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 - RonJ

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29  Next >
1
You put some rocket fuel inside a rocket and ignite the fuel to release a quantity of energy.  The fuel is transformed from a solid (or liquid) to a very hot expanding gas.  The gas is confined inside the rocket ignition chamber with only one way out.  Pressure builds up and the very hot gas exits thru the engine’s nozzle that helps to accelerate the gas.  The hot exiting gas’s mass will be equal to the mass of the fuel that was burned.  Now you have the mass(M) in the equation.  The hot gas exiting the rocket engine is traveling at a high speed so, since it was almost zero velocity at the start, has accelerated greatly while traveling through the nozzle.  Now you have the (A) acceleration part.  Since the force is equal to the mass times the acceleration, you have a force opposite the direction of the rockets exiting gas.  There’s no air mentioned in the equation anywhere. All that is needed is an accelerating mass.   


If anything, the surrounding air will only slow the rocket’s acceleration.  Any force produced by the air pushing the rocket up will be balanced out by the force of the air pushing back on the nose of the rocket.  If the surface of the earth was a vacuum the acceleration of the rocket would be greater, all things being equal. 

2
The ‘plumb’ in space doesn’t have anything to do with the production of a force by the rocket engine.  A rocket contains fuel that has a mass, and an amount of dormant energy.  When combustion occurs, the dormant energy is released, and that energy effectively accelerates the mass of the fuel.  The combusted fuel is accelerating out the back of the rocket.  When you apply Newton’s law you have an equal and opposite amount of force (F = MA) applied on the rocket in the direction opposite to the direction of the exiting combusted fuel.  It doesn’t matter if the rocket’s environment is in air or a vacuum.  Newton’s law applies equally in either environment. 

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: October 08, 2023, 05:14:08 PM »
No, more like human history really.
You should probably go find some old people.  Ask them about polio.
Yes, at one time polio was a problem, at least in the USA.  My parents had some religious reasons against the vaccine, but I and my siblings all ended up getting it anyway.  There were lots of pressure put on everyone to get vaccinated.  When in high school I can remember at least one student that had polio and his leg was all messed up. He hopped around as best he could and got by.  There was at least one other acquaintance that had it as well, but the effects were minor. The vaccine must have worked because I haven’t run across anyone with polio in over 50 years.   

4
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 08, 2023, 04:54:21 PM »
The earth’s horizon is the dividing line between the land and the sky.  On a totally flat plain, that line (physically) must be below your eye level because there’s some distance between your feet and your eyes.  This is the dip angle.  One problem on earth is the atmosphere. This is the source of some refraction.  This means that the perceived angle at which the light enters your eye may not be the same as the actual dip angle.  It’s very important for a celestial navigator to know his local weather conditions as well as his ‘height of eye’.  On most large ships the navigator can easily be 125 to 150 feet above sea level, and this would be a significant error if this distance is ignored.  The local temperature and humidity will produce some light refraction that can also cause a measurement error if not corrected for.   It’s important to realize that the physical horizon will always be below your eye level, but that angle may not be perceivable due to atmospheric refraction and/or your inability to decern the differences in very small dip angles. 

5
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 08:13:37 PM »
No Jokes here.
The earth’s curvature will not make things SHRINK or COMPRESS. That is true.  Buildings and the coastline can go ‘behind the curve’ if the observer is too far away and at an elevation too low relative to the object observed. An object that is invisible can often be seen if the lookout can increase his elevation.  This fact was known a long time ago.  The old sailing ships had a ‘crows nest’.  One of its functions was to allow an observer in it to see a coastline more quickly than the helms man at a much lower elevation. Land birds were also used to find land because they could circle the ship at a much higher elevation than the 'crows nest'. 

6
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 05:48:10 PM »
Nope. No curve when you use proper instruments on a clear day.
Well, if you want to rely on some IR photography for evidence then consider radar.  If you are familiar with the electromagnetic spectrum, then X band (or even better S band) radar would offer an even clearer picture. The earth’s curvature still hides the lower, closer, and wider parts of a mountain as you would expect on a globe earth.  Yes, we did have the proper professional equipment that works the best of a clear day but will work as well as possible on days when it isn’t.  That would be expected when there’s 100’s of millions of dollars of cargo at stake and the lives of the crew. 
The example video by J Tolan has already been accurately debunked. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-120-mile-shot-of-san-jacinto-proves-flat-earth.10273/  I am familar with the California coastline as I've been in and out of LA and San Diego countless times. The view of San Jacinto Mountain is familar and there's problems with the analysis that was offered in your previous post.  The problems are detailed in the hyperlink I provided.     

7
Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 03:34:27 PM »
I agree that the picture of the sailboat shown has a wave blocking the view of the hull.  It was a poor example to demonstrate the shape of the earth.  For multiple decades I literally spent half my life at sea traveling worldwide on large ships, so I have some decent experience looking out over the ocean and making observations.  The best one is the view of Mt. Fuji as it’s peak slowly rises out of the Pacific Ocean as we are heading towards Japan to pick up and/or deliver some cargo.  We had some of the best telescopes available mounted on a stand welded to the deck of our ship.  It didn’t matter how much magnification you used, you couldn’t bring back the base of the mountain that was wider, bigger, and closer than the peak.  It was obviously concealed behind the earth’s curve.  As we got closer to Japan Mt. Fuji would appear to rise higher and higher out of the sea until we started to see the Japanese coastline.  This view was repeated countless times under many different weather conditions on multiple voyages.  If we were at the top of a large wave, we could see a bit more of the mountain.  Occasionally the seas would be quite smooth but that didn’t make any difference, Mt. Fuji would still be mostly hidden when we were 120 miles away.  Everyone liked the view because it also meant we would be docking soon and going ashore for a while.  This demonstrates the earth’s curvature and I have many other examples. 

8
Gyro compasses do not rely on any kind of magnetic fields to work.  This has been verified and witnessed by me countless times.  Ships mostly have their gyro compasses installed in electronics rooms on ships that are completely surrounded by steel on all 6 sides and accessable thru a steel hatch door.  Any magnetic field from the outside would be shielded.  Another little tidbit, the last ship I was on had the gyros right next to a large electrical transformer that would produce some magnetic fields of its own that would be stronger than any produced by the earth.  The gyro compasses still worked fine.  Some do rely on a spinning earth to work.  You can consult the service manuals or actually take them apart, like I have on many occasions, to confirm that the manuals are accurate.  Still don't believe it?  Consider that submarines have gyro compasses and use them to accurately determine their heading.  A magnetic compass won't work under water and the GPS system won't work either.  Gyro compasses can measure the curvature of the earth if you hook the mainteance computers to them like I have.  Everything works out as expected. 

9
After being a trained navigator on both ships and aircraft, I have a few opinions to share.  Navigators always go according to true North.  This means relative to the geographic North Pole.  If you have a 15 degree magnetic declination (East or West) this just provides a correction factor so you can correct your true heading if you are going exclusively by your compass.  If you don't make a correction (East is least and West is best) you won't arrive at your intended destination.  I suppose you could jump thru a lot of hoops and figure out your course and just steer with your compass.  That could be difficult in rough weather because your compass will jump around and could easily swing back & forth 10 degrees or more.  You could be stuck trying to take a mental average that could be off by many degrees.  It's a lot easier to just use your gyro-compass.  Of course back in the sailing ship days they didn't have a gyro-compass but a lot of those ships ended up on the reef. 


10
Where you are wrong:
The video was made at SUN RISE at fligh level 280.  Please read and understand the title!


Where you are right:
The sun is NOT in the clouds but can be seen THROUGH the clouds because it's just coming up over the horizon.


Shown facts:
The size of the sun supports RE because under the flat earth theory the size of the sun would be tiny at sun rise and sun set. 


11
You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.   
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope.  I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern.  Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day.  When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey. 


Like Johannes Kepler said:
 The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
 should be to discover the rational order and harmony
 which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
 to us in the language of mathematics.

Nope. Gravity is making the gyroscope do that, not them going along an imaginary curved path. It's your problem if you refuse to understand what gravity is and the reality of our Earth.


You claim that you care about physics and natural science but really what you care about is formal science and mathematical physics. Have a good whatever it is wherever you are on our level Earth.
Nope.
Gyroscopes work on the principles of gyroscopic inertia.  They will work fine whether there's gravity present or not.  Mathematics shows this to be true.
 
Immanuel Kant said:  In any particular theory there is only as much real science as there is mathematics.

Sorry, but were you saying that if the gyroscope tells you you're flying level, that means that you're flying along a curved path because you're assuming the Earth to be a globe and level means curved? If so, I have nothing else to say to you to put it mildly.
In an airplane the altimeter’s function is to measure the distance above the surface of the earth along the route.  On a spherical earth when you maintain a constant altitude between two points you do fly a curved flight path.  You never notice that because the changes are so small relative to the forward distance you are traveling.  It’s not unusual for your altimeter to bounce up and down by a couple hundred feet all along the way while the autopilot compensates to maintain a set altitude.  A gyroscope, on the other hand, will always point at a fixed reference point in space.  When it’s mounted in an aircraft you would see a constant change in the Z axis as you progress along your route.  If you could set your autopilot to maintain a particular constant Z axis value, then you would see a continuous increase in altitude as you progressed along your route.  If the earth was flat, then flying along a constant Z axis would also mean flying at a constant altitude over the earth’s surface.  My measurements indicated a curved surface because of the consistent changes in the Z axis measurements in the direction of travel that were consistently reversed when the reverse journey was made back to the original point of departure.  All I know is that this is what I witnessed over countless trips using many different gyros. 


12
You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.   
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope.  I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern.  Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day.  When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey. 


Like Johannes Kepler said:
 The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
 should be to discover the rational order and harmony
 which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
 to us in the language of mathematics.

Nope. Gravity is making the gyroscope do that, not them going along an imaginary curved path. It's your problem if you refuse to understand what gravity is and the reality of our Earth.


You claim that you care about physics and natural science but really what you care about is formal science and mathematical physics. Have a good whatever it is wherever you are on our level Earth.
Nope.
Gyroscopes work on the principles of gyroscopic inertia.  They will work fine whether there's gravity present or not.  Mathematics shows this to be true.
 
Immanuel Kant said:  In any particular theory there is only as much real science as there is mathematics.

13
You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.   
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope.  I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern.  Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day.  When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey. 


Like Johannes Kepler said:
 The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
 should be to discover the rational order and harmony
 which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
 to us in the language of mathematics.

14
A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination.  Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path.  So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path?  I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.

That's a strange way of saying that what I'm showing you doesn't agree with your religion's commandment that mathematical models = reality if that's the consensus.

Celestial navigation using trigonometry used to be simple and worked perfectly fine when assuming a flat Earth, but with the introduction of the mathematical model of a globe Earth all of a sudden celestial navigation became complicated. Even though you can make those complications work mathematically, if you care about physics and natural science that means that you care about what things actually are, and you don't sacrifice that for a mathematical model no matter how much you believe or want to believe that mathematical model = reality.
Take a look at the works of Nathaniel Bowditch on Wikipedia.  This person has distilled the notion of celestial navigation down to spherical mathematical equations that are still taught to ship's navigators today.  Yes, I do care about physics and natural science and especially care about how things actually are.  I believe that mathematical models can = reality so have personally applied the works of Bowditch and his American Practical Navigator publications that are still required to be carried aboard ships today.  We were always taught navigation is a series of steps.  Here is the concept.  These mathematical equations describe the concept.  This is the way to apply this knowledge to match your postion on a navigational chart.  Now experiment on your own to see if you can find any faults.  Once you have convinced yourself take the tests to prove your abilities.  Now go out there and bet your life on your knowledge and abilities. 


I am still alive today and have owned my own sextant and made observations and then used spherical trig to determine a position at sea well outside the view of any land.  In light of my success why should I believe that mathematical descriptions and the applications of the same won't work? 


You could apply the same concepts to the altitude related G force questions or for about anything else for that matter, but you need a mathematical equation first.  Use the equations to form an experiment.  Perform the experiment and analyze the results.  Do the results confirm the equations?  It's a loop that has been confirmed to work. 

15
A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination.  Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path.  So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path?  I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.

16
The guy doesn't speak mathematics.  Without that you can't ever be sure of what he's really talking about.  Can you supply some relevant equations?
     

17
You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.
The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
 
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is.  Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful.  Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.
I don't think I'm ever going to convince you, but you could watch this video:
I watched the video. 
I'll stick with Einstein and Maxwell.  Their theories are backed up with plenty of descriptive equations that have been peer reviewed and tested in the real world for at least a century. 
If you don't believe that please specify an instance where their theories don't work.

18
You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.
The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
 
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is.  Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful.  Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.

19
Say the Gnome you are measuring is made from plastic and you check the density of plastic you will find that it's about 1.2 gm/cm^3. Then you make a Gnome with a weight of 1.2 gm.  Suppose you measure that in air at sea level and then in another location at an altitude of about 5000 ft and you see a difference in weight.  If you take the density of air at sea level it will be about 0.001225 gm/cm^3 and at 5000 ft it will be about 0.001007 gm/cm^3.  You don't really care too much about the air density at a specific location but the difference between the two locations you are doing the measurements since you are interested in the difference in weights, not the absolute values.  When you subtract the two typical air densities you find that it's about 0.000218 gm/cm^3.  Your Gnome has a density of 1.2 gm/cm^3 so the typical difference due to any air buoyancy would be about 0.018%.  That's a difference that probably wouldn't be measurable with the scale used in the experiments.  So any difference measured would mostly be due to gravitation or some other unknown factors.  That means that measuring the Gnome in a vacuum chamber would make for more accuracy in absolute weights but the difference in weights (what you are looking for) would be so small (due to air buoyancy) because the differences would be more than 3 digits to the right of the decimal point.     

I agree with that. I think our agreement means that we can go back to talking about how g varies with altitude and depth.


To answer your question, yes there have been countless experiments done that show that the acceleration of gravity varies with altitude.  The physicists call it gravitational potential.  When you change this, you change time dilation that can be measured with atomic clocks.  There was an experiment recently that showed a measurable time dilation due to a change in altitude of about 1 millimeter.  If you want to spend some time in this realm of study you can convince yourself that this is a well known fact that was postulated by Einstein and is being verified (in the Zetetic manner) each and every day. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
Project GREAT 2016a -- Hawking, Einstein, and Time Dilation on Mt Lemmon (leapsecond.com)

20
Say the Gnome you are measuring is made from plastic and you check the density of plastic you will find that it's about 1.2 gm/cm^3. Then you make a Gnome with a weight of 1.2 gm.  Suppose you measure that in air at sea level and then in another location at an altitude of about 5000 ft and you see a difference in weight.  If you take the density of air at sea level it will be about 0.001225 gm/cm^3 and at 5000 ft it will be about 0.001007 gm/cm^3.  You don't really care too much about the air density at a specific location but the difference between the two locations you are doing the measurements since you are interested in the difference in weights, not the absolute values.  When you subtract the two typical air densities you find that it's about 0.000218 gm/cm^3.  Your Gnome has a density of 1.2 gm/cm^3 so the typical difference due to any air buoyancy would be about 0.018%.  That's a difference that probably wouldn't be measurable with the scale used in the experiments.  So any difference measured would mostly be due to gravitation or some other unknown factors.  That means that measuring the Gnome in a vacuum chamber would make for more accuracy in absolute weights but the difference in weights (what you are looking for) would be so small (due to air buoyancy) because the differences would be more than 3 digits to the right of the decimal point.       

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29  Next >