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: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites
« on: December 20, 2021, 03:06:05 AM »
There’s a major problem with geosynchronous satellites under the FET.  Satellites will have different masses when in orbit over the earth.  Even an individual satellite’s mass will change as the fuel aboard burns off to make small position adjustments from time to time.  This means that dark energy will have to somehow adjust its force upwards to maintain the constant 9.81 m/s acceleration rate.  How can the dark energy have the intelligence (or programming) to make these fine adjustments?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites
« on: December 19, 2021, 01:34:20 AM »
I can understand the fallacy of the earth ‘shielding’ the dark energy.  Mostly the geosynchronous satellites are above the equator.  That would mean the dark energy would have to go around the edge of the earth and come all the way back inside then turn 90 degrees again and provide a push upwards to the satellites.  This push would have to be quite exact to match the upwards acceleration of the earth.  The energy would have to be ‘smart’ as well.  There are different sized satellites up there so the dark energy couldn’t provide a specified push per square foot.  Each push would have to be customized for each individual satellite.  On the trip from the earth’s edge toward the equator the dark energy would have to avoid interacting with all the other satellites up there and the space stations.  Some other mechanism would also be necessary to do the dark energy diversions and that mechanism would also have to be accelerating upwards as well. All these tricks would have to be accomplished without producing any signal interference.  That’s quite a large order and would take a very ‘imaginative’ mind to understand and believe how this could all work. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites
« on: December 18, 2021, 06:40:30 PM »
Under FET the satellites would all have to have a large fuel source and rocket motors in order to maintain a constant 9.81 m/s upwards acceleration rate.  This requirement would greatly shorten the life of any satellite.  The INMARSAT and the newer KVH TracPhone satellites have been in orbit for years so this invalidates the UA argument in one simple shot. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites
« on: December 16, 2021, 08:43:17 PM »
Geostationary satellites are not practical under the flat earth scenario.  Once they are in position, they would have to keep accelerating up to remain in position relative to the surface of the earth.  That would require fuel and/or a push by the ‘dark energy’.  There are some other observed real-world discrepancies as well.  When you watch the needed elevation settings to keep a dish pointing at a satellite over the earth’s equator while on a moving object, like a ship, those readings do NOT match what would be expected on a flat surface.  The satellite signal ‘sets’ behind the horizon and the signal is lost as the required dish elevation must get lower & lower as the ship moves away from the satellite’s zenith point over the equator.  That would not happen on a flat earth.  All of this has been personally observed in the Zetetic manner countless times.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: America's healthcare isn't broken....
« on: December 13, 2021, 07:23:33 PM »
Somehow, I figured out how to buy & sell stocks when I was just 21 years old and didn’t have much money.  These days it’s a whole lot easier.  There are many online stockbrokers and once you have an account you can buy & sell using your computer.  I’ve been doing it for many decades.  You need to restrict your stock purchases to those ‘greedy’ companies who, in your opinion, are really screwing their customers and are racking in the money.  What could go wrong with that strategy?   

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: America's healthcare isn't broken....
« on: December 13, 2021, 06:30:21 PM »
If anyone feels that an insurance company is raking in the bucks, big time, then why not just buy their stock and take your share of the profits?  The same could go to any corporation that is involved in the health care industry.  Most are large corporations with stock on sale in public markets that anyone can buy. 

Rowbotham’s thesis was that the earth was flat, and a map was created.  This flat map was created with longitudinal lines diverging South of the equator.  There was a section in ENAG where an example of distance measurements was cited that supported this thesis.  Unfortunately (for Rowbotham) some mistakes were made.  The book “Earth Not A Globe” might have been written by a ‘scientist’ but not by a qualified navigator.  There might have been some scientific accreditations but those would NOT be relevant in this case. 

Technology & Information / Re: I Hate Linux Distros
« on: November 16, 2021, 04:24:38 AM »
I have a whole pile of computer certs (including Security+ ).  Some I needed for the last job I had before retirement.  The problem with stacking them is that they kind of 'expire'.  If you are not using the material the certs cover then you will forget a bunch after a while.  If the certs cover technology that becomes outdated then they are kind of worthless too.  After 3 or 4 years a lot of stuff has advanced and unless you keep taking tests every year or two you will fall behind. 

I would say that using EA at this time to explain anything is invalid.  There's never been a published number for the Bishop Constant.  Without that how can you use EA to test anything? 

There’s a better example of the ‘sinking ship’ effect and that’s the ‘sinking mountain’.  If you ever have occasion to go to Tokyo, Japan by ship you can observer Mt. Fuji from a long distance out at sea.  The difference between this mountain and a ship is that the base is much wider than the peak.  On every trip just the peak would start to rise up from the horizon line very slowly.  When this was observed many of us would also take a look with our really good binoculars that were so big and heavy, they had to be mounted on a stand to the deck.  At no time could we ever resolve anything more than just the snow covered peak, and it was always appearing just above the wave tops on the horizon line even on trips when the seas were smooth.  If the earth were flat, it would be easy to surmise that if we could see the top, we could also see the rest of the mountain as well because it was much wider and the front was closer.  The top would also be much higher above the horizon than we ever observed.

Flat Earth Community / Re: The borders of the conspiracy
« on: November 05, 2021, 08:29:16 PM »
I used GPS every day while traveling worldwide.  Sat phones were also used on a regular basis.
Weather satellite data was received via a WEFAX receiver and weather maps were received every day.
Later the same weather data was received via the INMARSAT system or the Tracfone satellite receiver
connected to the internet.  All of this worked very well at any latitude below 70N or above 70S.   

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: October 08, 2021, 04:34:45 PM »
The earth is like a large bell, held together with lots of rubber bands, that’s slowly rotating.  Occasionally one of the rubber bands slips and the pieces slap together and there’s a slight ringing sound heard.  The main points of this analogy are that the rotation is a separate phenomenon from the ringing.  The ringing could be compared to seismic activity.  This seismic activity could very intermittently have a small localized effect on the rotation rate, but that effect would quickly subside and be negligible after a short period of time.  The other interesting thing about this phenomenon is that scientists have been studying this for quite a while and have verified that the vibrations propagated out and the resonant frequency observed after an earthquake match that of a large spherical body.  If you want to get heavily into math you can confirm this for yourself in the zetetic way.

Another thought:  Think of yourself on a merry-go-round.  You have a gyroscope in your lap.  It will measure a steady rate of rotation.  Now if you suddenly move yourself backwards and forwards your gyroscope will measure a quick deviation in the rotation rate both positive and negative but the overall base rate will stay steady.  The deviations in the ring laser gyroscope would be simular to measuring your sudden movements in your seat that only adds or subtracts from the underlying rotation rate of the merry-go-round.  This is another illustration of the difference between the rotation of the earth and it's seismic activity.  These are two separate and distinct characteristics.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: October 08, 2021, 01:37:22 PM »
My statement makes sense 100% because I just showed that a gyro will measure the earth's rotation minus any seismic activity.  You did state that the earth's rotation is affected by seismic activity, did you not?  I never disputed that fact.  Any affect is very intermittant and localized.  The earth's rotation always returns to the expected base rate very quickly.  If I was in China looking at a gyro on a ship I would never even observe any seismic activity on it if there was a huge earthquake in California, but we might get an alert to be on the lookout for a tsunami.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: October 07, 2021, 03:48:38 PM »
The ring laser gyros in question must be firmly attached to the ground as per the attached article.  They do, indeed, measure rotation from some source.  It has been implied that the source of the rotation is seismic waves.  Most gyroscopes in operation are NOT attached to the ground in any way and still measure a steady 15 degrees per hour rotation.  What are they measuring? I submit that they are measuring the steady rotation of the earth.  The gyroscopes I had access to also measured a change in the z axis while moving from location to location that wouldn’t be seen on a flat earth.  The ring laser gyro argument that it’s just measuring some constant, steady, rotating seismic phenomenon is thus debunked.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: October 06, 2021, 05:27:34 PM »
Your referenced article debunks your 'relative motion' statement right from the start.  Scientists that study any seismic activity know that this is a very intermittent phenomenon. The very steady baseline rotation rate on the graph isn’t related to seismic activity at all, it’s the measured rotation of the earth.  You can see that there’s a deviation of the rate both above and below the steady baseline.  The sheer mass of the earth would preclude any sudden changes of the rotation rate like that.  You can take a gyroscope and put it on an airplane, and it will still be influenced by the earth’s rotation but couldn’t be influenced by any seismic activity.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« on: July 14, 2021, 02:47:15 PM »
??? This thread is about Branson not going to space. Take your moon nonsense to another thread.
Why would you even mention that 'we issue the credentials as to whether you proved the earth was round or not' in a previous thread?  Who needs to take their nonsense to another thread then?  If you want 'space credentials' you have to see the FAA.  They did issue some paperwork to the pilots who flew the mission.  I'm trying to figure out how I can obtain 'round earth credentials' and who issues them.  Branson's pilots got theirs, how do I get mine?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« on: July 14, 2021, 02:36:08 PM »
The FAA is the one who issues the credentials for astronauts, so they win.   
But here at, we issue the credentials as to whether you proved the earth was round or not, and if you want to use "I saw earth from space" as your argument ... you'd better be in a place that we consider space.
What about the moon? That's in space, according to your own definition.  There's pictures of the earth from there, but then FES just proclaims them to be fake CGI.  So there's no possible way to be issued round earth credentials, is there?  You know the level of gas in your cars fuel tank, or it's oil pressure, or it's engine temperature, right? It's all from direct reading instruments that report the results back to you.  What if I told you that there's also instruments that can measure the roundness of the Earth.  Would that qualify as evidence?   

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« on: July 13, 2021, 08:42:22 PM »
OK, great now we have YOUR arbitrary specification for what space happens to be.  Now all you have to do is convince the FAA that your specification is better (for some reason) than theirs and everyone, worldwide, can get with it.  I don't believe that the astronauts will be carrying too many swords or opening any windows to poke at the other guy heading in the opposite direction.  They never did that with aircraft either and the pilot in command always sits on the left side, even in British aircraft.  All you've said is that your definition of 'space' doesn't agree with the FAA.  The FAA is the one who issues the credentials for astronauts, so they win.     

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« on: July 13, 2021, 05:49:32 PM »
The FAA begs to differ, but what do they know? As I said:

So I guess you won't be joining this then?
Since you first claim space has an arbitrary definition,  you are essentially admitting you are terribly fond of all arbitrary pronouncements, which goes further to diminishing your credibility as a contributor, than it does to supporting Branson actually went to space.
A lot of things in life are just arbitrary definitions.  Why do Americans drive on the left side of the road and the British on the right?  So now you have 'at what specific altitude does space start?'  I haven't seen even one flat earther specify a specific altitude, but only 'those people didn't go into space'.  They might as well come to the USA and stand in the middle of a highway and yell 'HEY YOU, you should be driving on the other side of the road'  The FAA says that the pilots were official astronauts. They also have a lot of other arbitrary standards for pilots and proclaim that certain humans are authorized to leave the surface of the Earth in control of an airplane.  So far they haven't started to regulate birds of any kind.  I suspect that a crashing bird would do a lot less damage to someone on the ground than a crashing 747 (which is just another arbitrary model number assigned to that type of aircraft by Boeing).  The bottom line is that someone or some entity must proclaim a standard for behavior and/or licensing for those who engage in certain types of activities.  This has to be done for the overall safety of others.

I, personally, watched about 60 minutes worth and saw some fallacies presented so I shut it off.  When I want to watch fiction I usually choose Star Trek.  The fallacies I watched have already been debunked.  Some of them are not true by my own observations.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28  Next >