Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2019, 08:09:26 AM »
Beat frequency is the number of beats per second. A beat frequency of 287.75 Hz is meaningless. Hz already means instances per second.

"According to their formula"? Are you kidding. You need to prove that formula.

Appealing to something that was made after the fact, after device was created, and the results were analyzed, is invalid, and stupid. Especially something that requires the input of the number of seconds in a day.
Do you ever contact the authors of research you disagree with?   More productive than discussions with random people here.

BillO

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2019, 01:46:12 PM »
I will suggest you research some more on the topic. A search for "Ring Laser Gyroscope" and "seismic" brings up many papers showing that the RLG is used to study seismology.
All this does is help with your confirmation bias.  I did a search on "coping saw" and "duck" now I'm more convinced than ever that coping saws are just for making flat wooden ducks.  Your logic is flawed and leads you to flawed research.

Also, all your posts in this topic have only indicated that RLGs can be used to record seismic events.  Nothing more.  So what?  That tells me they are very sensitive and can be applied in numerous interesting ways.  However, you have not explained why/how an RLG would necessarily display a precise 15 degree per hour drift because of detecting random seismic activity.

On the other hand, a 15 degree per hour drift is exactly what you would expect from a sensitive enough gyroscope of any kind while stationary on the rotating earth (mechanical, MEMS or RLG).


BillO

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2019, 02:48:50 PM »
Beat frequency is the number of beats per second. A beat frequency of 287.75 Hz is meaningless. Hz already means instances per second.

"According to their formula"? Are you kidding. You need to prove that formula.

Appealing to something that was made after the fact, after device was created, and the results were analyzed, is invalid, and stupid. Especially something that requires the input of the number of seconds in a day.
You don't know how RLGs work, do you Tom?  I think you need to do a little more research.

I found tons of information on how they work.  Here is a quote from Honeywell for a simple little blurb even you might be able to understand:

"The principle of operation of a RLG is two counter-propagating laser beams have different frequencies with the difference dependent on rotation rate."

Found it here:  https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/navigation-and-sensors/gg1320an-digital-ring-laser-gyroscope

So that beat frequency relates to a particular rotation rate.   Obviously the rotation rate would depend on the geometry of the particular device being tested.  The ancient monstrosities of decrepit old devices used in that prehistoric paper you have in your wiki is not a good example of a modern aviation RLG.  Sorry, but it's only use is in showing what kinds of issues they were having back in the infancy of RLG development.  However, in section 6 he does detail how the big dinosaur did produce a beat frequency nearly exactly as predicted by the model and formula for the G0 device (page 152, section 6) for the rotation of the earth.  This is clearly shown in figure 6.7 on Page 153.  In the preceding text on Page 152 he states "However, it is assumed that the signal is indeed the Earth induced rate mostly because of the excellent agreement between the measured output frequency and the expected frequency.".  The caption to figure 6.7 also says "The Earth induced Sagnac signal is well above the noise floor."

I find it very interesting that the Earth's rotation should be mentioned so prominently in a paper that was never intended to research that.  The effect was just so obvious it kind of jumped up and smacked them in the face.

I also found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope#Example_applications

A list of things RLGs are used in.  Seems the author of that wiki found some in airplanes, eh?

Here: https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1978/1978%20-%203255.PDF  is an excerpt from FLIGHT International magazine dating back to 1978 that mentions the intended use of Honeywell RLGs in Boeing's new (at the time) 757/767 jets.

It goes on and on.  If you just search for Laser Ring Gyroscope you will get millions of hits, the vast majority being related to use in aircraft - not in seismology.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2019, 02:51:28 PM by BillO »

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2019, 04:56:45 PM »
Beat frequency is the number of beats per second. A beat frequency of 287.75 Hz is meaningless. Hz already means instances per second.
Seriously batman? A beat frequency is much more than the frequency of the beat!
The beat frequency is  the frequency with which TWO other frequencies go in and out of phase.. A beat frequency is what you get when you mix two frequencies together.
I guess you didn't know, but if you mix a 10,000,000hz signal with a 10,000,999hz signal, you get a beat frequency of 999hz. That is the beat frequency.

The whole point of the laser ring gyro is that the helium-neon laser has a wavelength of 633nm, which translates to a frequency of the light wave of around 474 terahertz.
The light goes in two directions around the ring, and it mixes with itself, and if the laser ring gyro is rotating, the light going past the mixer in one direction is going faster than the light going the other direction. This difference in frequencies makes a beat frequency.

Basically the laser light forms a standing wave which in an ideal world would be perfectly stationary and perfectly independent of apparatus rotation. The photodiodes simply count the standing waves as they go by, when the gyro housing is rotated around the light. I'm simplifying it a little bit for you but that's essentially it.

Thus the beat frequency is exactly proportional to the rate that the apparatus is rotating around the light path.

Quote
"According to their formula"? Are you kidding. You need to prove that formula.
What do you mean prove their formula? Do you mean I need to prove that the formula they give does in fact apply to a laser ring gyro?
I really don't see why I need to prove anything of the sort. But if you're unable to work their little formula I can give it a go if you want to make sure they did their math correctly.

But probably you mean you don't think that their formula really models a laser ring gyro.

I'm just telling you what they are claiming. I never said I believed their claims.
Quote
Appealing to something that was made after the fact, after device was created, and the results were analyzed, is invalid, and stupid.
I'm not sure I follow you on that one. Are you saying basically that laser ring gyros don't work according to the formula they provide?

I also am not sure what you're complaining about regarding  "after the fact."

If I determine experimentally that it takes a pound of kerosene to raise a gallon of water 15 degrees C, then after the fact I derive a formula to that effect, what's the problem? Maybe I'm missing your point.

Oh, are you saying they got a beat frequency of 287.75hz and then put in fudge factors into their formula to give the desired 15.04108444361914488649 degrees per hour?

Quote
Especially something that requires the input of the number of seconds in a day.

Well, if they are saying they are measuring a certain angular measurement in a certain number of seconds, then I don't know why they shouldn't pick a sidereal day as the number of seconds to do their measurement, since, within their ideology that equates to a single rotation of the earth.

Saying "360 degrees in 86164 seconds" is just the same as saying "15.04108444361914488649 degrees per hour."

It's just a rate or ratio. It's like saying 1/2, or 2/4, or 10/20, yeah they are all the same, but 1/2 is nice and easy to recognize.
And saying "360 degrees in one sidereal day" is also very recognizable to those following NASA's lies.

I really don't know what your point is or why you're so confused.

I simply said they were claiming a rotation of around 15 degrees per hour with their gyro.
You said they weren't claiming that.
I pointed out that they are in fact claiming it, just in different units.
I never said I believed their claims.

Could you elaborate more?


totallackey

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2019, 12:27:49 PM »
The flat Earth content makers in that video also unequivocally state southern flights east west across the southern ocean are fake or nonexistent.

Sydney to Johannesburg, time lapsed from 13 plus hour flight, paired with satellite images and gps data analyzation confirming the planes location.
I would wager the person on the flight would even share his entire 13 plus hour video with you if asked nicely.
"...paired with satellite images and gps..."

Wow, just wow...

That's funny...

MH370 anyone?

Everyone knows the stuff you post in support of this supposed long distance flight does not really exist.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6535
    • View Profile
Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2019, 12:40:02 PM »
Lackey, do you actually have any evidence to back up your opinions.
Just denying or declaring fake everything which doesn't conform with your world view is not a sensible way to think or debate.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #27 on: March 08, 2019, 12:24:01 AM »
Everyone knows the stuff you post in support of this supposed long distance flight does not really exist.

This route is flown 312 times a year. In fact, people are boarding at gate 57 right now.

Could you please tell me how you think this works? Do they have an empty gate in a busy international airport for an hour every day and no-one notices, not even the private company (Sydney Airport Holdings) that owns the airport? Or maybe tens of thousands of actors file through the gate every year and are whisked away in buses, and an empty plane takes off? Or they actually fly but the flight is mysteriously 15 hours late every day, despite all other information - flight radar, Johannesburg Airport website (http://www.johannesburg-airport.com/arrivals.html), etc - saying it arrives around 4:35pm local time? No-one at that end notices that the plane doesn't arrive or no passengers disembark?

I'm really struggling with this one.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2019, 04:25:45 AM by Balls Dingo »

totallackey

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #28 on: March 08, 2019, 12:19:42 PM »
Lackey, do you actually have any evidence to back up your opinions.
Just denying or declaring fake everything which doesn't conform with your world view is not a sensible way to think or debate.
Oh, you fail to consider MH370 as evidence?

totallackey

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #29 on: March 08, 2019, 12:23:21 PM »
Everyone knows the stuff you post in support of this supposed long distance flight does not really exist.

This route is flown 312 times a year. In fact, people are boarding at gate 57 right now.

Could you please tell me how you think this works? Do they have an empty gate in a busy international airport for an hour every day and no-one notices, not even the private company (Sydney Airport Holdings) that owns the airport? Or maybe tens of thousands of actors file through the gate every year and are whisked away in buses, and an empty plane takes off? Or they actually fly but the flight is mysteriously 15 hours late every day, despite all other information - flight radar, Johannesburg Airport website (http://www.johannesburg-airport.com/arrivals.html), etc - saying it arrives around 4:35pm local time? No-one at that end notices that the plane doesn't arrive or no passengers disembark?

I'm really struggling with this one.
Yeah, I'm struggling with the claim you make there are 312 such flights a year.

No way, no how, there are that many people interested in making a trip from South Africa to Australia in a year, let alone virtually every day.

No justification for the flight to even exist.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6535
    • View Profile
Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #30 on: March 08, 2019, 12:30:35 PM »
Lackey, do you actually have any evidence to back up your opinions.
Just denying or declaring fake everything which doesn't conform with your world view is not a sensible way to think or debate.
Oh, you fail to consider MH370 as evidence?
What do you think it's evidence of?
The most likely story is it crashed into the ocean and was never found. As the black box was never recovered it's impossible to be sure what occurred.
But the flight path it took indicates something went very wrong, whether deliberately (captain suicide, like that dude who calmly flew into a mountain, or hijacking)
I'm not clear what you think this is a smoking gun of and how it in any way refutes the fact that flights between, say, Santiago and Australian cities exist and are used by hundreds of people a week. You'd think if those flights were advertised and took twice as long as advertised you'd have heard about it.
MH370 was going from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, both in the northern hemisphere, so what do you think it shows?

I see you have now made another post baselessly claiming that the flights don't exist because there wouldn't be enough demand.
What is your basis for that claim?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

totallackey

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #31 on: March 08, 2019, 01:09:04 PM »
Lackey, do you actually have any evidence to back up your opinions.
Just denying or declaring fake everything which doesn't conform with your world view is not a sensible way to think or debate.
Oh, you fail to consider MH370 as evidence?
What do you think it's evidence of?
The most likely story is it crashed into the ocean and was never found. As the black box was never recovered it's impossible to be sure what occurred.
But the flight path it took indicates something went very wrong, whether deliberately (captain suicide, like that dude who calmly flew into a mountain, or hijacking)
I'm not clear what you think this is a smoking gun of and how it in any way refutes the fact that flights between, say, Santiago and Australian cities exist and are used by hundreds of people a week. You'd think if those flights were advertised and took twice as long as advertised you'd have heard about it.
MH370 was going from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, both in the northern hemisphere, so what do you think it shows?

I see you have now made another post baselessly claiming that the flights don't exist because there wouldn't be enough demand.
What is your basis for that claim?
As usual, you fail to understand that GPS and flight tracking for flights close to or in the so-called Southern Hemisphere do not exist. MH370 is pretty solid evidence for this reality.

Again, any joe blow can claim hundreds of people use these flights.

Fact is, they don't.

If they even do fly between Australia and South Africa, more than likely most of these non-stop flights are cancelled at the last minute and persons are diverted to one-stop or two-stop layovers.

Recent outlandish flight speeds have been posted for long distance flights, proving planes can also fly faster than advertised.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6535
    • View Profile
Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #32 on: March 08, 2019, 02:09:29 PM »
As usual, you fail to understand that GPS and flight tracking for flights close to or in the so-called Southern Hemisphere do not exist.
Yes they do. Just claiming they don't is meaningless. Are you asserting that GPS doesn't work in Australia?
Quote
MH370 is pretty solid evidence for this reality.
Well, it isn't, for several reasons.
1) It was a northern hemisphere flight
2) Most of the plane's route is known
3) The pilot turned the transponder off.

If I turn my GPS off that doesn't mean GPS doesn't work.

Quote
Again, any joe blow can claim hundreds of people use these flights.
Fact is, they don't.
That isn't a fact, it's an assertion, one that "any joe blow" can make and for which you have no basis for making.

Quote
If they even do fly between Australia and South Africa, more than likely most of these non-stop flights are cancelled at the last minute and persons are diverted to one-stop or two-stop layovers.

Where's your evidence for that?

Quote
Recent outlandish flight speeds have been posted for long distance flights, proving planes can also fly faster than advertised.

Examples?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #33 on: March 08, 2019, 10:13:36 PM »
Lackey, do you actually have any evidence to back up your opinions.
Just denying or declaring fake everything which doesn't conform with your world view is not a sensible way to think or debate.
Oh, you fail to consider MH370 as evidence?
What do you think it's evidence of?
The most likely story is it crashed into the ocean and was never found. As the black box was never recovered it's impossible to be sure what occurred.
But the flight path it took indicates something went very wrong, whether deliberately (captain suicide, like that dude who calmly flew into a mountain, or hijacking)
I'm not clear what you think this is a smoking gun of and how it in any way refutes the fact that flights between, say, Santiago and Australian cities exist and are used by hundreds of people a week. You'd think if those flights were advertised and took twice as long as advertised you'd have heard about it.
MH370 was going from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, both in the northern hemisphere, so what do you think it shows?

I see you have now made another post baselessly claiming that the flights don't exist because there wouldn't be enough demand.
What is your basis for that claim?
As usual, you fail to understand that GPS and flight tracking for flights close to or in the so-called Southern Hemisphere do not exist. MH370 is pretty solid evidence for this reality.

Again, any joe blow can claim hundreds of people use these flights.

Fact is, they don't.

If they even do fly between Australia and South Africa, more than likely most of these non-stop flights are cancelled at the last minute and persons are diverted to one-stop or two-stop layovers.

Recent outlandish flight speeds have been posted for long distance flights, proving planes can also fly faster than advertised.
flightradar24 shows flights across Australia.

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #34 on: March 09, 2019, 12:42:37 AM »
Yeah, I'm struggling with the claim you make there are 312 such flights a year.

No way, no how, there are that many people interested in making a trip from South Africa to Australia in a year, let alone virtually every day.

No justification for the flight to even exist.

Have you ever visited here (Australia)? How do you know how many people want to go to South Africa?

Do you realise that our national sporting teams (cricket and rugby in particular) play in South Africa all the time, and theirs here? There are reporters at both Sydney and Johannesburg airports that watch them leave and arrive. And I'm still not sure about how you think the airport gates work. There's a gate allocated at both airports 6 days a week for people boarding and arriving on QF63/64. Does this just sit empty and no-one notices? And you know that a lot of people use Flight Radar, Flight Aware, the airport's website, etc, to see when to arrive at the airport to pick people up? Do they just turn up at the airport and the passengers aren't there? And this happens 312 times a year and no-one notices? Because all of these sites have the flight landing around 13-15 hours after it left.

It's really, really bizarre that you think these flights don't exist and I'm not sure why you'd even think that.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2019, 12:57:40 AM by Balls Dingo »

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2019, 08:04:27 PM »
Everyone knows the stuff you post in support of this supposed long distance flight does not really exist.

This route is flown 312 times a year. In fact, people are boarding at gate 57 right now.

Could you please tell me how you think this works? Do they have an empty gate in a busy international airport for an hour every day and no-one notices, not even the private company (Sydney Airport Holdings) that owns the airport? Or maybe tens of thousands of actors file through the gate every year and are whisked away in buses, and an empty plane takes off? Or they actually fly but the flight is mysteriously 15 hours late every day, despite all other information - flight radar, Johannesburg Airport website (http://www.johannesburg-airport.com/arrivals.html), etc - saying it arrives around 4:35pm local time? No-one at that end notices that the plane doesn't arrive or no passengers disembark?

I'm really struggling with this one.
Yeah, I'm struggling with the claim you make there are 312 such flights a year.

No way, no how, there are that many people interested in making a trip from South Africa to Australia in a year, let alone virtually every day.

No justification for the flight to even exist.

For someone who constantly demands proof from others on what they say, you sure do make a truck load of assertions without any evidence or justification.

I met a large contingent of Australian florists in Nairobi 2 years back seeking to buy flowers from Kenyan farms. Flights from Nairobi to Sydney regularly go via Johannesburg. There's one justification for flights between J'burg and Sydney.

Like someone else mentioned here, Rugby is enjoyed by many in the Southern Hemisphere. The Super Rugby league has teams from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentuna taking part annually. Then there is tourism, education and what not.

I know you Northern Hemispherics seem to think nothing happens south of the equator. But down here be more than monsters strange things.

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2019, 12:48:25 AM »
I gotta call this out:

...The light goes in two directions around the ring, and it mixes with itself, and if the laser ring gyro is rotating, the light going past the mixer in one direction is going faster than the light going the other direction....


That's a bit of a misunderstanding, and I'm a pedant for definitions and measurements: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial (non-accelerating and non-rotating) frames, regardless of their apparent motion - the time for the light to go around the ring in one direction is measured as being out of synch with the time taken for it to go around in the other direction due the Sagnac effect, a counter intuitive effect encountered in rotating frames of reference (but not linearly accelerating ones). There is a passable description of that here: http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html . Wikipaedia does say that the speed of light is quicker in one direction, but that is a major oversimplification, and confusing as at the bottom of the next paragraph it says that a ring laser interferometers rely on the speed of light being invariant for their sensitivity. A ring laser gyroscope uses the Sagnac effect but does not directly measure it: The waves of the beams going around the inside of the RLG interfere with each other and cause a standing wave pattern which moves in response to the rotation induced Sagnac effect, and that translates into a beat pattern when the beams are interfered with each other outside the ring.

I suppose that if I'm calling that out then I need to call this out myself too:

Beat frequency is the number of beats per second. A beat frequency of 287.75 Hz is meaningless. Hz already means instances per second.



Measuring the change with time of something that is already measured with respect to time is entirely valid: Velocity is measured in meters per second, and acceleration is change in velocity per second. Beat is change in intensity, measured at a given point, when two waves are interacting. So it's a change in the amplitude of waves with time, which certainly isn't invalidated by frequencies being measured with respect to time any more than acceleration is invalidated because velocity is already measured with respect to time.

For reference: The ring laser gyroscopes used to measure the Earth's rotation do so directly and are bigger and more sensitive than those used on aeroplanes (I don't know that the ones in aeroplanes couldn't be used to measure the Earth's rotation, but they wouldn't do it nearly as well if they could be). They can also measure periodic variations in the Earth's rotation, down to the scale of meters. Researchers looking to measure Earth's rotation actually go to considerable lengths to screen out any kind of sisemic noise.

A couple of articles on the subject that are a bit more accessible than full papers:
"Large ring laser gyroscopes are attached to the Earth's crust so that a shift in that pattern (seen as an observed beat note in an actively lasing device) is directly proportional to the rotation rate of the Earth"

https://phys.org/news/2013-05-scaling-gyroscopes-earth-rotation.html
"To ensure that only the Earth's rotation influences the laser beams, the four-by-four-meter assembly is anchored in a solid concrete pillar, which extends six meters down into the solid rock of the Earth's crust."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2011-12-earth-rotation.html#jCp

...and a full paper for those looking for more technical details: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/723/1/012061/pdf

The rotation of the Earth doesn't need an RLG to measure it directly though, although RLG's are more sensitive. It can be measured to an acceptable accuracy using a ring interferometer (which also uses the Sagnac effect), which was first done in 1925 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment yes I do use wikipaedia, it oversimplifies sometimes but it's a good place to start on a subject)

I'm wondering why you're discussing the guts of RLG's here? The other experiment on the show was far simpler in design, and also showed evidence of curvature. I read the article on the main site which claims that the failiure can be explained by refraction in the atmosphere causing the light rays to curve (I will also point out that the article itself notes how inconsistant atmospsric refraction effects are,  wheras the 'sinking ship/sinking island effect is enourmously consistent,  so I' d be interested to hear someone explain the latter via the former). It also claims that the light only appears when held above the experimenters head the once out of ten tries. I think it fails to make clear that the laser was not seen through the hole in the board (which flat earth proponents predicted it would be) at all, and gives no evidence that there was any unusual refractive effect happening, beyond the laser not being seen when the experimenters wanted it to. I would have thought that was a much more accessible avenue for discussion - is it ongoing elsewhere on the forum? I couldn't see it.

On a different note: I have friends who live in Australia (and Brazil even) and use GPS. I also used to work as a service engineer for acompany that made scientific instruments, and although I was based in Europe I had co workers that flew point to point in the southern hemisphere serveral times a year. It's also worth pointing out that when you're travelling around the South Atlantic, Pacific/Pacific rim, or Australasian regions even a flight plan that does include stops is made of legs that are themselves point to point flights across large distances - and they take exactly the length of time predicted by the shape of the Earth being a globe. Literally millions of people have done this over the years, it's a routine experiance. Happy to look for other evidence on that if you think all my co-workers were lying to me!

Anyway -  a long post I know but this is my first and will only get the chance to come here every couple of days. Hello everyone!
« Last Edit: March 11, 2019, 02:19:23 AM by Matthew7 »

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2019, 12:49:39 AM »
Flights from Nairobi to Sydney regularly go via Johannesburg. There's one justification for flights between J'burg and Sydney.

It's the same with the flights from Australia to South America. They used to go via Buenos Aries until 2012-13. Now they go to Santiago because that airport has better connections to the rest of South America. So those flights to Johannesburg and Santiago are really servicing the whole southern part of Africa and most of the populous countries in South America for Australians, and vice versa for people from those places wanting to come here. It's not really an excessive amount of flights when considered like that.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2019, 04:55:18 AM »
I know you Northern Hemispherics seem to think nothing happens south of the equator. But down here be more than monsters strange things.
There's people over there?

Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2019, 05:33:54 AM »
That's a bit of a misunderstanding, and I'm a pedant for definitions and measurements: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial (non-accelerating and non-rotating) frames, regardless of their apparent motion - the time for the light to go around the ring in one direction is measured as being out of synch with the time taken for it to go around in the other direction due the Sagnac effect, a counter intuitive effect encountered in rotating frames of reference (but not linearly accelerating ones).

You are following the lines of thought expounded long ago by Paul Langevin, who was proven wrong by the experiments carried out by Dufour and Prunier (in France, 1937) and by Herbert Ives in 1938.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1978311#msg1978311 (Dufour-Prunier experiment)

A. Dufour and F. Prunier created Sagnac interferometers that were composites of moving and stationary paths, including stationary sources and stationary detectors. This was essentially to test if the relativistic approach could be distinguished from the classical approach.

"In all cases of this experimental test, the Sagnac effect was the same. This overturned Langevin’s analysis, and in 1937, he had to revise his explanation, as pointed out by Kelly: 

“In his final essay on the subject in 1937, Langevin proposed that the results published that year by Dufour and Prunier showed that one had to assume either (a) the light speed varied to c + wr in one direction and c – wr in the other direction, or (b) the time aboard the spinning apparatus had to change by a factor of +/-2wA/c2 in either direction. Indeed, Langevin went as far as to say that assuming (a), “we find, by a very simple and very general reasoning, the formula for the difference of the times of the path of the two light beams in the Sagnac experiment.” .

The proposition (b) though is untenable because if this were true then when the light beam passed back to the moving detector, the local time from each direction would be out of synchronization, meaning that the clocks cannot be counting real time and that the effective time dilation is meaningless. This was also pointed out by Herbert Ives in his 1938 paper criticizing Langevin. Ives says about the absurdity of Langevin’s proposition (b):

” There are of course not merely two clocks, but an infinity of clocks, where we include those that could be transported at finite speeds, and around other paths. As emphasized previously, the idea of “local time” is untenable, what we have are clock readings. Any number of clock readings at the same place are physically possible, depending on the behaviour and history of the  clocks used. More than one “time” at one place is a physical absurdity. “

The only explanation left, is Langevin’s proposition a) that the light speed varies by C+/-wr in one or the other direction around the disk, consistent with Dufour and Prunier’s experimental results."

(but not linearly accelerating ones)




https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf (second experiment carried out by R. Wang)

The experiment was repeated with 24 different
arrangements of conveyor speeds, fiber lengths, and the
three different FOC configurations shown in Fig.1.
The conveyor speeds were between 3 and 9 cm/s. The
loops had perimeters of 2.5, 4.0, 8.0, and 16.0 m; in
each case there were three turns of the fiber wound on
the loop.

As shown in Fig. 3, the phase shift or the traveltime
difference between two counter-propagating light
beams in the moving optic fiber was clearly observed
in all different configurations of FOCs. The phase shift
Δφ, and therefore, the travel-time difference Δt are
proportional to both the total length and the speed of
the moving fiber whether the motion is circular or
uniform. Other tests using smaller end wheels for the
FOC and fiber loops with additional curves also
confirmed the same finding.

Professor Wang's seminal paper did prove that the Sagnac applied to linear motion.