81

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory

« on: November 07, 2021, 05:31:21 PM »

There’s a better example of the ‘sinking ship’ effect and that’s the ‘sinking mountain’.  If you ever have occasion to go to Tokyo, Japan by ship you can observer Mt. Fuji from a long distance out at sea.  The difference between this mountain and a ship is that the base is much wider than the peak.  On every trip just the peak would start to rise up from the horizon line very slowly.  When this was observed many of us would also take a look with our really good binoculars that were so big and heavy, they had to be mounted on a stand to the deck.  At no time could we ever resolve anything more than just the snow covered peak, and it was always appearing just above the wave tops on the horizon line even on trips when the seas were smooth.  If the earth were flat, it would be easy to surmise that if we could see the top, we could also see the rest of the mountain as well because it was much wider and the front was closer.  The top would also be much higher above the horizon than we ever observed.

82

Flat Earth Community / Re: The borders of the conspiracy

« on: November 05, 2021, 08:29:16 PM »

I used GPS every day while traveling worldwide.  Sat phones were also used on a regular basis.
Weather satellite data was received via a WEFAX receiver and weather maps were received every day.
Later the same weather data was received via the INMARSAT system or the Tracfone satellite receiver
connected to the internet.  All of this worked very well at any latitude below 70N or above 70S.   

83

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros

« on: October 08, 2021, 04:34:45 PM »

The earth is like a large bell, held together with lots of rubber bands, that’s slowly rotating.  Occasionally one of the rubber bands slips and the pieces slap together and there’s a slight ringing sound heard.  The main points of this analogy are that the rotation is a separate phenomenon from the ringing.  The ringing could be compared to seismic activity.  This seismic activity could very intermittently have a small localized effect on the rotation rate, but that effect would quickly subside and be negligible after a short period of time.  The other interesting thing about this phenomenon is that scientists have been studying this for quite a while and have verified that the vibrations propagated out and the resonant frequency observed after an earthquake match that of a large spherical body.  If you want to get heavily into math you can confirm this for yourself in the zetetic way.


Another thought:  Think of yourself on a merry-go-round.  You have a gyroscope in your lap.  It will measure a steady rate of rotation.  Now if you suddenly move yourself backwards and forwards your gyroscope will measure a quick deviation in the rotation rate both positive and negative but the overall base rate will stay steady.  The deviations in the ring laser gyroscope would be simular to measuring your sudden movements in your seat that only adds or subtracts from the underlying rotation rate of the merry-go-round.  This is another illustration of the difference between the rotation of the earth and it's seismic activity.  These are two separate and distinct characteristics.

84

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros

« on: October 08, 2021, 01:37:22 PM »

My statement makes sense 100% because I just showed that a gyro will measure the earth's rotation minus any seismic activity.  You did state that the earth's rotation is affected by seismic activity, did you not?  I never disputed that fact.  Any affect is very intermittant and localized.  The earth's rotation always returns to the expected base rate very quickly.  If I was in China looking at a gyro on a ship I would never even observe any seismic activity on it if there was a huge earthquake in California, but we might get an alert to be on the lookout for a tsunami.

85

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros

« on: October 07, 2021, 03:48:38 PM »

The ring laser gyros in question must be firmly attached to the ground as per the attached article.  They do, indeed, measure rotation from some source.  It has been implied that the source of the rotation is seismic waves.  Most gyroscopes in operation are NOT attached to the ground in any way and still measure a steady 15 degrees per hour rotation.  What are they measuring? I submit that they are measuring the steady rotation of the earth.  The gyroscopes I had access to also measured a change in the z axis while moving from location to location that wouldn’t be seen on a flat earth.  The ring laser gyro argument that it’s just measuring some constant, steady, rotating seismic phenomenon is thus debunked.

86

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros

« on: October 06, 2021, 05:27:34 PM »

Your referenced article debunks your 'relative motion' statement right from the start.  Scientists that study any seismic activity know that this is a very intermittent phenomenon. The very steady baseline rotation rate on the graph isn’t related to seismic activity at all, it’s the measured rotation of the earth.  You can see that there’s a deviation of the rate both above and below the steady baseline.  The sheer mass of the earth would preclude any sudden changes of the rotation rate like that.  You can take a gyroscope and put it on an airplane, and it will still be influenced by the earth’s rotation but couldn’t be influenced by any seismic activity.

87

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !

« on: July 14, 2021, 02:47:15 PM »

This thread is about Branson not going to space. Take your moon nonsense to another thread.

Why would you even mention that 'we issue the credentials as to whether you proved the earth was round or not' in a previous thread?  Who needs to take their nonsense to another thread then?  If you want 'space credentials' you have to see the FAA.  They did issue some paperwork to the pilots who flew the mission.  I'm trying to figure out how I can obtain 'round earth credentials' and who issues them.  Branson's pilots got theirs, how do I get mine?

88

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !

« on: July 14, 2021, 02:36:08 PM »

The FAA is the one who issues the credentials for astronauts, so they win.   

But here at tfes.org, we issue the credentials as to whether you proved the earth was round or not, and if you want to use "I saw earth from space" as your argument ... you'd better be in a place that we consider space.

What about the moon? That's in space, according to your own definition.  There's pictures of the earth from there, but then FES just proclaims them to be fake CGI.  So there's no possible way to be issued round earth credentials, is there?  You know the level of gas in your cars fuel tank, or it's oil pressure, or it's engine temperature, right? It's all from direct reading instruments that report the results back to you.  What if I told you that there's also instruments that can measure the roundness of the Earth.  Would that qualify as evidence?   

89

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !

« on: July 13, 2021, 08:42:22 PM »

OK, great now we have YOUR arbitrary specification for what space happens to be.  Now all you have to do is convince the FAA that your specification is better (for some reason) than theirs and everyone, worldwide, can get with it.  I don't believe that the astronauts will be carrying too many swords or opening any windows to poke at the other guy heading in the opposite direction.  They never did that with aircraft either and the pilot in command always sits on the left side, even in British aircraft.  All you've said is that your definition of 'space' doesn't agree with the FAA.  The FAA is the one who issues the credentials for astronauts, so they win.     

90

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !

« on: July 13, 2021, 05:49:32 PM »

The FAA begs to differ, but what do they know? As I said:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=23395

So I guess you won't be joining this then?

https://www.omaze.com/products/virgin-galactic-2021

Since you first claim space has an arbitrary definition,  you are essentially admitting you are terribly fond of all arbitrary pronouncements, which goes further to diminishing your credibility as a contributor, than it does to supporting Branson actually went to space.

A lot of things in life are just arbitrary definitions.  Why do Americans drive on the left side of the road and the British on the right?  So now you have 'at what specific altitude does space start?'  I haven't seen even one flat earther specify a specific altitude, but only 'those people didn't go into space'.  They might as well come to the USA and stand in the middle of a highway and yell 'HEY YOU, you should be driving on the other side of the road'  The FAA says that the pilots were official astronauts. They also have a lot of other arbitrary standards for pilots and proclaim that certain humans are authorized to leave the surface of the Earth in control of an airplane.  So far they haven't started to regulate birds of any kind.  I suspect that a crashing bird would do a lot less damage to someone on the ground than a crashing 747 (which is just another arbitrary model number assigned to that type of aircraft by Boeing).  The bottom line is that someone or some entity must proclaim a standard for behavior and/or licensing for those who engage in certain types of activities.  This has to be done for the overall safety of others.

91

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The End all Explanation of Flat Earth and WHY?

« on: July 13, 2021, 05:30:39 PM »

I, personally, watched about 60 minutes worth and saw some fallacies presented so I shut it off.  When I want to watch fiction I usually choose Star Trek.  The fallacies I watched have already been debunked.  Some of them are not true by my own observations.

92

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How UFOs and UAPs can explain how flat earth(s) works

« on: July 13, 2021, 12:37:03 AM »

One of the fundamental characteristics of any mass is it's ability to warp space and time.  It isn't the force of gravity that holds you on the surface of the earth it's the differences in the rates of the Earth's transit thru space time and yours.   Light in the presence of mass changes direction towards the mass.  This has been known for a long time and there was an experiment that proved it.  The earth goes thru time slower than you do.  When you are in contact with the earth your voyage thru time would be a bit faster than the Earth's but the earth is in the way so you feel the force of the earth slowing down your transit thru space & time.  You feel that force and call it your weight.  These properties of mass has been known for a while and perfectly explains how the orbits of the planets work.  If you want to deny gravity on a flat earth you will have to explain what is special about the mass of the Earth VS the masses of the other heavenly bodies.

93

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 19, 2021, 04:06:16 PM »

The fact that the rocket experiences less G forces at higher altitudes kind of blows up the UA argument here doesn't it?  It looks like the Wiki needs a whole lot of revisions.  Maybe someone could scam up a value for the Bishop Constant.

94

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 19, 2021, 01:32:44 AM »

Maybe A80 needs to ratchet up his math a bit to differential equations.  You have a rocket lifting off with a specific amount of thrust. Everything could be simple with a fixed amount of acceleration over a set time and you could do some quick calculations BUT; A rocket burns fuel at an enormous rate and the bulk of the rocket's mass is from fuel so every pound of fuel burned makes it easier for the rocket to accelerate.  This means that the rate of acceleration is accelerating.  The increase in speed per unit time (acceleration) will be much lower right after liftoff when the rocket is heavy with fuel.  Right before the rocket is empty of fuel and is much lighter, the acceleration rate peaks out.  The final velocity could be quite a bit higher than you might think.  Additionally as the rocket leaves the atmosphere the air drag decreases, and as the rocket gets further from the center of the earth the force of gravity decreases a bit as well.  Everything comes together to allow the rocket to accelerate at an ever increasing rate until burnout.   

Absolutely correct.
Bringing me back to this:
"   1) While serving as a US Merchant Marine officer aboard a cargo ship transiting between the Korean Peninsula and Japan there were numerous alarms and warnings going off on the bridge of our ship.
   2)  Several broadcast messages to all ships at sea were received from the Japanese Coast Guard  authorities regarding the immanent and later the actual launch of a North Korean ICBM.
   3)  Since the North Koreans don't tell everyone in advance what is happening all we can do is wait.
   4)  The missile launch in question was at night.  Skies were clear and a missile was clearly seen traveling upwards then over the top (forward of the bow) of our ship."
So, to be perfectly clear, you saw the NK ICBM, engine ablaze, already making a clear arc across the night sky?

Yes, that's what we believed we saw.

95

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 18, 2021, 08:16:03 PM »

Maybe A80 needs to ratchet up his math a bit to differential equations.  You have a rocket lifting off with a specific amount of thrust. Everything could be simple with a fixed amount of acceleration over a set time and you could do some quick calculations BUT; A rocket burns fuel at an enormous rate and the bulk of the rocket's mass is from fuel so every pound of fuel burned makes it easier for the rocket to accelerate.  This means that the rate of acceleration is accelerating.  The increase in speed per unit time (acceleration) will be much lower right after liftoff when the rocket is heavy with fuel.  Right before the rocket is empty of fuel and is much lighter, the acceleration rate peaks out.  The final velocity could be quite a bit higher than you might think.  Additionally as the rocket leaves the atmosphere the air drag decreases, and as the rocket gets further from the center of the earth the force of gravity decreases a bit as well.  Everything comes together to allow the rocket to accelerate at an ever increasing rate until burnout.   

96

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 04, 2021, 06:21:05 PM »

Or maybe:
There's been a bunch of news stories about a sniper.  The sniper has been doing some observed and documented quality tests on his rifle, scope, and bullets.  There have been a few test shots and so far and all those have fallen way short of expectations. Some time passes.  There's some articles in the newspapers and on TV saying that there's some rumors claiming that the sniper has been doing more research on guns & ammo lately and now has a new and improved system that is sure to be deadly and has a much longer range.  Then someone steps up and makes the claim, "its all propaganda and you are all being gullible".  That same person then says, "I'm so confident that I'm correct that I'm willing to have someone else stand there and be a test target".  In the mean time I'll just stand behind this bulletproof wall and give the sniper the finger.  When the sniper misses I get to say "told ya".   

97

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 04, 2021, 02:15:41 PM »

It's like a guy comes up to you on the street.  He says "give me some money, I have a gun in my pocket".  You look down and see a bulge there and say "I don't believe you have a gun, I'm not gullible and it's just propaganda."  Then the guy says "OK, I'll prove that I have a gun by shooting you between the eyes."  What's the smart thing to do?   On one side of your bet is your life and the other side is just some money. Do you feel lucky, Punk?  Well do ya?     

98

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 04, 2021, 02:45:04 AM »

Please do your research first. Your non-ICBM statement might possibly be a bit incorrect!
If I buy a Lamborghini and only drive it to the grocery store and someone says "That's a sub-100 mph vehicle"  I say "do some research". 
North Korean 'rocket man' has to be a bit careful doing his tests.  The exact capabilities of his missiles are not exactly public knowledge and nether are those of the missiles in USA's arsenal.  It's safe to assume, from the known results of all the previous tests, that these missiles could reach the USA.  That would make them an ICBM. 


Who would have thought that the Japanese could launch a devastating attack on Hawaii in 1941.  Do you blame Hawaiians for being cautious?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me!

Actually,  it is more safe to assume this renegade despot has no missile capable of reaching the US.

Two launches, neither coming close to defining an ICBM.

A wise man once showed me something about the word ASSUME.  It makes an ASS out of  U and ME.  We try to assume nothing while at sea.  King Neptune can and will come back and bite you, hard.  It's much better to prepare for what the potential facts could be.  You have no way of knowing what rocket man's hole card may actually be.  You don't think the missiles that were actually tested were fully fueled do you?  Perhaps you should just send an email saying that you are putting a bulls eye target in the middle of Jack London Square in Oakland, CA and say 'here you go, rocket man, here's your test target, give it your best shot'.  That way we will both know if you have an ICBM or just a toy. 

99

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 03, 2021, 05:56:26 PM »

Please do your research first. Your non-ICBM statement might possibly be a bit incorrect!
If I buy a Lamborghini and only drive it to the grocery store and someone says "That's a sub-100 mph vehicle"  I say "do some research". 
North Korean 'rocket man' has to be a bit careful doing his tests.  The exact capabilities of his missiles are not exactly public knowledge and nether are those of the missiles in USA's arsenal.  It's safe to assume, from the known results of all the previous tests, that these missiles could reach the USA.  That would make them an ICBM. 


Who would have thought that the Japanese could launch a devastating attack on Hawaii in 1941.  Do you blame Hawaiians for being cautious?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me! 

100

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 03, 2021, 05:34:21 PM »

I never stated his/her testimony was bogus.

Quit lying.

You most certainly did.  After being given a firsthand account, you continued with your narrative of:

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"

with respect to any information regarding whether or not ICBMs exist.  That's a direct assertion that RonJ's testimony was bogus.

One
 
more

time.

When you can come up with something that actually proves an ICBM exists, I will gladly recant.

I never saw a post from from RonJ concerning the existence/use of a North Korean ICBM and if you can find a direct reply from me to RonJ concerning the existence/use of a North Korean ICBM then I will recant again.

Until then, I will leave it to your obviously challenged intellect to actually determine what the acronym "ICBM" stands for.

Bye now.

In an attempt to directly answer your question and provide a post, I will give the following first hand experiences:
   1) While serving as a US Merchant Marine officer aboard a cargo ship transiting between the Korean Peninsula and Japan there were numerous alarms and warnings going off on the bridge of our ship. 
   2)  Several broadcast messages to all ships at sea were received from the Japanese Coast Guard  authorities regarding the immanent and later the actual launch of a North Korean ICBM.
   3)  Since the North Koreans don't tell everyone in advance what is happening all we can do is wait.
   4)  The missile launch in question was at night.  Skies were clear and a missile was clearly seen traveling upwards then over the top (forward of the bow) of our ship.
   5) We later got a message that the missile had landed in the sea far off the coast of Japan in the Pacific Ocean quite a distance from our ship.


We knew the danger was over at this point.  Our voyage back to the USA from China was not interrupted and the North Korean ICBM test didn't cause us any difficulties.
This was my experience along with the experience of others who were performing their duties on the bridge of the ship when the event occurred. 


No one is telling me what to say and/or when I could say it.  This is all public record for those who wish to do their own research. 


That was an interesting voyage from the start.  The North Koreans were definitely saying that they could and might conduct a missile strike on Hawaii.  We were also at the dock in Hono loading cargo at that time.  Stress levels were a bit higher than normal.  Ask anyone living in Hawaii about that period of time and they will be glad to tell you.  I do believe that the tourist industry was hit some because why would someone want to be in Honolulu when 'rocket man' might get an itchy trigger finger?