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 - George Jetson

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is the story of Galileo explained
« on: May 25, 2019, 01:07:23 AM »
Hi guys, I would really love more information on the wiki about more recent historical figures who were involved in building the traditional western model of the universe. There is information about Aristotles arguments and their counters. Why is Aristotle the only one mentioned?

Galileo dedicated his life to demonstrating that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. He spent the last years of his life imprisoned due to blasphemy.
No.

This is perhaps the most recurring motif, and yet it is entirely untrue. Galileo was treated by the church as a celebrity. When summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the grand Medici Villa in Rome. He attended receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. Even after he was found guilty, he was first housed in a magnificent Episcopal palace and then placed under "house arrest" although he was permitted to visit his daughters in a nearby convent and to continue publishing scientific papers.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/galileo/debunking-the-galileo-myth.html
 
Quote
There was great risk involved in this for him. Even before him, even those thinkers who believed in a geocentric universe still believed the Earth to be round and dedicated their life to this science (Kepler, for example).
There were also great thinkers who disagreed with Kepler and Galileo and were geocentrists (see Tycho Brahe.) 
Quote
Is it true that these incredibly intelligent and dedicated thinkers could not figure out the Earth was not in fact round. What does the Flat Earth Society make of these individuals? They were SIMPLY wildly wrong? With everything that was at stake?
The controversy was about geocentrism vs. heliocentrism not RE vs. FE.  And what matters is what the evidence says, not the opinions of those who are deemed to be great minds.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctica shows 24 hours of sunlight.
« on: April 30, 2019, 12:03:04 AM »
If 24 hours of sun above the horizon during the summer solstice in Antarctica is a real phenomenon one wonders why the only available video of the event depicts what looks suspiciously like the sun was cut and pasted on the video, what with the completely static rays of light.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary orbits
« on: April 02, 2019, 07:18:27 PM »
In order for Newtonian mechanics to work the ad-hoc and unfalsifiable hypothesis of 85% of the universe consisting of invisible and undetectable matter has to be assumed.  Such a theory is hardly worthy of any triumphalism.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary orbits
« on: April 02, 2019, 05:35:08 PM »
If I was able to predict the position of a celestial object that had never been seen before to an accuracy of just 1 degree even with todays technology I would be quite happy with that. To do the same in the mid 19th century I would regard as a massive achievement. Adams was slightly less accurate but even 12 degrees for his day is not at all bad. 

Except it had been seen before: 

Neptune is too dim to be visible to the naked eye: its apparent magnitude is never brighter than 7.7.[5] Therefore, the first observations of Neptune were only possible after the invention of the telescope. There is evidence that Neptune was seen and recorded by Galileo Galilei in 1613, Jérôme Lalande in 1795 and John Herschel in 1830, but none is known to have recognized it as a planet at the time.[6] These pre-discovery observations were important in accurately determining the orbit of Neptune. Neptune would appear prominently even in early telescopes so other pre-discovery observation records are likely.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

How do you know La Verrier and Adams weren't familiar with those observations or hadn't made similar observations (being that Neptune is stated to be easily observable using equipment available at the time) and merely made it seem like they "predicted" the observation ex post facto?  Wikipedia specifically mentions that "pre-discovery observations" helped determine the orbit of Neptune, although a citation isn't given for that claim unfortunately.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary orbits
« on: April 02, 2019, 02:22:02 AM »
Why do you need to have studied it personally to provide a source?

The point above is a brilliant one. Neptune was discovered because when Uranus was discovered it was shown mathematically that another planet must be out there. This is such powerful evidence for the heliocentric model and Newton’s theories. Since when has FE ideas had any predictive power?
The Wikipedia page on the "Discovery of Neptune" notes that it had been observed repeatedly prior to its official discovery. As for the mathematical prediction of the planet, it turns out to have been somewhat of a fluke.

"Luck also played a part in the discovery, for it turns out (as it would in the case of the discovery of Pluto) that both Adams and Le Verrier succeeded in getting the predicted longitude because of a 'fluke of orbital timing'.  Had Uranus and Neptune been elsewhere in their orbits the methods of prediction employed by Adams and Leverrier would not have resulted in such an accurate prediction."

https://books.google.com/books/about/Discovery_and_Classification_in_Astronom.html?id=IT8oAAAAQBAJ

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated
« on: March 24, 2019, 10:17:47 PM »


When FE technology gets advanced enough to verify the distances between these locations (there's not too much water so shouldn't be that hard), they'll find that the elevation of the sun measured at all three places points to two different locations in the sky. And the difference is immediately obvious. The reason is because the Earth is not flat.

In other words your argument is a circular one that requires the assumption that the RE map is correct which is precisely what is at question.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 17, 2019, 04:24:37 AM »
Quote from: stack
Generally referred to as a "hot mic" event.

There were multiple cameramen at close proximity focused on Bob and the other guy.  You would think Bob would have noticed.

I have no idea the number of cameras nor their proximity to any subjects. Could easily be one camera shooting B roll. The shots of Mr. Knodel and the other guy could be zoomed in, the cut to his listener could just be a shot lifted or even cropped. I guess only Mr. Knodel and the filmmakers could answer the question. I don't think we have enough to go on to adequately dissect the scene.

And as for Mr. Knodel and Globebusters, no mention of the $20k ring gyro experiments have been on their show. It's like it never existed. And no stomping of feet by Mr. Knodel across the web claiming the filmmakers misrepresented anything. Perhaps he just wants it to all go away. Anyone's guess really.

As to "hot mics", happens all the time with lavs. I work in the biz and if I had a nickel for every time my soundman's eyes grew really wide when he heard in his cans a subject/actor say something not meant to be heard by others while seemingly off camera I'd be a rich man.
I have listened to Globebusters before and I recall Knodel discussing the experiment and claiming aether drift was responsible for the observation.  I suspect the maker of the Youtube footage selectively edited to make Knodel look bad (or worse than he would have if the entire context was provided) but I can't be bothered to watch that silly documentary.

Yes, the only reference from globebusters discussing an RLG at length is in regard to Aether, Sagnac, etc. is from a vid they did a year and a half or so ago. But it wasn't an experiment. To date, I can't find any globebusters/Knodel reference to the $20k RLG experiments they did last year.

As to the aether, that's why he presumably said they put it in the gauss chamber. Still, they got the RE result.

As to the YTr selectively editing the footage. S/he did not. I saw the documentary in it's entirety a month ago. The clip posted is the exact clip from the film and it's contextually accurate. Not misrepresented at all.
I specifically remember him mentioning the experiment and how detractors said that he proved that Earth was spinning.

The Zero Gauss chamber would not necessarily be able to block aether flow:  the aether drift is not electromagnetic radiation.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 17, 2019, 12:20:04 AM »
Quote from: stack
Generally referred to as a "hot mic" event.

There were multiple cameramen at close proximity focused on Bob and the other guy.  You would think Bob would have noticed.

I have no idea the number of cameras nor their proximity to any subjects. Could easily be one camera shooting B roll. The shots of Mr. Knodel and the other guy could be zoomed in, the cut to his listener could just be a shot lifted or even cropped. I guess only Mr. Knodel and the filmmakers could answer the question. I don't think we have enough to go on to adequately dissect the scene.

And as for Mr. Knodel and Globebusters, no mention of the $20k ring gyro experiments have been on their show. It's like it never existed. And no stomping of feet by Mr. Knodel across the web claiming the filmmakers misrepresented anything. Perhaps he just wants it to all go away. Anyone's guess really.

As to "hot mics", happens all the time with lavs. I work in the biz and if I had a nickel for every time my soundman's eyes grew really wide when he heard in his cans a subject/actor say something not meant to be heard by others while seemingly off camera I'd be a rich man.
I have listened to Globebusters before and I recall Knodel discussing the experiment and claiming aether drift was responsible for the observation.  I suspect the maker of the Youtube footage selectively edited to make Knodel look bad (or worse than he would have if the entire context was provided) but I can't be bothered to watch that silly documentary.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 17, 2019, 12:17:19 AM »
The sun is oberved to move at a constant rate of approximately 15 degrees per hour.  There is no prediction involved, merely observation which can be interpreted multiple ways.  The seismic thing was a reference to Tom's previous post; he can elaborate on it if he wants, I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about that.
(I hope I got that quote correctly attributed..)

I don't think there's any dispute that the apparent angular position of the sun changes by 15 degrees per hour from anyplace on earth.
I think the question is whether the sun is moving around or the earth is turning.

Wait. am I confused here? Is it even possible for it to appear to move 15 degrees per hour to everyone on the sunny area at the same time?

I might need to mock up a model.
If it were the aether that were causing the movement at that rate then the laser ring gyro would record the same angular velocity so the bare fact that the 15 degrees is recorded by the gyro is inconclusive as to whether aether drift or the mechanical effect of Earth's rotation is being recorded.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 16, 2019, 11:33:11 PM »
Quote from: stack
Generally referred to as a "hot mic" event.

There were multiple cameramen at close proximity focused on Bob and the other guy.  You would think Bob would have noticed.

the ring-laser gyroscope has already been addressed numerous times on this forum and alternative explanations have been proffered (eg. aether drift or seismic effects).  It is utterly unscientific to assume that an observation confirms your preferred view without refuting alternate explanations.  You also need to explain why mechanical gyroscopes don't show drift (or demonstrate that mechanical gyros do show drift) but ring laser gyros do if you are to hold the ring-laser gyroscope as proof of earth spin.

Quote
Aether, maybe. Though lots of evidence against it as a transmission medium.
Seismic? Not so much when part of an Inertial Navigation System in a plane. Not may seismic events at 35k ft.
Lastly, 15 degrees per hour drift. As predicted by the spinning earth FE model.
The sun is oberved to move at a constant rate of approximately 15 degrees per hour.  There is no prediction involved, merely observation which can be interpreted multiple ways.  The seismic thing was a reference to Tom's previous post; he can elaborate on it if he wants, I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about that.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 16, 2019, 10:48:54 PM »
We have an article on our Wiki about the hurricanes. Start a new thread if you want to talk about that.

The articles say that there was a time when mainstream science tested the Coriolis Effect in containers, with inconclusive results. The tests involved bathtubs and pools that of various sizes, such as the 6 foot  diameter ones mentioned in the articles, and were carefully conducted in laboratory setting. If there was a valid and repeatable effect on the direction of water vortexes it would have been found and paraded as evidence of the Coriolis Effect, and you would have a plethora of studies and documentation to point to, rather than controversy and unrepeatable results.

The Coriolis experiments are basically convoluted gyroscope experiments, right?

Maybe we should also check into some gyroscope experiments. In fact, I think some of those were started using a very expensive high accuracy gyro, but I haven't been able to find the results.

Does anybody know anything about the progress on that? If the gyro shows no rotation, then it's slam dunk, no need to worry about spinning water.

Speaking of gyros, from the recent doc 'Behind the Curve'. Bob Knodel, part of the Globebusters team, takes us through their attempt to debunk a spinning earth with a pricey ring laser gyro. It didn't end well.


Ignoring the suspicious nature of the video (why would Knodel say such a damning thing in full view of the cameraman if it was "confidential"...shill?) the ring-laser gyroscope has already been addressed numerous times on this forum and alternative explanations have been proffered (eg. aether drift or seismic effects).  It is utterly unscientific to assume that an observation confirms your preferred view without refuting alternate explanations.  You also need to explain why mechanical gyroscopes don't show drift (or demonstrate that mechanical gyros do show drift) but ring laser gyros do if you are to hold the ring-laser gyroscope as proof of earth spin.

12
What is the explanation for why the spinning atmosphere, (that is spinning around the axis of the Earth at the same rate as the surface) which supposedly explains why plane and helicopter trajectories do not have to compensate for Earth spin, doesn't have the same effect on projectiles? 

They do. Magnitudes are different. Planes are flown/guided, projectiles are not.
Whenever the question is asked by Flat Earthers the Round Earthers say that there is no correction needed because the atmosphere compensates for the Coriolis force or because of "conservation of momentum" which somehow magically causes curved motion even though inertia normally results in straight line motion per Newton's first law. 

This Stackexchange page attests to this consensus belief:  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16390/does-the-rotation-of-the-earth-dramatically-affect-airplane-flight-time

During the flight, you need to get up to use the restroom. There's one 10 rows in front of you, and another 10 rows behind you. Does it take longer to walk to the one that's moving away from you at 600 mph than the one that's moving towards you at 600 mph?

"No, because you're moving at 600 mph right along with it -- in the ground-based frame of reference. In the frame of reference of the airplane, everything is stationary.

Similarly, the airplane is already moving along with the surface of the Earth before it takes off. The rotation of the Earth has no direct significant effect on flight times in either direction.

That's to a first order approximation. As others have already said, since the Earth's surface is (very nearly) spherical and is rotating rather than moving linearly, Coriolis effects can be significant. But prevailing winds (which themselves are caused by Coriolis and other effects) are more significant that any direct Coriolis effect on the airplane."


None of the experts ever mention any Coriolis corrections in airplanes.

Sure they do. You just didn't read far enough down.

Again, for the umpteenth time, Coriolis is a factor, it's magnitude of such is utterly dependent upon the object it is affecting. Projectile v Plane. In planes, it's factored into Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) that are built into the planes you travel in. There are a lot of factors that dictate what a plane can do and what a projectile can do. Do some googling.

The misunderstanding here is how the TFES wiki throws the baby out with the bathwater:

The wiki argument is that artillery shots are often not very accurate so the Coriolis table must be moot in their manual. However, that argument would mean all the table corrections are moot, not just the Coriolis one. So why have table corrections for Elevation, Wind, Temperature/Density, Muzzle Velocity, etc., as well if they are not needed?
There is no demonstration that the INS used in aircrafts corrects for Coriolis force.  If true, what about before the invention of the INS in the 1950s?  As for your condescension about projectiles vs. aircrafts which can correct themselves, that is the entire basis of the disagreement:  where is the evidence that aircrafts actually use any such correction.

13
What is the explanation for why the spinning atmosphere, (that is spinning around the axis of the Earth at the same rate as the surface) which supposedly explains why plane and helicopter trajectories do not have to compensate for Earth spin, doesn't have the same effect on projectiles? 

They do. Magnitudes are different. Planes are flown/guided, projectiles are not.
Whenever the question is asked by Flat Earthers the Round Earthers say that there is no correction needed because the atmosphere compensates for the Coriolis force or because of "conservation of momentum" which somehow magically causes curved motion even though inertia normally results in straight line motion per Newton's first law. 

This Stackexchange page attests to this consensus belief:  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16390/does-the-rotation-of-the-earth-dramatically-affect-airplane-flight-time

During the flight, you need to get up to use the restroom. There's one 10 rows in front of you, and another 10 rows behind you. Does it take longer to walk to the one that's moving away from you at 600 mph than the one that's moving towards you at 600 mph?

"No, because you're moving at 600 mph right along with it -- in the ground-based frame of reference. In the frame of reference of the airplane, everything is stationary.

Similarly, the airplane is already moving along with the surface of the Earth before it takes off. The rotation of the Earth has no direct significant effect on flight times in either direction.

That's to a first order approximation. As others have already said, since the Earth's surface is (very nearly) spherical and is rotating rather than moving linearly, Coriolis effects can be significant. But prevailing winds (which themselves are caused by Coriolis and other effects) are more significant that any direct Coriolis effect on the airplane."


None of the experts ever mention any Coriolis corrections in airplanes.



14
What is the explanation for why the spinning atmosphere, (that is spinning around the axis of the Earth at the same rate as the surface) which supposedly explains why plane and helicopter trajectories do not have to compensate for Earth spin, doesn't have the same effect on projectiles?  Even if you believe in the Coriolis effect, Sandokhan has already shown that the Coriolis effect doesn't prove the Earth spins rather it could be the ether that spins (see his posts on Mach's principle.) 

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 08, 2019, 01:13:47 AM »



That is indeed a strange video.  Preliminary observations:  look at the two "water bubble scenes", the only scenes that couldn't be done with wires:  both are less than 40 seconds when slowed down to 25%

I don't see any wires. Can you point them out?
Can you point any out in this video (starting at 16:44)? 


16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 08, 2019, 12:47:17 AM »
Quote
As for running around in a circle, do you understand how moving in a circle works? You calling this impossible, imo, calls into question the rest of your concerns about this video. That's very simple physics going on right there. Go spin a bucket of water around on the end of a string. The force being applied is always towards the center, yet it doesn't ever end up there. Why? Same thing. (I'd also note your assertion that it's happening on a vomit comet would produce zero-g circumstances and render this a feat impossible there too, leaving you *required* to have wires which simply isn't the case)

Nonsense.  The force in question here is the force of the astronauts feet upon the circle thing which produces a linear force perpendicular to the surface of contact.  The point about the bucket is irrelevant:  If what we are told about Skylab is correct there is no centrifugal force acting upon the astronauts except for the minute amount of centrifugal force upon the entire satellite due to orbiting around the Earth; whereas the water is contained by the bucket and moving in unison with it as it is being moved along the circle.  Your argument requires Skylab to be spinning like a gravitron amusement park ride. As far as the "calling into question" stuff:  ad hominem fallacy.
You're ignoring their initial momentum.
What initial momentum?  You'll have to elaborate

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 08, 2019, 12:39:21 AM »
The more I watch it, the more it looks like most of it was shot underwater, perhaps aided with very thin wires, in neutral buoyancy conditions.  Nobody's head is seen for more than a few minutes at a time and there are a number of cuts so breath holding time isn't an issue.  Everything looks suspended in water.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 07, 2019, 10:01:13 PM »



That is indeed a strange video.  Preliminary observations:  look at the two "water bubble scenes", the only scenes that couldn't be done with wires:  both are less than 40 seconds when slowed down to 25%

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 07, 2019, 09:01:10 PM »
Do people here think Chris Angel is a wizard because he makes things disappear and levitate?  Illusions and special-effects are a "thing."  There are entire professions based around deceiving your sense of sight.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 07, 2019, 08:22:14 PM »
Quote
What's your evidence again that it's 'clearly slowed-down'? I don't see it personally, although more because there are bits that look odd at one speed but not the other, and vice versa. Interlaced frames =/= film speed difference. You'll need a better case than that.
The evidence is the copious frame interlacing and the fact that it looks unnatural.  Anyway, all I need to do is show that it could be faked in order to refute the initial argument that Skylab proves space-flight is real.

Quote
As for running around in a circle, do you understand how moving in a circle works? You calling this impossible, imo, calls into question the rest of your concerns about this video. That's very simple physics going on right there. Go spin a bucket of water around on the end of a string. The force being applied is always towards the center, yet it doesn't ever end up there. Why? Same thing. (I'd also note your assertion that it's happening on a vomit comet would produce zero-g circumstances and render this a feat impossible there too, leaving you *required* to have wires which simply isn't the case)

Nonsense.  The force in question here is the force of the astronauts feet upon the circle thing which produces a linear force perpendicular to the surface of contact.  The point about the bucket is irrelevant:  If what we are told about Skylab is correct there is no centrifugal force acting upon the astronauts except for the minute amount of centrifugal force upon the entire satellite due to orbiting around the Earth; whereas the water is contained by the bucket and moving in unison with it as it is being moved along the circle.  Your argument requires Skylab to be spinning like a gravitron amusement park ride. As far as the "calling into question" stuff:  ad hominem fallacy.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >