The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: CoolBreeze on January 31, 2019, 02:03:44 AM
-
Hi, if you believe the Earth is flat, then can you please explain why water from a faucet will spin clockwise in the Southern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the North?
-
I built toilets and drilled the holes so water would flow in either direction in the bowl, base on my angle. I did the same with faucet aerators. I drive on the right side of the road, others drive on the left. Crazy phenomenon huh.
-
Hi, if you believe the Earth is flat, then can you please explain why water from a faucet will spin clockwise in the Southern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the North?
Sure, sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t. It is an aweful way to prove anything. If you built a large reservoir of water with a flat bottom and perfectly circular with at least many hundreds of gallons with a pipe drain in the centered ability to cleanly start the drain, yes they will rotate differently. A kitchen sink or toilet is simply too small and have imperfections which impact the initial flow more then the rotation of the planet.
-
Check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IIVfoDuVIw
-
She created a direction the moment she poured the water in each time though.
-
The equator demonstrations are a well known tourist attraction scam. They pour it in on the side of the tub they want it to spin in. The flow also has to do with the shape of the drain, and there is also a phenomenon where the water even changes the direction of spin mid flow.
Mainstream science was briefly fascinated with professional laboratory experiments of the Coriolis Effect on the spin of water drains at one point, but I have read that the results were inconclusive. One or two researchers claimed that they saw some consistent results, but their results were unable to be replicated, and there was discussion of systemic error due to drain shape or external elements. I even recall reading some reports of the researchers claiming that the wind hitting the laboratory was affecting the experiments. Reports of those water drain experiments seem tough to find at the moment, however. Once the Round Earth experiments start failing, the papers are left to rot somewhere, are not linked or referenced or shared, and they pretend it never happened.
Here is our current article on the matter of the Coriolis Effect: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect
From the talk page:
Topics for Further Research
In response to a video embedded in the Snopes link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihv4f7VMeJw), showing the rotation of water in a 5 foot diameter pool which supposedly shows the Coriolis Effect in action, we are given a lead for further research by Rand Huso:
“ This has been done before - I saw the experiment done in the '80s. The Coriolis is so small that small perturbations in the construction of the drain could easily be amplified and become much larger than the Coriolis. The proper way to conduct this test is to repeat it many times and take the exact environment "down under" and do the same thing. As I recall, the earlier experiment was repeated 100 times, and the numbers were 49 to 51 - completely inconclusive. ”
“ the experiment has been done before. I love this presentation, but I'm unconvinced at their conclusion. What I saw before was in the Meteorology department at TAMU. Film. ”
It would be nice to find documentation of the professional experiments. I only wish I had saved what I found about the researchers claiming that the wind hitting the outside of the laboratory was affecting their controlled pool experiments.
-
Hi, if you believe the Earth is flat, then can you please explain why water from a faucet will spin clockwise in the Southern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the North?
Yeah, unfortunately that one's a party trick.
There are a thousand equators (which aren't even on any equator) where a local villager draws an arbitrary line in the sand and says it's the equator then does his truck, but gives the water the correct initial spin depending on which side of his line he's standing.
They probably get it wrong half the time anyway, and nobody's gonna know.
-
Tourist tricks aside, these guys did it a bit more carefully and repeated it three times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiBrV4Q9NYE
-
Tourist tricks aside, these guys did it a bit more carefully and repeated it three times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiBrV4Q9NYE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiBrV4Q9NYE)
This is the video that I just linked to. This experiment is subject to the shape of the drain and other common factors that create systemic errors.
The experiment needs to be done with different pools, different drains, with the water poured in with different directions and in controlled conditions. It needs to be performed many times for a conclusive result.
-
Tourist tricks aside, these guys did it a bit more carefully and repeated it three times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiBrV4Q9NYE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiBrV4Q9NYE)
This is the video that I just linked to. This experiment is subject to the shape of the drain and other common factors that create systemic errors.
The experiment needs to be done with different pools, different drains, with the water poured in with different directions and in controlled conditions. It needs to be performed many times for a conclusive result.
Do you think they had some magnets hidden around the pool? magnets repel water don't they?
-
Tourist tricks aside, these guys did it a bit more carefully and repeated it three times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiBrV4Q9NYE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiBrV4Q9NYE)
This is the video that I just linked to. This experiment is subject to the shape of the drain and other common factors that create systemic errors.
The experiment needs to be done with different pools, different drains, with the water poured in with different directions and in controlled conditions. It needs to be performed many times for a conclusive result.
Do you think they had some magnets hidden around the pool? magnets repel water don't they?
Magnet Sage.
That’s something I never knew about before and had to just go look it up, it’s super interesting. :o This changes my outlook slightly as now there are more variables to think about, like whether the earths magnetic field has an affect on the flow of water across the world or vice versa.
-
In the 1960s a researcher named Ascher Shapiro claimed that bathtub vortex direction was due to the "Coriolis Effect":
http://classic.scopeweb.mit.edu/articles/shapiros-bathtub-experiment/
Shapiro’s Bathtub Experiment
by Conor Myhrvold
posted November 1, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Over forty years ago, in the 1960s, the world briefly became captivated with how a bathtub drains. Did something called the Coriolis effect influence the twirling water?
The Earth’s rotation influences how fluids swirl on the planet’s surface. It’s why low-pressure systems in the northern hemisphere twist counterclockwise. This phenomenon, known as the Coriolis effect, is the appearance of an object to deflect to one side in a rotating reference frame. Since it is such a tiny effect on small scales, no one had yet proven that this inertial force actually affects how water leaves a bathtub, despite many previous efforts.
In 1962, the same year that Watson and Crick received their Nobel Prize for the discovery of the double helix, MIT professor Ascher Shapiro, an expert in fluid mechanics, set up an elaborate test to try to change that. Shapiro’s elementary experiment, which started with a bathtub, quickly turned into a complicated and ambitious undertaking that involved a tank six feet wide and six inches deep.
The Coriolis effect at MIT’s latitude, 42°, was just “thirty-millionths that of gravity, which is so small that it will be overcome by filling and even temperature differences and water impurities,” reported one of many newspapers and periodicals that covered the results of Shapiro’s experiment. After much tinkering to cancel out these interferences, and presumably a hefty water bill, Shapiro found the answer: the Coriolis effect does indeed cause a bathtub vortex in the northern hemisphere to swirl counterclockwise.
But even after his results were published in a letter to Nature, Shapiro’s confirmation drew the skepticism of readers. In correspondence with one reader, Shapiro noted: “Many results contradictory to this have been reported in the literature but all of them have involved faulty experiments due to a lack of realization of how sensitive the experiment is.” He was supported, however, by colleagues in the Northern hemisphere who confirmed the counterclockwise bathtub drainage, while those in the Southern hemisphere demonstrated the same effect in the opposite direction—a clockwise flow—just as anticipated.
In a world without electronic communication, where author correspondence was a more prolonged affair, a sort of chivalry existed between a scientist and a popular audience who took an interest in academics. Scrawled with a pencil on back-and-forth correspondences between Shapiro and his fans and housed today within a dusty and faded folder in the MIT archives are the records of reprints being sent, of questions being answered, and of careful and nuanced responses that understated Shapiro’s high standing at MIT. A Ford Professor at the time, and later elevated to Institute professor, Shapiro took time to send article reprints for those who asked for it and to answer mail from inquisitive readers, some of whom promoted dubious questions and claims.
...Who would have thought the swirl of a bathtub would have been a matter of great interest? For a seemingly insignificant problem, the bathtub controversy loomed large in Shapiro’s career until his death in 2004. The first line of his obituary in the Boston Globe read: “Dr. Ascher Shapiro wanted to get a handle on how fluids move whether they were swirling down the bathtub drain, or flowing through the human body.”
Controversy because other researchers were getting different and inconsistent results. Shapiro claimed that he could perform the experiment and that all other researchers were wrong.
The below shows that even with extreme care the Coriolis effect can be overwhelmed by very small perturbations such as how the lid is lifted.
http://web.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/history-chapters/C3%20ThermoFluids.pdf
At Tom Fink’s invitation, Professor Lloyd M. Trefethen of Tufts University, USA, spent a short sabbatical in Mechanical Engineering in 1964/65. Already famous for his work on surface tension phenomena, he led us into a repeat of the experiments on the bathtub vortex that had recently been conducted by Ascher Shapiro at MIT. After much careful design, a circular tank of some 2.4m in diameter and 0.4m depth was constructed and installed in one of the subterranean dungeons of the old Peter Nicol Russell building. Carefully designed procedures and their diligent execution resulted in absolutely conclusive results that were published in Nature [Trefethen, et al, 1965). A re-enactment for the local media was a disaster: Bilger and Tanner muffed the removal of the covering baffles creating a great vortex in the water that then went out the wrong way. ‘Scientists baffled’ cried the media. We even made Time magazine!
In Flow, Nature's Patterns, a Tapestry in three Parts (https://www.slideshare.net/augustodefranco/flow-natures-patterns) by Dr. Phillip Ball (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Ball) the author gives an overview on p. 47:
A popular notion says that the rotation of the earth starts the bathtub vortex spinning. But while it is certainly true that this rotation controls the direction of the giant atmospheric vortices of cyclones, which rotate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern, the influence of the Earth’s rotation on a micro-cyclone in the bath should be extremely weak. Biesel claimed that it cannot be responsible for the bathtub vortex because, contrary to popular belief, they may rotate in either direction at any place on the planet. But is that really so? In 1962 the American engineer Ascher Shapiro at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claimed that he had consistently produced counter-clockwise vortices in his lab by first allowing the water to settle for 24 hours, dissipating any residual rotational motion, before pulling the plug. The claim sparked controversy: later researchers said that the experiment was extremely sensitive to the precise conditions in which it was conducted. The dispute has never quite been resolved. We do know, however, why a small initial rotation of the liquid develops into a robust vortex. This is due to the movement of the water as it converges on the outlet. In theory this convergence can be completely symmetrical: water moves inwards to the plughole from all directions. But the slightest departure from that symmetrical situation, which could happen at random, may be amplified because of the way fluidflow operates.
An abstract (https://journals.jps.jp/doi/10.1143/JPSJ.81.074401) at the Physical Society of Japan states:
It has long been controversial whether the Coriolis force due to the rotation of the earth plays a significant role in the generation of the bathtub vortex in small vessels such as bathtubs.
-
I think it's important to remind ourselves that the direction of swirl, once it has started, is completely unrelated to any outside influence. They can seriously go either way, and once they start in a given direction, they feed themselves and continue to get more and more water going in that direction.
The entire discussion is about that very first nanosecond when the water begins to flow, what makes it go one way or the other?
We get all excited about "Oh the whole pool is swirling this way or that way" - but we really don't spend a lot of time on that very brief moment in time when the direction is actually "chosen."
I would be interested in seeing more examination of that initial moment.
-
I think it's important to remind ourselves that the direction of swirl, once it has started, is completely unrelated to any outside influence.
I think that it's even more important to remind ourselves that RET says that the Coriolis effect is greatest at the poles and zero at the equator. And even at it's greatest strength, Coriolis still vastly overwhelmed by other forces at such small scales.
-
To summarise: when the experiments are done properly and carefully, the draining water effect corresponds to the expected results; and when they're not, it sometimes does and sometimes doesn't.
The moral of the story? Do your experiments properly.
-
In the 1960s a researcher named Ascher Shapiro claimed that bathtub vortex direction was due to the "Coriolis Effect"
So? In the 1880s someone claimed that the moon was translucent and emitted its own light which was cold. Strangely none of this won him a Nobel prize. People can claim what they like.
You are correct about the Coriolis effect not making your bath drain differently depending on the hemisphere you’re in, that is a myth.
But that doesn’t mean the Coriolis effect doesn’t exist. The effects can be seen on a more macro scale, particularly in the way hurricanes and tornadoes spin differently in the different hemispheres
Shapiro’s Bathtub
-
We have an article on our Wiki about the hurricanes. Start a new thread if you want to talk about that.
The articles say that there was a time when mainstream science tested the Coriolis Effect in containers, with inconclusive results. The tests involved bathtubs and pools that of various sizes, such as the 6 foot diameter ones mentioned in the articles, and were carefully conducted in laboratory setting. If there was a valid and repeatable effect on the direction of water vortexes it would have been found and paraded as evidence of the Coriolis Effect, and you would have a plethora of studies and documentation to point to, rather than controversy and unrepeatable results.
-
We have an article on our Wiki about the hurricanes. Start a new thread if you want to talk about that.
The articles say that there was a time when mainstream science tested the Coriolis Effect in containers, with inconclusive results. The tests involved bathtubs and pools that of various sizes, such as the 6 foot diameter ones mentioned in the articles, and were carefully conducted in laboratory setting. If there was a valid and repeatable effect on the direction of water vortexes it would have been found and paraded as evidence of the Coriolis Effect, and you would have a plethora of studies and documentation to point to, rather than controversy and unrepeatable results.
The Coriolis experiments are basically convoluted gyroscope experiments, right?
Maybe we should also check into some gyroscope experiments. In fact, I think some of those were started using a very expensive high accuracy gyro, but I haven't been able to find the results.
Does anybody know anything about the progress on that? If the gyro shows no rotation, then it's slam dunk, no need to worry about spinning water.
-
We have an article on our Wiki about the hurricanes. Start a new thread if you want to talk about that.
The articles say that there was a time when mainstream science tested the Coriolis Effect in containers, with inconclusive results. The tests involved bathtubs and pools that of various sizes, such as the 6 foot diameter ones mentioned in the articles, and were carefully conducted in laboratory setting. If there was a valid and repeatable effect on the direction of water vortexes it would have been found and paraded as evidence of the Coriolis Effect, and you would have a plethora of studies and documentation to point to, rather than controversy and unrepeatable results.
The Coriolis experiments are basically convoluted gyroscope experiments, right?
Maybe we should also check into some gyroscope experiments. In fact, I think some of those were started using a very expensive high accuracy gyro, but I haven't been able to find the results.
Does anybody know anything about the progress on that? If the gyro shows no rotation, then it's slam dunk, no need to worry about spinning water.
Speaking of gyros, from the recent doc 'Behind the Curve'. Bob Knodel, part of the Globebusters team, takes us through their attempt to debunk a spinning earth with a pricey ring laser gyro. It didn't end well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9p2Yrbp3xA
-
Speaking of gyros, from the recent doc 'Behind the Curve'. Bob Knodel, part of the Globebusters team, takes us through their attempt to debunk a spinning earth with a pricey ring laser gyro. It didn't end well.
I saw SciManDan mention that documentary earlier, I'll have to have a look.
The two really telling parts in that clip are where he says that the results were as you'd expect on a globe earth and then says "but we weren't going to accept that". And then at the end where he says that the result is "confidential".
Surely the whole point of doing experiments is to learn from the results and publish them for peer review.
-
There are plenty of gyroscope experiments showing no rotation.
Those laser ring gyroscope are seisometers and are not truly detecting rotation of the surface beneath them. If you want to talk about gyroscopes start a thread about it.
When you guys start changing the topic it is a message that "I am losing this argument!"
-
This thread is about the Coriolis effect. That effect is caused by the fact we're on a spinning globe.
Mentioning an experiment performed by flat earthers to show we are not living on a spinning globe but which showed instead that we actually are is completely relevant to this thread.
-
We have an article on our Wiki about the hurricanes. Start a new thread if you want to talk about that.
The articles say that there was a time when mainstream science tested the Coriolis Effect in containers, with inconclusive results. The tests involved bathtubs and pools that of various sizes, such as the 6 foot diameter ones mentioned in the articles, and were carefully conducted in laboratory setting. If there was a valid and repeatable effect on the direction of water vortexes it would have been found and paraded as evidence of the Coriolis Effect, and you would have a plethora of studies and documentation to point to, rather than controversy and unrepeatable results.
The Coriolis experiments are basically convoluted gyroscope experiments, right?
Maybe we should also check into some gyroscope experiments. In fact, I think some of those were started using a very expensive high accuracy gyro, but I haven't been able to find the results.
Does anybody know anything about the progress on that? If the gyro shows no rotation, then it's slam dunk, no need to worry about spinning water.
Speaking of gyros, from the recent doc 'Behind the Curve'. Bob Knodel, part of the Globebusters team, takes us through their attempt to debunk a spinning earth with a pricey ring laser gyro. It didn't end well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9p2Yrbp3xA
Ignoring the suspicious nature of the video (why would Knodel say such a damning thing in full view of the cameraman if it was "confidential"...shill?) the ring-laser gyroscope has already been addressed numerous times on this forum and alternative explanations have been proffered (eg. aether drift or seismic effects). It is utterly unscientific to assume that an observation confirms your preferred view without refuting alternate explanations. You also need to explain why mechanical gyroscopes don't show drift (or demonstrate that mechanical gyros do show drift) but ring laser gyros do if you are to hold the ring-laser gyroscope as proof of earth spin.
-
Ignoring the suspicious nature of the video (why would Knodel say such a damning thing in full view of the cameraman if it was "confidential"...shill?)
Generally referred to as a "hot mic" event.
the ring-laser gyroscope has already been addressed numerous times on this forum and alternative explanations have been proffered (eg. aether drift or seismic effects). It is utterly unscientific to assume that an observation confirms your preferred view without refuting alternate explanations. You also need to explain why mechanical gyroscopes don't show drift (or demonstrate that mechanical gyros do show drift) but ring laser gyros do if you are to hold the ring-laser gyroscope as proof of earth spin.
Aether, maybe. Though lots of evidence against it as a transmission medium.
Seismic? Not so much when part of an Inertial Navigation System in a plane. Not may seismic events at 35k ft.
Lastly, 15 degrees per hour drift. As predicted by the spinning earth FE model.
-
Speaking of gyros, from the recent doc 'Behind the Curve'. Bob Knodel, part of the Globebusters team, takes us through their attempt to debunk a spinning earth with a pricey ring laser gyro. It didn't end well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9p2Yrbp3xA
Ahh.. That is the gyro I'd heard about. Doing a little googling, it looks like Bob Knodel may not be a highly reliable source though?
As far as I can tell, he used to claim to be a commercial pilot, but changed his story when people started to look into it. I just checked the FAA website and there are two Robert Knodel's with pilots license -- R M Knodel who was born around 1929, got his pilots license around 1956 and is listed as a commercial pilot with no medical, and passed away a few years ago at age 85. The other one had his last medical in 1978, a third class, and is listed as a private pilot.
Then with his odd behavior about the gyro, I'm not sure if maybe he's got ties with the establishment or what his agenda is.
And it's not just information reliability that interests me about this pilots license issue, it's the topic of a pilot to begin with. Someone who's a commercial pilot who may have flown all over the earth is someone I'd love to talk with, as would all flat earthers I'm sure.
Perhaps he claimed it so we'd trust him, then went through this gyro thing so he can then say "Oh, it does appear the earth is turning.. hush hush.." all in an effort to counter flat earth.
I guess we need a new gyro test though.
-
Generally referred to as a "hot mic" event.
There were multiple cameramen at close proximity focused on Bob and the other guy. You would think Bob would have noticed.
the ring-laser gyroscope has already been addressed numerous times on this forum and alternative explanations have been proffered (eg. aether drift or seismic effects). It is utterly unscientific to assume that an observation confirms your preferred view without refuting alternate explanations. You also need to explain why mechanical gyroscopes don't show drift (or demonstrate that mechanical gyros do show drift) but ring laser gyros do if you are to hold the ring-laser gyroscope as proof of earth spin.
Aether, maybe. Though lots of evidence against it as a transmission medium.
Seismic? Not so much when part of an Inertial Navigation System in a plane. Not may seismic events at 35k ft.
Lastly, 15 degrees per hour drift. As predicted by the spinning earth FE model.
The sun is oberved to move at a constant rate of approximately 15 degrees per hour. There is no prediction involved, merely observation which can be interpreted multiple ways. The seismic thing was a reference to Tom's previous post; he can elaborate on it if he wants, I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about that.
-
The sun is oberved to move at a constant rate of approximately 15 degrees per hour. There is no prediction involved, merely observation which can be interpreted multiple ways. The seismic thing was a reference to Tom's previous post; he can elaborate on it if he wants, I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about that.
(I hope I got that quote correctly attributed..)
I don't think there's any dispute that the apparent angular position of the sun changes by 15 degrees per hour from anyplace on earth.
I think the question is whether the sun is moving around or the earth is turning.
Wait. am I confused here? Is it even possible for it to appear to move 15 degrees per hour to everyone on the sunny area at the same time?
I might need to mock up a model.
-
Generally referred to as a "hot mic" event.
There were multiple cameramen at close proximity focused on Bob and the other guy. You would think Bob would have noticed.
I have no idea the number of cameras nor their proximity to any subjects. Could easily be one camera shooting B roll. The shots of Mr. Knodel and the other guy could be zoomed in, the cut to his listener could just be a shot lifted or even cropped. I guess only Mr. Knodel and the filmmakers could answer the question. I don't think we have enough to go on to adequately dissect the scene.
And as for Mr. Knodel and Globebusters, no mention of the $20k ring gyro experiments have been on their show. It's like it never existed. And no stomping of feet by Mr. Knodel across the web claiming the filmmakers misrepresented anything. Perhaps he just wants it to all go away. Anyone's guess really.
As to "hot mics", happens all the time with lavs. I work in the biz and if I had a nickel for every time my soundman's eyes grew really wide when he heard in his cans a subject/actor say something not meant to be heard by others while seemingly off camera I'd be a rich man.
-
Upon rewatching, it does look like the last scene is a hot mic episode.
The camera movement looks like someone trying to hold a camera steady that's zoomed way in from some distance away.
But the earlier footage he's knowingly stating 15 degrees per hour were measured on camera, unless it's someone else's voice being dubbed in, it's hard to tell because the video clips are so short and jump around so much it's hard to see how well it syncs to his lips.
Any deaf people here who can read lips to see what he was saying in the video?
Well anyway I guess this is way off topic, sorry..
-
The sun is oberved to move at a constant rate of approximately 15 degrees per hour. There is no prediction involved, merely observation which can be interpreted multiple ways. The seismic thing was a reference to Tom's previous post; he can elaborate on it if he wants, I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about that.
(I hope I got that quote correctly attributed..)
I don't think there's any dispute that the apparent angular position of the sun changes by 15 degrees per hour from anyplace on earth.
I think the question is whether the sun is moving around or the earth is turning.
Wait. am I confused here? Is it even possible for it to appear to move 15 degrees per hour to everyone on the sunny area at the same time?
I might need to mock up a model.
If it were the aether that were causing the movement at that rate then the laser ring gyro would record the same angular velocity so the bare fact that the 15 degrees is recorded by the gyro is inconclusive as to whether aether drift or the mechanical effect of Earth's rotation is being recorded.
-
Generally referred to as a "hot mic" event.
There were multiple cameramen at close proximity focused on Bob and the other guy. You would think Bob would have noticed.
I have no idea the number of cameras nor their proximity to any subjects. Could easily be one camera shooting B roll. The shots of Mr. Knodel and the other guy could be zoomed in, the cut to his listener could just be a shot lifted or even cropped. I guess only Mr. Knodel and the filmmakers could answer the question. I don't think we have enough to go on to adequately dissect the scene.
And as for Mr. Knodel and Globebusters, no mention of the $20k ring gyro experiments have been on their show. It's like it never existed. And no stomping of feet by Mr. Knodel across the web claiming the filmmakers misrepresented anything. Perhaps he just wants it to all go away. Anyone's guess really.
As to "hot mics", happens all the time with lavs. I work in the biz and if I had a nickel for every time my soundman's eyes grew really wide when he heard in his cans a subject/actor say something not meant to be heard by others while seemingly off camera I'd be a rich man.
I have listened to Globebusters before and I recall Knodel discussing the experiment and claiming aether drift was responsible for the observation. I suspect the maker of the Youtube footage selectively edited to make Knodel look bad (or worse than he would have if the entire context was provided) but I can't be bothered to watch that silly documentary.
-
Generally referred to as a "hot mic" event.
There were multiple cameramen at close proximity focused on Bob and the other guy. You would think Bob would have noticed.
I have no idea the number of cameras nor their proximity to any subjects. Could easily be one camera shooting B roll. The shots of Mr. Knodel and the other guy could be zoomed in, the cut to his listener could just be a shot lifted or even cropped. I guess only Mr. Knodel and the filmmakers could answer the question. I don't think we have enough to go on to adequately dissect the scene.
And as for Mr. Knodel and Globebusters, no mention of the $20k ring gyro experiments have been on their show. It's like it never existed. And no stomping of feet by Mr. Knodel across the web claiming the filmmakers misrepresented anything. Perhaps he just wants it to all go away. Anyone's guess really.
As to "hot mics", happens all the time with lavs. I work in the biz and if I had a nickel for every time my soundman's eyes grew really wide when he heard in his cans a subject/actor say something not meant to be heard by others while seemingly off camera I'd be a rich man.
I have listened to Globebusters before and I recall Knodel discussing the experiment and claiming aether drift was responsible for the observation. I suspect the maker of the Youtube footage selectively edited to make Knodel look bad (or worse than he would have if the entire context was provided) but I can't be bothered to watch that silly documentary.
Yes, the only reference from globebusters discussing an RLG at length is in regard to Aether, Sagnac, etc. is from a vid they did a year and a half or so ago. But it wasn't an experiment. To date, I can't find any globebusters/Knodel reference to the $20k RLG experiments they did last year.
As to the aether, that's why he presumably said they put it in the gauss chamber. Still, they got the RE result.
As to the YTr selectively editing the footage. S/he did not. I saw the documentary in it's entirety a month ago. The clip posted is the exact clip from the film and it's contextually accurate. Not misrepresented at all.
-
Generally referred to as a "hot mic" event.
There were multiple cameramen at close proximity focused on Bob and the other guy. You would think Bob would have noticed.
I have no idea the number of cameras nor their proximity to any subjects. Could easily be one camera shooting B roll. The shots of Mr. Knodel and the other guy could be zoomed in, the cut to his listener could just be a shot lifted or even cropped. I guess only Mr. Knodel and the filmmakers could answer the question. I don't think we have enough to go on to adequately dissect the scene.
And as for Mr. Knodel and Globebusters, no mention of the $20k ring gyro experiments have been on their show. It's like it never existed. And no stomping of feet by Mr. Knodel across the web claiming the filmmakers misrepresented anything. Perhaps he just wants it to all go away. Anyone's guess really.
As to "hot mics", happens all the time with lavs. I work in the biz and if I had a nickel for every time my soundman's eyes grew really wide when he heard in his cans a subject/actor say something not meant to be heard by others while seemingly off camera I'd be a rich man.
I have listened to Globebusters before and I recall Knodel discussing the experiment and claiming aether drift was responsible for the observation. I suspect the maker of the Youtube footage selectively edited to make Knodel look bad (or worse than he would have if the entire context was provided) but I can't be bothered to watch that silly documentary.
Yes, the only reference from globebusters discussing an RLG at length is in regard to Aether, Sagnac, etc. is from a vid they did a year and a half or so ago. But it wasn't an experiment. To date, I can't find any globebusters/Knodel reference to the $20k RLG experiments they did last year.
As to the aether, that's why he presumably said they put it in the gauss chamber. Still, they got the RE result.
As to the YTr selectively editing the footage. S/he did not. I saw the documentary in it's entirety a month ago. The clip posted is the exact clip from the film and it's contextually accurate. Not misrepresented at all.
I specifically remember him mentioning the experiment and how detractors said that he proved that Earth was spinning.
The Zero Gauss chamber would not necessarily be able to block aether flow: the aether drift is not electromagnetic radiation.
-
Generally referred to as a "hot mic" event.
There were multiple cameramen at close proximity focused on Bob and the other guy. You would think Bob would have noticed.
I have no idea the number of cameras nor their proximity to any subjects. Could easily be one camera shooting B roll. The shots of Mr. Knodel and the other guy could be zoomed in, the cut to his listener could just be a shot lifted or even cropped. I guess only Mr. Knodel and the filmmakers could answer the question. I don't think we have enough to go on to adequately dissect the scene.
And as for Mr. Knodel and Globebusters, no mention of the $20k ring gyro experiments have been on their show. It's like it never existed. And no stomping of feet by Mr. Knodel across the web claiming the filmmakers misrepresented anything. Perhaps he just wants it to all go away. Anyone's guess really.
As to "hot mics", happens all the time with lavs. I work in the biz and if I had a nickel for every time my soundman's eyes grew really wide when he heard in his cans a subject/actor say something not meant to be heard by others while seemingly off camera I'd be a rich man.
I have listened to Globebusters before and I recall Knodel discussing the experiment and claiming aether drift was responsible for the observation. I suspect the maker of the Youtube footage selectively edited to make Knodel look bad (or worse than he would have if the entire context was provided) but I can't be bothered to watch that silly documentary.
Yes, the only reference from globebusters discussing an RLG at length is in regard to Aether, Sagnac, etc. is from a vid they did a year and a half or so ago. But it wasn't an experiment. To date, I can't find any globebusters/Knodel reference to the $20k RLG experiments they did last year.
As to the aether, that's why he presumably said they put it in the gauss chamber. Still, they got the RE result.
As to the YTr selectively editing the footage. S/he did not. I saw the documentary in it's entirety a month ago. The clip posted is the exact clip from the film and it's contextually accurate. Not misrepresented at all.
I specifically remember him mentioning the experiment and how detractors said that he proved that Earth was spinning.
The Zero Gauss chamber would not necessarily be able to block aether flow: the aether drift is not electromagnetic radiation.
Maybe he did mention the experiment. I personally haven't been able to find a reference of the $20k RLG experiments other than what's in the documentary. If you have the link please share it. I would like to see how he explains himself.
As to Zero Gauss chamber and whether it would block aether flow, I don't know. Something we'd have to hear from Mr Knodel as to why he thought it a good idea or using a Bismuth chamber as well.
-
As to Zero Gauss chamber and whether it would block aether flow, I don't know. Something we'd have to hear from Mr Knodel as to why he thought it a good idea or using a Bismuth chamber as well.
Bismuth is repelled by magnetic field, slightly.
-
Maybe he did mention the experiment. I personally haven't been able to find a reference of the $20k RLG experiments other than what's in the documentary. If you have the link please share it. I would like to see how he explains himself.
Watch from 32:17 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HkIDSBizZU&t=32m17s) in this video to see Bob spinning the results of his gyroscope faux pas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HkIDSBizZU&t=32m17s
The part that follows that is interesting also, where he gets called out for lying about his piloting and engineering credentials, and quickly removes the claims from his websites.
-
Maybe he did mention the experiment. I personally haven't been able to find a reference of the $20k RLG experiments other than what's in the documentary. If you have the link please share it. I would like to see how he explains himself.
Watch from in this video to see Bob spinning the results of his gyroscope faux pas:
The part that follows that is interesting also, where he gets called out for lying about his piloting and engineering credentials, and quickly removes the claims from his websites.
Thanks Max. This is just what I was looking for: Mr.Knodel specifically addressing the $20k gyro experiments. He starts talking about it in earnest at 37:28. And goes on about how it's super precise, they got 15 degrees per hour but...insert word salad...then yeah we got 15 degrees per hour but....etc.
I read somewhere that it was thought the RLG (aka Fiber Optic Gyro) purchase came through fecore.org, Mr. Knodel being on the board there. But I can't find any reference to the RLG experiments there either except for in the projects/test results section there is one for Mechanical Gyroscopes. Though it is shown as "pending".
-
Maybe he did mention the experiment. I personally haven't been able to find a reference of the $20k RLG experiments other than what's in the documentary. If you have the link please share it. I would like to see how he explains himself.
Watch from 32:17 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HkIDSBizZU&t=32m17s) in this video to see Bob spinning the results of his gyroscope faux pas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HkIDSBizZU&t=32m17s
The part that follows that is interesting also, where he gets called out for lying about his piloting and engineering credentials, and quickly removes the claims from his websites.
Hmm interesting.
The odd thing is, I remember like a decade ago, before I even heard of flat earth, I remember reading about the ring laser gyro and how it measured the earth's rotation and even sidereal rotation. I would have thought Bob would have read that and not been so surprised.
But it really sounds like Bob doesn't understand that a gyro doesn't measure linear velocity - he kept referring to miles per hour.
A gyro by its very core construction measures rotation, not velocity.
Does he really not know that globers claim that the earth is rotating fast while all the other claimed rotations (earth around sun, sun around whatever) are very very slow?
This is all very odd.