261

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: March 01, 2021, 12:15:11 AM »

You need to learn how flights work. Airliners use filed flight plans and radar communication with air traffic control. The filed flight plans are based off of years of historic data collection. Nothing here proves the shape of the earth.
[/quote].

We seem to have an oxymoron here; flight plans are based off years of historic data collection (i.e. the distance and vector relationships between all the world's airports), but this tells us nothing about the shape of the world?  Some would argue that this tells us everything about its shape. 

And maybe we need to look again at the role of Air Traffic Control.  The safe navigation of an aircraft is entirely the responsibility of its captain.  He (she) decides the destination and is responsible for ensuring sufficient fuel and adequate means of navigation.  He is assisted in safely making the journey by ATC. 

In this last week, a Boeing of Icelandair carried a group of scientists between Munich and the Norwegian blue-ice Troll airstrip in Antarctica, and return.  It's unlikely that Icelandair has done this before, but they did it by knowing the relative positions of Munich and Troll.  And don't expect much intervention from ATC, as much of the South Atlantic is beyond the range of VHF radio and radar. 
 

262

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth

« on: February 19, 2021, 12:22:46 AM »

Journeybeyondrail.com.au. 

The Company quotes a distance of 4352 km from Sydney (East coast) to Perth (West coast) via Adelaide on its Indian Pacific rail service.  One imagines that they know how much track they laid. 

I don't know if locomotives have odometers, but they definitely have speedometers and clocks, and have some resistance to anomalous winds. 

And as for which Flat Map is to be debunked, I think we should wait for nominations from the many that are available.

263

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 02:40:39 PM »

Like I said you say you can see the world like this:

You have optical powers shared by no other humans. Extraordinary.

That's what the polar projection assumes, yes.

You can see points over 180 degrees around you. If you can't see such a space vertically because your upper brow is in the way all you need to do is rotate your head. Vertical FOV is fairly high as well.

The argument was that a wide field of view must necessarily produces distortion. Since we can see a very high field of view with human vision, this argument about FOV and distortion is incorrect.

Any lens with a vocal length less than infinity produces a distorted image, and the human eye is a false comparison.  From the moment we open our eyes, our heads start writing software to convert the distorted retinal image into something representing reality, and we can't unlearn that anymore than we can un-learn breathing or pooping. 

And although we may have visual perception over something like 180 degrees, our acuity measures less than 10 degrees.  Hold a newspaper at arms length to your side; you can tell that something is there, but you'll need to turn you head a few degrees to identify it as a newspaper, and look directly at it to read the headline.  I

264

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe

« on: December 15, 2020, 07:42:51 PM »

The formula for speed is Speed = Distance / Time

If the distance is in question, then the speed is also in question.

The situation is fluids traveling within fluids. The winds and water are in motion. On board airplane airspeed indicators are similarly unreliable, and are not used for navigation. The local area of the airplane might be in motion faster than a larger area around that airplane, which might itself be in motion.

This is a joke, right?  Apart from their vital use at the lower end of the range, around stalling speed, this is the main reason for having an airspeed indicator.  I don't know when or where you did your own pilot training, but when I was taking lessons (in 1973) the first piece of kit I had buy was something called a "computer", which was a type of circular sliderule, where you would factor in your airspeed, intended course, and wind velocity and it worked out the heading you needed to steer.  En route, similar inputs would tell you how far you had travelled.  This is why commercial aircraft and large military aircraft carried navigators.  The windspeeds are forecast by meteorological agencies, and verified by shore stations and weather balloons. 

The advent of more advanced terrestrial navaids in the 50s, and GPS in the 90s has reduced dependence on dead reckoning, and consequently reduced crewing requirements, but its still a vital part of crew training.  Its also how Amy Johnson, Jim Molinson, Alan Cobham and thousands of other civilian pioneers and military pilots managed to find their way around the South Pacific in the 30s and 40s.

And I'd be very surprised if the Vendee sailors aren't comparing at least 3 different forms of navigation. 

(Incidentally, leading boat currently has a windspeed of 23 kts, to the rear of the peloton its around 8 kts.  Scary stuff). 

265

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 14, 2020, 10:18:40 AM »

You criticize the debate yet you yourself have contributed nothing. Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?

I can't explain rocket theory to you with any more eloquence than the other correspondents. 

And at least half of a debate consists of listening.  And understanding. 

266

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 13, 2020, 09:48:52 PM »

I got to say I'm a bit disappointed.  What could be an interesting thread on the relative arguments FE/RE, has degenerated over the last few pages and weeks into a futile attempt to help a correspondent understand basic (generally unchallenged?) physics regarding Newton's Laws and the nature of vacuum. 

More disappointing is that there are a couple of heavy-hitters on the FE side who's understanding of these concepts is respected, but who's input has so far been confined to debating the timeline of Tweets about an album cover and the personal integrity of a retired member of the Canadian Space Agency.   

Any contribution on gas law and Newtonian physics Gents?

267

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does the Earth rest on a solid foundation or does it float in space?

« on: December 11, 2020, 09:18:21 PM »

...the Earth is not stationary but travelling upwards at by now immense speed, since it is claimed Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms^-2. Apparently everything else we see - sun, moon and stars - is also accelerating at the same rate with the Earth. This is called Universal Acceleration and is this site’s explanation of what the rest of the world calls gravity.

If everything is accelerating at the same speed and direction then this 'acceleration' would not be discernible, just like when you are traveling in an airplane at 400 mph along with the plates, napkins, and chairs.  There is no sense of motion, thus there would be no 'force' and you would still have to explain gravity.    BTW, 'up' would have no meaning. 

You may be confusing "acceleration" and "velocity".  Humans have no means of detecting velocity (although we sometimes think we can, from clues such as perception of relative movement, engine noise, wind on our face etc).  We can, however detect acceleration, using our sense of feeling, sense of self and our inner-ear thingies.  When the aeroplane, passengers, chairs and napkins are all travelling at 400 mph then, yes, there is no perception of velocity.  When the First Officer bounces the thing onto the runway, however, that is an acceleration of the aeroplane, and all the passengers, chairs and plates feel it. 

The FE concept is that UA is accelerating the Earth, and celestial objects at 9.8 m/s/s but not (for some reason) people, animals, buildings, chairs and napkins.  So the FE concept of what we Globies call gravity, is that everything on the planet is being pushed up by the earth and that is the effect we feel as gravity. 

And as Longtitube said, don't think that everyone who posts on this site is a Flattie; its a forum. 

268

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 05, 2020, 05:25:37 PM »

It was a file image to illustrate the type of damage caused by micrometeorites.  It was taken in 1984 and published by NASA in 2006.  Remedy Drive subsequently used the image for their album artwork.  I don't know if they had the copyright holders permission. 

And the force applied by the ISS atmosphere to the approx 2mm hole and its subsequent "duct tape & a gob of epoxy" is about 50 grammes.  You do the math. 

NASA is apparently pouring millions of dollars into fooling you; please try and give them some credit. 

269

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 29, 2020, 06:13:46 PM »

You can't apply simple pressure vessel mechanics to vacuum chambers that we have no experience of on earth. If there is very little difference between them, then how come we haven't recreated these vacuums? In the 50-60 years of space travel, how come an astronaut didn't think of bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis?

For all the money spent on the space program, they really have done a poor job answering lots of basic questions... 

 

So, bring back a sample of ...... Nothing?

270

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 26, 2020, 08:40:49 AM »

@ Mark,

Can we just look at that vacuum thing.  You seem to think that at 0psi (perfect vacuum) something suddenly happens.  I think you have some grasp of it when you say, correctly, its not a "binary thing", but lets go a bit further. 

Vacuum has no temperature, and doesn't have any kind of "negative" pressure.  Its not inherently hazardous to inorganic things, its just a state of zero psi.  Is doesn't support life (as we understand it) because all terrestrial life requires an oxygen-rich environment and, if any gas exists, obviously there is no vacuum. 

Most terrestrial life thrives at a pressure of around 15 psi.  Start climbing mountains and you'll find alpine goats or whatever that are happy with lower pressures.  Humans can operate with reasonable ease at 10,000 feet.  Get to the top of Mount Everest (around 29,000 feet) and you are reaching the limit of human physical and mental capacity but trained and acclimatised mountaineers can survive.  The pressure up there is is around 5 psi. 

Go snorkelling, dive down around 12 feet and you are operating at 20 psi.  Dive a little further, to the bottom of the challenger deep and, whilst humans would struggle, creatures are existing at a pressure of around 8 tons per square inch, a thousand times sea level pressure. 

The point I am trying to make is that, in the big picture, at 15 psi,we are already operating at a pressure a thousand times closer to a vacuum than on some parts of the earth.  Its not a big deal. 

And as for the abiity of a vacuum to rip things to pieces?  Its just a matter of pressure differential.  15 psi.  The differential of the air in your car tyres is at least double that.  You can test the physical integrity of a space suit or spacecraft in a vacuum just by pressurising it to 15psi above ambient pressure in a workshop. 

271

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 19, 2020, 08:04:06 AM »

What other kind of 'proof' is required?

There is only one way to determine the shape of the earth (or any physical objects) with certainty -  rigorous and repeated measurement of the earth. Sailors are busy doing other things, as I am sure you are well aware.
[/quote]

Of the current correspondents on this thread I think RonJ is probably the closest to a subject-matter expert and he may like to comment on my post, but can I suggest that bridge officers on a merchant ship have actually got nothing better to do than measure the size of the earth, rigorously and repeatedly? 

Pre- and post-GPS in the 20th/21st centuries they have been sailing both hemispheres using global charts, navigating by radio aids, astronomical sightings, physical landmarks, depth soundings, inertial navigation, and dead reckoning, on waters with known currents and in conditions of known and predicted windspeed.  They know the theoretical distance from Point A to Point B and, travelling at a planned speed, they generally get to Point B on schedule. 

And are you suggesting that, for instance, the crew of a scheduled flight from New Zealand to Chile don't know the distance of the intended journey?  How much fuel are they supposed to carry?  When should they expect to arrive? 

If you've travelled at a known speed for a known time, you've measured the distance. 

272

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.

« on: November 06, 2020, 10:00:31 AM »

@goldcashew

We do know, and importantly - can validate/verify, the layers of the air above us - to a certain altitude where hydrogen balloons stop rising.

And why would a hydrogen (or, more usually helium) balloon stop rising?  Has it hit the dome?  This could be verified by telemetry. 

A gas balloon rises because the overall density of the envelope and payload is less than that of the supporting atmosphere.  I think you agree that the density of the supporting atmosphere reduces with altitude; high altitude balloons are designed to expand with reducing atmospheric pressure, further reducing their density, and permitting continued ascent until the limits of construction and size are reached.  In other words, there aren't enough atmospheric air molecules-per-cubic-metre to support further ascent. 

And what does this tell us?  With increasing altitude, density of air (the number of molecules per cubic metre) reduces at a measurable and predictable rate.  And if the density of something keeps decreasing at a predictable rate it eventually becomes, what?

273

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angular size of the Moon

« on: October 14, 2020, 08:03:58 AM »

So what controls the tides, Jack?

274

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Please don't hit the dome. Astra

« on: October 14, 2020, 08:02:00 AM »

No, the shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds when empty, or 73.6 tons. A satellite weighing 6 tons is roughly one twelfth of this, and will therefore require approx one-twelfth of the thrust, approximating to a fuel requirement of one twelfth.

[/quote]

You can't just compare mass of the spacecraft; it also depends on the required orbit.  Geostationary orbits require a much higher altitude and speed.  Spacex's Falcon Heavy, for instance, can theoretically put a payload of 63,800 kg into low earth orbit (like the shuttle and most earth-observation satellites)), but only 26,700 kg into geostationary orbit. 

And any craft which goes into space is, by definition a "spacecraft".

275

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing Technology-Adam ruins everything

« on: October 11, 2020, 08:12:08 AM »

Tom,

Is there something intrinsically false about instructional material aimed at individuals with an age-range including high school students, college students, married people, voters, car drivers and private pilots?

And if its target age-group also includes "children", how does that devalue its merit?

276

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications

« on: September 18, 2020, 08:01:59 AM »

Are we missing the elephant in the room here? 

This thread has moved on ("gravitated", if you will) to discussion of hypotheses for the documented stable variations in gravity in different parts of the Earth under a RE model.  There is no sign of agreement, but there is at least one hypethesis. 

What is the FE/UA hypothesis, if the whole Earth is accelerating at the same rate?  Are some parts being left behind?   

277

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Please don't hit the dome. Astra

« on: September 16, 2020, 11:36:48 AM »

Am I missing something here? 

"Oh-oh failure" occurs 30 seconds after launch, impact at 60 seconds; 30 seconds to descend. 

The vehicle tumbles to earth, lets give you the benefit and say no aerodynamic drag, accelerating at 9.81 m/s/s (gravity, or UA, as you will).  Lets give you some more benefit and say "oh-oh failure" occured at 20 seconds (speed of sound to hear the impact) gives us 40 seconds of descent, at 9.81 m/s/s. 

Using a standard acceleration formula with this time and acceleration gives us a dome-impact altitude of less than 26,000 feet. 

How does this fit with typical airliner altitudes of 30,000 to 40,000 feet? 

Is that why airliners go mainly "sideways" and less "up"? 

Do airliners also need a permit from the Space Police? 

278

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Please don't hit the dome. Astra

« on: September 15, 2020, 05:55:55 PM »

J-Man:  "Tumeni give us hocus pocus speak. To get a permit for rockets you must not encroach on the dome, ....."   

Can you apply for this permit on-line, or do you have to go to the Space Police office? 

279

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Please don't hit the dome. Astra

« on: September 15, 2020, 08:15:11 AM »

Why the photo of Musk?  Are you implying that it bounced off his orbiting Tesla? 

280

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA claims Flat and Fake Apollo Missions

« on: September 11, 2020, 10:33:20 AM »

I'm a former contractor for the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD). 

I've overheard conversations between people in the MoD who appear convinced that the Earth is a globe. 

This leaves us at something of an impasse doesn't it?  (Perhaps it would help if I made a video)?