Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #40 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:



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

And this webcam, in Cape Town, south Africa, it is dark: 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

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.

*

Online Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1232
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #41 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.

Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #42 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.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1022
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #43 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.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2021, 10:57:34 AM by Action80 »

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #44 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.   

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #45 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.


*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #46 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
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #47 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.

Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #48 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)

Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #49 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?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #50 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.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #51 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.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2021, 03:38:35 AM by RonJ »
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1022
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #52 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.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2021, 10:33:28 AM by Action80 »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2767
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #53 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? 
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #54 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.

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 669
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #55 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.
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #56 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)

Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #57 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).

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #58 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:



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.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 490
    • View Profile
Re: i dont understand someone help please
« Reply #59 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.