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 - Longtitube

Pages: < Back  1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10  Next >
61
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 03, 2021, 07:15:05 AM »
See the red arrows as I would expect the beams to be:



No. Vertical structures tilt if the camera is crooked and not parallel with the surface.

Whereas the star paths are unaffected? You see what you just said? Wow.

62
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: January 29, 2021, 07:54:56 AM »
Tom, you haven’t made a convincing case. The star trail simulation isn’t convincing either; I have never seen the sun or moon rise or set at accelerated rates like in the simulation, nor does either sun or moon elongate as seen rising and setting in the simulation, so that won’t wash. Quoting a video on refraction showing refractive effects within a degree or so of the horizon doesn’t prove your case for the whole sky either.

The OP’s question is still unanswered, why do stars which supposedly circle above earth set?

63
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: January 28, 2021, 09:57:22 AM »
I haven't seen much evidence that the stars move in concentric circles.

From the pic in the OP, using a symmetrical circle tool:


Another pic:



Your “symmetrical circle tool” isn’t drawing circles from the same centre each time, nor is it centered on the rotation centre of the sky in either image.

While we’re discussing photos of the stars, have you made sure these images were made with a perfectly rectilinear lens, one that was distortion-free? It would help your case to know.

64
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: January 26, 2021, 07:34:45 PM »
Not sure where this video was taken but you can see Ursa Major any time of the year and time of the night in all of the US. I live in southeast US around 30 latitude and I know this to be true. This shouldn’t be possible on RE.

First of all, by Ursa Major, do you mean all of the constellation or just the Big Dipper? The Dipper, also known as the Plough, although part of Ursa Major, is not the whole constellation.

Second, from a SE USA location like Albany, Ga (picked at random for its 31deg N latitude) most of Ursa Major dips below the horizon for a few hours in each 24, Dubhe skimming the northern horizon. At this time of year it’s mostly above the horizon by 8pm local time and doesn’t dip below the horizon at all before sunrise.

Lastly, from Miami (about 25deg N), Ursa Major disappears entirely below the northern horizon during part of each day.

On what grounds should any of this be impossible??

65
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 23, 2021, 08:18:54 PM »
I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis

'Fascination' is probably not quite the right word for it, but I tend to focus on Sig Oct because it has the unique property of being stationary, and perfectly shows the latitude of the observer without needing complex navigation tables etc. This avoids all discussion of movement, which I think tends to distract from the key points of the debate - I don't need a star chart to tell you where to look to see it, as all I need is your latitude and to tell you to look south at the appropriate elevation. Yes, it's hard to see, but it's still there. It also avoids tedious confusion regarding the Southern Cross being visible in parts of the northern hemisphere. I've seen this used as an argument to the effect that the southern pole can in fact be viewed from the northern hemisphere, which is not correct - the southern cross has a declination of around -60, and so would be expected to be visible in the southern 30 degrees or so of the northern hemisphere.

The stationary property of sig oct is perfect for the point being made here, which is that it is visible from all parts of the southern hemisphere - as I showed in my post above, at brief periods, it's even visible in three different continents at the same time. There is no credible explanation for that within FET, and I'm disappointed that Tom hasn't risen to the challenge of addressing this point.

I am trying to think what possible explanation the FE proponents can come up with but honestly nothing short of magic comes to me. I wouldn't want to be in their spot  8)

I would like to invite Tom Bishop and Pete Svarrior to take up this challenge  ;)

I don’t think it’s possible in real life.  What you shown is a drawing. Maybe people are confused and one country is looking at the southern cross and the other country is looking at the false cross.

Cut the stargazers a little slack: the False Cross is dimmer and has four stars, not five like Crux (Southern Cross). There are no Pointer stars like Alpha and Hadar/Beta Centauri (third and eleventh brightest stars in the sky) to guide the observer to the False Cross, instead of the small, very bright constellation of Crux. Furthermore, Crux is much nearer the Pointers already mentioned than Canopus, the second brightest star of all: the False Cross is much closer to Canopus than the Pointers.

Maybe you or I would pick the wrong constellation otherwise, but to assume people in the south don't know their own night sky is presumptious.



https://www.constellation-guide.com/false-cross/

66
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 22, 2021, 08:33:39 PM »
If the beam starts off low in the tube and ends up high in the tube at the other end it would be the same result if they angled the beam slightly upwards at the receiver on a flat earth or the earth curved downwards on a round one.
..........
The components had to be aligned at some point to get it to work. The point is that on an FE there is no physical obstruction preventing a path regarding how they accounted for 'earth curvature'.

The beams actually bounce back and forth a lot in each arm before the measurement, each travelling 1120km before final merge and detection, so the necessary precision is a lot higher than you seem to think. Aligned “at some point” indeed!

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/ligo-technology

67
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 21, 2021, 10:19:39 PM »
Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America is going to be in twilight, allegedly. You can't see stars in times of twilight.

The claim that these cities you listed are going to see the same stars at the same time is tenuous at best.

Actually you can, and the daylight charts you supplied give part of the answer, if you read the article on the different types of twilight:–

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/different-types-twilight.html

you'll read there that most stars are visible in astronomical twilight. Both horizon and the brighter stars are visible in nautical twilight - which is why it's called nautical twilight - and can be used by sailors for navigation. Civil twilight completes the picture. All three types and their extents are shown on the daylight charts:–




Ushaia and Cape Town at the time shown in the chart above are both on the transition from nautical to astronomical twilight so stars will be visible at both locations at the same time.


I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis, it's quite useless for navigation, being on the limits of naked eye visibility even in full darkness. Sailors and other navigators used brighter stars for navigation, such as those of the Southern Cross (Crux) which has two very bright stars: Acrux, the 13th brightest in the sky, and Mimosa, the 20th brightest. Crux is visible from Ushaia and Cape Town simultaneously, and in June is visible from Ushaia and Perth, Western Australia simultaneously.

68
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 17, 2021, 01:23:00 PM »
None of the older civilizations that navigated by the stars used the Southern Cross.  It wasn’t used until the 16th century and wasn’t named till the 19th century. And they mapped the constellations in a circle around Polaris. And months of the year you can see them. Shouldn’t most of Southern Hemisphere always see year round the constellations that are close to the South Pole? Like the small/Big Dipper?

And there are a lot of stars that make up a cross that points opposite of the North Pole.
I tried to add a photo showing multiple crosses that point south but I still haven’t figured out how to post a picture.  :'(

Are you quite sure about the star-navigating nations? Perhaps the Polynesians don’t count, but they had colonised as far east as Fiji by around 2,000 years ago and as far as Easter Island by about 700AD. They also colonised Aotearoa (New Zealand) by 1000AD. All of these south of the Equator and Polaris invisible below the horizon. Captain Cook records a Polynesian navigator who had a mental image of thousands of miles of the South Pacific in his head which Cook wrote down to aid his own explorations and found remarkably accurate.

The Polynesians certainly knew the Southern Cross: the Hawaiians called it Hanaiakamalama.

69
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The moon illuminated oddly?
« on: January 17, 2021, 08:37:14 AM »
The temperature of the ground is cooler in moonlight than it is the shade. I’ve tested this several times in several different places with an infrared thermometer.  My test always 4-5f degrees cooler in the light of a full moon.

I’ve noticed something similar recently - in recent frost the ground was frozen hard in the open but not frozen under the pines. Only problem is there was no moon that night, so that effect is seen whether there is moonlight or not.

70
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 16, 2021, 10:42:56 PM »
...You would be arguing why someone can see the southern stars at the same time in South America and Africa in the Monopole model. Usually when it's day in one location it's night in the other...

You should check your facts: at this moment it is dark in Cape Town, South Africa and will be for another five hours. Sunset in Ushaia, Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America is in less than half an hour and it will be another seven hours plus before sunrise there tomorrow. That's about five hours' overlap of darkness for the two locations and in their summer when their nights are shorter.

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/south-africa/cape-town
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/ushuaia

71
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Have a video for you guys
« on: December 23, 2020, 08:37:15 PM »
... The separation between a straight line of points would decrease with distance regardless of the angle between the horizon and the line in question (in other words: the angle between stars *does* appear to decrease ...

My apologies: I assumed you meant something by the above quoted statement. I'm trying to imagine how the sky as described in the wiki would look with stars a few thousand miles above us moving over our heads, how they would look as they move in the course of a night. It doesn't square with what we see in the actual sky. Constellations a few thousand miles above would most certainly change in size and the angle between these stars change as they passed from horizon to horizon, only in the real night sky they don't.

72
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Have a video for you guys
« on: December 23, 2020, 04:44:44 PM »
I do wonder if Pete has ever watched the stars much. Has he witnessed Orion's belt become Orion's watchstrap as it sets in the west? Has he seen Castor and Pollux in Gemini increase their social distancing as they rise from the east? Did he notice Cygnus become a Sparrow as it drops in the northwest from the UK or Draco shrink to a Gecko?

The stars don't become further apart as they rise from the eastern horizon, nor do they come closer together as they vanish over the west. Anyone familiar with astronomy and stellar navigation understands that from observation and common experience, and quoting Rowbotham (as the wiki does) won't change the night sky.

73
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 18, 2020, 12:50:58 PM »

I never avoid supplying sources / validation for obfuscation.  If I know of a good source that can help explain more adequately than the detail I include - I am most happy to include it.  ...

Presumably you meant something else. Elucidation is always welcome, elaboration can be useful, but obfuscation is no help to anyone.

74
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?
« on: December 17, 2020, 10:12:47 AM »
I’m not questioning your calculations or the results, but it would help understanding if you also mention the apparent height of Polaris above the North Pole as calculated from these positions. At 60 degrees north, Polaris is apparently 3,118 miles above the pole and at 30 degrees north it’s apparently 2,078 miles above a flat earth pole. So Polaris goes up and down in height as an observer on a flat earth travels towards and away from the pole. Similar problems beset calculations of the sun’s height above a flat earth, but Samuel Whirling Roundbottom didn’t mention these in ENAG.

75
I have to admit my mistake when I misread "hours" for "years" so apologies. 8503.4 hours, you said.

I suspected as much, don’t worry about it.

I understand the boat changing direction at 1g as experienced by its passenger, also length dilation and redshift for an outside observer not being seen by those on a fast-moving Earth. So please go on, what’s next?

76
The speed of light is 300,000,000ms-1 so at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 it takes 300,000,000/9.8 = 30,612,244.9 seconds to reach light speed, c.

Divide this by 60 to get 510,204.082 minutes.

Divide again by 60 to get 8503.4 hours

Finally, divide for a last time by 24 to get 354.3 days to reach light speed from a standing start at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 which is less than a year.

This is why UA is nonsense: according to it the Earth reached light speed millenia ago and has continued accelerating at 9.8ms-2 ever since, even though the speed of light cannot be reached by anything with mass.

Please check the arithmetic in case I made a blunder.
You made a blunder, in that you fundamentally are misunderstanding how relativity works. Let's take the shape of the Earth out of the equation, and just talk about a rocket accelerating through space at 1G. By your math, after about 8500 years, the people on board that rocket would measure their instantaneous velocity to be 99.99% (with probably a fair few more 9's added on, I'm not going to bother working it out because it's meaningless) of c. Yet, what relativity tells us is that the people on board that ship will measure their velocity to still be 0% of c. Because there is no such thing as a preferred frame of reference, you can always pick a frame where that rocket has an instantaneous velocity of 0m/s while still accelerating at 1G for a completely arbitrary amount of time, and the people in that ship would be feeling that steady 1G acceleration the whole time. The people in the rocket ship from this example would be much like people standing on a UA version of the FE, in that they are moving with the accelerating object. An observer on that FE would never exceed c, nor would the FE, because it can never itself move any faster than 0% of c as measured by an observer standing on that FE (since, you know, it's invariant).

And all of that is still glossing over a misapplication of how relativistic velocities are added up, since that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Then indulge an poor sap who'd like to know more and explain just a little of that. Where, first, does the 8500 year figure come from? Secondly, since there is no preferred frame of reference, please explain how the people in your rocket ship can be said to have an instantaneous velocity of zero while continuing to accelerate at 1G. I really would like to know this, so gnomic pronouncements or sneering from others just won't cut it: I'll take your own words or you can supply links or reading material.

Since the UA concept, or the energy powering UA, makes no sense to me currently, I'd genuinely appreciate a little light. Go for it.

77
The speed of light is 300,000,000ms-1 so at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 it takes 300,000,000/9.8 = 30,612,244.9 seconds to reach light speed, c.

Divide this by 60 to get 510,204.082 minutes.

Divide again by 60 to get 8503.4 hours

Finally, divide for a last time by 24 to get 354.3 days to reach light speed from a standing start at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 which is less than a year.

This is why UA is nonsense: according to it the Earth reached light speed millenia ago and has continued accelerating at 9.8ms-2 ever since, even though the speed of light cannot be reached by anything with mass.

Please check the arithmetic in case I made a blunder.

78
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 13, 2020, 05:38:16 PM »
Well, now the origin of the notorious photograph has been settled, we can each decide who the joke is on. Good grief!
What do you mean this has been settled?

The photo originates from NASA and was originally published to Wikipedia on 15 November 2006. These are facts.

You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.

You may not know this, but science doesn't have a full and exhaustive explanation for every phenomenon under the sun. Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that. On a more mundane level, ordinary mechanics doesn't have a full theoretical explanation: the lecturer facing another year's undergraduates made the point that there is no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body. The students are taught that the sum of all horizontal forces on a stationary body is zero, the sum of all vertical forces is also zero and all rotational forces on that same stationary body also sums to zero, but this is drawn from observations, not a grand theory.

Mark, you repeatedly state that these vacuums are "so powerful" and can supposedly do all sorts of things. What is your basis for these claims? What do you know about these phenomena that "we have no experience of"? Have you a book you have read? Maybe a web article? YouTube video? Other people have provided links and quotations to support their case – Tom Bishop usually posts tons of links, f'rinstance – but you just make unsupported claims about excitable vibrating protons and whatnot. Where's the beef, Mark?

Contradictory post here. You are telling me that science doesn't have an exhaustive explanation for everything yet you expect all my arguments to be sourced and established scientifically? I'm still waiting for the scientific explanation for how rockets work in a vacuum without violating Newton's 1st law.  ::)

Others have answered about rockets and Newton's three laws already. I have quoted and supplied links to substantiate things and yes, it's expected you can also back up your scientific claims with scientific facts, so thank you for the link, but the smaller figures in the diagrams you show are illegible, so here's a link to the source of those diagrams:–

https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/p03/PAPERS/MPPB003.PDF

Here's an image taken from a paper on photon chamber design in which the author ponders over limitations of cross sectional shape in terms of deflection under a vacuum (with 1atm externally). He mentions that while rectangular cross sections are preferred, they deflect more than the less desirable elliptical shape. Even the elliptical shape deflects more than 0.1mm on both sides of the chamber despite the aluminium being 1mm thick! That is unprecedented:


Trakhtenberg, Brajuskovic, Wiemerslage New Insertion device vacuum chambers at the advanced photon source (2003)

If you read the article more carefully, you'll see the deflection wasn't as you claim:–
Quote
All  previous  ID  VC  had  an  elliptical  aperture.  The  deflection  under  atmospheric  pressure  for  such  a  shape,  even with 1 mm wall thickness, is below 100 μm per wall. (my emphasis)

How is a chamber wall deflection of around one tenth of a millimetre "unprecedented"?

And yet we have coke cans (also made from aluminium) that are one tenth the thickness of the above and yet they contain 2-3 atmospheres of pressure (sometimes twice this) with negligible deflection! This is why we can't apply basic pressure vessel mechanics to high vacuums because the science doesn't fit - there are phenomena that we simply don't understand whether you like it or not.

Incredible isn't it?

I suggest a small experiment: buy yourself a Coke can and let it warm to room temperature; or if you're more adventurous, let it warm in the sun or above a radiator. Measure distance between the top rim of the can and the surface of the top face of the can. Then open the can and measure the distance between top rim and top surface again. Let us know how negligible is the difference, if any, between the two measurements.

Here's an interesting informational article describing the strength of vacuums and the kinetic theory of gases which looks at the molecular element: https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html

I read the article through and it is a good summation of the problems of getting the gas pressure down to high vacuum. I've seen some of the diagrams used elsewhere, I know about the application of kinetic gas theory to the problems, but I'm still no wiser as to quantum effects, oddball chemistry or the "immense power" of such regimes? As for diffusion through the chamber wall, the article instances helium as being able to penetrate to a degree, but helium is not a substantial part of our atmosphere, nor is it used in spacecraft breathing atmospheres that I'm aware of, so why should that be relevant to the "strength" or "power" of a vacuum?

What I did notice in the article is confirmation of my point about some things in science being based on experiment and observation, rather than derived from theory:–

Quote
The above is related to the principle in classical mechanics where kinetic energy = 1/2 m v2, developed by Leibniz and Bernoulli and originally described in 1722 by Gravesande in a series of experiments in which brass balls were dropped from varying heights onto a soft clay surface. Gravesande found that a ball with twice the speed of another would leave an indentation four times as deep, from which he concluded that the force generated by a body in motion is proportional to the square of its velocity. This same principle applies to the kinetic gas theory where the force of the molecules impacting the walls of the vessel is what generates the gas pressure, in proportion to the square of their speed.

So kinetic energy being proportional to velocity squared is not derived from grand theory, but experiment. That finding is subsequently included in the theory and taught to school students and others as part of mechanics, but you will search in vain for a theoretical origin for it.


I'm reluctant to put the effort in to give you the science because I don't believe you sincerely want to be convinced.

I enjoy learning new things, so I ask you to reconsider that remark.

79
Einstein said that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, but he also said that nothing could reach the speed of light. The equations in the Wiki are from Special Relativity, which says that a body can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light. Relative frames of references, etc.

Alternatively, it may also be that there are no speed limits. I don't believe Einstein actually performed any experiments on that.

See these two articles:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment

Summary: "Our light experiments can't see the Earth moving around the Sun. Everything must be moving relative to each other. The only standard is the speed of light, which is consistent, and which everything moves relative to."

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

Summary: "Nooooooo. Those experiments which show SR to be incorrect must be exceptions to the rule."

Tom, you are mixing up Special and General Relativity. Even if you don't believe gravity exists, the science examines Earth, Sun and the planets in terms of gravitational attraction, so only General Relativity describes their behaviour.

Quote
The theory of relativity usually encompasses two interrelated theories by Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity.[1] Special relativity applies to all physical phenomena in the absence of gravity. General relativity explains the law of gravitation and its relation to other forces of nature.[2] It applies to the cosmological and astrophysical realm, including astronomy.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

80
But you are still not accounting for the issue about the shape of the earth.  Since you agree the Earth is not set on a foundation, but is detached, thus whether floating or accelerating it still would take the shape of every other large mass and be a globe.  Blow a flat bubble and prove me wrong.

I’m not accounting for or agreeing with anything. I only told you what you’ll find in the wiki, not what I think about it, nor whether I’ll blow any bubbles. Read a few threads as well as the FAQ and you’ll get a better feel for this place and the characters who may be found, as well as the opinions voiced and argued over. Four days since you joined is not enough to understand what sort of forum this is. Good luck!

Pages: < Back  1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10  Next >