Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RonJ

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30  Next >
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 15, 2024, 10:46:19 PM »
So, you have one sole instance to offer as a counter and it happens to be in a place you would have been able to visually detect a referenced landmark perhaps matching the flight map.

How in the world would this translate to a transoceanic flight having little if any similarity to the flight you cite?

If you need many more descriptions of long-haul airline flight experiences, I have plenty for you.

While I was working, I took lots of long-haul transoceanic flights.  Some were up to 15 hours long.  On those flights I sat in business class or first-class seats.  There was always a map with the aircraft’s position and ground speed displayed on the screen in front of me.  Sometimes there was even a forward-facing camera allowing me to have the same outside view as the aircraft’s captain on my display.  If I wanted to double check I could pull out my GPS receiver and have a 2nd source of speed & position data. This worked OK especially when I was in a window seat.  I am an experienced commercial pilot/ship’s officer/ and navigator myself and was never surprised when I could confirm the aircraft’s position with landmarks below.  We would always start flying a great circle route to save fuel and sometime would go way up into the Artic on flights from the USA to Asia.  Sometimes that route would be altered to avoid unfavorable weather conditions. You can be sure that high altitude jet streams were taken into account when the pre-flight planning was done. There were times when we did divert for a refueling stop before reaching our destination but that didn’t happen very often.  When it did happen, there was always bad weather along the way and the pilot would make some diversions to avoid thunderstorms, typhoons, or hurricanes.  We did once land in Beijing, China to refuel on the way to Hong Kong but there were frequent storms along the way, plenty of adverse head winds and the weather was foggy in Hong Kong. It made sense to be safe and have plenty of reserve fuel in case a diversion or a holding pattern was necessary near the end of the flight due to the unpredictable visibility at our final stop. 
The bottom line is that I have the experience of many hundreds of trans-oceanic voyages by air and sea during my working years.   You always knew your position and speed over the ground very accurately.  If someone tells you the contrary, they might very well not be able to determine their position correctly, but experienced navigators certainly can, very accurately, determine both their position and speed over the ground.  If they can't then there is a serious problem with their equipment.  I don't believe that I ever had that happen to me in over 40 years of traveling.  I always had a backup or two to fall back on if a single piece of equipment failed.  Sure, in my early years, I had some navigational difficulties, but that was due to inexperience.  I got better & better at using the navigational equipment and reading navigational charts as my training & experience progressed. 

When someone new comes onto this forum and asks ‘what does the flat earth theory say about ‘this’ the usual reply is a link to the Wiki.  Hopefully that person would thoroughly read the Wiki and then would certainly come across ENAG and the Bedford Canal experiment.  I am glad that you agree that upholding ENAG as religious dogma is silly and perhaps it’s only in the Wiki as an example of the silly things people believed in long ago. 

I certainly have no obsession with that book myself but only used it as a contrast to EA. That was part of my assessment of the evidence of the flat earth model. 

Perhaps you don’t wish to take any responsibility for much of the contents of ENAG yourself.  I wouldn't blame you.  It would be a difficult job to explain every single wrong thing that was published in it. 

The thing that Rowbotham asserts in ENAG is that the level of a body of water was parallel to a specified line of sight over 6 miles.  The assumption was then made that the line of sight was flat because light travels in straight lines.  Since the level of the water was parallel to the line of sight over the specified 6 miles the whole earth had to be flat.

Later Parsifal came up with an equation that asserts that light is bendy and can’t define a straight line.  This assertion was used to explain other observable phenomenon like the fact that it’s dark at night.  Of course, the equation is incomplete so must stay undefined until a value of the Bishop Constant is found. 

If Parsifal’s equation is valid then Rowbotham proved with his Bedford Canal experiment that the earth really isn’t flat but must be curved the same way light is. 
If Rowbotham was correct, then there’s some serious problems in FET like why it gets dark at night.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?
« on: December 13, 2023, 12:48:45 AM »
It still looks like there is a problem with your contention that a rocket is a closed system.  I suppose that you can define your own systems anyway you want, but you can see where it could cause some confusion when you deviate from the scientific norms at use by most scientists and engineers.  When I consult my university thermodynamics textbook, I do find that there can be NO matter transfer in or out of a CLOSED system.  Obviously, a rocket has a very massive exhaust as the majority of a large rocket’s mass is fuel and when the fuel is mostly burned the majority of the initial rocket’s mass has left the system.  Of course, you could include the rocket’s plumb as part of the system boundaries but then those boundaries would have to be continuously expanding over time. 
It's also interesting that you consider a human to be an OPEN system.  That definition would be agreeable to most.  Obviously, a human takes in mass in the form of food and water and ejects the waste mass that the body doesn’t use into a toilet somewhere.  That's pretty simular to a rocket that must be fueled before departure (something that is also contrary to a closed system) and then ejects most of the fuel's mass to generate thrust.

The information in the link agrees with my text books so you can count on it being accurate.  Please be more specific, if you can, regarding your unique definition of a CLOSED system and specify its boundaries. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?
« on: December 11, 2023, 08:00:58 PM »
I ‘cheated’ again and fetched my thermodynamics book I used in college and looked at the 2nd chapter where the author did discuss the differences between open and closed systems.  One important matter is the determination of the system boundaries.  If you define your system boundaries as X and there is any mass crossing that boundary then it’s considered to be an OPEN system.  This means that Action’s defined system could be a closed system only if the defined boundaries were the entire universe.  No telling where the substances of the rocket’s plume will end up billions of years from now.  Even if you did assume that the entire universe was the system’s boundaries, you still have the problem of the conservation of momentum.  Fuel inside a rocket is observed to exit at an accelerated rate so to produce that acceleration requires a force.  The burned rocket fuel is observed to be exiting out the back of the rocket so the force cannot be from the outside.  Remember, force and acceleration are both vector quantities.  The accelerated fuel must have had something inside the rocket to push against, and that would be the combustion chamber.  It wouldn’t be surprising to see the rocket move in the direction opposite of the plume assuming that the rocket is free to move and isn’t tied down to something. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?
« on: December 11, 2023, 05:11:22 PM »
I consulted my physics book that I used while pursuing my engineering degree years ago.  It seems that many people back in the 1920s also insisted that a rocket wouldn’t work in a vacuum.  It took a person like Robert Goddard to prove that supposition wrong.  There were many in the popular press of the day that had lots of fun and called him “Moon man”.  He finally put a gun inside an evacuated jar that fired a blank and proved without a doubt that a rocket would work in space.  He also earned lots and lots of US Patents for his ideas.  Eventually the press printed some retractions and apologies when the advancing space program proved repeatedly that rockets can and do work in a vacuum. 
The bottom line is that either there are countless physics PhDs who are correct about their knowledge of the conservation of momentum, or rockets do not work in space as claimed and the whole think is a big farce perpetrated on the public worldwide. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?
« on: December 10, 2023, 03:15:18 AM »
If you wish to define the boundaries of a rocket’s system as the entire universe then that rocket could be considered a closed system.  That would be the only way that rocket could be classified as a closed system because the burning fuel exits the rocket’s chassis and travels off to some unknown place after exiting the nozzle. 
The conventional way of classifying systems would be to say that mass never enters or leaves a closed system.  Since a conventional rocket has the mass of its fuel leaving out the nozzle on a continuous basis while the rocket is starting its travels, you would conventionally classify it as an open system. 
It would be better for you to define your system boundaries to avoid further confusion about whether a rocket is an open or closed system.   

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?
« on: December 09, 2023, 01:54:58 AM »
Imagine some fuel inside a rocket. That fuel has some mass.  The fuel and the rocket have about the same relative velocity.  Now some fuel is inducted into the combustion chamber and combustion starts and the fuel’s energy is released.  The combustion chamber is closed at one end and open at the exhaust end.  Pressure inside the combustion chamber builds up due to the energy released by burning the fuel.   The combusted fuel’s mass is ejected at an accelerated rate out the exhaust end.  Newton’s law would say the accelerated fuel mass would produce an equal and opposite reaction.  That opposite force vector would be in the general direction of the nose of the rocket.

Here is your ‘force pair’.  The mass of the combusted rocket fuel being accelerated toward the exhaust port at the rear of the rocket and the forward part of the combustion chamber attached to the rocket itself.  The rocket’s mass is being accelerated in one direction and the mass of the accelerated fuel in the opposite direction.  The dividing line is the forward part of the combustion chamber as it divides the accelerating mass of the rocket itself in one direction with the accelerating mass of the combusted fuel in the opposite direction.

Any external air pressure at the exhaust end acts like a small back pressure that will slow down the acceleration rate of the exiting combusted fuel a little and reduce the forward acceleration rate of the rocket.  If the rocket is in a vacuum that back pressure will be close to zero and the burned fuel mass will be accelerated at a greater rate.  Everything takes place inside the rocket and the lack of external air has nothing to do with the fuel being accelerated in one direction and the rocket being accelerated in the opposite direction. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?
« on: December 08, 2023, 07:48:23 PM »
Yes, the gas would freely expand once it was outside of the rocket engine.   At that point the exhaust gas mass would have already been accelerated and an equal and opposite force would be applied to the forward end of the combustion chamber.  The fuel is not being burned in a vacuum but inside the combustion chamber enclosure.  A rocket would be more efficient if the gas was dispersed immediately once it exited the rocket.  The action – reaction part would already be completed. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?
« on: December 08, 2023, 07:27:15 PM »
Inside a rocket's combustion chamber there is the introduction of a mass of fuel at a low relative velocity.  The fuel mass is set on fire.  That releases energy.  One end of the combustion chamber is closed to the product of the combusted fuel.  The other end is open to the outside of the engine.  Since the pressure is lower on the outside, the combusted fuel accelerates out in that direction.  The accelerated fuel mass produces a force equal and opposite to its acceleration vector. 
Any pressure on the outside of the rocket engine will inhibit the exhausts acceleration.  Since the force is proportional to the mass acceleration the less external force outside the rocket engine the more force will be produced.  This means that a rocket will be more efficient in a vacuum than in an atmosphere.   

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?
« on: December 08, 2023, 06:09:57 PM »
General Electric gas turbine engines work on all the normal principles of physics you are taught in college engineering school.  I don’t need to consult with a relative of any kind as I am, personally, a federally certified gas turbine engineer.  There are some gas turbine powered, government owned, military ships in service that I have personally worked aboard many times.   A gas will always flow from a higher pressure towards a lower pressure.  Figure 1-2 on page 2 would be a more relevant diagram illustrating how a gas turbine works.  The compressor blades are spinning, and this accelerates the air.  This air mass acceleration is a source of the turbine engine’s forward thrust.  Where does the compressor get its power to accelerate the air?  You can see it’s via the shaft connecting the compressor with the turbine.  The turbine is powered by the released energy of the burning fuel inside the combustion chamber that is then routed past the turbine blades to provide power to the turbine/compressor shaft.  The exhaust from this operation is then expelled through the propelling nozzle.  The nozzle will provide a little more forward force because the exhaust gases are accelerated when passing through the nozzle.  The net force will be in a direction opposite the incoming air flow.   

These gas turbine engines will require atmospheric oxygen for fuel combustion where rocket engines do not.  The rockets carry their own oxygen with them inside.  Both rockets and turbines provide forward thrust in the same manner, however.  Both rely on accelerating mass to provide an equal and opposite force.  Newton’s law never specifies what the mass must be.  In a turbine engine, it’s outside air and combustion products.  On a rocket its all combustion products.  On a ship or a boat water is accelerated by the propellor to provide forward thrust. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?
« on: December 07, 2023, 08:23:02 PM »
You put some rocket fuel inside a rocket and ignite the fuel to release a quantity of energy.  The fuel is transformed from a solid (or liquid) to a very hot expanding gas.  The gas is confined inside the rocket ignition chamber with only one way out.  Pressure builds up and the very hot gas exits thru the engine’s nozzle that helps to accelerate the gas.  The hot exiting gas’s mass will be equal to the mass of the fuel that was burned.  Now you have the mass(M) in the equation.  The hot gas exiting the rocket engine is traveling at a high speed so, since it was almost zero velocity at the start, has accelerated greatly while traveling through the nozzle.  Now you have the (A) acceleration part.  Since the force is equal to the mass times the acceleration, you have a force opposite the direction of the rockets exiting gas.  There’s no air mentioned in the equation anywhere. All that is needed is an accelerating mass.   

If anything, the surrounding air will only slow the rocket’s acceleration.  Any force produced by the air pushing the rocket up will be balanced out by the force of the air pushing back on the nose of the rocket.  If the surface of the earth was a vacuum the acceleration of the rocket would be greater, all things being equal. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?
« on: December 07, 2023, 05:35:51 PM »
The ‘plumb’ in space doesn’t have anything to do with the production of a force by the rocket engine.  A rocket contains fuel that has a mass, and an amount of dormant energy.  When combustion occurs, the dormant energy is released, and that energy effectively accelerates the mass of the fuel.  The combusted fuel is accelerating out the back of the rocket.  When you apply Newton’s law you have an equal and opposite amount of force (F = MA) applied on the rocket in the direction opposite to the direction of the exiting combusted fuel.  It doesn’t matter if the rocket’s environment is in air or a vacuum.  Newton’s law applies equally in either environment. 

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Died Suddenly
« on: October 08, 2023, 05:14:08 PM »
No, more like human history really.
You should probably go find some old people.  Ask them about polio.
Yes, at one time polio was a problem, at least in the USA.  My parents had some religious reasons against the vaccine, but I and my siblings all ended up getting it anyway.  There were lots of pressure put on everyone to get vaccinated.  When in high school I can remember at least one student that had polio and his leg was all messed up. He hopped around as best he could and got by.  There was at least one other acquaintance that had it as well, but the effects were minor. The vaccine must have worked because I haven’t run across anyone with polio in over 50 years.   

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 08, 2023, 04:54:21 PM »
The earth’s horizon is the dividing line between the land and the sky.  On a totally flat plain, that line (physically) must be below your eye level because there’s some distance between your feet and your eyes.  This is the dip angle.  One problem on earth is the atmosphere. This is the source of some refraction.  This means that the perceived angle at which the light enters your eye may not be the same as the actual dip angle.  It’s very important for a celestial navigator to know his local weather conditions as well as his ‘height of eye’.  On most large ships the navigator can easily be 125 to 150 feet above sea level, and this would be a significant error if this distance is ignored.  The local temperature and humidity will produce some light refraction that can also cause a measurement error if not corrected for.   It’s important to realize that the physical horizon will always be below your eye level, but that angle may not be perceivable due to atmospheric refraction and/or your inability to decern the differences in very small dip angles. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 08:13:37 PM »
No Jokes here.
The earth’s curvature will not make things SHRINK or COMPRESS. That is true.  Buildings and the coastline can go ‘behind the curve’ if the observer is too far away and at an elevation too low relative to the object observed. An object that is invisible can often be seen if the lookout can increase his elevation.  This fact was known a long time ago.  The old sailing ships had a ‘crows nest’.  One of its functions was to allow an observer in it to see a coastline more quickly than the helms man at a much lower elevation. Land birds were also used to find land because they could circle the ship at a much higher elevation than the 'crows nest'. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 05:48:10 PM »
Nope. No curve when you use proper instruments on a clear day.
Well, if you want to rely on some IR photography for evidence then consider radar.  If you are familiar with the electromagnetic spectrum, then X band (or even better S band) radar would offer an even clearer picture. The earth’s curvature still hides the lower, closer, and wider parts of a mountain as you would expect on a globe earth.  Yes, we did have the proper professional equipment that works the best of a clear day but will work as well as possible on days when it isn’t.  That would be expected when there’s 100’s of millions of dollars of cargo at stake and the lives of the crew. 
The example video by J Tolan has already been accurately debunked.  I am familar with the California coastline as I've been in and out of LA and San Diego countless times. The view of San Jacinto Mountain is familar and there's problems with the analysis that was offered in your previous post.  The problems are detailed in the hyperlink I provided.     

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 03:34:27 PM »
I agree that the picture of the sailboat shown has a wave blocking the view of the hull.  It was a poor example to demonstrate the shape of the earth.  For multiple decades I literally spent half my life at sea traveling worldwide on large ships, so I have some decent experience looking out over the ocean and making observations.  The best one is the view of Mt. Fuji as it’s peak slowly rises out of the Pacific Ocean as we are heading towards Japan to pick up and/or deliver some cargo.  We had some of the best telescopes available mounted on a stand welded to the deck of our ship.  It didn’t matter how much magnification you used, you couldn’t bring back the base of the mountain that was wider, bigger, and closer than the peak.  It was obviously concealed behind the earth’s curve.  As we got closer to Japan Mt. Fuji would appear to rise higher and higher out of the sea until we started to see the Japanese coastline.  This view was repeated countless times under many different weather conditions on multiple voyages.  If we were at the top of a large wave, we could see a bit more of the mountain.  Occasionally the seas would be quite smooth but that didn’t make any difference, Mt. Fuji would still be mostly hidden when we were 120 miles away.  Everyone liked the view because it also meant we would be docking soon and going ashore for a while.  This demonstrates the earth’s curvature and I have many other examples. 

Gyro compasses do not rely on any kind of magnetic fields to work.  This has been verified and witnessed by me countless times.  Ships mostly have their gyro compasses installed in electronics rooms on ships that are completely surrounded by steel on all 6 sides and accessable thru a steel hatch door.  Any magnetic field from the outside would be shielded.  Another little tidbit, the last ship I was on had the gyros right next to a large electrical transformer that would produce some magnetic fields of its own that would be stronger than any produced by the earth.  The gyro compasses still worked fine.  Some do rely on a spinning earth to work.  You can consult the service manuals or actually take them apart, like I have on many occasions, to confirm that the manuals are accurate.  Still don't believe it?  Consider that submarines have gyro compasses and use them to accurately determine their heading.  A magnetic compass won't work under water and the GPS system won't work either.  Gyro compasses can measure the curvature of the earth if you hook the mainteance computers to them like I have.  Everything works out as expected. 

After being a trained navigator on both ships and aircraft, I have a few opinions to share.  Navigators always go according to true North.  This means relative to the geographic North Pole.  If you have a 15 degree magnetic declination (East or West) this just provides a correction factor so you can correct your true heading if you are going exclusively by your compass.  If you don't make a correction (East is least and West is best) you won't arrive at your intended destination.  I suppose you could jump thru a lot of hoops and figure out your course and just steer with your compass.  That could be difficult in rough weather because your compass will jump around and could easily swing back & forth 10 degrees or more.  You could be stuck trying to take a mental average that could be off by many degrees.  It's a lot easier to just use your gyro-compass.  Of course back in the sailing ship days they didn't have a gyro-compass but a lot of those ships ended up on the reef. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30  Next >