Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jack44556677

Pages: < Back  1 ... 10 11 [12]
Flat Earth Media / Re: How High Do You Have To Be To See The Curvature?
« on: September 27, 2020, 11:23:12 AM »
So are all the high altitude photos showing curvature fake or distorted?

Yes.  They are all distorted, though "faked" is most often/likely not accurate.  There is no perfect lens, and no lens designed and calibrated to do what we are trying to.

If that is true why can we see things beyond the horizon but not all of them?

Because of diff/refraction, reflection, absorption/emission, and the omnipresent attenuation of light.  The farthest you can see, even aided, horizontally while standing anywhere on earth is around 200 miles.  Light doesn't travel forever.

Why do things sink below the horizon as they get further away.

They don't.  If you are careful with your observations you can observe that the receding object shrinks with the expected perspective, but the height of the ship never changes/lowers.  The illusion of the disappearance starts from the bottom up, and it has to do with the densest air interacting with the light nearest to the water and angular resolution.  The light from the bottom of the boat is the first that is unable to reach the distant observer (or be resolved) anymore.

f it’s the limit of our vision shouldn’t they just vanish?

There are more optical effects taking place.  They should "fade"/"haze" out, which they do - and the known density gradient means the fading out should happen by the bottom first typically.  Also the density gradient bends the light, so the light from the bottom of the boat is being diverted into the water. Reflection is possible, causing superior mirages occasionally, but that light is thrown over the observer at the shore.  This is all slightly tricky, so please let me know if I can clarify anything for you.

And why does horizon distance increase with height?

Because of the typical air density gradient (you are looking through a less dense/less interacting media), and the angular resolution limits of the eye caused by the receptor density, lens shape, and processing limitations of the eye/camera.  If there were 100 clones lined up perfectly in front of you (and cannot move but up and down), you might see only the first until you are lifted up higher. We can't see through/behind stuff is roughly the simple answer.

Good questions, though I have to assume you were merely interested in my perspective on it - as these are 101 flat earth questions and you don't seem to be new!

Are conspiracy theorists free thinkers who seek the truth?

They can be.  What's a conspiracy theorist?  There is no rigorous or universal definition, and even if there were - it certainly shouldn't include beliefs about being "free thinkers" or "seeking truth".  In my usage, a conspiracy theorist is anyone who theorizes conspiracies.  Any criteria beyond that is nonsense/liable/slander/prejudice/opinion.  As conspiracies are everywhere (look up the word conspiracy) constantly throughout all time, it would seem reasonable to seek them out. The police partially exist to serve this function - all detectives are conspiracy theorists.  Does the name epstein ring any bells?

Is labeling someone a “conspiracy theorist” a strategy for exclusion to avoid legitimate debate and facts?

Yes, it was a tactic championed by the CIA from their inception.  It was not the first reference to the terminology, nor its first use for discrediting/slander, however it was the first wide scale procedural use of it with frequency.  Of course, it isn't always used with that conscious intent by individuals that bandy it about.

I am doing ethnographic research for a college study that seeks to answer the question “What causes someone to be a conspiracy theorists?”

Easy, it'll be a short paper.  They seek to find the conspiracies that are obviously present and seeking to remain hidden.

I suspect you really mean something closer to : what causes someone to become a trope of a conspiracy theorist.  And if that is the case, you should already be well aware of the profound stigma most often associated with the term and its continuing efficacy for discrediting/slandering and suppressing.

Keep in mind that these studies were all performed by impartial social scientists and psychologists that are not conspiracy theorists.

No human beings are impartial or unbiased despite best efforts, and all scientists are human beings.  Also, you almost certainly have conspiracy theorists in your midst.  Again, by my usage/definition, you are a conspiracy theorist if you know about the price fixing in the american internet (cable) industry.  You are a conspiracy theorist if you know that trump did not get into office without the russian's help.  You are a conspiracy theorist if you think that covid could have been made in a bioweapons lab.  You are a conspiracy theorist by default if you think most anything that deviates from "societally acceptable"/"mainstream" views that media mandates.

Welcome to reality. If you are paying attention, you are already a "conspiracy theorist".  Sadly many people live their whole lives without paying adequate attention.

Good luck! Let me know if you need any clarification or would like to disagree with my assertion that not only do you have conspiracy theorists on your team, you are likely one yourself if you have been studying and paying attention.

Flat Earth Media / Re: How High Do You Have To Be To See The Curvature?
« on: September 27, 2020, 04:01:22 AM »
Thork beat me to it.

You have to be REALLY, REALLY high.  Like never coming down, never gonna be the same, kind of high.  LSD is the "space age" drug of choice, and one of the only ones strong enough to induce the kind of hallucination you are after.

There is no curvature of the horizon at any attainable height.  This has been confirmed to the nth degree, and you are welcome to confirm it for yourself for around $100 if you want.

The horizon is an optical illusion, the "edge" of nothing but our vision, and we were all egregiously mistaught about it.

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Experiment with Braided Line
« on: September 27, 2020, 03:51:47 AM »
It's been done. You are welcome to do it again!  Please take video / meticulous documentation!

Use a frozen lake, and measure the rope factoring in any elasticity if you keep the line taut.

Of course there are many other ways to skin this cat and, using buoyancy, the weight of the line "sagging" can be eliminated.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Are Flat Earther's Afraid of Aliens?
« on: September 27, 2020, 12:17:28 AM »
It seems a flat Earth is conveniently positioned to protect one from the possibility of alien existence.

No, that's incredulity, science/knowledge, and an evidence based approach to understanding reality that assures that.  There are no aliens except in fiction.  Only children are afraid of fantasy...

You have suggested global and government conspiracy, in the preservation of the globe Earth

Some do, but not here (at least according to the wiki). There are conspiracies about, but they aren't that large and there isn't any good evidence that they involve the preservation of the globe earth.

Also, how come no one is discussing the hollow Earth?

Start a thread! Do you know about st martins land?

There are three forms of "aliens" to address (sub-terrestrial, extra-terrestrial, and extra dimensional), yet not one of them is given any real consideration. Why is that?

The first reason is because there are no aliens; not one kind, not three, not any.  The second reason is semantical and for some, deduced.  Aliens must come and originate from somewhere beyond the earth. As there is nowhere beyond the earth in many flat earth conceptions - it is deduced that aliens cannot exist in any way.  In the case that the conception includes "outer space" or "other dimensions" or any other evidence-less fiction - even in that case sub-terrestrial lifeforms are essentially certain to be terrestrial in origin.  This is the case for literally any life-form we encounter - wether they claim to be sub-terrainian, extra-terrestrial, or extra dimensional.

The mind of a true intellect should give consideration to all possibilities..

Perhaps, but the mind of true wisdom can recognize when consideration is best brief.  There is finite time :( Ars longa, vita brevis.

I have considered cryptids, giants, Nephilim, every manner of god, simulation theory, mother-ship theory (which is the best case for a flat Earth... and not a bad one for a hollow Earth either).

There is only one way to determine the shape of the world, and it does not involve the consideration of ANY of the above.  Stay away from simulation "theory", there is no more vapid and philosophically bankrupt waste of time in existence.

So what really drives you?

The pursuit of truth and the general posit that sharing and collaboration are infinitely superior to "competition" and slavery.

what are you all afraid of?

Repeating the same mistakes as our parents, and theirs.  I sure ain't afraid a no ghost!

I am an independent ufologist (I have many other hats), so I'll go ahead and answer these. Please AMA - i am a veritable font. 

Let me preface by saying that aliens only exist in fiction, and that they (little green men and the public association therewith) have been used by the MIC quite effectively over the past 70+ years to slander and discredit actual ufologists and researchers of many other subjects as well.  There are no aliens. There ARE ufo's (flying saucers and related craft - flying clandestine surveillance craft that do not utilize bernoulli's principle) and they are built by the only creature in the universe that builds flying machines.

@Toddler Thork

What kind of a conspiracy website is this?

One that is actually on to something for a change!

of the US using the Covid distraction

No, the footage was released (leaked, supposedly) decades ago and rereleased (semi-officially) well prior to covid (years).

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what these things might be if not aliens?

Ufo's, and by that I mean flying saucers and related flying craft, are clandestine surveillance craft likely developed/certainly mass-produced first in the late 40's.  Today they are also used to run guns and drugs.

Does anyone care that aliens seem to be visiting at will?

Yes, people steeped in propaganda and fiction who can no longer discern reality from fiction.  Propaganda of the "space age".  Bong rips and bad tv take their toll.  The CIA is undoubtedly quite proud of themselves.

Have we all just accepted aliens a long time ago and this is just run of the mill alien business?

Many have, yes.  Twist most any secular "scientist"'s arm (a few beers won't hurt) and they'll admit it one way or another.  Even if they try to hide the indefensible stupidity of it through vernacular like "panspermia".

@ Rama Set

If this isn’t an alien craft then someone on Earth has technology order of magnitudes more sophisticated than what we have seen so far.

Correct.  It's very much about wwii and compartmentalization.  Follow the money! The MIC does not share.


Spot on. Good to see I'm not the only one around here!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is the Sun?
« on: September 25, 2020, 09:37:09 PM »
We have plenty of evidence for both of these.

Can you believe I was taught the same thing? I was taught LOTS of nonsense...

For the distance, first you bounce a radar pulse off of Venus, timing it's return value gives you the distance.

Yep, that's the story!  And as long as all the other completely unvalidated asumptions (like the radar return is coming from venus and the astronomical conceptions are correct) are accepted as "inerrent truth" then you can swallow crap like this.

We can determine what it's made of using spectrometry

Yeah, that tells us something about the light that reaches us.  It isn't meaningless, it just isn't direct observation of the sun - nor does it tell us what it is composed of or suggest its function.  We can only finerprint identify in this manner with known (terrestrial) patterns - it is highly interpretive, inferential at best, and not at all "proof" of the psuedoscience mythology we are taught as fact from a shamefully tender age.

Model is a tricky word, like so many others in english.  It has too many definitions and in the context of discussions about science (such as what shape the world is, for example) model has only one definition.

This is why the equivocation fallacy is committed essentially by default when anyone starts talking about colloquial "models" (which have no relevance to the discussion) as opposed to scientific ones which MIGHT (this itself is a completely unvalidated assumption) be relevant to the discussion.

The only flat earth models that exist that I am aware of are models in the sense of model car/airplane.  They are toys / art, and conceptual aids at absolute best.  There is no replacement being offered for the defunct presumptive model that is being torn down/criticized for being inconsistent with reality and science.  The replacement model should be expected to take at least a century, but historically speaking it will take millennia and it will never be complete or correct. See goedel's proof for more info.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is the Sun?
« on: September 25, 2020, 12:53:58 PM »
Bare with me here: it doesn't matter.  Where the sun is or isn't has no bearing on the shape of the earth.

With that out of the way, much like the seemingly innocuous "what is the true shape of the earth?", your question is not easy to answer, regardless of "model" you are evaluating, here's an example of what I mean :

No one knows how far away the sun is, where it is, or even what it is (who is talking/sharing anyhow)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« on: September 25, 2020, 12:32:35 PM »
Fossils are mostly fiction.  This is important to understand. The natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum - no science takes place there nor are fossils good evidence of anything beyond swift cataclysm.

The process of interpreting a dead animal from a few bone fragments (we virtually never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal) is art - not science.

The climate of antarctica has clearly changed over time, it's location - most likely not. That's stupid and we have no evidence to support it beyond pointing at volcanic activity underwater and saying SEE?! Or worse, look at this unvalidatable satellite data that says the continents are drifting apart, and the moon too (why the hell not right?).

Climate change is real, and recorded in human history. They skated on the themes in the 15-16's - this is NOT evidence that england is brigadoon and floats around. Holy hell the stupid things we are taught as "fact", as children no less...

In any case, none of this is relevant to the shape of the earth.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology on a flat earth
« on: September 25, 2020, 12:22:17 PM »
I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said - good thread!

"The fact we can see pole reversals in the changing direction of magnetic minerals in the Earth alternating, outward of constructive plate boundaries."

This is complete, and utter fiction.  Much like tectonics, geodynamo, pangea, ice bridge, etc - just more of mankind's profound stupidity.  "Look, the continents are all pieces of a puzzle floating in a bathtub! I'm a scientist!".  Learning about the origins of these "theories" is invaluable.  The history of science is woefully taught, and it is very useful to determine the actual science from the pseudoscience mythology masquerading as it.  Also learning the definition of science, and the scientific method - not the definitions we most all learned initially, which were largely incorrect.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a flat Earth Jean Meeus?
« on: September 25, 2020, 11:54:17 AM »
If the earth is flat, then the flat earth jean meeus, is jean meeus.

This may be hard for you, but it is critical to learn - all models are wrong, some are limitedly useful for a time.

The conceptual assumptions built into the models are irrelevant and have no bearing on manifest objective reality.  Reality does not care how we think it is composed or how it works etc.  A model is always wrong, and yet useful in some cases.  Models are for use, NOT understanding.  it is a popular misconception that models are a part of science, they are tangential / meta tools / scientific medleys which are in no way part of the scientific method.  It's analogous to calling a metrologist a physicist.  They aggregate and study physics, but they are librarians.  "Modelers" are much the same.

If the model is useful, use it! Trying to divine external objective reality from model (without experimental validation) is profoundly stupid, and goedel has a few things to say about it as well.

While I'm on the subject of profoundly stupid things, looking up to determine the shape of the thing in the opposite direction is unscientific and powerful dumb.  There is only one way to determine the shape of physical objects with certainty, and like most things in life - astronomy is in NO way involved.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???
« on: September 25, 2020, 11:30:36 AM »
Tom and the lads nailed it in the faq/wiki, you should really give it a read.

Also thinking that brothel pimping "slick willy" car salesman on his way to pedophile island was the most powerful person in the world is profoundly naive. Modern american presidents are profoundly poor compared to the owners, whom they can see some of - having reached closer proximity to the glass ceiling.  That's why the clinton foundation commits so many crimes, and obama does so many advertisements/tv spots - they need money.  If you think that is power, that makes me sad.

Also, I feel compelled to clarify - belief of any kind is completely unwelcome in knowledge/fact, especially scientific.  If you BELIEVE the earth is any particular shape then you have faith, not knowledge/science. 

I'm sure this has been asked and answered ad-nauseam by now - did you not find an answer when you searched for relevant threads before posting this?

In any case, the answer is simple.  Put a picture of the moon on the middle of your ceiling (add constellations if you wish).  Now walk from the "southern hemisphere" to the northern hemisphere on the opposite side of the room.  What do you observe?

If you continue to have trouble understanding beyond that, I encourage you to visit grand central station (sadly I must recommend virtually, rather than literally) and observe the model of the earth and sky that the main hall represents.

I think Tom nailed it in his answers to you, and I think because you clearly misunderstood, it would be well worth it to read them again if you are earnestly trying to understand.  Because of your training, this process OUGHT to be difficult for you and coupled with the (mostly unnecessary) contentiousness of the subject... Suffice it to say that effective communication is NOT facilitated.

Here is an example :
Hi Tom, you did indeed suggest that people weren't making any observations to support theories of geologic processes

"None or few of those processes have been directly verified with direct experimentation. They are theorized to occur based on indirect or observational evidence." [-Tom]

Far be it for me to speak for any other, however I think what Tom said was crystal clear.

Tom did not suggest that theories of geology were unsupported by observational evidence.  Rather he said that they are, more or less, ONLY supported by observation and this is what MAKES them unscientific/pseudoscience.  In the words of planck : the only means of knowledge at our disposal is experiment, all else is poetry and imagination. The process of looking (observing) then concocting fiction (hypothesis/theory) to explain it is called mythology.

As you have asked interesting questions, and appear earnest - I will try to answer them to the best of my knowledge.  Hopefully they will be of some use.  I should clarify that I have many differing ideas than Tom on the subject (though vastly the same), one of which is that there is no FET.  The "shortcomings" you have identified are short of the primary one - there is no flat earth theory to refine (in a scientific context).

1. Not to my knowledge, no.  There are no flat earth conceptions I am aware of that depend on uniformitarian processes over any timescale to appear in any way possible.  Some conclude that the world was created, once they have unburdened themselves with the mythology that suggests otherwise.  Preposterous timescale is only necessary when convincing people of preposterous fiction. Exactly analogous to selling fairy tales to children - "long ago and far away" - an incantation to encourage the suspension of disbelief.

2. Generally, they are not.  Once we cast away much of the pseudoscience mythology masquerading as science, we are often not left with a forthcoming replacement - we are left with curiosity, mystery, and wonder (once more). Roughly, the need for MORE SCIENCE!!! Most all of "earth science" is complete garbage, particularly the geodynamo.  Fiction supported by cartoon and indoctrination from a shamefully tender age.  The deepest we have ever explored is less than 8 miles. We have no idea what is down there, and we never did.  It was a very proud lie to present otherwise to children, no less.  Oh the hubris of it...

3. I find correlation between dendritics, ice cores, and the like very interesting!  However, much like the shape of the world, interpretation of the available data to come to a "favorable conclusion" requires many unvalidated assumptions. For just one example - Our dating methods are complete garbage,  Try it out! Send samples of known age to the radiometric labs and tell them you think they are from wildly different epochs... just see what happens ;). Archeology has always proven that the best dating methods are cultural (pottery mostly), all the rest is bunk.

4.  This question is "veiled". You aren't really asking about Antarctica (which is the focal point of many myths believed about the "flat earth"), you are asking about gravity.  There is no gravity, that's why we can't find it, measure it, or manipulate it. It's not real!!! What a burden lifted - right? (for the physicists anyhow).  Weight is an intrinsic property of all matter, it is not imbued by a fictional "field" that defies all explanation, description, understanding, and manipulation. Matter's tendency to fall or rise is due chiefly to weight and the weight of the surrounding media displaced.  Newton isn't who we were taught he was, and even he knew that gravitation was so stupid and unscientific that he asked that his name NOT be associated with it. We sure showed him!

4a. I think many dome supporters would say, it isn't being replaced (the ice I mean).  Others dome supporters may suggest that there is an ocean surrounding us on the other side of the dome, and the dome has holes/vaults/windows in it - potentially supplying more water (and flooding the whole world that time...). In any case, the factual/scientific answer is - no certain answer, just many disparate speculations currently.  The idea that the ice wall is Antarctica and encircles the known world is itself a speculation with very little data to support it (unlike the shape of water's surface, and hence much of the known world  - which is trivially demonstrated)

4b. The dome is supported by historical sources as well as deduction from scientific law.  If the world is enclosed in this manner, which it must be for the constant air pressure we require, then much of the questions you posed become nonsensical.  However, as the dome is rumored to have openings, perhaps flow in and out is occurring.

4c. My understanding is that all of that is true.  However, how do you confirm/discern where the south pole actually is as opposed to where it is BELIEVED to be (and we build a research station). The token "pole" is decidedly not the south pole, and purely for tourists (many of which fancy themselves researchers, apparently).  There is no magnetic confirmation of any pole to my knowledge that has ever been completed - and this is MIGHTY odd. There is satellite data, but this is untrustworthy for a variety of reasons.

4d&e.  Unless I have misunderstood you, these questions are the same question and have the same answer. Water flows downhill.  This includes the precipitation at the edge of the world derived from the air and possibly the "great ocean" beyond. The continuous slope of water towards the sea is no doubt also ensured by the giant heater it melts towards.  The encircling mountains are said to be impassible, and the west and east ice sheets both face the same direction towards the north pole (IF and I mean IF antarctica is an ice shelf surrounding the world, which again is merely speculation) The 24 hour sun in the antarctic is also a point of contention amongst many flat earth researchers, in case you were not aware.  It is surprising that there does not appear to be any independent or unedited/unmanipulated footage of the phenomenon like we have for the arctic - even with all those ski buddies you mentioned taking trips to the south pole proper!

Let me know if you have more questions / need clarification.  This subject is wild, and the truth is stranger than fiction because fiction is obliged/limited to possibility.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Behind the Curve
« on: March 03, 2019, 10:36:13 AM »
I think the point is that they were not exactly out to document the community and try to find the best representatives to explain or defend it critically.  To do so would be political and career suicide, not to mention only "entertaining" to a select few, which is why none of us should expect any such main-stream source to provide one.  Like the socialist's feel of Bernie running for president, it sucks he's not really socialist... but at least he's raising the brand!  I feel the same way about this "documentary". They could have done much better, but it raises the brand.

They found what they found, they documented what they documented. No one learned anything, everyone went home thinking "those lonely deluded idiots, how sad" and went back to their daily grind. To the average viewer, the existing prejudice that flat earth supporters are stupid ("Behind the curve") and suffering from psychological malady will be further solidified.

I did really like the fact that it encouraged, in several scenes, the "learned" to reach out and engage with flat-earther's as opposed to immediately ostracize and deride them.  This stands in harsh juxtaposition to the only clips of experimentation and/or critical evaluation of flat earth being used to demonstrate to the audience that the flat earther's are incompetent, misguided, and deluded.

What do you guys think about the laser gyroscope? I had misremembered something and thought it was all garbage/hoax especially because the scene is SO HOKEY, but it turns out Michelson-Morley did end up detecting the rotation of the earth, just not it's motion in any direction through space/ether.

Anyway, do you guys think the laser gyroscope (or any gryoscope, pendulum) proves that the earth is rotating around a center point?  Is this really a problem for the flat earth concept? Especially since one could argue that the laser gyroscope (interferometer) also proves that the earth is not moving through space which would be a major monkey wrench for the heliocentric model and a hell of a lot more.

Announcements / Re: On "Behind The Curve"
« on: March 03, 2019, 09:22:40 AM »
we may only comment that it is a non-compelling argument to consult with psychologists rather than to seek the consultation of scientists and experimenters...demonstrating truth on empirical grounds

Arg! It is even more infuriating than that.  They DID have some legitimate scientists and experimenters, but then had them talk about how flat-earth made them "feel" and what they thought it meant for the human race ( like calling an expert witness and only asking them about their weekend ).  They only showed or talked about flat earth in terms of specific facts/arguments and experimentation for the purpose of derision.  However, this may just by CYA though ("cover your ass") because it is in no way a career boost to have pro flat-earth projects associated with you.

The one thing positive to say about it was that it encouraged "learned" people to reach out to flat-earther's and engage rather than the existing default of mandated social banishment and derision. Of course it does so while deriding those very people with the central thesis and title ("Behind the curve").  One of the psychologists, whose greater message I really agreed with, even went so far as to say that the people that believe in the flat-earth are "lost" and need to be "saved" to become useful to society again.

It was driving me nuts when the laser gyroscope scene came up.  It was completely disingenuous and based on my remembering of Michelson-Morley, a complete hoax/fraud!  I was taught in high school that in an "inertial frame" there was no experiment that one could do to prove that they were in motion (either in relation to the axis of the earth, or to the sun, or the galaxy etc.) and that Michelson-Morley had confirmed this yet again by attempting to re-orient the apparatus and finding no variance (which was very unexpected).  I did some more research and found that shortly afterwards, they did more tests with a ring interferometer setup and DID detect the rotation of the earth that they expected to find, just no motion through space (the (a)ether) in any direction regardless of orientation of the apparatus which they also expected to find. I had to ask the question over at straight-dope (highly recommended) Behind The Curve - The Straight Dope

In my mind there is a mutually-exclusive thing going on here.  Either you decide that light has yet another special exception property (doesn't it have enough already?!) or you rationally/logically accept that in the direction of motion, if you recede the target away from the light at some velocity, the light WILL effectively be moving slower from the perspective of the receding target by that same velocity factor.  It DOES allow for the detection of universal motion, which may bum you out if you are a relativist, but it's not so bad!  On the negative side for the Flat-Earth position, it means the world is rotating (just juggle it, it doesn't seem that hard). And on the up-side, it proves/strongly suggests that we are not moving in space in any direction (not up, not down, not side to side... no motion except rotation).

I read your Laser Gyroscope page, and I don't think you're going to win this one.  I like it, "It's all vibration!".  I highly doubt that would explain Foucault's pendulum, which is what this is ALL about.  If Foucault's pendulum works, then so does the MEMS Gyroscope and the Gyrocompass, and for the same reason.  I would be intrigued by an interpretation of the mems gyroscope that does not involve the rotation of the world, but I think Occam's razor could have this one....  I just tried a thought experiment, though I'm not sure I was successful...  If the MEMS gyroscope works by having one edge bend towards the earth and the other edge raise towards the north pole (or south pole, I suppose) wouldn't it fail to register the speed of rotation of the earth at the poles? (because the force would be equally apportioned across all 4 springs and balance out, and there would be no bend/dip)

Anyhow, I find it HIGHLY unlikely (for the conceptual reasons listed above) ... But if the Laser Gyroscope was actually being affected by seismic disturbance then inducing vibration or insulating from it should adjust the "noise" that you propose it is (I have little doubt it will affect it, but I bet it won't affect it much).  Hang it from fishing line inside a container you then evacuate all the air out of. Hang it from helium balloons.  This is the kind of science that can be knocked out in a day.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 10 11 [12]