The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: aspraragus13 on April 16, 2021, 06:19:29 PM

Title: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: aspraragus13 on April 16, 2021, 06:19:29 PM
I'm, not a flat earth believer btw. okay so ik you guys believe if the horizon is flat then the earth is flat. how does that make sense though since when you go on an airplane and look through the window you can see there is a slight curve which you can see even better from a wider view. basically, that's like saying it's hot outside so the air is spicy. also, you say water doesn't curve but ever heard of a meniscus, or a drop of water running down a window???? someone please explain this to me
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: jack44556677 on April 16, 2021, 09:05:43 PM
I'm, not a flat earth believer btw.

That's good! Avoid becoming one! Belief is what got us into this mess in the first place. Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific, and is directly across purposes to objective study of any kind. Seek to KNOW instead!

Quote
okay so ik you guys believe if the horizon is flat then the earth is flat.

Some do, others do not. There is little uniformity/consensus across flat earth researchers because they are largely independent researchers with varying approaches and conclusions.  People believe the horizon should curve (and the earth is spherical) because they were conditioned by rote under the guise of education to believe that.  The reverse belief is not much better.

Quote
when you go on an airplane and look through the window you can see there is a slight curve which you can see even better from a wider view.

I highly recommend reading the wiki here! It will address many of your common questions (and misconceptions).  It is not a bible, nor a textbook - but a compilation of many, often disparate, ideas from varying researchers.

The horizon does not curve at any attainable altitude or fov.  You can observe this yourself (as many others have) for around 100 bucks.

Quote
someone please explain this to me

Read the wiki!  Water's surface at rest does not curve the way the globe model requires, the meniscus is a miniscule surface tension artifact and not relevant.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: buddha on April 24, 2021, 12:09:41 AM
Oh...
I though this site was for people who belive the earth is flat!
any one know sites for people who belive in flat earth?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SmokinBBQ on April 24, 2021, 07:59:30 AM
Last year, I was watching the "Live View" of the earth from the ISS, and the earth vanished from the display, but left a white cut-out shape where it should have been.  After about a minute, the feed turned off.  Since that happened, I've wondered if the display is actually from a camera/cameras on the ISS or not, and if it is, whether the huge curve is the actual horizon or just an overlay, as that is what it appeared to be when I saw the glitch.  I'm not out to prove anything, but I thought it was a curiousity.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: The Earth Is A Globe. Deal With It on April 28, 2021, 10:00:06 PM
I though this site was for people who belive the earth is flat!
This is a site for FE believers, but RE believers come here too, mainly to try and prove the RE.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on April 30, 2021, 03:47:33 PM

When you live on a globe earth the observed horizon will always be flat unless you are very high up in an airplane.  Commercial passenger aircraft just don't get to a sufficient altitude to make a meaningful observation of any curvature.


That's good! Avoid becoming one! Belief is what got us into this mess in the first place. Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific, and is directly across purposes to objective study of any kind. Seek to KNOW instead!
KNOWING something is great but that doesn't mean that it is correct.  Couldn't you actually KNOW something that's incorrect?  In that case it would be much better to BELIEVE in something that's actually correct!


Read the wiki!  Water's surface at rest does not curve the way the globe model requires, the meniscus is a miniscule surface tension artifact and not relevant.
Here's the example of your KNOWING something that's actually incorrect by doing measurements in the Zetetic manner:  If you take a ship out to sea with access to a couple of very high quality gyroscopes and inspect them day after day as part of your job and actually measure the curvature of the sea, and the earth the water is lying on,  would that process result in KNOWING or BELIEVING?  Those measurements, and many others, from completely different gyros on different ships, consistently indicate that the surface of the sea is curved in the manner consistent with a globe earth.  Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that I now KNOW that the earth is a sphere ???   
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: fisherman on April 30, 2021, 04:10:38 PM
Quote
That's good! Avoid becoming one! Belief is what got us into this mess in the first place. Belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific, and is directly across purposes to objective study of any kind. Seek to KNOW instead!


That comes close to the dumbest thing I have ever heard anybody say.  You can only know something if you have (and understand) all the facts, but you can never know if you have all the facts or that you understand them correctly. You can only believe that you do. 

You can’t know what you don’t know, so by your logic you can’t really know anything.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 30, 2021, 04:15:49 PM
The only difference between "knowing" something and "believing" something is your own perceived degree of certainty.
I have certainly claimed to "know" things in the past which I have subsequently found out were incorrect.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: fisherman on April 30, 2021, 04:35:44 PM
The only difference between "knowing" something and "believing" something is your own perceived degree of certainty.
I have certainly claimed to "know" things in the past which I have subsequently found out were incorrect.

Yes, that's kind of my point.  Knowing and believing are just degrees of certainty.  Not two different things.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 30, 2021, 04:39:36 PM
also, you say water doesn't curve but ever heard of a meniscus, or a drop of water running down a window????
Are you proposing that, in a Round Earth scenario, the curvature of the water is caused by surface tension? I presume we can all agree that this isn't how any of this works.

basically, that's like saying it's hot outside so the air is spicy
Basically, it's not.

I wonder - is the "13" in your username your age, per chance?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: jack44556677 on May 03, 2021, 02:26:11 PM
When you live on a globe earth the observed horizon will always be flat unless you are very high up in an airplane.  Commercial passenger aircraft just don't get to a sufficient altitude to make a meaningful observation of any curvature.

Incorrect.  I was mistaught this as well.  The horizon does not curve at any altitude attainable (including high altitude balloon).  This does not have necessary bearing on the shape of the world; it's simply a demonstrable and reasonably repeatable/observable fact.

One of the reasons we were taught that tripe was to bolster belief (not knowledge) in the globe model.  Often the bs (which is not to say certainly "lies") came directly from nasa which consistently continued to claim, decade after decade for approaching 3/4 of a century now, "it's just a little bit further than you can get to, but trust us - it's totally there". 

Part of the misconception/misunderstanding is somewhat innocent, as lens distortion causes the effect that makes the horizon appear to curve (when it clearly, and logically, doesn't).

Quote
KNOWING something is great but that doesn't mean that it is correct.

Agreed.  Generally/historically speaking, humanity is always wrong about everything.

Quote
In that case it would be much better to BELIEVE in something that's actually correct!

Belief is for fools, wisdom (generalized knowledge) for the wise.  The chances of our vain self-serving belief being correct are consistently infentessimal, and we know this from validating/verifying/testing them over millenia.  The scientific method is carefully crafted to avoid the natural and default self-delusion that belief constitutes.

Quote
If you take a ship out to sea with access to a couple of very high quality gyroscopes and inspect them day after day as part of your job and actually measure the curvature of the sea, and the earth the water is lying on,  would that process result in KNOWING or BELIEVING?

You would know that gyroscopes precess in a specific manner, your tendency (which you must resist to do objective study and learn / obtain knowledge) will be to believe that you have measured the water curving which is itself a conclusion contingent on much more assumption/bias/belief you swallowed long ago. (Like that you understand all the sources influencing the precession of the gyroscopes, for one)


Quote
Those measurements, and many others, from completely different gyros on different ships, consistently indicate that the surface of the sea is curved in the manner consistent with a globe earth.  Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that I now KNOW that the earth is a sphere ???

I do not mean to be dismissive, but you don't have that data ("those measurements") - nor does anyone.  If you did, and others independently repeated/confirmed your measurements then we could begin to talk about such things (which I personally would find fascinating!).  Without the measurements   - we have little to discuss except your interpretation of them should they happen to exist anywhere outside your heart and mind.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 03, 2021, 06:54:36 PM
I do not mean to be dismissive, but you don't have that data ("those measurements") - nor does anyone.  If you did, and others independently repeated/confirmed your measurements then we could begin to talk about such things (which I personally would find fascinating!).  Without the measurements   - we have little to discuss except your interpretation of them should they happen to exist anywhere outside your heart and mind.
This is just another polite way of saying "I don't care how much data you have or what your measuring instruments are, don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up".
The next question then would be:  Would you be willing to stake you life on what you think you KNOW?  I KNOW the earth is spherical, I've confirmed it, and on that I'm willing to bet my life on what I KNOW.  Sailors do it often.  Those who live in their mother's basement don't and frequently troll just for fun.  Do you KNOW that?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: fisherman on May 03, 2021, 08:03:02 PM
Quote
The scientific method is carefully crafted to avoid the natural and default self-delusion that belief constitutes.
Yet you reject any conclusion that has been reached by application of the scientific method.

Quote
The chances of our vain self-serving belief being correct are consistently infentessimal, and we know this from validating/verifying/testing them over millenia. 

You judging anybody for being "vain", is just too rich.  ::)
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 03, 2021, 09:54:03 PM
When you live on a globe earth the observed horizon will always be flat unless you are very high up in an airplane.  Commercial passenger aircraft just don't get to a sufficient altitude to make a meaningful observation of any curvature.

Incorrect.  I was mistaught this as well.  The horizon does not curve at any altitude attainable (including high altitude balloon).  This does not have necessary bearing on the shape of the world; it's simply a demonstrable and reasonably repeatable/observable fact.

One of the reasons we were taught that tripe was to bolster belief (not knowledge) in the globe model.  Often the bs (which is not to say certainly "lies") came directly from nasa which consistently continued to claim, decade after decade for approaching 3/4 of a century now, "it's just a little bit further than you can get to, but trust us - it's totally there". 

Part of the misconception/misunderstanding is somewhat innocent, as lens distortion causes the effect that makes the horizon appear to curve (when it clearly, and logically, doesn't).

Quote
KNOWING something is great but that doesn't mean that it is correct.

Agreed.  Generally/historically speaking, humanity is always wrong about everything.

Quote
In that case it would be much better to BELIEVE in something that's actually correct!

Belief is for fools, wisdom (generalized knowledge) for the wise.  The chances of our vain self-serving belief being correct are consistently infentessimal, and we know this from validating/verifying/testing them over millenia.  The scientific method is carefully crafted to avoid the natural and default self-delusion that belief constitutes.

Quote
If you take a ship out to sea with access to a couple of very high quality gyroscopes and inspect them day after day as part of your job and actually measure the curvature of the sea, and the earth the water is lying on,  would that process result in KNOWING or BELIEVING?

You would know that gyroscopes precess in a specific manner, your tendency (which you must resist to do objective study and learn / obtain knowledge) will be to believe that you have measured the water curving which is itself a conclusion contingent on much more assumption/bias/belief you swallowed long ago. (Like that you understand all the sources influencing the precession of the gyroscopes, for one)


Quote
Those measurements, and many others, from completely different gyros on different ships, consistently indicate that the surface of the sea is curved in the manner consistent with a globe earth.  Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that I now KNOW that the earth is a sphere ???

I do not mean to be dismissive, but you don't have that data ("those measurements") - nor does anyone.  If you did, and others independently repeated/confirmed your measurements then we could begin to talk about such things (which I personally would find fascinating!).  Without the measurements   - we have little to discuss except your interpretation of them should they happen to exist anywhere outside your heart and mind.

But Jack, we've been here before. We've talked about gyros, for example - we had a deep conversation about drift nuts in directional gyros, which correct for the drift error caused by the earth's rotation - 15 degrees per hour multiplied by the sine of the latitude. I showed you some links too - you can see for yourself. There's also plenty more information about the various other types of gyro error.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17655.msg230770#msg230770 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17655.msg230770#msg230770)

What possible physical layout of our planet could possibly account for such an error, other than a rotating globe?

If this stuff wasn't real then these safety critical instruments would perform worse due to the needless compensations - why would that happen? And I won't let you disappear after a vague 'it's due to friction' or whatever - that cannot be the case. Friction and other mech errors manifest in random ways. 15 degrees per hour multiplied by the sine of the latitude is not a random error - there has to be a physical explanation for it. It would make no sense at all on a flat earth - what is special about the equator that would cause the error to be zero, for example? But on a globe earth it makes total sense.

You said before that you were a sceptic. Great. Doesn't this stuff give you cause to think 'maybe it is a globe after all?'.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 04, 2021, 02:41:29 AM
I am familiar with aircraft gyros and they do have drift nuts.  In another lifetime I was a commercial pilot, owned many of my own aircraft, and was also an FAA certified avionics tech.  Marine gyros are more advanced.  The gyros are a bit bigger in size and that makes them more stable.  These gyros are mounted in a sphere that is supported by liquid inside another sphere.  Personnel on the bridge only see the the readout of the current ship's azimuth, which is all they are interested in.  On all the ships I've worked aboard, the gyros were usually located in a separate compartment one deck below the bridge.  Just one of my jobs was to monitor the functions and do any required maintenance on all the gyros.  I did have a laptop with the engineering and maintenance software loaded into it and I could see all the sensor readings on these very complex gyros.  I can see that none of the really relevant questions about gyro operations and/or compensations were even asked so I KNOW that I dealing with someone who is just grasping at straws (and/or strawmen) when trying to discuss the reasons why a gyro can't prove a spherical earth. I could suggest that you look up some of the gyro service manuals that are on line. Sperry has been making them for quite a while, but most all the on line manuals are for gyros that are quite old and obsolete. The ones I worked with were much more advanced.  Friction was brought up as an argument against gyros providing useful readings.  That's completely bogus.  If it will make you feel better, mechanical gyros are being phased out in certain circumstances and new ring laser gyros are being installed in their place.  You won't find too much mechanical friction in a laser beam.  The bottom line is that I KNOW that the earth is a sphere because of the consistent and expected readings that I always got when I reviewed the performance of the ship's gyros after every long haul trip across the Pacific Ocean.  This was normal practice.  These gyros were always overhauled on a fixed/regular schedule just like the airlines do on passenger aircraft.  No one wants a failure at a critical time.  If you don't think that a gyro will detect the earth's rotation just ask Bob Knodel he has a nice video of a ring laser gyro showing the expected 15 degree per hour rotation rate (much to his dismay, I'm sure).   
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Tumeni on May 04, 2021, 06:29:59 AM
Often the bs (which is not to say certainly "lies") came directly from nasa which consistently continued to claim, decade after decade for approaching 3/4 of a century now, "it's just a little bit further than you can get to, but trust us - it's totally there".

Can you provide a source for this quote, or an approximation of it?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Tumeni on May 04, 2021, 11:25:25 AM
Often the bs (which is not to say certainly "lies") came directly from nasa which consistently continued to claim, decade after decade for approaching 3/4 of a century now, "it's just a little bit further than you can get to, but trust us - it's totally there".

Will you be keeping an eye on the upcoming privately-funded SpaceX mission? A private buyer has booked the SpaceX Dragon for a vanity trip, along with two other private citizens, a trip which will take them in an orbit 75 miles above the ISS.

There may well be some footage looking down upon it, framed against the Earth, or part thereof, and maybe this might be of interest to those who have claimed (not necessarily in these forums) that the ISS is just "a light in the sky".

SpaceX is not equal to NASA.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 04, 2021, 11:42:04 AM
I do not mean to be dismissive, but you don't have that data ("those measurements") - nor does anyone.  If you did, and others independently repeated/confirmed your measurements then we could begin to talk about such things (which I personally would find fascinating!).  Without the measurements   - we have little to discuss except your interpretation of them should they happen to exist anywhere outside your heart and mind.
This is just another polite way of saying "I don't care how much data you have or what your measuring instruments are, don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up".
The next question then would be:  Would you be willing to stake you life on what you think you KNOW?  I KNOW the earth is spherical, I've confirmed it, and on that I'm willing to bet my life on what I KNOW.  Sailors do it often.  Those who live in their mother's basement don't and frequently troll just for fun.  Do you KNOW that?
The claim that sailors bet their lives on any "fact," the earth is a globe is just plain false.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 04, 2021, 12:17:34 PM
The claim that sailors bet their lives on any "fact," the earth is a globe is just plain false.
I see you have no appreciation of King Neptune and how harsh of a task master he can be.  For centuries navigation at sea was based upon celestial navigation that on its very foundation assumes that the earth is a sphere.  Without accurate navigation a ship can and will run aground.  Today the GPS system is also based upon the same global earth model and electronically does about the same thing as old time sailors used to do with a map, compass and sextant.  Just take a look at the latest news of the boat that turned over near San Diego.  People died.  There are many sea mounts out in the middle of the ocean.  If a ship hits that it will run aground.  I have worked way below deck in the extreme forward bow section with only an inch of steel between me and the sea.  If the ship ran aground during those times I would surely have died.  Would you have the confidence to work in places like that on a ship if you weren't extremely confident in the navigation system and the shape of the earth it's based upon?  If you are on a ship there can be no discussion or debate upon the shape of the earth, that information is KNOWN by all crew members. 
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 04, 2021, 12:29:34 PM
The claim that sailors bet their lives on any "fact," the earth is a globe is just plain false.
I see you have no appreciation of King Neptune and how harsh of a task master he can be.  For centuries navigation at sea was based upon celestial navigation that on its very foundation assumes that the earth is a sphere.  Without accurate navigation a ship can and will run aground.  Today the GPS system is also based upon the same global earth model and electronically does about the same thing as old time sailors used to do with a map, compass and sextant.  Just take a look at the latest news of the boat that turned over near San Diego.  People died.  There are many sea mounts out in the middle of the ocean.  If a ship hits that it will run aground.  I have worked way below deck in the extreme forward bow section with only an inch of steel between me and the sea.  If the ship ran aground during those times I would surely have died.  Would you have the confidence to work in places like that on a ship if you weren't extremely confident in the navigation system and the shape of the earth it's based upon?  If you are on a ship there can be no discussion or debate upon the shape of the earth, that information is KNOWN by all crew members.
Celestial navigation was based on the fact of a celestial sphere, not an earthly sphere.

Just stop with the BS.

Ship navigation today is still performed with Loran, which in turn was based on stuff hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.

You know all this and try to claim some level of experience not necessary for accomplishment, indicating both inexperience and little real world accomplishment.

Fast becoming a tired old joke, regardless of alt.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 04, 2021, 02:03:53 PM
Celestial navigation was based on the fact of a celestial sphere, not an earthly sphere.
Indeed. But how would a celestial sphere, as opposed to the universal model we now work to, change navigation? Aside from tiny, tiny parallax errors, which can be used to estimate distances between stars, there would be almost no measurable difference. The important point for both models is the requirement for the earth to be spherical - otherwise why, for example, would the pole stars' altitude angles equate to the latitude of the observer? 

Quote
Just stop with the BS.
Until you explain why it's BS, it's gonna keep coming your way I'm afraid. Just shouting 'it's BS', or 'it's absurd' doesn't make it so. You need evidence, preferably better than a misunderstood appeal to authority dating back to 1693.
Quote
Ship navigation today is still performed with Loran, which in turn was based on stuff hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.
Citation needed. That's hilarious. Are there even any Loran stations left? Please, please let's talk about Loran. We can discuss its range limitations, and the distance between places. Comedy gold...

Quote
You know all this and try to claim some level of experience not necessary for accomplishment, indicating both inexperience and little real world accomplishment.

Fast becoming a tired old joke, regardless of alt.

Well, come up with some evidence to actually refute some of the technical, evidence based stuff that's being discussed here and maybe people will take you seriously. Are you seriously suggesting for example, that directional gyros don't correct for earth's rotation using a compensation based on the sine of the latitude?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 04, 2021, 02:16:11 PM
The claim that sailors bet their lives on any "fact," the earth is a globe is just plain false.
I see you have no appreciation of King Neptune and how harsh of a task master he can be.  For centuries navigation at sea was based upon celestial navigation that on its very foundation assumes that the earth is a sphere.  Without accurate navigation a ship can and will run aground.  Today the GPS system is also based upon the same global earth model and electronically does about the same thing as old time sailors used to do with a map, compass and sextant.  Just take a look at the latest news of the boat that turned over near San Diego.  People died.  There are many sea mounts out in the middle of the ocean.  If a ship hits that it will run aground.  I have worked way below deck in the extreme forward bow section with only an inch of steel between me and the sea.  If the ship ran aground during those times I would surely have died.  Would you have the confidence to work in places like that on a ship if you weren't extremely confident in the navigation system and the shape of the earth it's based upon?  If you are on a ship there can be no discussion or debate upon the shape of the earth, that information is KNOWN by all crew members.
Celestial navigation was based on the fact of a celestial sphere, not an earthly sphere.

Just stop with the BS.

Ship navigation today is still performed with Loran, which in turn was based on stuff hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.

You know all this and try to claim some level of experience not necessary for accomplishment, indicating both inexperience and little real world accomplishment.

Fast becoming a tired old joke, regardless of alt.
Wow, you are quite the troller.  Everything you said indicates that.  I could go into a lot of detail here, but then that's the troller's objective, manipulation.  The last ship I was an officer on still had a LORAN system aboard but it had been decommissioned for many years. Just about all the land based LORAN transmitting stations have been shut down for many years now and using a LORAN system at sea these days is impossible.  The GPS system is the primary form of navigation on all ships in service today.  Celestial navigation is still possible and all USA flagged vessels are still required to carry sextants aboard as a backup in the highly unlikely case of a complete GPS failure.  These days a modern ship is nothing but a floating computer.  The modern GPS receivers continuously transmitted the ship's position, course, and speed on a data buss and that data was available on all other equipment that needed it.  Lots of other equipment had their own independent GPS receivers so there was lots of redundancy and that made things safer and more reliable. I am a merchant marine academy graduate and have many thousands of documented days at sea as a ship's officer.  You can dispute that all you want but it will be from your own ignorance. 
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: jack44556677 on May 04, 2021, 05:29:08 PM
Yet you reject any conclusion that has been reached by application of the scientific method.

Quite the opposite! However it will take time and your earnest interest to recognize that.

Quote
You judging anybody for being "vain", is just too rich.  ::)

My statement was inclusive, not exclusive. It is OUR vain beliefs that we struggle against when we endeavor to be objective/scientific.  Our intuition/belief/bias most often gets in the way of that.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: jack44556677 on May 04, 2021, 05:44:27 PM
This is just another polite way of saying "I don't care how much data you have or what your measuring instruments are, don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up".

Not at all! The main point is that you don’t have that data.  Furthermore, if you did we would still have to discuss the interpretation of it - which is heavily contingent on preexisting bias.

Quote
The next question then would be:  Would you be willing to stake you life on what you think you KNOW?  I KNOW the earth is spherical, I've confirmed it, and on that I'm willing to bet my life on what I KNOW.  Sailors do it often.

My certainty varies with specific fact/knowledge, as with all of us.  The shape of the world is not part of sailing, the skills to sail are.  I know that you ardently believe the world is spherical, and are willing to “bet your life” on that faith - however that is very different and distinct from your sailing knowledge and ability!

Quote
Those who live in their mother's basement don't and frequently troll just for fun.  Do you KNOW that?

Lol, ad hom will not help you understand or be understood (quite the opposite!).

In fairness, I don’t like the trolls either (regardless of where they live or how much income, or sailing experience, they have).  I will not troll you, nor anyone if I can help it.  I can only hope to convey my sincerity adequately through repeated interaction.  I come here for rational discourse above all else.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 04, 2021, 06:27:29 PM
This is just another polite way of saying "I don't care how much data you have or what your measuring instruments are, don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up".
Not at all! The main point is that you don’t have that data.  Furthermore, if you did we would still have to discuss the interpretation of it - which is heavily contingent on preexisting bias.


Not trolling? -- You just made an accusation that I would consider to be of a trolling nature.  You have absolutely no idea of what kind or how much data I have.  There's no way you could know is there?  I KNOW that only way you could appreciate the nature of a gyroscopes' data would be for you to actually spend some time on a ship operating in dangerous waters and observe the relevant data for yourself.  I can see that you have no confidence in what others have to say no matter what their qualifications happen to be.  Even if I would share that data it would most likely be a useless exercise because of your apparent lack of knowledge of exactly what a gyroscope can and cannot do and I'm not in the business of teaching.   


Quote

The next question then would be:  Would you be willing to stake you life on what you think you KNOW?  I KNOW the earth is spherical, I've confirmed it, and on that I'm willing to bet my life on what I KNOW.  Sailors do it often.

My certainty varies with specific fact/knowledge, as with all of us.  The shape of the world is not part of sailing, the skills to sail are.  I know that you ardently believe the world is spherical, and are willing to “bet your life” on that faith - however that is very different and distinct from your sailing knowledge and ability!

Your above statement is another demonstration of either ignorance or of trolling.  Navigation is a very essential part of sailing.  Engineers can make a ship go but if the navigator steers the ship into the rocks then bad things can happen. Remember the Costa Concordia?  Ships navigation, these days, is based strictly on a spherical earth model.  There's plenty of places in the oceans where the rocks are under the water and can't be seen from the surface.  This is where accurate navigation is critical.     

Quote
Those who live in their mother's basement don't and frequently troll just for fun.  Do you KNOW that?

Lol, ad hom will not help you understand or be understood (quite the opposite!).

In fairness, I don’t like the trolls either (regardless of where they live or how much income, or sailing experience, they have).  I will not troll you, nor anyone if I can help it.  I can only hope to convey my sincerity adequately through repeated interaction.  I come here for rational discourse above all else.


Rational discourse if fine, but before you engage you must have some knowledge of the discussion material.  I can see from your previous statements that you don't have the expertise to engage in a meaningful discussion of nautical things and celestial navigation.  If you wish to continue please educate yourself first.  It would also be very helpful for you to charter a boat of some kind an take a 1000 mile trip so you can appreciate what it means to depend upon navigational instruments when you are 100's of miles from any land.  It would be even better to find a place where there's some navigational hazards and some heavy fog.  Then you will appreciate what it's like to have some confidence in a navigators skills.   
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 04, 2021, 08:20:41 PM
This is just another polite way of saying "I don't care how much data you have or what your measuring instruments are, don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up".

Not at all! The main point is that you don’t have that data.  Furthermore, if you did we would still have to discuss the interpretation of it - which is heavily contingent on preexisting bias.

Quote
The next question then would be:  Would you be willing to stake you life on what you think you KNOW?  I KNOW the earth is spherical, I've confirmed it, and on that I'm willing to bet my life on what I KNOW.  Sailors do it often.

My certainty varies with specific fact/knowledge, as with all of us.  The shape of the world is not part of sailing, the skills to sail are.  I know that you ardently believe the world is spherical, and are willing to “bet your life” on that faith - however that is very different and distinct from your sailing knowledge and ability!

Quote
Those who live in their mother's basement don't and frequently troll just for fun.  Do you KNOW that?

Lol, ad hom will not help you understand or be understood (quite the opposite!).

In fairness, I don’t like the trolls either (regardless of where they live or how much income, or sailing experience, they have).  I will not troll you, nor anyone if I can help it.  I can only hope to convey my sincerity adequately through repeated interaction.  I come here for rational discourse above all else.

Here's some light reading for you.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiem43L6bDwAhWRSxUIHZ-SATkQFjAGegQICBAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrc-europe.com%2Ffiles%2Fsecured%2Fsharepoint_documents%2F161-Gyro%2BAM%2BAlphaMiniCourse%2BInstOper%2BManual%2B3-7-2019.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2STVc_8kcS0y5psZQiqBNX (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiem43L6bDwAhWRSxUIHZ-SATkQFjAGegQICBAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrc-europe.com%2Ffiles%2Fsecured%2Fsharepoint_documents%2F161-Gyro%2BAM%2BAlphaMiniCourse%2BInstOper%2BManual%2B3-7-2019.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2STVc_8kcS0y5psZQiqBNX)

Note the introductory blurb on principles of operation, and the sections on latitude correction and what to do when you operate close to either pole:

Quote
While the latitude becomes higher (to the North or to the South) the value of the horizontal
component of earth rotation is decreasing proportionally to the latitude cosine. Hence, the
higher the latitude, the less efficient is the gyro compass operation as a north-seeking device.

Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 05, 2021, 01:50:24 AM
The ships I worked aboard generally didn't use JRC gyros but their radar products were sometimes installed.  Usually I would see either Sperry or Anschutz directional gyroscopes installed.  If you take a quick look at chapter 2.1.3 of the JRC manual it details the auxiliary inputs coming from the ship's speed log and/or the GPS receiver.  Every gyro that I ever worked on had a couple of RS232 data lines running into the gyros for both Latitude and Speed compensation.  If you spend some time learning the theory about these products you will see that a spinning earth is absolutely required for these instruments to work.  Typically if I were to shut down a unit for maintenance it would take many hours for an accurate course to again be registered after power up of the gyros.  These are very important instruments for the operation of any ship so we usually had at least 2 gyros installed and sometimes 3.  The autopilot, the radars, and the electronic map displays all required accurate heading inputs to display the proper information to the ship's navigator.  You wouldn't think all this would be necessary because you could just look out the window.  What if it was raining hard or if the ship was in heavy fog?  What if the ship was operating in a busy shipping lane during bad weather conditions.  Just like an aircraft operating in clouds a ship these days requires plenty of instruments to operate efficiently.  Everything is also logged while underway.  There's a chart recorder on the rudder indicator and on the fathometer.  Data from about all of the other critical instruments are also fed to the ship's data recorder (black box) so if anything bad happens there will be a complete record including everything that was said on the bridge, radio, and ship's phone.  You can be sure that the ship's crew isn't screwing around while carrying 500 million bucks worth of cargo.  Everything correlates.  The ship's crew is taught that the earth is spherical.  All the navigation equipment operates on that basis.  The navigator's calculations assume that.  Many ship's operate on a regular schedule with known distances and we usually keep the schedule as long as the weather cooperates.


So now, just where am I 'missing the boat'  ???   In the classic Zetetic way a spherical earth theory was formulated.  That meant certain things had to be true.  Maps were made based upon the theory.  Navigation methods based upon spherical trigonometry is taught and then practiced while you are a cadet aboard a ship.  All these steps are then practiced while on the job and everything is demonstrated and shown to work time & time & time again by 1000's of ships all over the world.  This situation is more than all the indoctrination that your are exposed to at the academy.  After you start work if the indoctrination doesn't actually work in the real world environment at sea it would be come very obvious, wouldn't it?  You can't fake it while at sea. King Neptune is a very harsh task master and will kill you if you ignore the dangers.  Either your navigational skills work (based upon the spherical model) or the ship doesn't make it to the next scheduled port on time and you have to answer for that deficiency.   
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Tumeni on May 05, 2021, 01:15:19 PM
Celestial navigation was based on the fact of a celestial sphere, not an earthly sphere.

How could you map/determine a celestial sphere without the underlying land/sea mass from which you observe it also being a sphere?

Surely FE dictates a celestial hemisphere, not a sphere...
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 04:20:57 PM
Celestial navigation was based on the fact of a celestial sphere, not an earthly sphere.
The important point for both models is the requirement for the earth to be spherical - otherwise why, for example, would the pole stars' altitude angles equate to the latitude of the observer?
All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.

The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.

Quote
Just stop with the BS.
Until you explain why it's BS, it's gonna keep coming your way I'm afraid. Just shouting 'it's BS', or 'it's absurd' doesn't make it so. You need evidence, preferably better than a misunderstood appeal to authority dating back to 1693.
Quote
Ship navigation today is still performed with Loran, which in turn was based on stuff hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.
Citation needed. That's hilarious. Are there even any Loran stations left? Please, please let's talk about Loran. We can discuss its range limitations, and the distance between places. Comedy gold...

Quote
You know all this and try to claim some level of experience not necessary for accomplishment, indicating both inexperience and little real world accomplishment.

Fast becoming a tired old joke, regardless of alt.

Well, come up with some evidence to actually refute some of the technical, evidence based stuff that's being discussed here and maybe people will take you seriously. Are you seriously suggesting for example, that directional gyros don't correct for earth's rotation using a compensation based on the sine of the latitude?
[/quote]
As far as the rest of this, nothing, including Loran when it was instituted, actually had much of an overall effect of the routes taken and practices implemented by any seafaring nation.

For all practical purposes, the knowledge we use at sea and how to navigate is still based on celestial navigation and sextants.

Sextants had a flat bottom to match the flatness of the earth upon which we sail today.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: WTF_Seriously on May 05, 2021, 04:24:34 PM

All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.

The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.


But it does for everyone to view a pole star as due north/south regardless their longitude.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 04:31:35 PM

All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.

The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.
But it does for everyone to view a pole star as due north/south regardless their longitude.
As soon as you can account for everyone at the same time, come back and discuss this more in depth.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 05, 2021, 05:14:31 PM
The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.

No, it doesn't. But it does need to be a sphere in order for the altitude angle of the pole stars to be equal to the observer's latitude. If you disagree, please show on a diagram how this phenomenon could work on a flat earth.

I notice you've completely ignored my question, so I'll repost it here:

Are you seriously suggesting for example, that directional gyros don't correct for earth's rotation using a compensation based on the sine of the latitude?

Quote
As far as the rest of this, nothing, including Loran when it was instituted, actually had much of an overall effect of the routes taken and practices implemented by any seafaring nation.

For all practical purposes, the knowledge we use at sea and how to navigate is still based on celestial navigation and sextants.
I think we broadly agree on that, although I'd throw in compass bearings as well, and the assumption that the earth is round.

Quote from:  WTF_Seriously on Today at 04:24:34 PM
Quote from:  Action80 on Today at 04:20:57 PM

All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.

The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.
But it does for everyone to view a pole star as due north/south regardless their longitude.
As soon as you can account for everyone at the same time, come back and discuss this more in depth.

What, exactly, are you suggesting? If I'm in Argentina observing Sigma Octantis are you saying that I might be looking at a different thing to an observer in South Africa looking at the same star? Or do you have some other explanation for the fact that we'd be looking at the same thing but facing in different directions if the earth was flat?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: WTF_Seriously on May 05, 2021, 05:24:22 PM

All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.

The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.
But it does for everyone to view a pole star as due north/south regardless their longitude.
As soon as you can account for everyone at the same time, come back and discuss this more in depth.

All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.

The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.
But it does for everyone to view a pole star as due north/south regardless their longitude.
As soon as you can account for everyone at the same time, come back and discuss this more in depth.

The stupid thing about this continued argument is that you only need two points of observation, say Australian East Coast and West Coast which without question are viewing the same southern pole star, separated by over 30 degrees longitude both viewing the southern pole star at a direction due south.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 05:30:50 PM
The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.

No, it doesn't. But it does need to be a sphere in order for the altitude angle of the pole stars to be equal to the observer's latitude. If you disagree, please show on a diagram how this phenomenon could work on a flat earth.

I notice you've completely ignored my question, so I'll repost it here:

Are you seriously suggesting for example, that directional gyros don't correct for earth's rotation using a compensation based on the sine of the latitude?
Your question is a non sequitur, considering none of the travel routes taken have changed drastically since  first embarkation.
Quote
As far as the rest of this, nothing, including Loran when it was instituted, actually had much of an overall effect of the routes taken and practices implemented by any seafaring nation.

For all practical purposes, the knowledge we use at sea and how to navigate is still based on celestial navigation and sextants.
I think we broadly agree on that, although I'd throw in compass bearings as well, and the assumption that the earth is round.
I assume the earth is flat and use a compass just as well as the next fella and seldom get lost for long.

Quote from:  WTF_Seriously on Today at 04:24:34 PM
Quote from:  Action80 on Today at 04:20:57 PM

All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.

The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.
But it does for everyone to view a pole star as due north/south regardless their longitude.
As soon as you can account for everyone at the same time, come back and discuss this more in depth.
What, exactly, are you suggesting? If I'm in Argentina observing Sigma Octantis are you saying that I might be looking at a different thing to an observer in South Africa looking at the same star? Or do you have some other explanation for the fact that we'd be looking at the same thing but facing in different directions if the earth was flat?
I am saying you are not in Argentina, never have been in Argentina, and would have no freaking clue about what any particular Argentinian would be observing at any particular point in time.

Not to mention it is not possible for people in South Africa and Argentina and Australia to witness Sigma Octantis at the same time.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: WTF_Seriously on May 05, 2021, 05:34:00 PM
I am saying you are not in Argentina, never have been in Argentina, and would have no freaking clue about what any particular Argentinian would be observing at any particular point in time.

Thanks for the clarification.  We can now ignore 99% of anything you say because you have obviously not personally witnessed it.  That sure makes life easier.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 05, 2021, 05:36:46 PM
The stupid thing about this continued argument is that you only need two points of observation, say Australian East Coast and West Coast which without question are viewing the same southern pole star, separated by over 30 degrees longitude both viewing the southern pole star at a direction due south.

Yep. And we've been here before: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17638.msg230419#msg230419 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17638.msg230419#msg230419)

We've come at this two different ways. Firstly, as my post above showed, there are cases where you can view Sigma Octantis simultaneously from South America, Africa and Australia simultaneously. But if you aren't happy with that, as you rightly say, you can simply consider one place, like Australia, take a bearing from Sig Oct, and then move, say, 100 miles in longitude and repeat the exercise. Sig Oct will still be on the same bearing.

Action80 dismissed all this as 'patently false' without offering much apart from the fact that Sig Oct is hard to see. The thread then, like so many others, died off as nobody seemed to want to tackle the subject any more.

So here we are again. 
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 05, 2021, 05:45:20 PM

Your question is a non sequitur, considering none of the travel routes taken have changed drastically since  first embarkation.


That just makes no sense whatsoever. Either gyros are drift compensated, or they aren't. Which is it?


I am saying you are not in Argentina, never have been in Argentina, and would have no freaking clue about what any particular Argentinian would be observing at any particular point in time.

Is that seriously the level you're debating at? Fortunately, I don't need to go to Argentina, as there is wealth of data out there. You said yourself, ships navigate using celestial navigation. To do this they need star charts, and to understand the relationship between the stars and maps. And any star chart will tell you that Sig Oct is pretty much bang on due true south, wherever you view it from, at an altitude equal to your latitude in the Southern Hemisphere. So either the star charts you said sailors rely on are wrong, or you're wrong. Either way, you're wrong. Which wrong do you think you are?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 05:45:55 PM
I am saying you are not in Argentina, never have been in Argentina, and would have no freaking clue about what any particular Argentinian would be observing at any particular point in time.

Thanks for the clarification.  We can now ignore 99% of anything you say because you have obviously not personally witnessed it.  That sure makes life easier.
You didn't need this bit of knowledge to demonstrate willful ignorance of impossible things potentially happening.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 05, 2021, 05:52:22 PM

Your question is a non sequitur, considering none of the travel routes taken have changed drastically since  first embarkation.


That just makes no sense whatsoever. Either gyros are drift compensated, or they aren't. Which is it?
The operation of gyroscopes also are independent of the shape of the earth.

Non-sequitur.

You might as well be talking about an Illodium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
I am saying you are not in Argentina, never have been in Argentina, and would have no freaking clue about what any particular Argentinian would be observing at any particular point in time.

Is that seriously the level you're debating at? Fortunately, I don't need to go to Argentina, as there is wealth of data out there. You said yourself, ships navigate using celestial navigation. To do this they need star charts, and to understand the relationship between the stars and maps. And any star chart will tell you that Sig Oct is pretty much bang on due true south, wherever you view it from, at an altitude equal to your latitude in the Southern Hemisphere. So either the star charts you said sailors rely on are wrong, or you're wrong. Either way, you're wrong. Which wrong do you think you are?
The wealth of data indicates independent observations of Sigma Octantis cannot occur in South Africa, Argentina, and Australia at the same time.

Come back when you got something substantive to offer, okay?

You already conceded that ocean going travel and airborne travel have not changed significantly since first embarkation.

Given both are done primarily by line of sight and have no real need for a spherical earth to happen, I think we are done here.

Bye now.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 05, 2021, 06:34:45 PM
The operation of gyroscopes also are independent of the shape of the earth.

Non-sequitur.

You might as well be talking about an Illodium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.

No, that's not even close to being a non-sequitur. I'm simply asking you to agree or disagree with my statement to the effect that directional gyroscopes have drift compensation that is a function of their latitude.

The point is that a gyroscopic instrument will suffer from both topple and drift due to transport and the earth's rotation - these effects would not be present on a non-rotating flat earth. I've shown both on this thread and on many others that aviation and maritime directional gyro devices have well documented drift compensation mechanisms. The drift wouldn't be there if the earth wasn't rotating, and the compensation wouldn't be linked to the sine of the latitude if the earth wasn't a sphere.

You might not understand this, and you might not like it, but it is true. I'm very happy to listen to any counter argument you may have, but all you've offered is variations on 'it's not true', which isn't very convincing.

The wealth of data indicates independent observations of Sigma Octantis cannot occur in South Africa, Argentina, and Australia at the same time.

What 'wealth of data' is that then?

I've previously showed you a reliable website that clearly shows that it can be dark in all thee places simultaneously, meaning the night sky, weather permitting of course, will be visible simultaneously. You are welcome to challenge this, if you wish, with evidence. You might argue that website is wrong - that's fine, let's see some proof. We can maybe look at some webcams or something along those lines to verify that it gets dark when predicted.

The other aspect to the argument is whether or not Sig Oct is always due south. Again, you're very welcome to put forward an argument, maybe supported by your hitherto undisclosed wealth of data, showing that Sig Oct is in fact not always true south. Of course, think carefully about that, because you've already agreed that celestial navigation is central to maritime travel, so which star charts do you think sailors use?

Come back when you got something substantive to offer, okay?

I've shown you lot's of evidence. You've completely ignored it, along with my questions. Let's see your 'wealth of evidence', and let's have some answers.

You already conceded that ocean going travel and airborne travel have not changed significantly since first embarkation.

Given both are done primarily by line of sight and have no real need for a spherical earth to happen, I think we are done here.

No, I agreed, broadly speaking, that navigational principals, in terms of celestial navigation, use of compasses, and globe-based maps, haven't changed that much since man first navigated the open seas. Your second sentence doesn't make any sense at all - it's not clear what you mean by 'line of sight', and good luck navigating across the southern pacific with a flat earth map. At least, I suppose, you won't run out of rations - it's nothing like as big as you think.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 05, 2021, 09:29:45 PM
Thought I'd show this for anybody who's interested. There was some discussion on this thread and others about whether it is ever dark simultaneously in Australia, South America and Africa. So right now, at 2115UTC, this is the day/night picture according to this website:

(https://www.timeanddate.com/scripts/sunmap.php?iso=20210505T2114)

And, looking at this webcam in Recife, on the east coast of Brazil, it is getting dark: https://www.climaaovivo.com.br/pe/recife (https://www.climaaovivo.com.br/pe/recife)

And this webcam, in Cape Town, south Africa, it is dark: http://www.capetown-webcam.com (http://www.capetown-webcam.com)

And on this webcam, in Perth, Australia, it's 5.15am and the sun is just coming up: https://www.windy.com/-Webcams/Australia/Western-Australia/Perth/Swanbourne-South/webcams/1203350464?-31.971,102.568,5 (https://www.windy.com/-Webcams/Australia/Western-Australia/Perth/Swanbourne-South/webcams/1203350464?-31.971,102.568,5)

All of this is precisely as predicted by the time and date website, so I'm pretty confident that if we were to check again at around 21:40UTC on the longest night of the year for the southern hemisphere, 21 June, then we'd have decent darkness in all three continents.

Any dissent on that? Anybody wish to disagree, or are we happy with the validity of the website? I'm afraid the webcams I found don't have timestamps, so you'll have to actually check yourselves at around the same time.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Iceman on May 05, 2021, 09:42:42 PM
Or to help bridge the gap, you could also take a gander at things from Mawson Research station, at a longitude halfway between Perth and Cape Town
https://www.antarctica.gov.au/antarctic-operations/webcams/mawson/

Or any of the other research stations but I used that one as an example here because of its location, and because the Aussie antarctic survey is cited in the FES wiki for other southern hemisphere phenomena, so it is (in theory) a trusted source.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: jack44556677 on May 06, 2021, 09:40:55 AM
But Jack, we've been here before. We've talked about gyros, for example - we had a deep conversation about drift nuts in directional gyros, which correct for the drift error caused by the earth's rotation - 15 degrees per hour multiplied by the sine of the latitude. I showed you some links too - you can see for yourself. There's also plenty more information about the various other types of gyro error.

We did discuss drift nuts and gyro function, which I am all too happy to do.  These things make ronj’s “theoretical” data more problematic, not less.  The deflection witnessed (and relied upon) in gyros and pendulums is not a significant part of the current discussion - and the absurdity required to expect a drift nut to function (or be consistent) while NOT connected to the supposed rotating earth is pretty apparent.

Quote
What possible physical layout of our planet could possibly account for such an error, other than a rotating globe?

You misunderstand, the physical layout of the planet (should such a thing there be) is not what causes such errors.  Nor is measuring a gyro’s deflection a way to measure the shape of the world.  It is merely believed to be, based on scores of other unvalidated assumptions. 

Quote
If this stuff wasn't real

No one in this conversation is saying it isn’t.  It is the belief over why that is in contention.

Quote
15 degrees per hour multiplied by the sine of the latitude is not a random error - there has to be a physical explanation for it.

I agree.  However you are incorrect that (ignoring other impacts to the gyro) friction could not manifest in such a way.  Noise is random, systemic friction is not.  Your certainty stems from lack of imagination as to alternatives.

 
Quote
It would make no sense at all on a flat earth - what is special about the equator that would cause the error to be zero, for example?

Musing on that question can be helpful.  The deflection (and rate thereof) suggests that something is rotating, though that thing need not be the earth.  If the deflection occurs when disconnected from the earth (such as in flight, for instance), that is strong evidence that the earth (and its supposed rotation) is not, in fact, the cause.

Quote
Doesn't this stuff give you cause to think 'maybe it is a globe after all?'.

Once upon a time, before I had conducted adequate research to verify/validate such claims (and the larger tapestry of which they are a part, and dependent upon for potential inference on the shape of the world) - yes.  You are getting hung up by believing that your learned interpretation of the data (which does not itself alter) is the only possible one.  This is due chiefly to lack of imagination.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 06, 2021, 10:50:04 AM
The operation of gyroscopes also are independent of the shape of the earth.

Non-sequitur.

You might as well be talking about an Illodium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.

No, that's not even close to being a non-sequitur. I'm simply asking you to agree or disagree with my statement to the effect that directional gyroscopes have drift compensation that is a function of their latitude.

The point is that a gyroscopic instrument will suffer from both topple and drift due to transport and the earth's rotation - these effects would not be present on a non-rotating flat earth. I've shown both on this thread and on many others that aviation and maritime directional gyro devices have well documented drift compensation mechanisms. The drift wouldn't be there if the earth wasn't rotating, and the compensation wouldn't be linked to the sine of the latitude if the earth wasn't a sphere.

You might not understand this, and you might not like it, but it is true. I'm very happy to listen to any counter argument you may have, but all you've offered is variations on 'it's not true', which isn't very convincing.
No, I offered up the function of gyroscopes has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Which is true.
The wealth of data indicates independent observations of Sigma Octantis cannot occur in South Africa, Argentina, and Australia at the same time.

What 'wealth of data' is that then?

I've previously showed you a reliable website that clearly shows that it can be dark in all thee places simultaneously, meaning the night sky, weather permitting of course, will be visible simultaneously. You are welcome to challenge this, if you wish, with evidence. You might argue that website is wrong - that's fine, let's see some proof. We can maybe look at some webcams or something along those lines to verify that it gets dark when predicted.

The other aspect to the argument is whether or not Sig Oct is always due south. Again, you're very welcome to put forward an argument, maybe supported by your hitherto undisclosed wealth of data, showing that Sig Oct is in fact not always true south. Of course, think carefully about that, because you've already agreed that celestial navigation is central to maritime travel, so which star charts do you think sailors use?
You offered no such thing.

It was clearly pointed out to you (and as you already knew) that Sigma Octantis is barely visible to begin with, even on the darkest of nights, and there is no way possible that it can be dark enough for simultaneous observation to take place at the same time in the locations proposed.

Further, after all the hullabaloo of how GPS is necessary and sailors couldn't survive without it, you are back to star charts being absolutely essential.
Come back when you got something substantive to offer, okay?

I've shown you lot's of evidence. You've completely ignored it, along with my questions. Let's see your 'wealth of evidence', and let's have some answers.

You already conceded that ocean going travel and airborne travel have not changed significantly since first embarkation.

Given both are done primarily by line of sight and have no real need for a spherical earth to happen, I think we are done here.

No, I agreed, broadly speaking, that navigational principals, in terms of celestial navigation, use of compasses, and globe-based maps, haven't changed that much since man first navigated the open seas. Your second sentence doesn't make any sense at all - it's not clear what you mean by 'line of sight', and good luck navigating across the southern pacific with a flat earth map. At least, I suppose, you won't run out of rations - it's nothing like as big as you think.
All maps are flat. And considering you claim that all maps are a spherical depiction, I guess that would explain the accidents.

x-y coordinates are a 2D plane system. Quite simple really, and that is all that is being used for navigation anywhere. It has been that way for some time. Plug your current coordinates in. Plug in your desired coordinates and let linear algebra do its work. No need for spheres.

Good day to you.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 06, 2021, 12:19:58 PM

No, I offered up the function of gyroscopes has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Which is true.

But we aren't just discussing gyroscopes. We are discussing a particular type of gyroscopic instrument, the operation of which absolutely does depend on the shape of the earth. They have a compensation mechanism which would eliminate rotation drift error if and only if the earth is a rotating globe. If it was a non rotating flat surface, then the compensation mechanism would make the output significantly worse. But that doesn't happen. You can't just dismiss that with a vague statement like that - it doesn't address the point being made at all. 


It was clearly pointed out to you (and as you already knew) that Sigma Octantis is barely visible to begin with, even on the darkest of nights, and there is no way possible that it can be dark enough for simultaneous observation to take place at the same time in the locations proposed.


Sig Oct is just inside the visible range of brightness 'magnitude', which means it can be seen with the naked eye, depending on eyesight. But that's just naked eyes - we have no need to constrain ourselves in that manner. It's much easier to see with a scope of some kind. And it's dead easy to find...just look due South (well, nearly - it's not far off) and up by your latitude in degrees and there it is. As long as its dark, and you're not under a streetlight, it will be there.

You seem to be agreeing that it's dark in those three places at the same time - that's progress, I guess.

It's also important to note that Sig Oct is just one of billions of stars - the night sky around Sig Oct is the same everywhere as well. Again, that's clearly shown on the very star charts you have acknowledged are used for navigation. So if I'm in Africa looking south at some stars, and you're in Australia looking south at the same stars, how can we be facing in different directions, as per an FE map?


All maps are flat. And considering you claim that all maps are a spherical depiction, I guess that would explain the accidents.

x-y coordinates are a 2D plane system. Quite simple really, and that is all that is being used for navigation anywhere. It has been that way for some time. Plug your current coordinates in. Plug in your desired coordinates and let linear algebra do its work. No need for spheres.

Good day to you.

But navigation, other than on a very local scale where grids can be used, is done using lat/long, not X/Y. On the FE monopole map, that would essentially be polar coordinates. The problem is that the quickest route between two points on a globe is a great circle - you don't just use a straight line on a map. But on the monopole FE map, the quickest route would be a straight line. The easiest way to see that is to consider a journey along the equator. If you went from the east coast of equatorial Africa over to Indonesia on a globe you would head directly east along the equator - it's the fastest great circle route. But on flat earth, the straight line route would have you heading north-east initially, curving back south east as you got closer. Heading east or west, of course, is not a straight line on a FE map.   
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 06, 2021, 12:34:08 PM
We did discuss drift nuts and gyro function, which I am all too happy to do.  These things make ronj’s “theoretical” data more problematic, not less.  The deflection witnessed (and relied upon) in gyros and pendulums is not a significant part of the current discussion - and the absurdity required to expect a drift nut to function (or be consistent) while NOT connected to the supposed rotating earth is pretty apparent.
What do you mean by 'connected'? Are you suggesting that a ship at sea, or an aircraft in the air, is not affected by the rotation of the earth?

You misunderstand, the physical layout of the planet (should such a thing there be) is not what causes such errors.  Nor is measuring a gyro’s deflection a way to measure the shape of the world.  It is merely believed to be, based on scores of other unvalidated assumptions. 

Quote
If this stuff wasn't real

No one in this conversation is saying it isn’t.  It is the belief over why that is in contention.

Quote
15 degrees per hour multiplied by the sine of the latitude is not a random error - there has to be a physical explanation for it.

I agree.  However you are incorrect that (ignoring other impacts to the gyro) friction could not manifest in such a way.  Noise is random, systemic friction is not.  Your certainty stems from lack of imagination as to alternatives.

How would systemic friction be related to a function of the user's latitude? Why would friction change depending on my proximity to the equator?Instead of encouraging me to use my imagination, please just actually explain how that could be possibly be the case.

Quote
It would make no sense at all on a flat earth - what is special about the equator that would cause the error to be zero, for example?

Musing on that question can be helpful.  The deflection (and rate thereof) suggests that something is rotating, though that thing need not be the earth.  If the deflection occurs when disconnected from the earth (such as in flight, for instance), that is strong evidence that the earth (and its supposed rotation) is not, in fact, the cause.
Again, you seem to think that being in the sky (or sea?) somehow disconnects the system from the planet's rotation. That simply isn't the case. The earth, the sea, the atmosphere - the whole thing is rotating.

Further to that, the bench test for these instruments works just the same - you run them up in a test rig and check that the drift compensation works correctly. Indeed, cheaper instruments for light aircraft, for example, have a fixed compensation that can only be adjusted by a technician. You set your latitude and leave it running for an hour or two and check that it hasn't drifted beyond a tolerable threshold. So whether fixed or mobile, the drift compensation happens. It works. You don't seem to be offering anything up by way of explanation of how this could work on a FE other than 'use your imagination'. That's a cop out - let's hear your actual explanation, and not some hint, shrouded in mystery.

Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 06, 2021, 01:10:03 PM
But Jack, we've been here before. We've talked about gyros, for example - we had a deep conversation about drift nuts in directional gyros, which correct for the drift error caused by the earth's rotation - 15 degrees per hour multiplied by the sine of the latitude. I showed you some links too - you can see for yourself. There's also plenty more information about the various other types of gyro error.

We did discuss drift nuts and gyro function, which I am all too happy to do.  These things make ronj’s “theoretical” data more problematic, not less.  The deflection witnessed (and relied upon) in gyros and pendulums is not a significant part of the current discussion - and the absurdity required to expect a drift nut to function (or be consistent) while NOT connected to the supposed rotating earth is pretty apparent.
The earth rotates, as measured by gyros, as does the atmosphere above it.  If it were not, how could a big puffy cloud stay mostly stationary relative to an observer on the ground? Wouldn't a gyroscope floating up thru that same cloud on a balloon register the same rotation rate as the one on the earth below?  QED
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: jack44556677 on May 06, 2021, 05:18:56 PM
What do you mean by 'connected'? Are you suggesting that a ship at sea, or an aircraft in the air, is not affected by the rotation of the earth?

I am suggesting that, yes.  More so in the case of the airplane, due to the viscosity of the medium.  The supposed rotation of the world would be expected to alter greatly when you were touching it vs when you were no longer touching it and only potentially feeling its influence through an intermediary non-solid media.

Quote
How would systemic friction be related to a function of the user's latitude?

What if the drift nut is there to accommodate constant friction, AND there were something else causing varying deflection on top of that? Of course there are many other possibilities. I encourage you to use your imagination, and to avoid the cul de sac of “what I know, and/or was taught, must be right / is the only possibility”.

Quote
Again, you seem to think that being in the sky (or sea?) somehow disconnects the system from the planet's rotation. That simply isn't the case. The earth, the sea, the atmosphere - the whole thing is rotating.

In your belief, yes.  In reality, likely not.  Even if they did all rotate, they would not (and do not) rotate as one due to the mechanical properties of the medias themselves.  The jet stream travels faster than the presumed rotation of the earth, and in the wrong direction.  It is very silly to think that everything would rotate as one, but it is one of those fantastically silly things we learn by rote under the guise of education.  It is in part to handle/rationalize the paradox that helicopters, balloons, and drones pose to the rotating globe model.
 
Quote
That's a cop out - let's hear your actual explanation, and not some hint, shrouded in mystery.

I’m not intending to provide mystery. I’m providing criticism and encouragement to use ones imagination.  While providing criticism I am under no obligation (nor is anyone) to provide an alternative to what is being rightly criticized.  However, in the process of calibration I am suggesting that the systemic frictions of the mechanical system (when the gyro is mechanical and has a drift nut) as well as another influencer on the gyro are intended to be factored out as well as possible to maintain fixed bearing.

It is not the data that is in question, it is the interpretation of that data contingent on unvalidated assumption.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: jack44556677 on May 06, 2021, 05:29:34 PM
The earth rotates, as measured by gyros, as does the atmosphere above it.

This is what we are taught, yes.  In reality that isn’t reasonable, nor consistent with what we observe.  The gyroscope shows deflection, not the shape or motion of the world.  The gyroscope was invented to do precisely that, convince people the world was rotating - and it worked to convince a great many.

Quote
If it were not, how could a big puffy cloud stay mostly stationary relative to an observer on the ground?

Because it is mostly stationary relative to an observer, not “coincidentally” traveling at the same speed of the ground (which is silly).  Wind happens all the time, varying at altitudes and is not related to the presumed rotation of the world.

Quote
Wouldn't a gyroscope floating up thru that same cloud on a balloon register the same rotation rate as the one on the earth below?

Of course not.  That’s like assuming that something that is forced to rotate while on the merry-go-round will continue to do so once they step off of it - into a hot air balloon if you wish. (The hot air balloon can also be riding the merry go round if you so desire)
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 06, 2021, 05:56:07 PM
The gyroscope was invented to do precisely that, convince people the world was rotating - and it worked to convince a great many.
Wow. Are you going to back that up with any credible source to substantiate that completely made up claim?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 06, 2021, 06:51:46 PM
Right, ok then. Let's deal with drift nuts first. I'm moving some of your text around to deal with like subjects together - I hope you don't mind - I think I've retained the intent behind it. You've said:

What if the drift nut is there to accommodate constant friction, AND there were something else causing varying deflection on top of that? Of course there are many other possibilities. I encourage you to use your imagination, and to avoid the cul de sac of “what I know, and/or was taught, must be right / is the only possibility”.

...and also:

However, in the process of calibration I am suggesting that the systemic frictions of the mechanical system (when the gyro is mechanical and has a drift nut) as well as another influencer on the gyro are intended to be factored out as well as possible to maintain fixed bearing.

Again, the drift nut provides an adjustable correction depending on latitude. If it was there to correct a friction issue, it would be a one-off calibration that gets left alone. But it isn't. It varies with latitude. You seem to accept the mechanism, and that it works - that's great. But all you're offering is 'something else' and 'many other possibilities'. You can say I'm indoctrinated by my education all you like, but the fact is that this correction factor makes total sense on a globe earth rotating once every 24 hours, and no sense whatsoever on a flat earth. So I'm afraid your repeated dodging of the production of some credible explanation for why this 'other' factor varies with latitude does look very much like you don't have anything credible to offer. You've said 'many other possibilities' - let's hear just one.

I'm particularly curious to understand what you think is special about the equator on a flat earth. Why does the error reduce to zero at that particular latitude? On the globe, it makes perfect sense, as a directional gyro's orientation is such that the rotation of the earth won't effect its heading indication at this position, hence the sine of latitude being the correction term (sin x = 0 when x = 0). But it makes no sense on a flat earth - what's special about the circle us lacking-in-imagination science folk call the equator?

Next, let's talk about gyros on the ground versus gyros aloft or at sea. You've said:

In your belief, yes.  In reality, likely not.  Even if they did all rotate, they would not (and do not) rotate as one due to the mechanical properties of the medias themselves.  The jet stream travels faster than the presumed rotation of the earth, and in the wrong direction.  It is very silly to think that everything would rotate as one, but it is one of those fantastically silly things we learn by rote under the guise of education.  It is in part to handle/rationalize the paradox that helicopters, balloons, and drones pose to the rotating globe model.
 

You've also made a similar point to Ron.

To be clear, all my points about directional gyros hold true on land anyway, so this debate is somewhat superfluous, but you are so completely, profoundly wrong on this one I can't let it slide. I think it's probably easier to come at the problem from another angle. Let's try:

1. Consider a simple gyro, with perfect bearings, on a gimbal mount that gives it full freedom to rotate. Let's keep it simple, and imagine we are at the North Pole. Now imagine the gyro's spin axis is horizontal to the ground, just like that in an aircraft's directional gyro. If we were to connect the axle of the gyro to some kind of pointer, we could make a rudimentary DG ourselves - if we spun the gyro up to speed, and held it our hands as we walked around, it would keep pointing in the same direction as we rotated, thereby giving us some way of orientating ourselves.

Agree so far?   

2. The reason it does that is the principle of rigidity. Given the freedom to rotate, a gyroscope's spin axis will continue to point in the same direction in an inertial reference frame. The gyro has no mechanical contact with land, sea, or air - if we have perfect bearings it feels nothing at all. It will just keep on pointing in the same direction. So if the earth is rotating, our gyro will keep pointing in the same direction - towards a star in the distance, for example.

3. This is equally true on the ground as in the sky or sea. If we put our gyro in a helicopter and hover above the North Pole for an hour, whilst keeping the helicopter pointing in the same direction with respect to the ground, our gyro will again remain fixed in space while the earth and our helicopter rotate around it.

4. So if we build a directional gyro, we compensate for drift by the sine of our latitude x 15 degrees / hour - so 100% of 15 degrees/ hour at the pole. It doesn't matter at all whether it's on the ground, in a balloon, or on a boat. The gyro has no contact with those things - it just keeps on pointing in the same direction while the world, boat/plane/truck etc rotates around it.

Hope that's useful.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 06, 2021, 08:45:27 PM
The earth rotates, as measured by gyros, as does the atmosphere above it.

This is what we are taught, yes.  In reality that isn’t reasonable, nor consistent with what we observe.  The gyroscope shows deflection, not the shape or motion of the world.  The gyroscope was invented to do precisely that, convince people the world was rotating - and it worked to convince a great many.
I would say this is an example of trolling.  When you answer a statement, backed up by all the known laws of physics, with an answer pulled out of your imagination to incite the opposing debater to answer with malice and attempt to divert the discussion away from a point that you have no suitable answer for.  Nice try, but no joy here. 


I wouldn't consider your comment about gyros to be a troll if you made a statement like:  The gyroscope was invented by Jack J. Spinner in 1735 who was a resident of Broadmoor Mental Institution but was considered to be a mechanical genius.  Mr. Spinner violently believed that the earth was flat but thought he could play a trick on the society that considered him to be insane and extremely violent.  The idea of the gyroscope was extensively written about by Mr. Spinner (see the enclosed citation) and a design was formulated and the first prototype was constructed by some students at a local mechanical engineering school.  After Mr. Spinner saw his idea actually constructed he became much more calm and less of a problem at Broadmoor.  There seemed to be a lot of satisfaction in knowing that the earth was flat but designing a device to make everyone else think the earth was a rotating sphere.  See the link to some of the original design papers below.   

Getting some basic information about practical gyroscopes is easy on the internet.  All you have done so far is make a few proclamations without any evidence implying certain things about gyroscopes.  Your objections (friction) make no sense and have been answered.  You can learn all this for yourself (if you have sufficient imagination) by looking at some of the gyroscope technical manuals.  All of my statements have been from personal experience and real world observations while on the job.  I can understand that you can't believe much because it's all really just my statements of what I believe to be the facts about gyroscopes.  I would challenge you to get a gyroscope of your own and do some experiments with it.  Show us just why a gyroscope cannot indicate that the earth is actually rotating.  If you just make some inciteful proclamations and expect someone to believe it, then you will be sadly disappointed.   

My imagination tells me that the Easter Bunny is a complete myth.  What really happens is that Santa Clause dresses up in a bunny costume and jumps around hiding Easter Eggs all over the place.  You Easter Bunny believers need to quit believing everything you were taught in school and have some imagination.  You can BELEIVE in the Easter Bunny but KNOW there is a Santa.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 07, 2021, 10:28:58 AM

No, I offered up the function of gyroscopes has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Which is true.

But we aren't just discussing gyroscopes. We are discussing a particular type of gyroscopic instrument, the operation of which absolutely does depend on the shape of the earth. They have a compensation mechanism which would eliminate rotation drift error if and only if the earth is a rotating globe. If it was a non rotating flat surface, then the compensation mechanism would make the output significantly worse. But that doesn't happen. You can't just dismiss that with a vague statement like that - it doesn't address the point being made at all.
I find it absolutely shocking and incredible a machine could and would be invented that would simulate exterior motion having a deleterious effect on its own operation. [/sarcasm]

It was clearly pointed out to you (and as you already knew) that Sigma Octantis is barely visible to begin with, even on the darkest of nights, and there is no way possible that it can be dark enough for simultaneous observation to take place at the same time in the locations proposed.


Sig Oct is just inside the visible range of brightness 'magnitude', which means it can be seen with the naked eye, depending on eyesight. But that's just naked eyes - we have no need to constrain ourselves in that manner. It's much easier to see with a scope of some kind. And it's dead easy to find...just look due South (well, nearly - it's not far off) and up by your latitude in degrees and there it is. As long as its dark, and you're not under a streetlight, it will be there.

You seem to be agreeing that it's dark in those three places at the same time - that's progress, I guess.

It's also important to note that Sig Oct is just one of billions of stars - the night sky around Sig Oct is the same everywhere as well. Again, that's clearly shown on the very star charts you have acknowledged are used for navigation. So if I'm in Africa looking south at some stars, and you're in Australia looking south at the same stars, how can we be facing in different directions, as per an FE map?
Why would I possibly agree to an untrue statement that Sigma Octantis could possibly be visible in those three places at the same time.

It is not dark in those three places at the same time.

Your own source proves that to be a fact and you are just plain wrong.

All maps are flat. And considering you claim that all maps are a spherical depiction, I guess that would explain the accidents.

x-y coordinates are a 2D plane system. Quite simple really, and that is all that is being used for navigation anywhere. It has been that way for some time. Plug your current coordinates in. Plug in your desired coordinates and let linear algebra do its work. No need for spheres.

Good day to you.

But navigation, other than on a very local scale where grids can be used, is done using lat/long, not X/Y. On the FE monopole map, that would essentially be polar coordinates. The problem is that the quickest route between two points on a globe is a great circle - you don't just use a straight line on a map. But on the monopole FE map, the quickest route would be a straight line. The easiest way to see that is to consider a journey along the equator. If you went from the east coast of equatorial Africa over to Indonesia on a globe you would head directly east along the equator - it's the fastest great circle route. But on flat earth, the straight line route would have you heading north-east initially, curving back south east as you got closer. Heading east or west, of course, is not a straight line on a FE map.   
Navigation is always performed on a short scale, trips being broken down in sections, utilizing waypoints.

You got nothing here, even failing to acknowledge lat/long as an x-y coordinate system, which it plainly is.

Bye now.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Tumeni on May 07, 2021, 10:41:45 AM
You got nothing here, even failing to acknowledge lat/long as an x-y coordinate system, which it plainly is.

Latitude and longitude are measured in degrees. Degrees are a unit of measurement for angles. An angle is the displacement between two straight vectors or lines.

If you measure displacements between two places in degrees, on any kind of FE system or model, where do you draw the angle? 
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: jack44556677 on May 07, 2021, 01:10:17 PM
Wow. Are you going to back that up with any credible source to substantiate that completely made up claim?

Not all claims (or in this case, historical facts) are “made up” just because you are unfamiliar with them.

It’s in the word itself! Gyro-scope!  I encourage you to do some research on the gyroscope, its origin as well as the etymology of the word.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: WTF_Seriously on May 07, 2021, 01:32:12 PM
Wow. Are you going to back that up with any credible source to substantiate that completely made up claim?

Not all claims (or in this case, historical facts) are “made up” just because you are unfamiliar with them.

It’s in the word itself! Gyro-scope!  I encourage you to do some research on the gyroscope, its origin as well as the etymology of the word.

So, once again, you have nothing to back up your typical pontification.  At least you're consistent.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: jack44556677 on May 07, 2021, 01:47:19 PM
I would say this is an example of trolling.  When you answer a statement, backed up by all the known laws of physics, with an answer pulled out of your imagination to incite the opposing debater to answer with malice and attempt to divert the discussion away from a point that you have no suitable answer for.  Nice try, but no joy here. 

I avoid inciting malice whenever possible. I am not intending to divert or cause offense and sincerely apologize if that has been your experience.  My experience has been that the reflexive anger that often manifests when one is talking/potentially learning about things they strongly disagree with is a defense mechanism designed to curtail evaluation. I am a heretic, and I attack belief which often has this effect to believers (to keep their beliefs safe, and prevent further discussion, evaluation, and collaboration with said heretic)

Quote
You can learn all this for yourself (if you have sufficient imagination) by looking at some of the gyroscope technical manuals.


Imagination does not lie in any book, perhaps technical manuals and marketing material least of all, nor is it required to fill your head with the imaginings of others.

 
Quote
All of my statements have been from personal experience and real world observations while on the job.

I appreciate that, and sincerely wish to cause you no offense.  I wish to disagree with your interpretation of those observations, not belittle your experience (nor any other aspect of your personage).

Quote
I would challenge you to get a gyroscope of your own and do some experiments with it.  Show us just why a gyroscope cannot indicate that the earth is actually rotating

I like gyroscopes a lot, and have several.  In particular, I found eric laithwaite’s exploration and the development of the “exhaustless inertial drive” fascinating.  I encourage others to remain as curious and uncertain as they did, and to learn more about the things that captivate them.

 
Quote
If you just make some inciteful proclamations and expect someone to believe it, then you will be sadly disappointed.

I expect nor wish anyone to believe anything (that I or anyone else ever says).  I eschew belief, because it has no place in knowledge (least of all scientific).  All claims/“facts” must be thoroughly validated/verified before accepting them as knowledge and I do not seek to remove this crucial and neglected burden from any student (quite the opposite!)

Quote
My imagination tells me that the Easter Bunny is a complete myth.  ... You can BELEIVE in the Easter Bunny but KNOW there is a Santa.

Imagination is not the prerequisite for knowledge, but the prerequisite for possibilities! All imaginings (claims, “facts”, reasonings etc.), all possibilities need to be thoroughly validated/tested before they can be thought confirmed. When applicable, the scientific method is the best we have to perform such validation (and even then, the knowledge is provisional and doomed to eventual expiration)
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: jack44556677 on May 07, 2021, 02:03:06 PM
So, once again, you have nothing to back up your typical pontification.  At least you're consistent.

You misunderstand.  I do not come here to feed others, but to encourage fishing instead!

I could source and cite all day long, and that would perhaps convince more - but it is across purposes to my ends.  I don’t want to convince; I want to encourage independent thought and research!

Perhaps if you did a little research on the gyroscope you might find some support (or perhaps refutation) for my “pontification”? Autodidacticism is not optional in this subject (nor any other).
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 07, 2021, 02:46:08 PM
I find it absolutely shocking and incredible a machine could and would be invented that would simulate exterior motion having a deleterious effect on its own operation. [/sarcasm]

Why would manufacturers go to the effort of installing something that made their product unusable? Why has nobody noticed that disabling the mechanism, or setting the latitude to zero, improves things? Could it not just be that these things work as intended, because the earth is a rotating globe? You're not offering anything of substance in response - just sarcasm and empty statements.

Why would I possibly agree to an untrue statement that Sigma Octantis could possibly be visible in those three places at the same time.

It is not dark in those three places at the same time.

Your own source proves that to be a fact and you are just plain wrong.

Where and how does the source I gave do that? And when will you start providing links and evidence to support your empty, meaningless statements?

Here's the forecast for 21 June, as per my earlier comment:

(https://www.timeanddate.com/scripts/sunmap.php?iso=20210621T2142)

It's dark on all three continents - the east coast of South America, the West coast of Australia, and all of Africa. Dark.

Navigation is always performed on a short scale, trips being broken down in sections, utilizing waypoints.
How does that even come close to addressing the point I made? Whether you break your straight line into shorter legs or just do one big straight line, it's still a straight line, with different headings to the great circle route.

Your repeated failure to address any of the points being made with anything other than Monty Python style disagreement just makes it look even more like you don't have a credible argument. Fine by me, but I rather hoped for a better standard of debate.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 07, 2021, 02:48:51 PM
You misunderstand.  I do not come here to feed others, but to encourage fishing instead!

We come here to debate, which is the stated purpose of the upper fora. The problem with your approach is it is indistinguishable from somebody who has no evidence whatsoever for their vague, imagined version of reality.

I remain interested to hear your response to my earlier post.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 07, 2021, 03:53:43 PM
You got nothing here, even failing to acknowledge lat/long as an x-y coordinate system, which it plainly is.

Latitude and longitude are measured in degrees. Degrees are a unit of measurement for angles. An angle is the displacement between two straight vectors or lines.

If you measure displacements between two places in degrees, on any kind of FE system or model, where do you draw the angle?
Any x-y coordinate system could just as well be measured in degrees.

Seems superfluous to the issue.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 07, 2021, 04:16:49 PM
I find it absolutely shocking and incredible a machine could and would be invented that would simulate exterior motion having a deleterious effect on its own operation. [/sarcasm]

Why would manufacturers go to the effort of installing something that made their product unusable? Why has nobody noticed that disabling the mechanism, or setting the latitude to zero, improves things? Could it not just be that these things work as intended, because the earth is a rotating globe? You're not offering anything of substance in response - just sarcasm and empty statements.
You missed my point, that being all kinds of operating systems evolve, with some functions being labeled as being based on "something," not really necessary to the function or continued successful operation or even actually based on to the reason given.

For instance, I use a computer everyday with Windows as the operating system. Maybe we should check with them as to whether everything in place for their operating system is necessary or helpful.

I think we both know the answer to that question is a firm "NO."
Why would I possibly agree to an untrue statement that Sigma Octantis could possibly be visible in those three places at the same time.

It is not dark in those three places at the same time.

Your own source proves that to be a fact and you are just plain wrong.

Where and how does the source I gave do that? And when will you start providing links and evidence to support your empty, meaningless statements?

Here's the forecast for 21 June, as per my earlier comment:

(https://www.timeanddate.com/scripts/sunmap.php?iso=20210621T2142)

It's dark on all three continents - the east coast of South America, the West coast of Australia, and all of Africa. Dark.
Repeating your false claims concerning Sigma Octantis is doing nothing to further debate.

The basic facts are Sigma Octantis is barely visible to the naked eye, and it is not dark enough in all three places you offer for it to be visible to three independent observers at the same time.

Navigation is always performed on a short scale, trips being broken down in sections, utilizing waypoints.
How does that even come close to addressing the point I made? Whether you break your straight line into shorter legs or just do one big straight line, it's still a straight line, with different headings to the great circle route.
Yeah, I will now remind you of your entire post to which this reply was intended.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18036.msg238127#msg238127
"But navigation, other than on a very local scale where grids can be used, is done using lat/long, not X/Y."

As if Lat/Long is not an x-y coordinate system, when it clearly is anyway.

And as if breaking up longer trips into easier to plan and manage shorter sections isn't performed on a daily basis.

Really tiresome and worthless objections on your part, especially when you know the facts are in my corner.
Your repeated failure to address any of the points being made with anything other than Monty Python style disagreement just makes it look even more like you don't have a credible argument. Fine by me, but I rather hoped for a better standard of debate.
Those are the facts.

I have not represented anything but factual information in my replies.

Bye.

Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Tumeni on May 07, 2021, 04:35:14 PM
Any x-y coordinate system could just as well be measured in degrees.

... but where would you place the angle? The point where the two vertices or lines meet?

EDIT to add image

(https://i.imgur.com/26mOEsA.jpg)

Conventional RE geometry holds that the meeting point is at the centre of the Earth. The green dots indicate the latitude of London above the equator, the red is the latitude of Edinburgh above London, and the sum of the two is the latitude of Edinburgh above the equator.

Can you draw an indication of where you see the angle forming in FE geometry?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 07, 2021, 05:10:14 PM
Any x-y coordinate system could just as well be measured in degrees.

... but where would you place the angle? The point where the two vertices or lines meet?

EDIT to add image

(https://i.imgur.com/26mOEsA.jpg)

Conventional RE geometry holds that the meeting point is at the centre of the Earth. The green dots indicate the latitude of London above the equator, the red is the latitude of Edinburgh above London, and the sum of the two is the latitude of Edinburgh above the equator.

Can you draw an indication of where you see the angle forming in FE geometry?

How does an imaginary line drawn to an imaginary center of the earth impact my successful to or fro trip from London to Edinburgh?

Why would it be necessary for anyone to ever consider doing doing this?

But this probably does go further to explain where the angles actually do exist when transcribing heavenly bodies onto the surface of the flat earth, such as the complexes at Giza, Tenochtitlan, Angor Wat, etc.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Tumeni on May 07, 2021, 06:03:28 PM
Why would it be necessary for anyone to ever consider doing doing this?

Because those who did it found a remarkable consistency between measured and observed results.

Again, you seem to accept an 'x/y' co-ord system, using degrees to indicate lat/long, while not accepting RE; so if degrees are used on an FE model, where would you draw the angle?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 07, 2021, 08:36:21 PM
You missed my point, that being all kinds of operating systems evolve, with some functions being labeled as being based on "something," not really necessary to the function or continued successful operation or even actually based on to the reason given.

For instance, I use a computer everyday with Windows as the operating system. Maybe we should check with them as to whether everything in place for their operating system is necessary or helpful.

I think we both know the answer to that question is a firm "NO."
There is only one possible purpose for a drift nut, though, isn't there? It causes the gyro to precess by up to 15 degrees per hour. There is no possible reason to have that feature if there wasn't a need for it. It's not like some legacy software code that's tangled up with something essential and can't be removed. Moreover, users can easily disable the feature by setting it to 0 latitude - the equator. But nobody does that, because that would be silly. From a personal perspective, I've flown aircraft that actually have the drift correction selectable in the cockpit and, yes, we always made sure we set it right.

Repeating your false claims concerning Sigma Octantis is doing nothing to further debate.

The basic facts are Sigma Octantis is barely visible to the naked eye, and it is not dark enough in all three places you offer for it to be visible to three independent observers at the same time.
You keep saying that, but yet you continually fail to provide any evidence at all. Presumably you don't have any? You even said previously that:

Quote
Your own source proves that to be a fact and you are just plain wrong.
Where does it prove that, and how? I've clearly shown that it is dark in those three places, and you just keep saying it isn't. Pony up some actual evidence, or just admit you're wrong, which anybody reading this can plainly see.

On a related note...would you concede to darkness in two continents at the same time? For that would be equally absurd from a FE perspective. As would ships at see some distance apart longitudinally. It's equally absurd from one continent, to be honest - just drive 100 miles or so east or west and you are already supposedly looking in a slightly different direction whilst looking at the same star. But hey ho, you can keep on saying 'it isn't true' if you like.

Those are the facts.

I have not represented anything but factual information in my replies.

Bye.

You haven't represented anything at all. Not a single link. No references. No evidence. Nothing. Just disagreement.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 07, 2021, 11:05:13 PM
I remember the old DG (directional gyro) I had in my 1946 fabric covered Taylorcraft.  The only thing it had on it (if my memory is correct from 50 years ago) was the drift nut.  I always lined up on the runway and set the DG using the known runway heading and took off.  After flying for a while (VFR) we always had plenty of gravel roads going straight North & South or East & West that I could fly parallel to while resetting the DG. It was usually off 2 or 3 degrees because of the normal drift caused by the rotation of the earth.  In this old aircraft I had no radio navigation equipment at all so it was strictly by visual observation of the landscape and looking at the charts.  If you were smart you did this for quite a while and learned all the tricks before graduating to navigation by radio.  These days anyone could just use the GPS receiver in their iPhone, but not 50 years ago.  We all had to go on a solo cross country flight then land.  It was then up to me to find someone to sign my logbook to verify that I had actually arrived at the agreed upon airport.  This way upon return my flight instructor could have some confidence that my navigation skills were coming along.  On one of my first solo trips I did become disoriented and had to fly low over a nearby highway and try to read the road sign to verify where I was.  Of course navigators on the high seas can't do that and have to rely on celestial navigation and/or the GPS system.  The GPS system effectively is based upon the earth being a sphere but all the spherical trig is done by the computer.  If you do this kind of thing long enough you actually gain an appreciation for how hard it must have been for the original explorers to navigate across the earth and why it was so important for them to construct accurate maps that could be relied upon to get from point A to point B.  Since the flat earth theory believers never have produced any detailed and accurate paper charts who can blame those who use and believe in the ones using the spherical earth paradigm?   
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 10, 2021, 10:36:06 AM
Why would it be necessary for anyone to ever consider doing doing this?

Because those who did it found a remarkable consistency between measured and observed results.

Again, you seem to accept an 'x/y' co-ord system, using degrees to indicate lat/long, while not accepting RE; so if degrees are used on an FE model, where would you draw the angle?
The fact that two lines originating from two points in the sky would first intersect at some point below the observer shows nothing.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 10, 2021, 10:42:52 AM
You missed my point, that being all kinds of operating systems evolve, with some functions being labeled as being based on "something," not really necessary to the function or continued successful operation or even actually based on to the reason given.

For instance, I use a computer everyday with Windows as the operating system. Maybe we should check with them as to whether everything in place for their operating system is necessary or helpful.

I think we both know the answer to that question is a firm "NO."
There is only one possible purpose for a drift nut, though, isn't there? It causes the gyro to precess by up to 15 degrees per hour. There is no possible reason to have that feature if there wasn't a need for it. It's not like some legacy software code that's tangled up with something essential and can't be removed. Moreover, users can easily disable the feature by setting it to 0 latitude - the equator. But nobody does that, because that would be silly. From a personal perspective, I've flown aircraft that actually have the drift correction selectable in the cockpit and, yes, we always made sure we set it right.
Gyroscopes do not need a drift to function.
Repeating your false claims concerning Sigma Octantis is doing nothing to further debate.

The basic facts are Sigma Octantis is barely visible to the naked eye, and it is not dark enough in all three places you offer for it to be visible to three independent observers at the same time.
You keep saying that, but yet you continually fail to provide any evidence at all. Presumably you don't have any? You even said previously that:

Quote
Your own source proves that to be a fact and you are just plain wrong.
Where does it prove that, and how? I've clearly shown that it is dark in those three places, and you just keep saying it isn't. Pony up some actual evidence, or just admit you're wrong, which anybody reading this can plainly see.
For the final time, it is not dark enough in the three locations for Sigma Octantis to be visible to three independent observers in those three locations.

Your own sources prove this to be true.
On a related note...would you concede to darkness in two continents at the same time? For that would be equally absurd from a FE perspective. As would ships at see some distance apart longitudinally. It's equally absurd from one continent, to be honest - just drive 100 miles or so east or west and you are already supposedly looking in a slightly different direction whilst looking at the same star. But hey ho, you can keep on saying 'it isn't true' if you like.
100 miles either way would be possible, of course. Demonstrates nothing.

Even two continents would be a stretch, as demonstrated by your own source.
Those are the facts.

I have not represented anything but factual information in my replies.

Bye.

You haven't represented anything at all. Not a single link. No references. No evidence. Nothing. Just disagreement.
Using your own sources to demonstrate the falsity of your argument is more than a disagreement.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Tumeni on May 10, 2021, 10:50:15 AM
The fact that two lines originating from two points in the sky would first intersect at some point below the observer shows nothing.

If you agree that an angle in degrees is formed by two vectors or lines, and that two places are separated by a number of degrees of latitude or longitude, where is the point at which they intersect?

Can you show a diagram of how you see it working?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 10, 2021, 12:12:29 PM
The fact that two lines originating from two points in the sky would first intersect at some point below the observer shows nothing.

If you agree that an angle in degrees is formed by two vectors or lines, and that two places are separated by a number of degrees of latitude or longitude, where is the point at which they intersect?

Can you show a diagram of how you see it working?
Again, what difference does it make?

The math will show they meet at some point bellow the observer.

It is indicative of nothing.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 10, 2021, 02:35:22 PM
You missed my point, that being all kinds of operating systems evolve, with some functions being labeled as being based on "something," not really necessary to the function or continued successful operation or even actually based on to the reason given.

For instance, I use a computer everyday with Windows as the operating system. Maybe we should check with them as to whether everything in place for their operating system is necessary or helpful.

I think we both know the answer to that question is a firm "NO."
There is only one possible purpose for a drift nut, though, isn't there? It causes the gyro to precess by up to 15 degrees per hour. There is no possible reason to have that feature if there wasn't a need for it. It's not like some legacy software code that's tangled up with something essential and can't be removed. Moreover, users can easily disable the feature by setting it to 0 latitude - the equator. But nobody does that, because that would be silly. From a personal perspective, I've flown aircraft that actually have the drift correction selectable in the cockpit and, yes, we always made sure we set it right.
Gyroscopes do not need a drift to function.


Here is where the attempt at a diversion takes place.  A gyro does NOT need a drift nut to function.  The gyro part will indeed spin and provide a nice steady indication of an azimuth without the drift nut, but that azimuth indication probably won't be accurate. A spun up and stabilized gyro has to be set to a useful reference azimuth so it's accurate and provides useful information to the pilot. That's why you always use the DRIFT NUT to set the directional gyro to your runway heading (that's always accurately known) just before your start your takeoff roll.  Then if the control tower says something like 'fly heading 235 and climb and maintain 5000' you can easily use your directional gyro to comply with the control tower's instructions.  If you didn't you would have to note what the gyro indicated after it spun up, then do some quick mental math, and turn to the heading as instructed. 


The bottom line is, the gyro will work without a drift nut just fine but you will need to use that drift nut many times during your flight to save yourself from having to calculate an error differential that will continuously take place during the flight.  It's a known and verified fact that if you fly a straight heading, say directly along geographic North line, for a length of time, your directional gyro will continuously drift off the 360 (or 0) degree indicated heading as the earth rotates.  The gyro is working fine and is following the laws of physics but the drift nut is for the convenience of the pilot. As for my source if information:  FAA issued commercial pilot's license and experience as pilot in command over a period of about 30 years. 

Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 10, 2021, 03:29:28 PM
You missed my point, that being all kinds of operating systems evolve, with some functions being labeled as being based on "something," not really necessary to the function or continued successful operation or even actually based on to the reason given.

For instance, I use a computer everyday with Windows as the operating system. Maybe we should check with them as to whether everything in place for their operating system is necessary or helpful.

I think we both know the answer to that question is a firm "NO."
There is only one possible purpose for a drift nut, though, isn't there? It causes the gyro to precess by up to 15 degrees per hour. There is no possible reason to have that feature if there wasn't a need for it. It's not like some legacy software code that's tangled up with something essential and can't be removed. Moreover, users can easily disable the feature by setting it to 0 latitude - the equator. But nobody does that, because that would be silly. From a personal perspective, I've flown aircraft that actually have the drift correction selectable in the cockpit and, yes, we always made sure we set it right.
Gyroscopes do not need a drift to function.


Here is where the attempt at a diversion takes place.  A gyro does NOT need a drift nut to function.  The gyro part will indeed spin and provide a nice steady indication of an azimuth without the drift nut, but that azimuth indication probably won't be accurate. A spun up and stabilized gyro has to be set to a useful reference azimuth so it's accurate and provides useful information to the pilot. That's why you always use the DRIFT NUT to set the directional gyro to your runway heading (that's always accurately known) just before your start your takeoff roll.  Then if the control tower says something like 'fly heading 235 and climb and maintain 5000' you can easily use your directional gyro to comply with the control tower's instructions.  If you didn't you would have to note what the gyro indicated after it spun up, then do some quick mental math, and turn to the heading as instructed.
Seems to me you are admitting they don't need drift nuts to function and neither does the pilot need a gyro with a drift nut to fly the plane to the destination.

The bottom line is, the gyro will work without a drift nut just fine but you will need to use that drift nut many times during your flight to save yourself from having to calculate an error differential that will continuously take place during the flight.  It's a known and verified fact that if you fly a straight heading, say directly along geographic North line, for a length of time, your directional gyro will continuously drift off the 360 (or 0) degree indicated heading as the earth rotates.  The gyro is working fine and is following the laws of physics but the drift nut is for the convenience of the pilot. As for my source if information:  FAA issued commercial pilot's license and experience as pilot in command over a period of about 30 years.
Yes, you confirmed everything.

You do not need a gyro with a drift nut to fly.

Basically, it appears a drift nut is merely something of an automated process that provides additional information that was already available to all pilots and capable of being performed regardless.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 10, 2021, 04:14:14 PM
You missed my point, that being all kinds of operating systems evolve, with some functions being labeled as being based on "something," not really necessary to the function or continued successful operation or even actually based on to the reason given.

For instance, I use a computer everyday with Windows as the operating system. Maybe we should check with them as to whether everything in place for their operating system is necessary or helpful.

I think we both know the answer to that question is a firm "NO."
There is only one possible purpose for a drift nut, though, isn't there? It causes the gyro to precess by up to 15 degrees per hour. There is no possible reason to have that feature if there wasn't a need for it. It's not like some legacy software code that's tangled up with something essential and can't be removed. Moreover, users can easily disable the feature by setting it to 0 latitude - the equator. But nobody does that, because that would be silly. From a personal perspective, I've flown aircraft that actually have the drift correction selectable in the cockpit and, yes, we always made sure we set it right.
Gyroscopes do not need a drift to function.


Here is where the attempt at a diversion takes place.  A gyro does NOT need a drift nut to function.  The gyro part will indeed spin and provide a nice steady indication of an azimuth without the drift nut, but that azimuth indication probably won't be accurate. A spun up and stabilized gyro has to be set to a useful reference azimuth so it's accurate and provides useful information to the pilot. That's why you always use the DRIFT NUT to set the directional gyro to your runway heading (that's always accurately known) just before your start your takeoff roll.  Then if the control tower says something like 'fly heading 235 and climb and maintain 5000' you can easily use your directional gyro to comply with the control tower's instructions.  If you didn't you would have to note what the gyro indicated after it spun up, then do some quick mental math, and turn to the heading as instructed.
Seems to me you are admitting they don't need drift nuts to function and neither does the pilot need a gyro with a drift nut to fly the plane to the destination.

The bottom line is, the gyro will work without a drift nut just fine but you will need to use that drift nut many times during your flight to save yourself from having to calculate an error differential that will continuously take place during the flight.  It's a known and verified fact that if you fly a straight heading, say directly along geographic North line, for a length of time, your directional gyro will continuously drift off the 360 (or 0) degree indicated heading as the earth rotates.  The gyro is working fine and is following the laws of physics but the drift nut is for the convenience of the pilot. As for my source if information:  FAA issued commercial pilot's license and experience as pilot in command over a period of about 30 years.
Yes, you confirmed everything.

You do not need a gyro with a drift nut to fly.

Basically, it appears a drift nut is merely something of an automated process that provides additional information that was already available to all pilots and capable of being performed regardless.
You are correct in certain aspects but you are still trying to hide the most important reason of why a drift nut is needed.  Let's start with a practical scenario.  A pilot starts up his aircraft and gets everything warmed up.  The directional gyro stabilizes at a indicated heading of 236 degrees.  Assume the aircraft is sitting on the ramp at a heading of 093 degrees. That means that the gyro indicates 143 degrees more than the actual aircraft true heading but the gyro is working perfectly well and will stay at that heading but will slowly change as the earth rotates under the aircraft.  The pilot next taxies out to runway 14.  That means the actual runway heading is at a geographic heading of about 140 degrees.  So before takeoff with the aircraft aligned with the runway center line the directional gyro will then indicate 283 degrees.  You take off and the control tower gives you instructions to turn left to heading 125 degrees for traffic avoidance.  Now you have to do some quick mental math you could just add 125 + 143 and turn to a gyro indicated heading of 268. 


You probably are starting to get the picture.  The drift nut doesn't change anything about how the gyro actually works but it does save the pilot a lot of mental arithmetic and probably avoids plenty of mistakes that could happen at critical times.  On top of this as the earth spins and takes the atmosphere and the aircraft with it the directional gyro's heading accuracy will slowly become inaccurate.  This means that the pilot will then be required to have a stopwatch as well to keep track of the drift of the azimuth as a function of time.  These days you could probably just have an iPhone app to keep track of everything, but 50 years ago when I was first starting to fly we didn't have all the high tech stuff like that.  Instead a drift nut was installed on the directional gyro.  Again, it didn't actually have any effect on how the gyro works or the gyro's accuracy, but it did make the directional gyro a whole lot more of an effective instrument that the pilot could use for his navigation between point A and point B.       
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 10, 2021, 05:39:07 PM
You missed my point, that being all kinds of operating systems evolve, with some functions being labeled as being based on "something," not really necessary to the function or continued successful operation or even actually based on to the reason given.

For instance, I use a computer everyday with Windows as the operating system. Maybe we should check with them as to whether everything in place for their operating system is necessary or helpful.

I think we both know the answer to that question is a firm "NO."
There is only one possible purpose for a drift nut, though, isn't there? It causes the gyro to precess by up to 15 degrees per hour. There is no possible reason to have that feature if there wasn't a need for it. It's not like some legacy software code that's tangled up with something essential and can't be removed. Moreover, users can easily disable the feature by setting it to 0 latitude - the equator. But nobody does that, because that would be silly. From a personal perspective, I've flown aircraft that actually have the drift correction selectable in the cockpit and, yes, we always made sure we set it right.
Gyroscopes do not need a drift to function.


Here is where the attempt at a diversion takes place.  A gyro does NOT need a drift nut to function.  The gyro part will indeed spin and provide a nice steady indication of an azimuth without the drift nut, but that azimuth indication probably won't be accurate. A spun up and stabilized gyro has to be set to a useful reference azimuth so it's accurate and provides useful information to the pilot. That's why you always use the DRIFT NUT to set the directional gyro to your runway heading (that's always accurately known) just before your start your takeoff roll.  Then if the control tower says something like 'fly heading 235 and climb and maintain 5000' you can easily use your directional gyro to comply with the control tower's instructions.  If you didn't you would have to note what the gyro indicated after it spun up, then do some quick mental math, and turn to the heading as instructed.
Seems to me you are admitting they don't need drift nuts to function and neither does the pilot need a gyro with a drift nut to fly the plane to the destination.

The bottom line is, the gyro will work without a drift nut just fine but you will need to use that drift nut many times during your flight to save yourself from having to calculate an error differential that will continuously take place during the flight.  It's a known and verified fact that if you fly a straight heading, say directly along geographic North line, for a length of time, your directional gyro will continuously drift off the 360 (or 0) degree indicated heading as the earth rotates.  The gyro is working fine and is following the laws of physics but the drift nut is for the convenience of the pilot. As for my source if information:  FAA issued commercial pilot's license and experience as pilot in command over a period of about 30 years.
Yes, you confirmed everything.

You do not need a gyro with a drift nut to fly.

Basically, it appears a drift nut is merely something of an automated process that provides additional information that was already available to all pilots and capable of being performed regardless.
You are correct in certain aspects but you are still trying to hide the most important reason of why a drift nut is needed.  Let's start with a practical scenario.  A pilot starts up his aircraft and gets everything warmed up.  The directional gyro stabilizes at a indicated heading of 236 degrees.  Assume the aircraft is sitting on the ramp at a heading of 093 degrees. That means that the gyro indicates 143 degrees more than the actual aircraft true heading but the gyro is working perfectly well and will stay at that heading but will slowly change as the earth rotates under the aircraft.  The pilot next taxies out to runway 14.  That means the actual runway heading is at a geographic heading of about 140 degrees.  So before takeoff with the aircraft aligned with the runway center line the directional gyro will then indicate 283 degrees.  You take off and the control tower gives you instructions to turn left to heading 125 degrees for traffic avoidance.  Now you have to do some quick mental math you could just add 125 + 143 and turn to a gyro indicated heading of 268. 


You probably are starting to get the picture.  The drift nut doesn't change anything about how the gyro actually works but it does save the pilot a lot of mental arithmetic and probably avoids plenty of mistakes that could happen at critical times.  On top of this as the earth spins and takes the atmosphere and the aircraft with it the directional gyro's heading accuracy will slowly become inaccurate.  This means that the pilot will then be required to have a stopwatch as well to keep track of the drift of the azimuth as a function of time.  These days you could probably just have an iPhone app to keep track of everything, but 50 years ago when I was first starting to fly we didn't have all the high tech stuff like that.  Instead a drift nut was installed on the directional gyro.  Again, it didn't actually have any effect on how the gyro works or the gyro's accuracy, but it did make the directional gyro a whole lot more of an effective instrument that the pilot could use for his navigation between point A and point B.       
Why would I try to hide something that is not needed?

Seems you are attempting to ascribe extreme relevance to something that turns out be a matter of simple convenience.

In other words, without Google Maps installed on your phone, getting to grandma's house for Thanksgiving dinner wouldn't be possible.

That's your argument.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Tumeni on May 10, 2021, 06:12:59 PM
The math will show they meet at some point bellow the observer.

It is indicative of nothing.

You have to define the point, or else you have no lat/long system. Cannot be a different point every time. Unless you can show us how?
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 10, 2021, 07:49:58 PM
Your own source proves that to be a fact and you are just plain wrong.
Quote
Where does it prove that, and how? I've clearly shown that it is dark in those three places, and you just keep saying it isn't. Pony up some actual evidence, or just admit you're wrong, which anybody reading this can plainly see.
For the final time, it is not dark enough in the three locations for Sigma Octantis to be visible to three independent observers in those three locations.

Your own sources prove this to be true.

So you say 'your own source proves x' and I ask 'where does it prove that, and how?'. Your response: 'your own source proves x'. You're just endlessly repeating the same thing, without actually responding to what is being asked. Where, precisely, does the site I linked to show that it isn't dark at the same time on those three continents? An example of what might be acceptable would be a screenshot from 21 June at 2142UTC, which is the time and date I suggested, showing something other than what I described, which is nighttime in Africa, and the extreme east and west coast respectively of South America and Australia. But you've done no such thing, presumably because you either couldn't be bothered to check or you know it to be exactly as I described and are hoping that repeating your false assertion will make it go away.

It won't go away though. If you log in to those webcams I suggested at 2142UTC on 21st June, it will be dark in all three places.

You also seem to be trying to muddy things by referring to Sig Oct's dimness. It certainly is hard to see. But on a clear night, with reasonable eyesight it's very achievable. And of course with a telescope or even binos, it's even easier. Why wouldn't somebody be able to see it from those three locations? You aren't offering anything to prove your point other than 'your own source says...'. That's a meaningless statement without some kind of link or picture etc.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 10, 2021, 09:48:04 PM
You missed my point, that being all kinds of operating systems evolve, with some functions being labeled as being based on "something," not really necessary to the function or continued successful operation or even actually based on to the reason given.

For instance, I use a computer everyday with Windows as the operating system. Maybe we should check with them as to whether everything in place for their operating system is necessary or helpful.

I think we both know the answer to that question is a firm "NO."
There is only one possible purpose for a drift nut, though, isn't there? It causes the gyro to precess by up to 15 degrees per hour. There is no possible reason to have that feature if there wasn't a need for it. It's not like some legacy software code that's tangled up with something essential and can't be removed. Moreover, users can easily disable the feature by setting it to 0 latitude - the equator. But nobody does that, because that would be silly. From a personal perspective, I've flown aircraft that actually have the drift correction selectable in the cockpit and, yes, we always made sure we set it right.
Gyroscopes do not need a drift to function.


Here is where the attempt at a diversion takes place.  A gyro does NOT need a drift nut to function.  The gyro part will indeed spin and provide a nice steady indication of an azimuth without the drift nut, but that azimuth indication probably won't be accurate. A spun up and stabilized gyro has to be set to a useful reference azimuth so it's accurate and provides useful information to the pilot. That's why you always use the DRIFT NUT to set the directional gyro to your runway heading (that's always accurately known) just before your start your takeoff roll.  Then if the control tower says something like 'fly heading 235 and climb and maintain 5000' you can easily use your directional gyro to comply with the control tower's instructions.  If you didn't you would have to note what the gyro indicated after it spun up, then do some quick mental math, and turn to the heading as instructed.
Seems to me you are admitting they don't need drift nuts to function and neither does the pilot need a gyro with a drift nut to fly the plane to the destination.

The bottom line is, the gyro will work without a drift nut just fine but you will need to use that drift nut many times during your flight to save yourself from having to calculate an error differential that will continuously take place during the flight.  It's a known and verified fact that if you fly a straight heading, say directly along geographic North line, for a length of time, your directional gyro will continuously drift off the 360 (or 0) degree indicated heading as the earth rotates.  The gyro is working fine and is following the laws of physics but the drift nut is for the convenience of the pilot. As for my source if information:  FAA issued commercial pilot's license and experience as pilot in command over a period of about 30 years.
Yes, you confirmed everything.

You do not need a gyro with a drift nut to fly.

Basically, it appears a drift nut is merely something of an automated process that provides additional information that was already available to all pilots and capable of being performed regardless.
You are correct in certain aspects but you are still trying to hide the most important reason of why a drift nut is needed.  Let's start with a practical scenario.  A pilot starts up his aircraft and gets everything warmed up.  The directional gyro stabilizes at a indicated heading of 236 degrees.  Assume the aircraft is sitting on the ramp at a heading of 093 degrees. That means that the gyro indicates 143 degrees more than the actual aircraft true heading but the gyro is working perfectly well and will stay at that heading but will slowly change as the earth rotates under the aircraft.  The pilot next taxies out to runway 14.  That means the actual runway heading is at a geographic heading of about 140 degrees.  So before takeoff with the aircraft aligned with the runway center line the directional gyro will then indicate 283 degrees.  You take off and the control tower gives you instructions to turn left to heading 125 degrees for traffic avoidance.  Now you have to do some quick mental math you could just add 125 + 143 and turn to a gyro indicated heading of 268. 


You probably are starting to get the picture.  The drift nut doesn't change anything about how the gyro actually works but it does save the pilot a lot of mental arithmetic and probably avoids plenty of mistakes that could happen at critical times.  On top of this as the earth spins and takes the atmosphere and the aircraft with it the directional gyro's heading accuracy will slowly become inaccurate.  This means that the pilot will then be required to have a stopwatch as well to keep track of the drift of the azimuth as a function of time.  These days you could probably just have an iPhone app to keep track of everything, but 50 years ago when I was first starting to fly we didn't have all the high tech stuff like that.  Instead a drift nut was installed on the directional gyro.  Again, it didn't actually have any effect on how the gyro works or the gyro's accuracy, but it did make the directional gyro a whole lot more of an effective instrument that the pilot could use for his navigation between point A and point B.       
Why would I try to hide something that is not needed?

Seems you are attempting to ascribe extreme relevance to something that turns out be a matter of simple convenience.

In other words, without Google Maps installed on your phone, getting to grandma's house for Thanksgiving dinner wouldn't be possible.

That's your argument.
Now you have gone into trolling mode with your comments. 

I've explained in detail what the drift nut is used for on a directional gyro and how it greatly reduces a pilot's workload and that's a particularly important safety issue.  You could get out your stop watch and every 20 or 30 minutes during the flight mentally factor in a couple of degrees of compensation needed to make your gyro give you your correct heading to compensate for the rotation of the earth or you could just have a drift nut.  Pilot's convenience or SAFETY ?   

As for going to grandma's house I just go over the river and thru the woods to grandmother's house I go. THE HORSE KNOWS THE WAY TO CARRY THE SLEIGH.......So no, it's not me that need the iPhone and Google maps.   
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 10:12:06 AM
The fact that two lines originating from two points in the sky would first intersect at some point below the observer shows nothing.

If you agree that an angle in degrees is formed by two vectors or lines, and that two places are separated by a number of degrees of latitude or longitude, where is the point at which they intersect?

Can you show a diagram of how you see it working?
The point of intersection you provided has nothing to do with the lat/long coordinate system. It is merely an extension of two separate points in the sky, with lines traced to their point of intersection below the observer.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 10:16:49 AM
Your own source proves that to be a fact and you are just plain wrong.
Quote
Where does it prove that, and how? I've clearly shown that it is dark in those three places, and you just keep saying it isn't. Pony up some actual evidence, or just admit you're wrong, which anybody reading this can plainly see.
For the final time, it is not dark enough in the three locations for Sigma Octantis to be visible to three independent observers in those three locations.

Your own sources prove this to be true.

So you say 'your own source proves x' and I ask 'where does it prove that, and how?'. Your response: 'your own source proves x'. You're just endlessly repeating the same thing, without actually responding to what is being asked. Where, precisely, does the site I linked to show that it isn't dark at the same time on those three continents? An example of what might be acceptable would be a screenshot from 21 June at 2142UTC, which is the time and date I suggested, showing something other than what I described, which is nighttime in Africa, and the extreme east and west coast respectively of South America and Australia. But you've done no such thing, presumably because you either couldn't be bothered to check or you know it to be exactly as I described and are hoping that repeating your false assertion will make it go away.

It won't go away though. If you log in to those webcams I suggested at 2142UTC on 21st June, it will be dark in all three places.

You also seem to be trying to muddy things by referring to Sig Oct's dimness. It certainly is hard to see. But on a clear night, with reasonable eyesight it's very achievable. And of course with a telescope or even binos, it's even easier. Why wouldn't somebody be able to see it from those three locations? You aren't offering anything to prove your point other than 'your own source says...'. That's a meaningless statement without some kind of link or picture etc.
Again, I am not muddying things by using your source. It is plainly evident from your source that Sigma Octantis could not possibly be visible in all three places at once because it is not dark enough in all three places at once.

Dark enough.

Dark enough.

Your source.

Your source.

ETA: Sigma Octantis not useful for navigation due to the fact it is barely visible. Perhaps it maybe not even a "pole star."
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Action80 on May 11, 2021, 10:22:53 AM
You missed my point, that being all kinds of operating systems evolve, with some functions being labeled as being based on "something," not really necessary to the function or continued successful operation or even actually based on to the reason given.

For instance, I use a computer everyday with Windows as the operating system. Maybe we should check with them as to whether everything in place for their operating system is necessary or helpful.

I think we both know the answer to that question is a firm "NO."
There is only one possible purpose for a drift nut, though, isn't there? It causes the gyro to precess by up to 15 degrees per hour. There is no possible reason to have that feature if there wasn't a need for it. It's not like some legacy software code that's tangled up with something essential and can't be removed. Moreover, users can easily disable the feature by setting it to 0 latitude - the equator. But nobody does that, because that would be silly. From a personal perspective, I've flown aircraft that actually have the drift correction selectable in the cockpit and, yes, we always made sure we set it right.
Gyroscopes do not need a drift to function.


Here is where the attempt at a diversion takes place.  A gyro does NOT need a drift nut to function.  The gyro part will indeed spin and provide a nice steady indication of an azimuth without the drift nut, but that azimuth indication probably won't be accurate. A spun up and stabilized gyro has to be set to a useful reference azimuth so it's accurate and provides useful information to the pilot. That's why you always use the DRIFT NUT to set the directional gyro to your runway heading (that's always accurately known) just before your start your takeoff roll.  Then if the control tower says something like 'fly heading 235 and climb and maintain 5000' you can easily use your directional gyro to comply with the control tower's instructions.  If you didn't you would have to note what the gyro indicated after it spun up, then do some quick mental math, and turn to the heading as instructed.
Seems to me you are admitting they don't need drift nuts to function and neither does the pilot need a gyro with a drift nut to fly the plane to the destination.

The bottom line is, the gyro will work without a drift nut just fine but you will need to use that drift nut many times during your flight to save yourself from having to calculate an error differential that will continuously take place during the flight.  It's a known and verified fact that if you fly a straight heading, say directly along geographic North line, for a length of time, your directional gyro will continuously drift off the 360 (or 0) degree indicated heading as the earth rotates.  The gyro is working fine and is following the laws of physics but the drift nut is for the convenience of the pilot. As for my source if information:  FAA issued commercial pilot's license and experience as pilot in command over a period of about 30 years.
Yes, you confirmed everything.

You do not need a gyro with a drift nut to fly.

Basically, it appears a drift nut is merely something of an automated process that provides additional information that was already available to all pilots and capable of being performed regardless.
You are correct in certain aspects but you are still trying to hide the most important reason of why a drift nut is needed.  Let's start with a practical scenario.  A pilot starts up his aircraft and gets everything warmed up.  The directional gyro stabilizes at a indicated heading of 236 degrees.  Assume the aircraft is sitting on the ramp at a heading of 093 degrees. That means that the gyro indicates 143 degrees more than the actual aircraft true heading but the gyro is working perfectly well and will stay at that heading but will slowly change as the earth rotates under the aircraft.  The pilot next taxies out to runway 14.  That means the actual runway heading is at a geographic heading of about 140 degrees.  So before takeoff with the aircraft aligned with the runway center line the directional gyro will then indicate 283 degrees.  You take off and the control tower gives you instructions to turn left to heading 125 degrees for traffic avoidance.  Now you have to do some quick mental math you could just add 125 + 143 and turn to a gyro indicated heading of 268. 


You probably are starting to get the picture.  The drift nut doesn't change anything about how the gyro actually works but it does save the pilot a lot of mental arithmetic and probably avoids plenty of mistakes that could happen at critical times.  On top of this as the earth spins and takes the atmosphere and the aircraft with it the directional gyro's heading accuracy will slowly become inaccurate.  This means that the pilot will then be required to have a stopwatch as well to keep track of the drift of the azimuth as a function of time.  These days you could probably just have an iPhone app to keep track of everything, but 50 years ago when I was first starting to fly we didn't have all the high tech stuff like that.  Instead a drift nut was installed on the directional gyro.  Again, it didn't actually have any effect on how the gyro works or the gyro's accuracy, but it did make the directional gyro a whole lot more of an effective instrument that the pilot could use for his navigation between point A and point B.       
Why would I try to hide something that is not needed?

Seems you are attempting to ascribe extreme relevance to something that turns out be a matter of simple convenience.

In other words, without Google Maps installed on your phone, getting to grandma's house for Thanksgiving dinner wouldn't be possible.

That's your argument.
Now you have gone into trolling mode with your comments. 

I've explained in detail what the drift nut is used for on a directional gyro and how it greatly reduces a pilot's workload and that's a particularly important safety issue.  You could get out your stop watch and every 20 or 30 minutes during the flight mentally factor in a couple of degrees of compensation needed to make your gyro give you your correct heading to compensate for the rotation of the earth or you could just have a drift nut.  Pilot's convenience or SAFETY ?   

As for going to grandma's house I just go over the river and thru the woods to grandmother's house I go. THE HORSE KNOWS THE WAY TO CARRY THE SLEIGH.......So no, it's not me that need the iPhone and Google maps.   
The fact I have pointed out a drift nut isn't necessary to perform the operations involved in flight is now labeled as trolling.

Pot meet kettle.

Pilots were not getting out their watches every twenty or thirty minutes either.

All forms of long distance traveling, regardless of form, is split into more easily manageable sections.

We are done here.
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: Iceman on May 11, 2021, 12:10:50 PM
You guys really need to stop quoting entire blocks of threads. It makes this beyond stupid to try to read...
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: SteelyBob on May 11, 2021, 06:24:21 PM
Again, I am not muddying things by using your source. It is plainly evident from your source that Sigma Octantis could not possibly be visible in all three places at once because it is not dark enough in all three places at once.

Dark enough.

Dark enough.

Your source.

Your source.

ETA: Sigma Octantis not useful for navigation due to the fact it is barely visible. Perhaps it maybe not even a "pole star."

My source:

(https://www.timeanddate.com/scripts/sunmap.php?iso=20210621T2142)

The dark shaded bit = official 'night', ie twilight over, sun more than 18 degrees below horizon. See the dark shaded bit on the east coast of South America and the West coast of Australia? That's dark. The city of Recife in Brazil, for example? Dark. Africa? Dark. West coast of Australia? Also dark.

Maybe the satellite (sorry..guess you don't believe in those) image will help with visualisation:

(https://www.timeanddate.com/scripts/sunmap.php?iso=20210621T2142&earth=1)

Quite happy if you want to dispute this, but you'll need to come up with something better than 'your source says it's not dark enough', when it quite clearly, most definitely says it is.

Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: RonJ on May 11, 2021, 06:45:44 PM
There are some who think that the drift nut on an aircraft directional gyro really isn't necessary for the gyro to work.  That part is true, but that's not the real issue here.  When the directional gyro does spin up it's stabilized indicated azimuth is completely random and has no relationship to which direction the aircraft is pointing at the time.  There will be a random offset displayed and that offset will slowly drift as the earth rotates on it's axis.  That part is a confirmed and verified fact by aircraft pilots including myself.  Now do you actually need a drift nut for the directional gyro to work?  Technically, NO.  But the information displayed by that gyro would be much more useful if you had a drift nut so you could reset the displayed azimuth to a much more useful reference point, the current heading of the aircraft.  It's really just that simple.


You could say that mankind doesn't really need the internet.  I survived for a long time before my first internet connection was installed.  You don't need a fancy telephone.  My grandmother had a crank telephone with no dial on it.  You cranked the phone and told the operator what number you wanted to call.  You don't need a color flat screen TV.  The TV I used to watch as a kid was a black & white one with a round screen about 12 inches in diameter.  Heck, you don't even need a wheel.  The caveman survived before any kind of round thing and just hunted animals for survival.  So which way do you want to go, forward in technology or backwards? 


Go ahead, take that drift nut off every pilot's gyro, he doesn't really need it.  Let those pilots use their brains to calculate the heading offsets mentally every time they need to.  Hopefully no pilot makes a mistake and collides with another aircraft and the wreckage falls on my house. 
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on May 11, 2021, 08:13:23 PM
Over several pages RonJ has patiently explained the function, use and need for the drift-nut in increasingly basic terms, and still Action80 doesn't seem to get it. 

How about this?  You can use the drift-nut, or you can work it out in your head, or you can use pencil and paper, or an I-phone.  What you can't do is ignore it.  One way or another, if you want to travel further than grandma's house, you need to compensate for something on your directional gyro. 

Its there, its real; now what do you suppose that something is? 
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: stack on May 11, 2021, 08:33:00 PM
Again, I am not muddying things by using your source. It is plainly evident from your source that Sigma Octantis could not possibly be visible in all three places at once because it is not dark enough in all three places at once.

Yes, Sig Oct is somewhat faint. However, it can still be seen from all three continents, South America, Africa, and Australia, at the same time. Using Stellarium here is the Southern Cross from Cape Town, South Africa, Perth, Australia & Ushuaia, Argentina, 3 continents, same time:

(https://i.imgur.com/gLzU3NH.jpg)

As a bonus the Southern Cross, right next to Sig Oct, is brighter and it too can be seen from the three continents at the same time - Using Stellarium here is the Southern Cross from the same locations, all at the same time:

(https://i.imgur.com/mC3Ql4l.jpg)
Title: Re: i dont understand someone help please
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on May 26, 2021, 09:47:56 PM

Again, I am not muddying things by using your source. It is plainly evident from your source that Sigma Octantis could not possibly be visible in all three places at once because it is not dark enough in all three places at once.

Dark enough.

Dark enough.

Your source.

Your source.

ETA: Sigma Octantis not useful for navigation due to the fact it is barely visible. Perhaps it maybe not even a "pole star."
 

Probably pointless, but just for the record;

Good News:  According to the twilight tracker, 21.30 UTC today, 26 May 2021, it is currently astronomical nighttime in Perth (Australia), the entire continent of Africa, and Recife (Brazil). 

Bad News:  I am not in any of those places. 

Further Good News:  This situation will happen nightly, lasting longer each night, peaking around June 21, if @Action80 is in a position to pop down there with a compass and telescope.