppose we are in Prague where g would equal about 981 Gals at sea level. Then suppose we take the weighing machine up to 1000m. That would reduce (observed) g to about 980.70, i.e. a reduction of 0.30 Gals, which the instrument could easily detect. The effect of pressure is much smaller, however, being about 35 micro Gals, i.e. 35 millionths of a Gal. Nothing beyond a high accuracy ballistic gravimeter would detect that. So, given that the difference attributable to pressure would be undetectable, why bother with the vacuum stuff?

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The North Star
« on: August 10, 2020, 09:37:48 PM »
That's fine during the day but you also need to navigate at night.  How do you navigate in the southern hemisphere at night when the Sun ain't visible and being south of the equator there is no Polaris?
They had the method of dead reckoning, i.e. estimating their position by speed and direction, which was actually quite accurate, and in any case you can navigate by any bright star if you have the charts and a suitable instrument.

[EDIT] From Cook’s log  November 1st 1768

Quote
Wednesday, 2nd. A Steady breeze and fine pleasant weather. This Afternoon, by the mean of Several Azimuths and the Amplitude, found the Variation to be 0 degrees 34 minutes East, from which it appears that about the aforegoing Noon we have Crossed the Line of no Variation in the Latitude of 10 degrees 38 minutes South, and, according to the following Observations, in 32 degrees 0 minutes West longitude from Greenwich. At 5 hours 5 minutes 0 seconds Apparent time a.m. the longitude of the Ship and the Observation of the moon and the star Aldebaran was found to be 32 degrees 0 minutes 45 seconds; at 8 hours 17 minutes 0 seconds, per sun and moon, 32 degrees 25 minutes 0 seconds; and at 9 hours 0 minutes 16 seconds, 32 degrees 19 minutes 0 seconds.
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/e00043.html#ch5

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The North Star
« on: August 10, 2020, 05:29:30 PM »
Hello!

I was wondering about the North star. How come we cannot see it below the equator? Since we invented celestial navigation we have used it to find North right, so we know it doesn't move around? Why then, when we moved below the equator, did we have to resort to using the southern cross for navigation? How did the southern cross work for 100s of years if there is no south? 

Im sorry if this post came off as rude, I'm genuinely just confused

Best Regards

There is some material on Polaris in the wiki here https://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=polaris.

But the simple answer is that navigators prefer to use sun position for navigation, which works equally well in the North or the South.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Erathosnes on Diameter (from the Wiki)
« on: August 10, 2020, 05:26:47 PM »
Interesting experiment for Tom's community proposal. What simple experiments would allow us to prove or disprove the hypothesis that light travels in straight lines (or nearly straight lines)?

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 10, 2020, 10:52:02 AM »
I suggest the moon-tilt illusion is not one to take externally as an experiment. The problem is not measurement and experimental and numerical results but rather the interpretation of something that we agree we see. If the thing gets bogged down by philosophical disputes like the one above, it will go nowhere. Stick to stuff that can easily be measured.

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 10, 2020, 09:45:12 AM »
As far as I can tell from numerous searches, a vaccum experiment with a scale at different latitudes and heights has never been performed.

Spring gravimeters such as the Lacoste are sealed, although not in a vacuum. Why do you think a vacuum would make any difference?

Quote
Changes in air pressure could cause a small apparent change in gravity because of the buoyancy of the mass and beam. This is prevented by sealing the interior of the meter from the outside air. As an additional precaution, should the seals fail, there is a buoyancy compensator on the beam.
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~geodyn/instruments/Manual_Lacoste_GDl.pdf
What type of weighing instrument do you propose using? I checked out the Kern (‘gnome’) results again, and the accuracy was not great, probably due to it being an ordinary weighing machine with an ordinary spring. The change in g per 1000 metres of height is about 0.30 Gals, the change per 5 degrees of latitude is 0.45 Gals at 45 degrees latitude, so you need an instrument with accuracy of about 0.1 Gal, otherwise the experiment is meaningless.



19
Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 09, 2020, 06:43:56 PM »
In the 1930's and 1950's you are talking about gravimeters now, correct?
The pendulums were also gravimeters. Their purpose was to measure the acceleration due to 'gravity', whatever gravity is.

The pendulums (which they say tests weight dimunation) and any scale experiments should have been tested In a vaccum chamber.
The early experiments made corrections for vacuum.

20
Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 09, 2020, 05:58:31 PM »
As far as I can tell from numerous searches, a vaccum experiment with a scale at different latitudes and heights has never been performed. I am sure that you have also searched for these kinds of experiments in your efforts to debunk UA. 300 years ago scientists did the scale experiment exposed to atmosphere and decided that the fraction of a one percent difference they were seeing was due to gravity. That same experiment was then repeated over the years.

From 1670s on the pendulum was the only method for determining g. Methods grew increasingly sophisticated and were already being corrected for pressure and temperature by the 1800s. In the 1930s Lacoste discovered the superspring method, which was supplemented superseded in the 1950s by ballistic freefall in vacuum method.

I uncovered some papers written in the 1820s using the pendulum method which I managed to calibrate to the modern IG standard. Seems that they could measure g to a few hundredths of a gal, which is pretty impressive for instruments made from brass and wood.

More later.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 51  Next >