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 - ICanScienceThat

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Investigations / GPS and the Orbital Coriolis Effect
« on: June 05, 2019, 06:53:01 PM »
So why should these observations provide evidence to SBR about the Earth being flat? Because they can be equally accounted for using RET as described above as well.


However, now that you have mentioned the sun's declination, you are going to have to explain this.

This is the orbital CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

dto = 4AvosinΦcosδ/Rc2 = 4AΩosinΦcosδ/c2

R = 150,000,000 km and A = Lh

Cosδ is the sun's declination factor; however, on the day of the spring or autumn equinox, cosδ = 1.

Please explain to your readers why the orbital CORIOLIS EFFECT is not being registered by the GPS satellites.

This is the question that none of the physicists in the world can answer without resorting to MLET (modified Lorentz ether theory).

Light beams in an interferometer in rotation will be subjected to the Coriolis effect (a deflection of the beams) and to the Sagnac effect (variable velocity).

Rotation: either the Earth rotates around its own axis, or the ether drift rotates above the surface of the Earth.

There are two Coriolis effects: rotational and orbital.

Rotational effect: due to the Coriolis force of rotation of the Earth.

Orbital effect: due to the Coriolis force of rotation while in orbit around the Sun.

Here is how the rotational Coriolis effect is derived:

Here is how the orbital Coriolis effect is derived:

The Coriolis effect formula involves AN AREA and the ANGULAR VELOCITY.

GPS satellites record/register ONLY the rotational Coriolis force.

In fact, GPS functions even because the orbital Coriolis force is not being registered.

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Coriolis is missing whereas the earth's rotational Coriolis is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.

In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.

The calculations performed for the LISA space antenna/satellite prove that the orbital Coriolis effect is 30 times greater than the rotational Coriolis effect in that case.

Faced with these facts, relativists have denied (believe it or not) that the satellites actually orbit the Sun.

"The motion of the earth's orbit is also a sagnac effect. We should see light path distance differentials caused by the orbit just like we see if for earth's rotation.

The orbital path is simply longer and nothing else.

The earth - sun orbital frame is a sagnac rotating frame.

The Sagnac correction for the earth's rotation is applied because as the light moves toward the receiver, the receiver rotates with the earth changing the distance the signal travels.

In the same light, if the unit had been at the equator at noon, then it should see the full effect of the Sagnac effect of the earth's revolution around the sun.
In other words, assume a satellite is low on the horizon in the east at the equator.

We should measure a sagnac correction for the earth's rotation on its axis and a sagnac correction of the earth's rotation/revolution around the sun.
If sagnac is true for the earth's rotation, then light travels at one speed c. the speed of light cannot be increased by circular motion and presumably not by linear motion either.

If light travels at one speed c, then as the earth moves in it's revolution loop at 30k/s, while light moves c through space, the unit at the equator at noon would move with the earth' rotation and the earth's revolution cutting the distance the signal must travel to meet the unit.
The earth is rotating at 1000 mph. This shows up in GPS as c+v and c-v as you would expect with Sagnac.

All that is fine.

When the satellite emits at c, the earth rotates the receiver at v and so a correction is needed.

This is all OK.

Now, the earth is revolving around the sun at 67000 mph, as we are told by the heliocentrists.

Let's say the unit is at the equator and the satellite is low on the horizon in the east at noon.

That means the unit is traveling at the orbital speed of the earth at 67,000 MPH.

The satellite emits at one speed c in space. While the light travels through space toward the unit at c, the unit moves with the earth at 67,000 MPH. The unit cuts the distance that the light must travel.

This is not being seen by any experiements nor GPS."

Certainly this is interesting. The Ching-Chuan Su article is arguing that they've come up with a modified version of ether that can explain what we've come to accept as relativity. I'll want to swing back to this and take a closer look at that.

As to the more relevant claims about Sagnac effect on the Earth's orbit and how it affects GPS signals... From an inertial frame attached to the Sun, the Earth is moving at some 67,000 mph which result in a measurable difference in the travel time of light going in opposite directions. However, the Earth and its satellites do not operate in the's Sun's frame of reference. They operate in the Earth's where that linear speed is zero. I gather that you do not support relativity, but this is what relativity says. You don't have to agree with it, I'm just explaining what the theory says.

To observe the Sagnac effect, we need the light to go around in opposite directions in a rotating frame of reference. The Earth's orbit around the Sun is a rotating frame of reference, and it rotates at 1.9x10-6 rpm or 0.041 degrees per hour. For the Sagnac equation, we'll want rad per sec or 1.99x10-7. That sounds tiny, but when we multiply this by the area the light makes in the loop, we could get a significant result. When you apply this to a standard ring laser gyro, the area would probably be too small to affect anything, but we're talking about using satellites as our ring, so the area should be huge.

Now if we actually had light making these loops in opposite directions, applying the Sagnac equation would be pretty trivial. The Ching-Chuan Su paper doesn't show that part, so we'd have to follow their links to see the source material for it. Sandokhan, if you'd care to follow that up a bit more and find out exactly how the author works this part out, I'd like to hear more about that. I may decide to dig into it some more on my own, but no promises there.

My initial reaction is that GPS doesn't involve loops. It involves a broadcast of light from the satellite to the receiver. Both the satellite and the receiver on Earth are in orbit together around the Sun and thus share that exact same 67,000 mph speed relative to the Sun. The satellite orbiting the Earth has a relative speed. The Earth's rotation beneath the satellite creates a relative speed. Their shared orbit around the Sun does not. This is a fairly easy situation to resolve under Special Relativity.

Flat Earth Theory / Terminal Velocity
« on: May 31, 2019, 04:58:54 AM »
I was just browsing the wiki, and I found something that seems a bit strange. It's short, so I'll quote it:

In the Round Earth model, terminal velocity happens when the acceleration due to gravity is equal to the acceleration due to drag. In the Flat Earth model, however, there are no balanced forces: terminal velocity happens when the upward acceleration of the person is equal to the upward acceleration of the Earth.

Q: If gravity does not exist, how does terminal velocity work?

A: When the acceleration of the person is equal to the acceleration of the Earth, the person has reached terminal velocity.

I'm having trouble putting this into the right words here... This section seems totally unnecessary. There's just nothing related to the shape of the Earth involved with terminal velocity. It's just not necessary to have this in there.

I'm trying to come up with a way to rebut this section without sounding like a total jerk, but... I just can't even.

Look... whether the downward force comes from Newton's law of gravity or GR or Universal Acceleration or "it's all relative density," it makes literally ZERO difference to the terminal velocity.

If you have questions about aerodynamic drag, I have some training (indoctrination) in that area. I can't think of any reason that drag is related to the shape of the Earth.

Flat Earth Community / Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus
« on: May 27, 2019, 06:42:26 PM »
There's plenty of debate here. Let's try something different. Who is interested in trying to seek some truth?

We're all biased. I'm totally biased. When trying to seek out some truth on this issue, I really need somebody to help me check my bias. I'm looking for a friendly flat Earther who would be willing to work together to our mutual benefit.

We'd try to help each other see our biases. We'd explore what we agree on and where we disagree. We'd try to seek the root of that disagreement, and we'd search for a way to objectively determine if one or the other is more correct... or is there some way they can both be correct?

Anybody interested?

Flat Earth Investigations / Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: May 20, 2019, 11:19:44 PM »
Last summer, I had a thread where I asked for genuine questions about how things work with the standard mainstream model of RET. I'd like to open that topic up once more.

Is there something about garden-variety RET that seems wrong? Something that was never adequately explained? I'd love to help you science anything.

Motion of Sun, Moon, & Stars? Phases of the Moon? Eclipses? Does the horizon rise to eye level? How does the curve calculator work? Does the curve calculator work? What's a gyrocompass? What the heck is the "spacetime metric?" Anything you like.

Suggestions & Concerns / Wiki section for rebuttals?
« on: May 20, 2019, 11:09:13 PM »
Is there a section on the wiki for the rebuttals? I think that'd be a really good idea.

Flat Earth Theory / Why do we see the same stars every night?
« on: May 19, 2019, 07:35:10 AM »
This is a comment I see from time to time, and I wondered if anyone here holds this same idea... It goes like this...
If the Earth really works the way science tells us, then the night sky in the summer is pointing in the opposite direction from the night sky in the winter. If that were true, there would be no way to see the same stars in the winter and the summer.
Such was a comment on one of my videos, and I was thinking of addressing it, but I wasn't sure how common a belief it is.
Is that an idea that anyone here holds?

Short version, we don't see the same stars... but does everybody here already know that? Is that a mistake we only see out in YouTube land?

Flat Earth Theory / Clarifications on UA
« on: May 13, 2019, 06:54:35 AM »
I'm researching UA at the moment, and I would like to ask for some clarification. Could anyone speak about this particular topic: "The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA."

If I understand this correctly, something is pushing the Earth upwards at 9.8 m/s2. We feel "gravity" because the Earth is being accelerated upwards. Whatever force that is, it doesn't hit us. If it did, we wouldn't feel "gravity" because we'd just be in freefall with the Earth.

But I believe I've read mentions that if you get up high enough over the Earth, that something will start pushing on you too. Am I correct to understand that this is the explanation for why the Sun, Moon, etc. do not come crashing down? They must be under the same influence of the something that the Earth is. Do I have this correct?

At what point is it appropriate to call out a deliberate falsehood? I mean... on the upper fora? Let's say there's a conversation like this:

Alice: The sky is green
Bob: No it's blue
Alice: You can't prove that.
Bob: Yes I can. Here's a photo of the sky. I sampled the colors on photoshop. The average color of the sky was (23, 74, 131). That's much bluer than it is green.
Alice: You used photoshop to edit that photo. You admitted it right there!
Bob: No, I just used it to find the exact color. Why don't you send us a photo of the sky and we'll test it.
crickets chirping

1 week later
Alice: The sky is green
Bob: No it isn't, I told you already
Alice: You made that up. It's all lies and photoshop.

Now at this point in my story, Alice is lying, and I think Bob ought to be well within his rights to say so publicly and proudly. Alice knows very well that what she's saying is false. We have the previous conversation as proof. Closing her eyes and refusing to accept the proof doesn't mean she should be allowed to continue saying it doesn't exist. She's seen it, and we all know it. Continuing to say she hasn't seen it is a lie.

What do the rules say? What should the rules say?

Suggestions & Concerns / Pete please explain
« on: July 27, 2018, 05:48:07 PM »
Here's the conversation...

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take this. Is this a joke, and I'm supposed to laugh along with you? Or is this a serious hypothesis that I'm expected to pick holes in? Or perhaps this is just wild speculation, and I just need to open my mind and imagine what it might be like?
You know that condescending attitude that you try not to have, but everyone tells you you keep doing it?
There it is.

Categorize this under personal conjecture.
Yeah. I'm condescending AF. Fair enough.

And Pete's response:
Yeah, try not to do that in the upper. If you need to vent, take it to Angry Ranting. Most people will still read it and get suitably outraged ;)

I'm not gonna issue a proper warning since this does look like a genuine slip-up, but let's go with a polite request.

People like to call me condescending, and I'm happy to own that. Here is some more of what I expect could be called "condescending"...

Pete, what did you mean by that?

Do you mean to say that my original post: "I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take this. Is this a joke, and I'm supposed to laugh along with you? Or is this a serious hypothesis that I'm expected to pick holes in? Or perhaps this is just wild speculation, and I just need to open my mind and imagine what it might be like?" is unacceptable under your rules?

Or do you mean to say that this response: "You know that condescending attitude that you try not to have, but everyone tells you you keep doing it? There it is." is unacceptable?

The thing is, text can be imprecise if you aren't careful with it. Your text did not specify whom you were addressing. I personally do not see anyone "venting" in any of that exchange. I asked a poster whether they were serious or joking. On this board, that seems like a pretty fair question. I also tried to ask them whether or not they were inviting debate on the topic. That's not "venting." If you're being extremely strict, I could imagine finding JHelzer's response to be a personal attack, but somehow that's not the impression I got from your response. I think it was directed at me.

In my opinion, what you read as "condescension" was, in this case, merely asking for clarification. People who are being serious find it condescending when you ask them if they are joking. People also find it condescending when you explain their mistakes to them by going back to extremely basic fundamentals, but when someone is making a mistake with basic fundamentals, there's no way around that. That's all I'm here for. I'm here to try to get a few people to stop and rethink their basic fundamentals, and that is going to come across as condescending. There's no getting around that, so I'll own up to it, but if that's against the rules, I'll need a refresher course.

Flat Earth Community / AR planetarium on your phone
« on: July 15, 2018, 05:05:17 AM »
I was out at this event tonight:
There were amateur astronomy clubs there with several telescopes set up right in an outdoor mall. They were viewing Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn. Cool stuff.
I realize that we don't all live close to Pasadena, but these astronomy clubs are all over. Look for their events... just don't mention that you're a FE. Go and look and keep an open mind. Awesome stuff no matter how you think it all works.

Anyway... As we were out there, I opened up the little planetarium app on my phone, and I got to thinking. How does this app work?
1) It uses GPS to know where the phone is on the Earth. (Even if you believe in FE, you know that GPS works somehow or other.)
2) It uses an internal magnetic compass to figure out which way is North
3) It uses an internal accelerometer to measure gravity and calculates the phone's orientation from that. (Whatever you think gravity is, your phone knows which way is up.)
4) Based on all that info, your phone knows where it is and where it's looking. It then projects a spherical map of the stars and planets that should be in front of it - based on the assumption that the Earth is a globe.

So whether you think the Earth is round or flat, these apps work. They work every time of every day anywhere on Earth. (Ok, I've only ever tested it in various parts of the US, but it has always worked in those so far.) There are lots of them, and many free options. I use this one:

What that tells us is that the globe model of the stars and planets does work to predict where the stars and planets are at any time and any place. So maybe the Earth isn't a globe, but whether it is or it isn't, the globe model works. Take a pause and reflect on that the next time you start to point out something that "doesn't make sense on a globe Earth." The globe model works. Get an app on your phone and check.

Flat Earth Investigations / Empirical Validation of Perspective
« on: June 22, 2018, 06:03:24 PM »
Hey ya'll... I'm working on a video that discusses some different ideas about how perspective works, and how we can do simple experiments to figure out which ideas are correct and which are not.

I'd like to ask willing participants to take a photograph and record some measurements from it. I have a little questionnaire to ask what your ideas about perspective were before and after doing the experiment. The video would ideally focus on whether or not people who started off with different ideas about perspective arrive at the same conclusions after testing it for themselves.

You can participate completely anonymously if you want.

I would like to avoid any debate over which ideas are correct and which are not. I would prefer that nobody posts their answers here until everyone has had a chance to do the measurements on their own. The idea is to explore whether doing the empirical investigation on your own is a better way to find the truth (as opposed to reading about it online).

Anyone interested/willing to participate?

Here are some questions for before you take your measurements:
And here is the description of how to take the measurements:

To turn in your answers (without sharing them here right away), just PM me or email me at
If you'd like to arrange an alternative way to share your answers, feel free to post here telling me how to get them.

The goal of this experiment is to answer the question, "How far away is the vanishing point?" If you'd like to come up with a different experiment to answer that question, that would be great too! All ideas welcome.

(I had posted this on the other forum, but I have few responses so far. So I'm re-posting here hoping to get a few more.)

Pages: [1]