21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 29, 2023, 03:06:46 PM »

You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.   
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope.  I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern.  Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day.  When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey. 


Like Johannes Kepler said:
 The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
 should be to discover the rational order and harmony
 which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
 to us in the language of mathematics.

Nope. Gravity is making the gyroscope do that, not them going along an imaginary curved path. It's your problem if you refuse to understand what gravity is and the reality of our Earth.


You claim that you care about physics and natural science but really what you care about is formal science and mathematical physics. Have a good whatever it is wherever you are on our level Earth.

Nope.
Gyroscopes work on the principles of gyroscopic inertia.  They will work fine whether there's gravity present or not.  Mathematics shows this to be true.
 
Immanuel Kant said:  In any particular theory there is only as much real science as there is mathematics.

Sorry, but were you saying that if the gyroscope tells you you're flying level, that means that you're flying along a curved path because you're assuming the Earth to be a globe and level means curved? If so, I have nothing else to say to you to put it mildly.

In an airplane the altimeter’s function is to measure the distance above the surface of the earth along the route.  On a spherical earth when you maintain a constant altitude between two points you do fly a curved flight path.  You never notice that because the changes are so small relative to the forward distance you are traveling.  It’s not unusual for your altimeter to bounce up and down by a couple hundred feet all along the way while the autopilot compensates to maintain a set altitude.  A gyroscope, on the other hand, will always point at a fixed reference point in space.  When it’s mounted in an aircraft you would see a constant change in the Z axis as you progress along your route.  If you could set your autopilot to maintain a particular constant Z axis value, then you would see a continuous increase in altitude as you progressed along your route.  If the earth was flat, then flying along a constant Z axis would also mean flying at a constant altitude over the earth’s surface.  My measurements indicated a curved surface because of the consistent changes in the Z axis measurements in the direction of travel that were consistently reversed when the reverse journey was made back to the original point of departure.  All I know is that this is what I witnessed over countless trips using many different gyros. 

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 28, 2023, 07:06:59 PM »

You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.   
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope.  I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern.  Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day.  When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey. 


Like Johannes Kepler said:
 The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
 should be to discover the rational order and harmony
 which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
 to us in the language of mathematics.

Nope. Gravity is making the gyroscope do that, not them going along an imaginary curved path. It's your problem if you refuse to understand what gravity is and the reality of our Earth.


You claim that you care about physics and natural science but really what you care about is formal science and mathematical physics. Have a good whatever it is wherever you are on our level Earth.

Nope.
Gyroscopes work on the principles of gyroscopic inertia.  They will work fine whether there's gravity present or not.  Mathematics shows this to be true.
 
Immanuel Kant said:  In any particular theory there is only as much real science as there is mathematics.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 28, 2023, 06:33:09 PM »

You are certainly getting off the original subject but since you are the OP of this thread, I will supply you with an answer.   
An airplane or a ship can show that they are transitioning along a curved path by using a gyroscope.  I am personally familiar with this technology and had the manufacturers manuals and service equipment that provided me with finer and more detailed measurements than my eye could discern.  Since the earth is also spinning on an axis you would have to take all the x, y and z measurements at a fixed time, like at noon (UTC) each day.  When you did this after a trip halfway around the earth, as I have done countless times, you could see that you are now standing on your head relative to the way you were when you started your long journey. 


Like Johannes Kepler said:
 The chief aim of all investigations of the external world
 should be to discover the rational order and harmony
 which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed
 to us in the language of mathematics.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 28, 2023, 04:17:03 PM »

A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination.  Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path.  So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path?  I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.

That's a strange way of saying that what I'm showing you doesn't agree with your religion's commandment that mathematical models = reality if that's the consensus.

Celestial navigation using trigonometry used to be simple and worked perfectly fine when assuming a flat Earth, but with the introduction of the mathematical model of a globe Earth all of a sudden celestial navigation became complicated. Even though you can make those complications work mathematically, if you care about physics and natural science that means that you care about what things actually are, and you don't sacrifice that for a mathematical model no matter how much you believe or want to believe that mathematical model = reality.

Take a look at the works of Nathaniel Bowditch on Wikipedia.  This person has distilled the notion of celestial navigation down to spherical mathematical equations that are still taught to ship's navigators today.  Yes, I do care about physics and natural science and especially care about how things actually are.  I believe that mathematical models can = reality so have personally applied the works of Bowditch and his American Practical Navigator publications that are still required to be carried aboard ships today.  We were always taught navigation is a series of steps.  Here is the concept.  These mathematical equations describe the concept.  This is the way to apply this knowledge to match your postion on a navigational chart.  Now experiment on your own to see if you can find any faults.  Once you have convinced yourself take the tests to prove your abilities.  Now go out there and bet your life on your knowledge and abilities. 


I am still alive today and have owned my own sextant and made observations and then used spherical trig to determine a position at sea well outside the view of any land.  In light of my success why should I believe that mathematical descriptions and the applications of the same won't work? 


You could apply the same concepts to the altitude related G force questions or for about anything else for that matter, but you need a mathematical equation first.  Use the equations to form an experiment.  Perform the experiment and analyze the results.  Do the results confirm the equations?  It's a loop that has been confirmed to work. 

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 28, 2023, 03:00:59 PM »

A true leader will know the path towards the desired destination.  Mathematics is the best descriptor of that path.  So how can you lead me towards the truth without having a specific path?  I can think and that makes me believe that I don’t want to run off in all directions at once.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 28, 2023, 12:01:51 PM »

The guy doesn't speak mathematics.  Without that you can't ever be sure of what he's really talking about.  Can you supply some relevant equations?
     

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 27, 2023, 11:04:21 PM »

You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.

The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
 
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is.  Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful.  Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.

I don't think I'm ever going to convince you, but you could watch this video:

I watched the video. 
I'll stick with Einstein and Maxwell.  Their theories are backed up with plenty of descriptive equations that have been peer reviewed and tested in the real world for at least a century. 
If you don't believe that please specify an instance where their theories don't work.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 27, 2023, 06:54:03 PM »

You could make an atomic clock inaccurate with EMF. That doesn't mean that you "dilated time" because the clock subjected to the EMF is no longer in sync with the other clocks. You can't dilate time because time doesn't exist physically - it's a concept. So it's really Ether dilation. You can shield against EMF but you can't shield against the Ether.

The US National Bureau of Standards has many atomic clocks in their network, and they are all compensated for different altitudes to account for the different gravitational potentials that dilate time.
This is effectively another demonstration of how gravitation varies with altitude.
 
Einstein knew that time is a dimension just like space is.  Michelson and Morley worked long and hard to detect the Ether but were unsuccessful.  Perhaps you know of an experiment where that effort was realized.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 27, 2023, 05:31:04 PM »

Say the Gnome you are measuring is made from plastic and you check the density of plastic you will find that it's about 1.2 gm/cm^3. Then you make a Gnome with a weight of 1.2 gm.  Suppose you measure that in air at sea level and then in another location at an altitude of about 5000 ft and you see a difference in weight.  If you take the density of air at sea level it will be about 0.001225 gm/cm^3 and at 5000 ft it will be about 0.001007 gm/cm^3.  You don't really care too much about the air density at a specific location but the difference between the two locations you are doing the measurements since you are interested in the difference in weights, not the absolute values.  When you subtract the two typical air densities you find that it's about 0.000218 gm/cm^3.  Your Gnome has a density of 1.2 gm/cm^3 so the typical difference due to any air buoyancy would be about 0.018%.  That's a difference that probably wouldn't be measurable with the scale used in the experiments.  So any difference measured would mostly be due to gravitation or some other unknown factors.  That means that measuring the Gnome in a vacuum chamber would make for more accuracy in absolute weights but the difference in weights (what you are looking for) would be so small (due to air buoyancy) because the differences would be more than 3 digits to the right of the decimal point.     

I agree with that. I think our agreement means that we can go back to talking about how g varies with altitude and depth.

To answer your question, yes there have been countless experiments done that show that the acceleration of gravity varies with altitude.  The physicists call it gravitational potential.  When you change this, you change time dilation that can be measured with atomic clocks.  There was an experiment recently that showed a measurable time dilation due to a change in altitude of about 1 millimeter.  If you want to spend some time in this realm of study you can convince yourself that this is a well known fact that was postulated by Einstein and is being verified (in the Zetetic manner) each and every day. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
Project GREAT 2016a -- Hawking, Einstein, and Time Dilation on Mt Lemmon (leapsecond.com)

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 26, 2023, 08:23:00 PM »

Say the Gnome you are measuring is made from plastic and you check the density of plastic you will find that it's about 1.2 gm/cm^3. Then you make a Gnome with a weight of 1.2 gm.  Suppose you measure that in air at sea level and then in another location at an altitude of about 5000 ft and you see a difference in weight.  If you take the density of air at sea level it will be about 0.001225 gm/cm^3 and at 5000 ft it will be about 0.001007 gm/cm^3.  You don't really care too much about the air density at a specific location but the difference between the two locations you are doing the measurements since you are interested in the difference in weights, not the absolute values.  When you subtract the two typical air densities you find that it's about 0.000218 gm/cm^3.  Your Gnome has a density of 1.2 gm/cm^3 so the typical difference due to any air buoyancy would be about 0.018%.  That's a difference that probably wouldn't be measurable with the scale used in the experiments.  So any difference measured would mostly be due to gravitation or some other unknown factors.  That means that measuring the Gnome in a vacuum chamber would make for more accuracy in absolute weights but the difference in weights (what you are looking for) would be so small (due to air buoyancy) because the differences would be more than 3 digits to the right of the decimal point.       

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 25, 2023, 07:21:21 PM »

The North Pole is in the middle of the ocean.  No country’s permission or passport would be required.  The USA has had a couple of submarines go there and surface by breaking thru the ice.     

32

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 17, 2022, 04:43:52 PM »

The question here is what is ‘evidence’?  How does anyone know that WWII occurred?  There’s plenty of eyewitnesses and a few are still living.  Maybe they aren’t telling the truth.  But if you have thousands of witnesses telling a similar story wouldn’t that increase the odds that what they are saying is accurate?  There were all kinds of physical damage and plenty of photographs to reinforce the stories told by the actual witnesses.  Now look at what happened in Nagasaki, Japan.  Wasn’t there 1000s of witnesses?  Wasn’t there an enormous amount of physical damage?  Ground zero was inland so you couldn’t have had a barge full of TNT floated in and exploded.  We are also talking about damage caused by the equivalent of 21K Tones of TNT and a barge these days only holds about 1.7 K Tones of cargo.  Add to that all the sickness attributed to radiation and that also rules out TNT.  If the Japanese didn’t believe that the Americans had a terrible weapon that could be carried on one aircraft, why would they just give up unconditionally and end a war?  I would say that’s pretty good evidence that nuclear weapons exist.  I’ve maybe had some exposure myself to the results of alleged atomic testing, but I haven’t had any health problems yet, but my sister has.  Will the government compensate her, we don’t know yet.  Would that be considered as evidence?  Anyone can make any kind of controversial statements without evidence and then say, ‘you have the burden of proof and I’m the judge who decides if your proof statements are valid’.  Does that sound reasonable?

33

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 16, 2022, 01:13:57 AM »

No one really cares if you believe or not.

I see, that's why people keep making long winded posts trying to tell me I'm wrong for believing what I do. You obviously care, Ron, or else you'd just not respond at all. By the way, where's the evidence I asked for? You don't have any, do you? Weird!

All the evidence you need is out there.  I have it, but you don't want it. No need for you to do any work because you don't wish to believe anyway. For you, ignorance is bliss.  I'm happy that you're happy!

You asked for my standard of evidence, then instead of providing it (you can't, haha, isn't that funny?) you instead choose to say it exists *somewhere*, just not here. Magical.

Here's the thing Ron, you don't have any evidence. You incorrectly believed something because people keep telling you it exists. Now you're upset, but instead of admitting you have no evidence, you just bury your head in the sand. Sad!

All the evidence I have is useless to you because you choose ignorance over knowledge.  Why try to feed a dead horse?  You say that I don't have any evidence, what's your evidence that indicates that? 

34

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 15, 2022, 04:03:46 PM »

No one really cares if you believe or not.

I see, that's why people keep making long winded posts trying to tell me I'm wrong for believing what I do. You obviously care, Ron, or else you'd just not respond at all. By the way, where's the evidence I asked for? You don't have any, do you? Weird!

All the evidence you need is out there.  I have it, but you don't want it. No need for you to do any work because you don't wish to believe anyway. For you, ignorance is bliss.  I'm happy that you're happy!

35

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 09:33:18 PM »

Do you believe that boiling water is the same thing as blowing up cities? If anything, nuclear power plants and their complete inability to violently explode (instead they 'meltdown') should tune you into the nonsense that is nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power plants are not designed to explode but just produce a lot of heat to make steam.  They can release a lot of radiation if things go wrong.  That's already happened a couple of times.  I live nearby 2 different nuclear plants and have actually been inside the control rooms of both of them.  it's quite impressive but the authorities won't let anyone near one unless you have a legitimate reason.

36

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 09:20:49 PM »

So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 

What are yours? You lads need to learn you can't ask me to prove something doesn't exist (that's not possible). You're going about this all wrong. You must provide proof it exists, not the other way around.

You misunderstand, as usual.  What do I have to show you in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  It's like getting into a taxi and the driver saying 'where to'.  You then say 'just drive, I'll tell you when we arrive'.  That's fine as long as you are paying for every mile driven, but it wouldn't work if the ride is free.  I'm asking you what kind of evidence would you require in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  I'll do the proving if you tell me what you need.

I would need to see, either in person or an adequate video, actually showing the internals of the device, showing that it's obviously not faked using a large amount of conventional explosive, and then actually detonated. The video of course would need to be devoid of jumpcut editing where they go "here see this is totally it, this is totally what explodes!" and then it suddenly jumps to an explosion as if that's the device that was used.

All you need to do now is spend a lot of time researching the Manhattan Project and get a secret clearance.  After that's done you could get an appropriate job that would necessitate viewing a nuclear weapon and be present if one is ever tested again in the future.  The authorities aren't going to let just any wacko, like yourself, view a nuclear weapon and see it tested without doing a lot of vetting.  No one really cares if you believe or not.  Actually it's better that you don't believe and you convince others, who think like you, not to believe too.  When the bomber flew over Japan to drop the first Nuc no one worried.  They just weren't afraid of a single airplane at the time.  The Japanese wised up after they saw what happens when the Americans dropped a few radioactive firecrackers on their cities. 

37

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 07:33:48 PM »

So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 

What are yours? You lads need to learn you can't ask me to prove something doesn't exist (that's not possible). You're going about this all wrong. You must provide proof it exists, not the other way around.

You misunderstand, as usual.  What do I have to show you in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  It's like getting into a taxi and the driver saying 'where to'.  You then say 'just drive, I'll tell you when we arrive'.  That's fine as long as you are paying for every mile driven, but it wouldn't work if the ride is free.  I'm asking you what kind of evidence would you require in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  I'll do the proving if you tell me what you need. 

38

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 02:04:28 PM »

So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 

39

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 11, 2022, 07:16:46 PM »

You don't have any 'evidence standards' for what a nuclear device is or isn't do you?  How can you possibly claim that what I've seen is false and I've been 'lied to'?  Gas lighting just doesn't work with me.  Why don't you go to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and start your spew.  People there probably need your kind of psychological help.

I'm sure you draw all of this knowledge from your enormous understanding of nuclear devices... You're just repeating what you've been told your entire life. "No! People can't lie to me! I am lie proof!"

Thanks for the confirmation of your cultist beliefs.  Your posted spews were well done but now it's time for the next step.  Please consult your master.

40

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 10, 2022, 07:53:13 PM »

If you are going to claim that nukes are 'fake' then you will have to starting calling a lot of people 'lying sacks of shit'.  I'm one of them. This isn't something that happens in space. 

All you can show evidence of is that a location had some large blast occur and there's some residual radioactivity. That's not evidence that a nuclear bomb exists. I can buy some radioactive element, shove it into a firecracker and pop it in a local park. Is that evidence I set off a mini-nuke?

You don't have any 'evidence standards' for what a nuclear device is or isn't do you?  How can you possibly claim that what I've seen is false and I've been 'lied to'?  Gas lighting just doesn't work with me.  Why don't you go to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and start your spew.  People there probably need your kind of psychological help.