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 - SteelyBob

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scales on Maps
« on: May 16, 2022, 08:58:13 AM »
There kind-of is, in the sense that the wiki makes a claim about the diameter of the FE - see https://wiki.tfes.org/Eratosthenes_on_Diameter

From this, if you take the most commonly depicted north centred monopole map, then you can work out the scale. See this post of mine here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13948.msg237441#msg237441

But it gets muddled by the fact that some of the most frequent FE proponents on here don't actually support the monopole map, although debate between FE proponents about which map works, and why, is very rare indeed. I think you are correct in saying that there is a reluctance to commit to, or to discuss, accurate distance measurements. For me, that's one of the most powerful arguments against the whole concept - such distances are easily measured and verified.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity Batteries
« on: May 08, 2022, 07:47:21 AM »
Quote
In terms of this thread, I agree that "Gravity Batteries" would work with UA. Just pointing out that UA + Celestial Gravitation are not as well formed theories as gravity.

Actually, now that I think about it.  I don’t think a gravity battery would work at all on a flat earth.  First of all, an object on the ground has zero potential energy.  As you lift against gravity, potential energy is is generated.  The amount that is generated would be equal to m*g*h.  A 10 kg object raised 10m would gain 980 joules in potential energy.  If you are lifting with UA, the formula would be m*-g[-/b]*h, because you aren’t lifting against gravity, you are lifting with UA. The amount of energy generated would be -980 joules.  The object didn’t gain potential energy, it lost potential energy.

On top of that, potential energy is converted to kinetic energy when a force is applied that causes it to move.  Kinetic energy is energy an object possesses due to it motion, if there is no force of gravity to cause motion, no electricity can be produced.

Not quite right. It’s all about frames of reference, and this situation (ie the FE / UA model) is complicated by the entire system not being inert - it is constantly accelerating. Imagine being in a massive space station, in orbit, and hence a 0g environment. Now imagine getting in an elevator in that space station, and let’s say it accelerates at 1g. Everything in that lift would feel like planet earth does. If you picked an object up off the floor and dropped it, its velocity relative to the floor of the lift would be indistinguishable from the same situation in a stationary lift on earth. The same would go for its kinetic energy. The key point is the frame of reference - the lift. If you stand outside the system and watch, the maths gets a lot more complicated.

There is an awful lot wrong with UA, but these are not the droids you seek, as it were.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity Batteries
« on: May 06, 2022, 04:34:51 PM »
The energy stored in a gravity battery comes from the force a body is subject to when released from a height.

There is a bit more in this that needs consideration though. One of the main problems with UA is that it would require a massive, unexplained energy source, whereas gravity doesn't. Not quite the same thing, I realise.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: May 03, 2022, 08:19:01 PM »
It is clearly a matter of national coping to claim that it had to be a man on the moon to win the Space Race, much like the previous analogy given of after losing a foot race deciding that the REAL race is the race to your car in the stadium parking lot.

Except, if I've understood you correctly, you're contending that neither the stadium, nor the car park, exist, and that both parties mutually agreed to fake the existence of both, whilst also agreeing, for some odd reason, to not fake running their best race.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: May 03, 2022, 04:24:54 AM »
The goal posts shifted to planting a flag on the moon with a man after the US lost the space race. Russia clearly and obviously won it with what it was claiming, and was under no obligation to win further arbitrary goal post shifting.

This is utterly surreal. So the US clearly lost a race, despite both participants only pretending to compete?


6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground
« on: April 22, 2022, 09:47:26 PM »
]
Prove it.

It can’t be proved, or at least not with the resources at our immediate disposal, as I’m sure you know.

However, if you, and the other FEers, were really as curious about the world as you claim to be, you could very easily try something similar yourselves, and see if it works.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground
« on: April 22, 2022, 04:50:49 PM »
It would just explain everything in a way that fits neatly with already established flat-earth facts.

It doesn't really fit with anything at all, and there aren't any agreed 'facts' in the FE community, other than that the earth is flat. There is no agreement on even basic stuff like the layout of the north and south poles, or the approximate size of the various continents, or the distance between us and the moon or sun.

Your theory is an extension of the 'space travel conspiracy', and fails for numerous reasons, not least of which is the enormous number of people, working in complete secrecy, that would be required to perpetuate the illusion. You can see the ISS with your bare eyes, and you can see its form with very basic equipment - it is clearly not a 'tethered dirigible'. Where is the tether? How is it staying aloft? How does it travel so quickly?

You appear to be just waving around 'it might be x' type sentences, whilst dismissing the most obvious, which is that it might just be a large space station orbiting the earth, precisely as advertised. Is that not less absurd than multiple large tethered dirigibles operated by a team of secret engineers, who never spill the beans, despite the absurdity of their job?

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: New Star Map
« on: April 21, 2022, 08:10:16 AM »
Based on the position of the sun it's about 12pm in London and 7am in NY.   The direction of north is correct.

You have the same problem that the more common north-centred monopole FE map has with the Southern Hemisphere and the southern pole star (sigma octantis). If two observers are at different longitudes, both in darkness, then if they look to the pole (north in your case, so London / NY works) they are facing in divergent directions looking at the same thing. That cannot be the case.

I’ve never seen this adequately explained here - responses range from distraction or outright refusal (it can’t be dark in those places at the same time) or just flat out odd (they’re looking at different stars that look the same). What’s your explanation?

9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path
« on: April 12, 2022, 08:52:36 AM »
Magnetic declination - This is merely an assertion that there is a physical phenomenon causing this coincidence, not an explanation for why the coincidence should be seen as it was in both areas.

What would you expect the declination to be in those areas? Zero, or something? And, if 'something', then what? If you agree with the declination figures as generally provided by widely available information sources, then if you accept his heading measurements as being correct, then you are actually accepting that he has, in fact, directly contradicted the very point he was trying to make.

Which is it, Tom? Do you accept the magnetic declination figures for the area(s) in question, or not? If not, why not? If you do, do you accept that this completely defeats the argument made in that video?

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path
« on: April 11, 2022, 12:04:23 PM »
Magnetic declination - This is merely an assertion that there is a physical phenomenon causing this coincidence, not an explanation for why the coincidence should be seen as it was in both areas.

What would you expect the declination to be in those areas? Zero, or something? And, if 'something', then what? If you agree with the declination figures as generally provided by widely available information sources, then if you accept his heading measurements as being correct, then you are actually accepting that he has, in fact, directly contradicted the very point he was trying to make.

Hubs - It is easy to search for "layover in Hawaii" and find that Hawaiian Islands are being used as hubs for international flights. The argument that the Cook Islands can't be used is just nonsense.

Might have something to do with Hawaii being a state of the USA and having a population of 1.5 million, compared to the Island's 17,000?

11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path
« on: April 11, 2022, 08:04:36 AM »

In regards to compass directions as seen on these flights, it seems that these flights make more sense on a Monopole model.

Max Igan reports that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience regarding directions is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.

On an RE the flight should leave Chile from the South West and arrive from the North West:



On a Flat Earth Monopole Model the flight would leave Chile from the North West and approach Australia from the South West:



I don't think the plane is necessarily taking a straight line directly over the US, or always makes straight line paths in FE models, but we can clearly see that the compass directions experienced align more with the Monopole Model.

The excuse for this is "magnetic declination", but is is quite curious that it happens to agree with the Monopole model in both areas.

We've been round this before Tom; another thread where you stopped engaging once the questions got tricky - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18502.msg246537#msg246537

As with many of the videos you link to, this one has many layers of wrongness to sift through. Firstly, as many have pointed out, using a hand held magnetic compass on an aircraft will rarely give good results, as there is so much going on in terms of metal and electronics that you get large amounts of interference - aircraft magnetic compass systems tend to rely on remote magnetic sensors that are deliberately located as far away as possible from interfering electronics etc, and they are also carefully calibrated to remove any errors. So whilst we can discuss his readings, we should bear in mind that we might be discussing 'stopped clock' accuracy, as it were. Occasionally right, but for all the wrong reasons.

That said, his compass does appear, in the sections of the video that I looked at, to be indicating roughly what you would expect a compass to show for the direction of travel at the time and declination in that area, which is quite large. You started a vague argument implying that the entire concept of declination was an ad hoc correction for a failed model, thereby ignoring the fact that declination is an observed fact, and therefore would be present, and changing (hence my point about changing runway titles at airfields), even if the world was flat, as you claim.

You have to pick a horse here - either declination isn't real, or it is. If you are claiming it isn't, then you're up against a mountain of data to the contrary. If you are agreeing that it is real, then you have to apply it to any magnetic headings you are using in your arguments. And when you do that, you realise that our intrepid video maker has in fact undermined his own argument.

So which is it, Tom - is mag declination real, or not? Does it change over time as it is observed to? Was it present in the manner that every declination calculator shows it to be when that video was made? If not, why not? 

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?
« on: April 01, 2022, 02:57:07 PM »

My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.

Don't you have some internet etiquette guidelines to write or something?

Any video or picture could be faked, with enough resources. The issue for the ‘it’s fake’ argument is the volume and quality of imagery out there - it would take a lot of people, all working in silence, to make this stuff.

But the key point here is that you claimed there was a particular problem with the footage that indicated it was fake. The burden is therefore on you to say how the image differs from what you would expect to see if the earth was a globe and you had a camera on a geo-stationary satellite. That’s very different from saying ‘it could be faked’. We all get that it’s fakeable, that’s not the point.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 25, 2022, 06:43:54 PM »
Quite.

The fact that FR24 doesn't present ADS-B location data there doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means they've made a commercial decision not to pay for it.

I see the data as part of my job, certainly from flights over the N. Atlantic.
Yeah, you see the data as part of your job.

And it doesn't include data from significant regions.

And, other than some internet jockey making a ridiculous claim, "government could not or would not interfere with that data!" there is no evidence that the government could or would not interfere.

I did look at that very nice PowerPoint slide show from ADS-B marketers.

Fancy, but likely false. Ground-based transponders are still operational (and still maintained for dependable operation) located all across the flat earth, performing the exact same functions.

Do you know what a transponder is?

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 24, 2022, 06:52:17 PM »


I'm deeply flattered that you're accusing me of being a shill.

I'm not 100% clear what you mean by your last sentence there, but I think you're saying that, because there isn't complete data for oversea flights, the government is therefore capable of faking all the flights? Is that right? Because it makes no sense whatsoever. There's a very good reason why there isn't global coverage for FR24, and it's because the data goes direct from the aircraft to the ground stations, and hence has a limited range (I'll let you ponder why that may be...hint: it depends on the altitude of the aircraft), so if there aren't any ground stations, you won't get coverage. You can try to bake that into your conspiracy all you like, but it's an easily verifiable fact. Just buy your own gear and have a play. It's super simple - just a TV aerial and a usb stick, and you can just watch the raw data if you're really keen, or run it through some software, like FR24's, and watch it all on a map.
So, I am correct here.

No, you are not. You haven't made any sense at all, and you've misunderstood or are ignoring everything I said. Are you going to try and engage on the ground coverage issue? Or just hurl shill insults around?

You've asked 'what evidence' for the number of people required to do the fakery. Well, I don't think 'evidence' is the right word, as I'm being asked to prove something that isn't happening...
Look buddy, forgetting the rest of your smoke, as that is all it is...

You made a claim.

As a reminder, you stated words, "It would be a monumental task, requiring an army..."

I am asking you for evidence to support that claim.

Either you have it or you don't.

Relatively easy to say "Here you go," or "Yeah, I got busted on that one."


Again, I explained myself clearly, and you've completely ignored it. You can't 'evidence' a hypothetical. It's perfectly reasonable for you ask for justification, and I've done just that - I provided a reason for my statement, which you've culled off your quote of my comment and failed to engage with, presumably because you either don't understand it, or don't have the metal capacity to coherently engage with it.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 24, 2022, 05:36:49 PM »
Oh, yes, I am sure all the statements you make are absolutely necessary to support the concept, but other than you typing them out feverishly here on this forum in your daily, for pay capacity, what evidence do you have that it would be a "monumental task, requiring an army..."

None.

You are blowing smoke.

Gubment interferes with all kinds of data, all the goddamn time.

I have no idea who you're trying to zoom with this pablum you are typing out, but it ain't working.

They do not even bother posting fake real time data of FR24 for these supposed AU to SA flights, so the claim gubment cannot fake any of it, or even all of it, at the exact same time, is just nonsense.

I'm deeply flattered that you're accusing me of being a shill.

I'm not 100% clear what you mean by your last sentence there, but I think you're saying that, because there isn't complete data for oversea flights, the government is therefore capable of faking all the flights? Is that right? Because it makes no sense whatsoever. There's a very good reason why there isn't global coverage for FR24, and it's because the data goes direct from the aircraft to the ground stations, and hence has a limited range (I'll let you ponder why that may be...hint: it depends on the altitude of the aircraft), so if there aren't any ground stations, you won't get coverage. You can try to bake that into your conspiracy all you like, but it's an easily verifiable fact. Just buy your own gear and have a play. It's super simple - just a TV aerial and a usb stick, and you can just watch the raw data if you're really keen, or run it through some software, like FR24's, and watch it all on a map.

You've asked 'what evidence' for the number of people required to do the fakery. Well, I don't think 'evidence' is the right word, as I'm being asked to prove something that isn't happening, but I can certainly expand a bit on the reason, if you are indeed genuinely interested. It comes down to how much effort is required really. Lets' see:

- first up, let's make some assumptions. So the world is flat, and for reasons unknown, all the governments of the world are conspiring to suppress the information, and one way of doing that is to pretend that, instead of the direct FE route for all passenger flights, aircraft are actually following a RE track, based on the fake RE model of the planet. It would help enormously if you could tell me which FE map you're going for, and how far it is between the various continents, cities etc. No need to do all of them, of course. Just some examples, like the Addis - Sao Paulo route we were discussing earlier with Tom, who seems to have gone very quiet on the subject.

- now we need a mechanism. We've got to somehow simultaneously broadcast the wrong location for all of our aircraft on the ADS-B frequency, whilst at the same time making sure they don't hit each other...I guess we transmit a real and a fake signal? So we have to get all the avionics designers to build in a FE map and a RE map and make sure they transmit both. So all the avionics people are in on it...and what do we do about the pilots? Are they in on it too? Because if we're gonna fake it, we either need to bring them in on the scam or somehow convince them that all their great circle training (a key part of the ATPL exam) is actually real...but what happens if they look ou the front of the cockpit and see that they're flying over Seattle when they should be over LA according to RE? Best we bring them in on the conspiracy. All of them.

- or do we somehow broadcast some satellite (are we allowed those? I do see them wizzing by in the night sky, or are those just projections?) signal down that fakes the position of all the aircraft, at the right time, and with the right simulated range based on their altitude? So we'll need a team of people to monitor all the flights, globally, and make sure their planned and real positions are faked, in real time, just perfectly to align with our nefarious RE model. And every time a flight diverts, anywhere on the planet, we'll need to update the system quickly to make sure the mask doesn't slip. We'd have got away with too, if it wasn't for that pesky author and his book that this bloke quoted on some wiki.

- that would still give us a problem with the pilots, though, wouldn't it? Because they're all planning and flying great circles. So they must be in on it. Or not looking out the window.

Or you tell me? How would it all work? Who would be in on the conspiracy?



16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.
« on: March 24, 2022, 12:12:35 PM »
So, the fact I can buy my own equipment means "the gubment," cannot or would not interfere with its operation?
If anybody tried to interfere with ADS-B out signals, it would be abundantly obvious that they had done so.

At the professional level, any air or ground system that tracks aircraft would immediately spot the mismatch between radar and ADS signals.

For amateurs, if you’re watching traffic at your local airfield, for example, and it’s not where it says on your screen, then again, it would be very obvious there’s a problem.

Furthermore, it would be enormously difficult, if not impossible, to fake the flight path of a real aircraft. If you tinker with the actual aircraft, then ATC would spot the mismatch straight away. Moreover, the aircraft would be deviating from its filed flight plan, which is a major problem. If you didn’t do that, and just tried to broadcast the fake signal to ground stations, then you’d have to make sure you successfully jammed all of the receiving ground stations, whilst all the time making sure the footprint of the broadcast matched the rough broadcast range of the actual aircraft.

And you’d have to do that all the time, for every flight whose ‘true’ flight path you wished to mask. That’s a monumental task. You’d need an army of people to do that, none of whom would be allowed to talk about it.

17
The sources I gave are telling us differently from you are, as well as others references the Wiki. They have relevant credentials while you are an anonymous user on an internet forum who refuses to give us his identity or credentials. Please do not bother with your personal view on "what's happening" and refrain from presenting your non-validated internet comments and interpretations as your source. You are not qualified. Those types of opinions are entirely worthless when we have a source on the matter telling us how it works.

Are you suggesting that the DE440/441 paper is wrong? Or perhaps dishonest? Is it part of the space travel conspiracy?

I must admit I'm now unclear as to what your point is. You, and your sources, seem to be saying that the ephemerides are just ' fitting curves to the data or minor linear extrapolations ', but that is quite obviously not what is being described in the ephemerides paper. The models take accurate position and velocity data, estimations of mass and moments of inertia etc for each body, and then calculate future position data using numerical integration, capturing the gravitational interaction between hundreds of bodies.

This is where you've lost me...as Stack says, you now seem to be acknowledging that the modern ephemerides do use a gravity-derived model. They are modelling, years ahead of now, the future position of hundreds of bodies in our solar system, and the influence between them on each other...you seem to be agreeing with that now?

18
Quote from: SteelyBob
The numerous components (and there are many - amusingly most with starting positions and velocities obtained by space-based activity, and other things like lunar ranging that you don't think are possible) aren't modelled using Fourier series - they have their influence on the earth, moon etc, and in the case of the larger ones, themselves modelled via a step-wise numerical integration process. You've said before that you think numerical integration is indicative of some kind of fraud, but that's an absurd argument, given its widespread usage in all sorts of numerical challenges, such as fluid dynamics.

It looks like your argument amount to "that's an absurd argument", which is a pathetic way to argue, to say the least.
If it looks that way to you, it's because you don't understand the subject being discussed. That's fine, it's ok not to understand stuff.


"Computing the perturbations" or "Modeling the Asteroid Perturbations" can mean fitting a model to observations with epicycles, as described in the sources above.
But that's not what's happening in the papers I linked to. The methods used involve calculations based on the effect of orbiting bodies' gravitational influence on each other. The perturbation theory involved helps to simplify the calculations - but it is not basing the calculations on the observed periodicity of the orbits, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

You childishly appeal to perturbations used in Fluid Mechanics without any attempt at demonstration of valid processes, as if we should just assume things to be true. You provide no argument other than your incredulity and wispy undemonstrated appeals of faith.

I didn't say perturbations in that context; again, you obviously don't understand what is being discussed here. I said numerical integration - that's not quite the same thing, although they are often found together.

To be clear, I'm not really trying to change your mind here - it clearly isn't for changing. I'm just making sure that others reading this understand what's going on if they aren't sure. To be honest, you're doing an excellent job of proving the OP's point, so it's all good.

19

Actually the models discussed in that link is the JPL DE, which is discussed in the Wiki. It is pointed out that it is based on perturbations - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris


All you're doing here is presenting yet more evidence of cherry picking, dishonesty and lack of comprehension, including in the wiki. The wiki talks about perturbations and then jumps into Fourier analysis - all true. But that's not the whole story, as you would know if you actually read the detailed description of, for example, DE405 - https://web.archive.org/web/20120220062549/http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/de405iom/de405iom.pdf

The point you are either deliberately or incompetently missing out is that there are other ways of using perturbation theory, and that's very much involved in the ephemeris paper I linked to. For example, take the section on modelling the influence of asteroids on the earth, moon and sun:



The numerous components (and there are many - amusingly most with starting positions and velocities obtained by space-based activity, and other things like lunar ranging that you don't think are possible) aren't modelled using Fourier series - they have their influence on the earth, moon etc, and in the case of the larger ones, themselves modelled via a step-wise numerical integration process. You've said before that you think numerical integration is indicative of some kind of fraud, but that's an absurd argument, given its widespread usage in all sorts of numerical challenges, such as fluid dynamics.

And that paper is old news - here's a much more up to date one: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/abd414/pdf. Not a Fourier series in sight...

You can read all about it...if you want to. It is abundantly obvious to anybody reading this stuff that there is far, far more going on than a simple cyclical, periodic estimation process as you assert. It's fascinating stuff - they even model the geology of each planet and the moon. The use of the various spacecraft improve starting point data is also really interesting.

20

I have not seen any evidence that there exists a clean "round earth" calculator or model that is based on physical properties rather than Ancient-Greek-like model based on epicycles, perturbations, etc., to fit  to observations. See https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns


Maybe you aren’t looking hard enough? Or maybe you just reject anything that doesn’t conform to your preconceived idea? This has been discussed on numerous occasions. Here’s one, with lots of links to ephemeris models and what goes into them.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18054.msg237363#msg237363

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26  Next >