1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 29, 2024, 01:58:09 PM »

Thanks Ron.  In no way am I advocating this experiment as a means of determining Earth's form, I'm just pointing out a further fallacy in the rather simplistic concept that amateur photography through an airliner window can add anything robust to the debate. 

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 29, 2024, 09:20:09 AM »

As for the pictures out of the window of an airplane...The solution is to take a series of pictures.  Start at something like 10,000 feet and then 20,000 and so on up to the max cruising altitude.  Then you can compare all the pictures when you get home.  If there's a little more curvature in the max altitude picture than the one at 10,000 feet you can use that for your proof and the aircraft window factor would be compensated for.  It would be difficult to conclusively show much curvature below 40 or 50 thousand feet.  Most airliners don't usually get that high very often.  There are pictures out there from military aircraft that do show curvature, but they don't usually show the series of pictures and that gives the flat earthers a little wiggle room and they shout, 'aircraft window distortion every time'.

Good starting point Ron, but 2 considerations;

1.  You'd need a mechanism to ensure that your camera is in precisely the same position and centre-of-image for each exposure, and ensure that your camera (phone, whatever) is using precisely the same focal length. 

2.  The focal length of the aircraft window is not constant.  If you've never seen an aircraft undergoing a pressurisation test on the ground, you'd be surprised at how much the windows bulge and distort.  The higher the pressure differential, the greater the distortion. 

And just another point on Everette's suggestion about the shape of the wing as a reference.  It's a non-starter.  There is no way that a passenger (or even the pilot, for that matter) can know the present curvature of the wing.  The wing is constantly flexing due to normal acceleration ("g") and as the auto flight control system moves the ailerons and spoilers for gust alleviation. 

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 27, 2024, 07:49:55 PM »

It does not match my expectations.  At cruising height, and this range, I would expect the horizon to appear flat; the amount of curvature of the globe-Earth would be imperceptible; any curvature that can be perceived is due to optical effects of the camera lens and the aircraft window. 

And the wing actually is curved (trust me, I'm an aircraft engineer).  The fact that you cannot identify that curvature supports my case. 

And I'm also a roundy btw. 

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 27, 2024, 03:41:25 PM »

Fact of the matter is, you cannot determine whether the earth is a sphere by observations at the height you claim. Furthermore, the lens distorts the image.

Exactly thus. 

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I noticed a discrepancy in timeanddate website

« on: November 21, 2024, 05:05:56 PM »

OK.  Just wondering how you judge the bearing; compass, local geo features? 

Must admit I've not used this website before and, unlike yesterday, the weather was not suitable for observation.  I might do a comparison next time the weather's clear and come back with what I see!  Compare notes.

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I noticed a discrepancy in timeanddate website

« on: November 21, 2024, 09:43:13 AM »

I think you're just misreading the chart my friend. 

The icon beside Lake Michigan is just showing the chosen location of the observer (LaPorte Indiana) as stated in the chart header.  It doesn't provide an icon for the actual Moon position. 

The table of data relates to observations from that place; moonset time, current azimuth and elevation, etc.  So at the time stated, from LaPorte, the moon would be visible just above the horizon to the WNW. 

7

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I noticed a discrepancy in timeanddate website

« on: November 20, 2024, 10:07:18 PM »

Not sure what you're saying, or seeing here. 

Assuming the time-stamp is within about an hour for both charts (La Porte IN, UTC -5).  The Sun/Moon position chart is showing the moon roughly mid-Pacific.  The mid-Pacific (let's say the International Date Line) is about 90deg west of Indiana, which is going to put the Moon's apparent elevation roundabout the horizon, which corresponds with the Moonset Chart; 5 deg. 

It's on a similar latitude but, because your eye-line is following more-or-less a Great Circle, that is going to appear to be north from due west, hence moon direction of 297deg seems plausible. 

By a coincidence it was a bright sunny day here in my UK town and around 11.00am (UTC) the mrs pointed out that the moon was still visible.  It was roughly 20deg above a prominent local mountain which is NNW from here.  (edit; sorry, WNW, about 300deg).

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: November 19, 2024, 12:11:45 PM »

And did you click on the link and notice the Record that was claimed? 

It was nothing to do with speed; the record is for the First Circumnavigation of Antarctica Below 60DegS.  It has never claimed to be the fastest, any more than Apollo 8 claimed to be the fastest to circumnavigate the Moon; it was just the first. 

Capt Koper specified that they did not take the fastest or most direct route, simply because they wanted to remain close to the undulating coast and take the opportunity to sail in previously un-sailed waters.  The record was ratified by the WSSRC simply because they are the body with the wherewithal to monitor such activities.  Even so, it was still faster than previously recorded Antarctica-circumnavigation records. 

 

9

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Monumental SpaceX Launch and Catch of Starship Booster Rocket.

« on: October 17, 2024, 11:22:39 AM »

I'll pick up your baton, mahogany.  (mahogany baton, geddit?)

I think there's 2 aspects to the awesome-ness of this.  First of all there's the technology; you take the biggest, heaviest rocket vehicle that ever existed and blast it off to the point of separation, at which time the pointy bit goes on to orbit.  The remaining 3/4 of this biggest-heaviest-rocket-that-ever-existed continues ballistically to the Karman Line.  You then adjust the trajectory to bring it back to the launch pad, relight the motors and have it literally hover until it's grabbed by the chopsticks. 

The second aspect is the pure spectacle.  Since we started recovering things from space in the 60's, there have only been 2 ways to do it, and both rely on aerodynamics:

One; you use unguided inherent vehicle-drag to decelerate to a (subsonic) point where a parachute becomes viable, then you allow it to simply fall to earth (Vostok, Soyuz, Mercury, Apollo etc). 

Two; you design a vehicle of such resiliance that aerodynamic surfaces will withstand the kinetic heating, and use lift/drag to make a controlled flight to an aeroplane-type touchdown (Shuttle, Buran, X-15, X-37 etc). 

In both these cases, the kinetic/potential energy of the orbital/sub-orbital vehicle is dissipated in a gradual and consistent manner from the time it encounters significant atmospheric drag.  Coincidentally, this is about the point at which it becomes catchable by the TV technology of the day, so the public becomes accustomed to space shots returning in a sedate and controlled manner.  What sets Starship apart is that the energy dissipated aerodynamically by the vehicle is consistent but minimal until the it is less than a mile from the Earth; at this point, well with sight and earshot of ground observers, it is still falling vertically, supersonic, going backwards, and impact seems inevitable.  Only at a height of 1000 metres do we get synchronous sonic boom, flame, thunder and violent deceleration. 

10

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 10, 2024, 09:00:42 AM »

Just as an epilogue and summary, Tom said this at Reply#10;

"If you are sure that there is a category where sailing boats have sailed around it in a faster time then I would suggest finding it and then contacting Guinness World Records to inform them that they are incorrect about Lisa Blair holding the record for fastest circumnavigation by sailboat".

Well it turns out we don't need to e-mail Guinness (Tom's arbiter of choice on this subject); they already know.

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/527119-first-circumnavigation-of-antarctica-in-a-sailboat-south-of-the-60th-parallel

11

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 08, 2024, 01:22:23 PM »

Interesting post Longtitube, and the best part is in the, almost throwaway, last paragraph. 

It's becoming clear that there are several categories for the "Record"; above and below certain latitudes, class of vessel, and single/multi crew.  Mariusz Koper's journey in Katharsis II is extraordinary.  Lets put it straight out there that this was a multicrew effort, so 24-hour watchkeeping was possible, but it was also a monohull.  Koper's record was performed entirely below 62degS, and achieved in 72 days, actually beating the single-handed monohull RTW record by 2 days. Not only that, but it was not even by the most direct sea-route.  Koper and his crew made a point of following the coast as closely as possible, even diverting south in order to sail on the Ross Sea, the most southerly navigable waters on Earth.  Reading some of his account is astonishing due to the presence of icebergs and floes which had to be avoided. 

You brought up the anomalous winds, but lets put that in context.  They can be strong, but also weak, and variable in direction.  Katharsis II actually encountered winds over 25 knots, but also less than 10.  Another standout, for anyone still under the impession it all blows one way, they anticipated "East winds, which are inconvenient for this route, could accompany us for about a third of the voyage".  And this was not from some commentator, but by the sailors that actually went there and experienced it. 

https://www.yachtingworld.com/voyages/sailing-antarctica-record-breaking-voyage-around-southern-continent-123341

There's lots of citations in the Wiki about the winds, describing them as "strongest on the planet" and so forth, which is not in doubt, but the only use of the term "anomalous" is by the Wiki itself.  And, of course, by Tom. 

12

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 06, 2024, 09:36:33 PM »

She ventured a little off course in that instance, I suspect, but as I stated earlier, she was traveling with the wind.

Like I wrote, it is indeed bizarre you would provide a map that does not show an Ice Ring and only shows those eddys that are blowing to the W. She was probably caught up in one  of those.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the ice ring thing.  As per Tom's OP, the record is for circumnavigating Antarctica, which is clearly visible on the weather map which I posted, as well as Longtitube's route map from Lisa's website. 

Of course the prevailing wind is westerly, just as it is in the equivalent latitudes of the northern hemisphere, but you seem to write off the "eddies" as insignificant ("she ventured a little off course .... she was probably caught up in one of those").  Just as in the northern hemisphere, they are weather systems, several hundred kilometers across, circulating around areas of high and low pressure. 

13

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 06, 2024, 09:13:31 AM »

I looked at your map. The only winds not traveling in the same easterly direction are those eddys forming close to land she wasn't sailing in those areas.

It is bizarre to provide your source as some kind of counter.

A source for her route? 

You realise of course that this is a live map, not instantaneous indications of the wind at the time she was in each area.  At the latitudes between 45S and Antarctica the general trend is westerly (ie blowing towards the east), but there are significant times when the wind varies considerably, from all points of the compass.  Do you think that those times and "eddies" don't count?  To claim that "winds on the inside of the ice ring always travel the same way" is complete fantasy. 

But don't take my word; this from her blog Day 79:

"Hi All,
 
 Last night I finally managed to get to bed by around 3am and by 4am the winds had started to veer from the SW to the W before shifting to the NW and build in strength.  I needed to put a gybe in, but I decided to wait until first light to make it a little easier". 

You'll know of course that a gybe is a similar manouver to a tack, but performed before the wind, so more hazardous. 

14

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 05, 2024, 04:21:49 PM »

"...something that is not the Ice Ring and where the boat would not sail anyway ...".

Well this is bizarre.  Southern extent of the world's oceans, but not the Ice Ring?  And "not where she would sail"; did you scroll around?  The Earth's entire oceans are on the page, and I believe she sailed on an Earth-ocean. 

15

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 04, 2024, 10:28:03 PM »

I don't think we need to start writing letters to the editor yet, but we can perhaps clarify something, and put a bit of meat on the bone.

Yes, the record for global circumnavigation is 41 days, but as Longtitube suggested earlier, that was in a multihull vessel.  The record for a single-handed monohull is actually 74 days (Armel le Cleach, 2016-17 Vendee Globe).  Still faster than Lisa, but 41 days/74 days illustrates the variables involved.  (Bit of a stretch to suggest that we are claiming it's a "bad boat" btw).  And go back to 2001, same race, the record stood at 93 days.  I guess the moral is (like all things), keep plugging away, get a faster boat, the records fall. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_world_sailing_record#

Speaking of which, of course, a Round-the-World record is really the Blue Riband event; boats and sponsors are tripping over themselves to break records and pick up the kudos.  On thre other hand, refer back to the Sail-World article in the OP and we find that Lisa is actually only the 3rd person to ever perform the Antarctic journey.  Not bad, for a tree-hugger. 

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 04, 2024, 08:12:41 PM »

Winds on the inside of the ice ring always travel the same way.

That is simply incorrect. 
 
https://www.windy.com/?-74.235,-66.562,3 

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Circumnavigation World Record Sailing Discrepancies

« on: October 03, 2024, 07:53:57 PM »

Same Antarctic-lady, Lisa Blair, also holds the record for circumnavigating Australia in the same boat.   

At 58 days, this was 17 days longer than the global circumnavigation record, proving almost beyond doubt that Australia is bigger than the Earth. Even more curious; Australia is entirely in the southern hemisphere, where the spooky anomalous winds blow. 

If Lisa's average speed for the Australia-gig (5.69 knots) were extrapolated onto the Antarctic expedition, that would give a distance of 11,000 nautical miles to travel around the ice-wall. 

I'm sure other correspondents on here can advise further about tacking, gibeing, spinakers, and so forth.   

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: US Presidential Election 2024

« on: September 21, 2024, 08:31:08 AM »

You can take my car when you prise my cold, dead corpse out of it. 

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2024, 12:00:12 PM »

Damn it, just a little better aim and we'd have had great news.

Not even close.  Missed his brain by around 3 feet.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Northern lights and the sun and radiation

« on: July 01, 2024, 07:31:44 AM »

If you jump out of a plane, going skydiving, why do you not need to immediately pull your parachute? You can wait, because the force at which you’re being pulled down to the surface gets stronger the closer you are. So when you jump from 20,000 ft. The force pulling you back down isn’t as strong as it will be at 10,000 ft.  Thank you.

Don't know where you get this.  FE, Earth accelerating up at constant 1g; RE, skydiver accelerating down at 1g.  Only thing that changes with altitude is an increase in drag due to increased air density, which mitigates against further acceleration, and which I don't think FE dispute. 

I'm a roundy, btw.