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 - somerled

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: September 14, 2019, 03:43:23 PM »
There is a straight forward way , in principle , of deducing the shape of earth based on the proven method of trigonometric survey , triangulation . No assumptions are required - it is based on the observation that the only motionless object in the sky is the pole star , Polaris .

There is no assumption of a rotating or stationary earth in this test .

Survey northward a meridian of longitude from around 40 degrees north . Take regular readings of latitude noting the surveyed distance during the northward progression .

If the earth is a perfect sphere then if degrees of latitude will be equally spaced if the pole star is of sufficient distance that its light rays are parallel ( globe model ) .

If earth is an oblate sphere , Newtonian model , then degrees of latitude will lengthen to the North and again this suggests a distant pole star.

If earth is flat then degrees of latitude will shorten to the North and the pole star must be close since it is at true north where ever we view it from in the North.

It is limited by atmospheric conditions in how far you can survey and still see the pole star but will produce results which will enable a test of the shape of the land up to the point where we lose sight of this star.

This removes the problem of triangulation involving moving objects - the pole star is always stationary and rotation of earth , or not , is of no consequence .

2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: September 12, 2019, 10:06:16 AM »
Olber's paradox I believe they call it - the dark sky thingy .

Once took a 4hr return flight from Turkey to UK at 12.30 am back in the day when I knew the earth was a globe .

Beautiful clear starlit skies at takeoff . All disappeared at altitude in a clear sky . Saw two objects that may have been planets. Nothing but dark skies . Never  been shown a glimpse of a star from a space craft .

Flat earth is a theory based on measurement and observation - see Lackeys post.

Globe earth is not reality - it is globe earth theory  . The stars have to be at silly distance to support the theory . This globe earth theory was not based on any new knowledge - did not explain anything that was not already explained .

At some point science has to verify it's claim that earth is a globe. If it doesn't then all you have is heap upon heap of math models which don't conform to reality .
 
I'd say that's what we have now .

We know nothing about the stars - we have theory only .

I have two scopes of my own and access to three more . I think now that these are just microscopes use to observe the nearby vault of the sky . The stars are in the same place now as they were 50 yrs ago .

I understand your viewpoint - it's been hammered into everyone - but please don't confuse theory with reality .


 

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: September 12, 2019, 06:22:29 AM »
I am aware of all the theory and I notice that you ignore the point about the inverse square law and reflective properties of a sphere ( which scatters light ) . You can add the albedo into your calculations if you want . How much light do these planets reflect ?

The planets are luminaries .

Are you aware of the effect the conjunctions you mention have on pendulums ? Oppositions too . Happens for all bodies of what you call the solar system at syzygy . They are all close to earth - beneath the dome imo .

You should read about syzygy effects . The conclusion of those scientists involved is that the current cosmology/gravity based model the universe is wrong .


4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: September 11, 2019, 12:33:54 PM »
There won't be a delay in the signal - any signal before the expected delay is ignored/filtered out . That's how confirmation bias works . It's present in all these type of confirmation proofs .

Venus is at it's brightest when at it's slimmest phase  - magic atmosphere . How far is it - it is thousands of miles away or we would not see it .

Saturn is (top o me head) 9AU from the sun .  Earth at 1AU receives about 1370W/m insolation . Use the inverse square law and see how much Saturn receives .
 Use optic reflection laws to see how little sunlight is reflected then apply the inverse square law to see how much of that remains after travelling 8AU back to earth  - where we can see Saturn visible with the naked eye. Saturn does not even twinkle lol.

All mainstream astronomical observations based on the globe model are a fiction.

My Qualifications (whatever they are ) - bonafide member of the free thinking human race and life long student of most aspects of this wonderful world we live in .

Specialize to much and you disappear up your own arris - another method of mind control .

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: September 11, 2019, 10:55:05 AM »
How does a radar signal from a rotating object moving through space at 66,000mph travel billions of miles to another rotating moving object ? - which then is supposed to reflect this incredibly weak signal back to the origin which is nowhere near where it was and the signal , which all the while , obeying the inverse square law and optical laws of reflection from a sphere must be next to nothing in strength .  Incredible.

The way it was done is documented here

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962AJ.....67..181P/0000181.000.html

Your argument is basically an argument from incredulity, which isn't an argument at all. You not understanding something doesn't mean it's not possible.

The assumption that Venus has a magic atmosphere with special reflective properties surfaces in the introduction along with the supposed fact that optical measurements have already provided accurate distances to the planets - all based on the assumption of a globe .

Second page we have the " expected round trip echo delay which varied between 283 - 449 " . That's conformation bias .

Third page we have " individual returning echo pulses were much weaker than the overall system noise , they could not be seen " .

Seen these type of "proofs" before - all based on circular arguments . It's looking for what you expect rather than what you actually find . I suppose the background noise will be filtered out around the expected delay time and the frequencies you seek will appear , that's the usual procedure .

It's picking up reflected signals from the ionosphere , or dome imo.

Work out from the given signal strength of signal how much will return .




6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: September 11, 2019, 09:36:45 AM »
How does a radar signal from a rotating object moving through space at 66,000mph travel billions of miles to another rotating moving object ? - which then is supposed to reflect this incredibly weak signal back to the origin which is nowhere near where it was and the signal , which all the while , obeying the inverse square law and optical laws of reflection from a sphere must be next to nothing in strength .  Incredible .

Metajunk assumes whichever latitudes are used by whichever model and applies these triangulations , from and to moving objects to a perfect sphere . Then he assumes flat earth is just the globe model placed onto a flat map keeping the same long/lat coordinates.
It's pseudo science.

Maybe you could radar range the planets and the sun , especially if they are only a few thousand miles away .

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: September 09, 2019, 04:32:51 PM »
Globe earth model is based on the assumption that earth is a sphere . Metajunks experiment uses the perfect sphere/parallel light ray model that also uses the assumptions that the position of the equator is equi-distant  to the poles and that latitudes are equidistant from the equator. This fits his agenda .
           However the current fashionable model is either pear shaped or oblate spheroid , neither fits his video representation . I could carry on picking  this "experimental proof " apart but no need to carry on.
            Interesting bit of info about Zhoubi Suanjing though - thanks for that wiki link AATW
           
         

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: September 09, 2019, 10:33:53 AM »
How was the Sun's distance measured with any degree of accuracy ? As far as I'm aware it was originally deduced from measurements taken six months apart and referencing eclipses of the moons of Jupiter . Triangulation of moving objects from other moving objects seems like pseudo-science to me .

     

9
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: September 08, 2019, 02:49:37 PM »
They reportedly tested all principles apart from the important principle of the return launch from the moon - I can see you admitting this now .

    It is not my argument that they just went there and hoped it would all work out - in this case that is is an unarguable fact since nasa admit they did not carry out this test , even with an unmanned simple rocket type vehicle . 
 
A test of a docking manoeuvre is a test of docking manoeuvre ,not a test of lunar launch. At no stage was this extremely important procedure ever tested .

My view is that there was no need because the landing would never happen .



10
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: September 08, 2019, 10:37:13 AM »
It was incredibly easy to get men to the moon and even easier to bring them back . Did nasa ever do a trial run - launching a rocket from the moon to rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft ?

Yes. Trial runs got progressively nearer to the actual Apollo 11 experience in Apollo 1 through 10, the last of which descended to within a few miles of the surface, then returned to dock with the CM. All Apollo 11 had to do in addition to this was land and take off.

Why is it so difficult to admit that nasa never did a trial launching of an unmanned lunar module , from its launchpad table , away from the surface of the moon ?



11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How could a compass work?
« on: September 04, 2019, 05:02:31 PM »
The polar aurorae are not symmetrical as thought , apparently most intense before dawn in the north but at dusk in the south . Iffy for the bar magnet field scenario.

https://mentalfloss.com/article/93830/5-facts-about-aurora-australis-southern-lights

Intriguing . Local sun moving around the flat plane ?

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How could a compass work?
« on: September 04, 2019, 07:38:34 AM »
I did read it. My point is that the same site you reference clearly supports an RE interpretation of the data, so it is misleading to say that the website indicates "Earths magnetic field does not correspond to any model - that is what BGS tells you."

If you read the whole site, what it tells us is that despite some unknowns, the Earth's magnetic field corresponds with the RE model.

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/earthmag.html#_Toc2075552

So the magnetic dip poles are not antipodal . And global models of the geomagnetic field such as the IGRF include a fictional dipole at the centre of the globe .This fictional dipole defines the antipodal geomagnetic poles which are then used to compute dip pole position which in turn do not agree with measured  dip pole position . This is all in the intro .

Amazing that the bar magnet thing is touted as scientific fact.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How could a compass work?
« on: September 03, 2019, 04:16:14 PM »
Read the introduction to Magnetic Poles - since we are discussing how a compass works then these are central to the debate . How you think earth's magnetic field is produced isn't central to the debate .
 
        The model dip poles and the geomagnetic poles cannot be located by measurement. That is clearly stated . They are theory

IGRF models include a fictional magnetic dipole at the centre of the globe - clearly stated. All theory . These models do not match their predictions .

Nice to see the sun's rotation around the stationary plain affecting the mag field though , my interpretation .

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How could a compass work?
« on: September 03, 2019, 08:20:30 AM »
Earths magnetic field does not correspond to any model - that is what BGS tells you. The toroidal model is just as valid , more so in my opinion . Why pretend the compass proves the globe ?

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How could a compass work?
« on: September 02, 2019, 02:38:37 PM »
Fair assumption .

Don't know what forms earth's magnetic field , same as the mainstream scientists as you can see from the BGS site I linked . Could be some interaction between aether , light and the circulation of the electrolyte which is the worlds oceans . Who knows ?

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How could a compass work?
« on: September 02, 2019, 09:48:27 AM »
Quote
Toroidal magnetic field .

OK how does that work then on a flat Earth model?

Inner radius of toroidal field would be what we call North . Outer radius at Antarctica is a weaker magnetic field. The compass needle would always align to the direction of inner radius , North , since this is where the field is strongest. The field progressively weakens southward .

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How could a compass work?
« on: September 01, 2019, 10:43:22 AM »
Toroidal magnetic field .

Can't figure out how a compass would work on the globe model when I look at this site http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/education/poles.html

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: August 22, 2019, 03:17:32 PM »
Here is a better video of a guy using a proper vacuum chamber in an effort to prove rockets ( won't )work in a vacuum.
???
That video literally shows the opposite of what you're claiming.

In his initial test he says "The rocket did not ignite" and then says "This motor is not designed to work in a vacuum. The gunpowder can't sustain a burn."

Then when he modifies the rocket so there's some pressure for it to ignite in he shows it works and then says

"Rocket motors can produce just as much thrust in vacuum.
They are not pushing against the air, they are pushing against the fuel that is being burned and thrown overboard
."

He concludes:

"Now the rocket was difficult to ignite in a vacuum because it needed some pressure to get the fuel grain to burn but once I did that, it did just fine.
And since I was able to figure it out, I'm sure the folks at NASA can do it."

The rocket was modified by turning the ignition mechanism into a bomb . Good grief . As totallackey points out ,you are not going to pressurise the vacuum of space .  No pressure = no fuel burn .

Nasa is in the process of distancing itself from it's space/scifi programme . Future visits to  the moon and planets will be passed on to the film and cgi industries .

19
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: August 22, 2019, 10:47:41 AM »
The experiments work perfectly well . Physics in action - not theory . That is why the rocket engines cannot work in the vacuum , as shown in the experiments .

Hmmm, to me the question was, does a rocket propel in a vacuum? In both experiments and the others I've seen, yes, the rocket propelled in a vacuum. As evidenced in the videos.
So yes, physics in action, in the evacuated vacuum chamber the rockets did, indeed, propel.

But your position is, "Yes they did, but..." I can see why you're making up reasons why the rocket did propel in the vacuum, but according to you, for the wrong reasons. Reasons I disagree with. And that's fine. But what happened to you spouting off about Joule and gas expansion and such as to why a rocket won't work in a vacuum? Why won't a rocket work in a vacuum? What's your 'physics' reason for that notion?
You saw the rocket fail in vacuum conditions in both videos - practicle physics in action .
You saw the experiment re-designed . The you saw a different experiment .
You saw a bomb explode at which point the vacuum no longer exists . Rocket fuel then burns increasing the pressure in the chamber and so thrust increases with pressure . Practicle physics in action but in a pressurised chamber .

See my above posts  above regarding the reactive force of thrust which is used to accelerate rockets . Everything is explained - even the use of Newton's laws - no 3rd law without the 2nd . I understand your struggle with basic physic principles . It's evident that these are not taught correctly now - dumbing down of the population by selective teachings leading to inability to question what they are told they "know".

Someone posted earlier  that it was amazing that the average of the nasa mob was 24 yrs. I always wondered how they pulled off the deception . When I saw that comment I realised how .





20
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: August 22, 2019, 08:15:21 AM »
 
[/quote]

So like I asked, none of these vacuum experiments work for you because you believe that the rocket ignition breaking the seal creates pressure inside the vacuum wich allows the rocket to burn and thrust? Essentially, it's no longer working in a 'vacuum', right?

The experiments work perfectly well . Physics in action - not theory . That is why the rocket engines cannot work in the vacuum , as shown in the experiments .

That is why the experiment then has to be changed to one of " oh look - a bomb will explode in a
vacuum " which is a totally different experiment . Simple science .

The rest of your post is waffle .

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >