### 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 - RonJ

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 24, 2021, 06:44:24 PM »
The LIGO website states that they took into consideration a spherical earth during the construction of the beam tubes.  That would require a level foundation.  I would define such a foundation as one with a surface being an equal distance from the center of the spherical earth in all locations on the foundation path.  Once the foundation was constructed,  beam tube mounts could then be installed.  These mounts would have to be a series of ever longer mounts.  The longest would be at the ends of the beam tube and the shortest ones would be at the center.  This would mean that the points along the beam tube would have different distances to the center of the earth.  Just visualize a circle with a tangent line drawn on it, if you can.  If the earth were flat then the different mount lengths would have to bend the beam tube upwards because the mounts of different lengths with the longest at the ends.  I have no indications that the actual beam tube was constructed as claimed on their website.  Perhaps a trip to the site could confirm that.  I'm assuming that the designers were confident enough that the earth was spherical before starting the design.  I have personally confirmed that the earth is a sphere and I'm confident that many others have done so as well.  Probably the designers of LIGO were plenty confident of their 'assumptions' before finalizing the plans.  The data that is coming from the site seems to imply that the beam tube is working as designed.

You could make the argument that the upward bending of the beam tube on a flat earth would work fine as well because EA bends the light beam upwards, but by how much?  Your Wiki equation give no indication because of the lack of the quantity of the Bishop constant.  I believe that the value of the Bishop constant should be zero.  Then the observed results would fit the equation. The results of the Bedford Canal experiment would be in conflict here as well.  The flat earth theory needs more work and the Wiki needs to be updated with more information.

2
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 24, 2021, 04:07:50 PM »
The LIGO setup is both short-range AND horizontal so the equation in the Wiki wouldn't apply and any EA arguments would be 'undefined'.
OK, fair enough.  If you think that I don't understand, please feel free to provide your versions of the 'facts' for our consideration.  There can be no discussions if all you put out is that I'm wrong without putting out your 'facts' for consideration. I did the best I could with the limited information in the Wiki.

What I did show was the LIGO mechanical structure was stated to be designed as a mechanical level surface mounted on an assumed spherical earth.
Unfortunately, the assumption of a spherical earth contradicts your guarantee of it being a "mechanical level surface". Therein lies the crux of your failure - in order for your RE proof to be admissible, RE has to be assumed at the onset.
It is possible to hold a straight edge up to a spherical surface and draw a tangent line.  That was the goal of the LIGO constructors, draw a mechanically straight surface TANGENT to the spherical earth.

If the same mechanical mount was placed on a flat earth then the beam tube would have an upwards curvature and the light beam probably wouldn't quite make it to the other end.
This continues not to be the case.
Agreed.  The earth is a sphere so the construction plans that accounted for that worked out as expected.  You have a beam tube that forms a straight tangent line to a sphere and works as expected.

3
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 24, 2021, 04:18:55 AM »
I believe the argument is that the designers may have thought they were accounting for earth's curve, but really they were accounting for the upward deflection of light rays from horizontal due to EA. You would therefore have to demonstrate why the LIGO design cannot support both possibilities - earth's curvature vs EA - which under typical, isolated readings at a similar scale, are argued to be able to produce equivalent results.

According to the FET Wiki: There is an equation stated with an undefined Bishop constant (which makes it useless) that proclaims to show how the underside of clouds could be explained on a flat earth.  It goes on to say: "its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, while it is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance." The LIGO setup is both short-range AND horizontal so the equation in the Wiki wouldn't apply and any EA arguments would be 'undefined'.  What I did show was the LIGO mechanical structure was stated to be designed as a mechanical level surface mounted on an assumed spherical earth.  If the tube was mechanically straight, as designed, and a light beam went from one end to the other and didn't hit any tube walls and hit the opposite end near the center then it would be a good demonstration of a spherical earth.  Effectively the light beam would be forming a tangent to the earths surface.  If the same mechanical mount was placed on a flat earth then the beam tube would have an upwards curvature and the light beam probably wouldn't quite make it to the other end.  This is a nice 'quasi' Bedford level experiment that shows the earth is round.

4
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 24, 2021, 03:10:50 AM »
The constructors of LIGO built a mechanical flat level plane for the beam tube assuming a spherical earth. The center of the tube was at a fixed reference level and a plumb bob would hang perfectly straight. The mechanical surface would form a tangent to the edge of the earth’s sphere.  That means the other ends 2 km distant would have to be elevated about 31 cm on each end.  The ends wouldn’t be perfectly level relative to a plumb bob.  They would form an angle that wasn’t quite 90 degrees.  If the construction was done according to the CalTech website and the earth was flat, then the tube would effectively be bowed upwards and the laser beam wouldn’t make it to the other end.  Since the beam was working as designed it can be assumed that the earth is spherical and of the advertised size.  The laser beam was operating in a nearly perfect vacuum so no refraction could be expected.  This is effectively a better designed and better controlled Bedford level experiment and shows a round earth.  QED.

5
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 23, 2021, 03:14:55 PM »
However, it was stated in the Caltech website that it was necessary to take the earth's curvature into account during construction because of the length of the beam tubes.  So either FES is correct and the earth is flat or the scientists & engineers at Caltech are.
Or they built a tube that follows FE+EA perfectly, while incorrectly assuming that they were accounting for the Earth's curvature - the most obvious conclusion.
How could they build a beam tube using FE+EA when no one knows the value of the Bishop constant?  It's hard to do a design without all the facts.

6
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 23, 2021, 03:32:21 AM »
The LIGO experiment would work fine on a flat earth, in fact the construction of the beam tube foundations would be easier.  However, it was stated in the Caltech website that it was necessary to take the earth's curvature into account during construction because of the length of the beam tubes.  So either FES is correct and the earth is flat or the scientists & engineers at Caltech are.  Maybe they knew the earth was flat and lied on their website about the tube construction problems.  If that's true, then there's a conspiracy.  I think that if the FES wants to proclaim that the earth is flat and Caltech is mistaken then they need to come up with some evidence and demonstrate it to the world.

7
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 22, 2021, 09:37:25 PM »
If the construction engineers were working with plans having the earth's curvature factored in and the earth was really flat, there would have been alarm bells going off all over the place during construction.  The beam tubes are thin material that has to stand up to a high vacuum.  The stresses are significant.  Most likely the structural engineers had a test jig with a laser on it and put it onto the end of the tube from time to time during construction to see if everything was going according to plan while they were building the tube.  That way little was left to chance.  I would have put stress gauges on the outside of the tube as additional level indicators.  If there's some abnormal bending stress indicated, something is going wrong. That would happen if the foundation was constructed assuming a curved earth and the earth was really flat.

8
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 22, 2021, 09:02:39 PM »
According to the reference, the beam tubes are 1.2 meters in diameter.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vacuum

The designers also feel that the the curvature of the earth needs to be taken into account as well.
Perhaps the designers of this multi-million dollar project were incorrect and they didn't have to correct for the earth's curvature, but if they did that and the earth was flat then the laser & the mirrors would be terribly out of alignment when they fired it up the first time.  It would be a very embarrassing design error.  Do you really think that happened?

9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe
« on: December 31, 2020, 06:28:16 PM »
Do I see 'roaring conditions' when in my car at 60 mph?, why yes, if I roll the window down.  I used to have a convertible and conditions were 'roaring' with the top down as well.  Some people like that, as I did, 40 years ago.
I haven't lived for eons but in my thousands of days at sea over the last 20 years things haven't standardized.  There were times when I would be out for 120 days and the vast majority of the time we were in gentle sea conditions.  You can sometimes say to another sailor 'May you have fair winds and following seas'.  This is what you want.  Other times there would be typhoon after typhoon along the way and we did the best to avoid the worst of it so the cargo would stay on the ship undamaged.  There have been times when it was calm in the morning but one hour later the winds had picked up to 140+ knots and we were all hanging on the best we could.

The sailboat races are in fairly nice conditions.  Anytime you have seas less than 5 meters in that area you can thank your lucky stars.  King Neptune is a harsh task master and can surprise you very quickly and you better have your vessel rigged for heavy seas.  You never know what will happen out there.  I have seen times when we actually took the great circle route thru the Bering Sea that is notorious for being rough because conditions were even worse further South in the Pacific.  The Southern oceans can be the same.  Don't think that the winds & waters out there will standardize to anything.  King Neptune will never be that kind to a sailor.

10
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe
« on: December 26, 2020, 08:40:42 PM »
I have been watching the race myself and the winds & seas conditions encountered.  What I see would be far from 'roaring'  conditions.  When you see 1 to 4 meter seas & average winds in the Southern seas you have good sailing conditions.  The boats are making good progress on a daily basis.  You can easily use the displayed race maps to measure distances between the longitude lines.  My measurements indicate that the lines are converging the further South you go.  You can see the indicated distances made good, according to the data sent back.  It's also possible to see the track from the 2016 race that was completed on day 74.  A study of the chart with the noon to noon positions marked is possible and distance measurements made.  These all match the ballpark speeds of 16 to 18 knots.  That is impressive for a wind powered vessel (blow boat).  Many powered ocean going ships don't go much faster.

The bottom line that I see here is, if the earth is flat with a monopole model, then the race times & distances all have to be faked.  Ocean currents are not a viable line of defense to make up the disparity between the required distances to be traveled on a flat earth map in 74 days.  Yes, there are ocean currents out there, but they are fairly narrow and are only about 3 or 4 knots.  The chances that a sail boat would both have a favorable current and a wind for a long time are about zero. There is no way to complete the race on a flat earth map in the time indicated unless the race data is being faked, or the earth is a sphere, as indicated on the race map.  Use your best judgement as to which possibility to believe.

11
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe
« on: December 24, 2020, 03:44:43 AM »
Yes, vessels all have speedometers.  These all measure speed thru the water.  Unfortunately this speed thru the water isn't the most accurate.  If you were to take your boat up the Mississippi River your speed over the ground would be a whole lot slower than when you are going down the river even when your 'speedometer' was reading an identical speed.  There are some quite strong currents, even in the oceans so these have to be accounted for.  A sailboat going up the wind tacks back & forth so progress toward the final destination can be quite a bit different than what the boat's speedometer says.  What's important here is the course made good and the speed over the ground.

Having said all that, it still is possible to take a vessel's position fix, send it to shore via Sat-C, and then chart all those positions and times to come up with an accurate position, speed, and distance traveled for all of the sail boats.  An accurate mileage figure can be determined as well as an average speed.  In the end you will be able to determine the distance between the longitude lines South of the Equator.

12
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe
« on: December 24, 2020, 03:24:33 AM »

13
##### Flat Earth Projects / Re: A journey to the Antarctica
« on: December 17, 2020, 06:05:21 PM »
If you just want to buy a boat to get there, you probably will die.  No matter how bad you may think the present world is, if you are trying to survive in Antarctica you will still be dependent on the 'civilization' you hate for many things necessary to stay alive in that very harsh environment.  Most likely you can get there, but it would be wise to go the 'job' route first.  Try to see if you can stay during the winter season.  I know that in order to do that you will probably have to undergo a interview to see if you are suitable to stay in isolation with no possible way to leave once you are there.  The majority of people are not. Besides, doing that would allow you to save some money to buy a boat & supplies if you are really committed to coming back on your own.

14
##### Flat Earth Projects / Re: A journey to the Antarctica
« on: December 17, 2020, 04:10:51 AM »
You can see if you can find a job.
https://www.usap.gov/jobsandopportunities/

I did see quite a few jobs available but all of those would require some skill & experience.  There are always some housekeeping and/or food service type jobs if that's to your liking.
Traveling to the station by itself would be quite an adventure to many.  You will probably have to get on a ship & be transported to a coastal location.  Your living conditions may not be
as good as you would like, but if you are dedicated you can probably just bare up and and get by.  Jobs like this can probably only be tolerated by a fraction of the people who apply.
It would be similar to living & working aboard a ship, but your living & working quarters won't be moving all the time.  You will have to put up with the isolation as well.  Once you get
there, you will be stuck. You will probably have a scheduled return date, but that date has to be flexible because of the environmental conditions.  Good physical & mental health is essential.

At one time I actually did take a close look at these jobs and strongly considered it.  I have some specialized skills that would be in demand there but I found another opportunity that paid a
whole lot better so the Antarctica thing was abandoned.  I do have a close relative who did go there so I know it can be done.

If you are one of the few who is up to the challenge you could go to Antarctica and actually get paid to do so!

15
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gyroscopes - science and applications
« on: December 16, 2020, 08:13:24 PM »
it is claimed that the gyrocompass actively seeks North.
A gyro compass actively seeks North because the earth rotates.  That's not my opinion, that's the 'opinion' of the gyroscope.  It follows the rules of physics, seeks North and gives you other information as well. A good gyro compass can provide so much more if you know where to look.  When the service port is accessed other comprehensive information is available that unambiguously indicates that the earth is spherical.  That's not my opinion, it's just what multiple instruments say.  If you have 2 or 3 instruments all telling you the same thing, it's a really good idea to believe them!  If sufficient time is spent it's possible to understand how a marine gyro compass works internally.  Unfortunately, what's available on the internet isn't nearly as good as the information that you have when you have the manufacturer's service manuals.  Some of these manuals are quite comprehensive and they always work as advertised.  I've worked around dozens of these instruments and they seldom let us down.

I have worked a lot with both Sperry and Anschutz gyrocompass units.  The compass in the video wasn't set up correctly, as near as I could tell from the video.  It was hard to see all the details.  Some marine gyro spheres actually have two separate gyros installed at 45 degree angles.

16
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gyroscopes - science and applications
« on: December 16, 2020, 07:17:55 PM »

PS:  You are incorrect about a mechanical gyro not detecting a rotating earth.  Most all the older ship's gyros were mechanical and did detect that the earth was not only rotating, but spherical.

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe
« on: December 15, 2020, 08:18:06 PM »

Yes, both GPS and celestial navigation depend upon the earth being spherical.  Both techniques will not work on a flat earth.

18
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe
« on: December 15, 2020, 07:19:45 PM »
Boats have two speeds.  Speed thru the water (STW) and speed over the ground (SOG).  Professional mariners know the difference and both are important in depending on the situation.  The relevant speed here is speed over ground.  That can be measured in several different manners, depending upon the situation.  If you can't get a fix relative to land because you are too far out, or are maybe in some fog, you have to depend upon GPS.  If you don't believe in GPS then you can use celestial navigation for a reasonably accurate position fix.  Then its a matter of determining the distance between two fixes and dividing by the amount of time that's passed.  Then you have an accurate speed and distance.  Aircraft pilots do the same thing.  Yes, the airspeed indicator gives just a ball park estimate of the ground speed but gives no indication of the headwind or tail wind component.  That can be determined by using accurate fixes relative to the ground, measuring the distance traveled and dividing by the time it took between the fixes.  When you compare that with the indicated airspeed you will have an idea of what kind of head or tail wind component is affecting the aircraft's ground speed. Over the ground speeds on both aircraft and boats can vary continuously because of the operational environment.  You can accurately make time and distance measurements and the resulting average speed measurement will then be accurate as well.

19
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?
« on: December 14, 2020, 01:55:24 AM »
Yep. Our position on the matter is that astronomy is a peudoscience for whomever may practice it - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

Einstein proposes the general theory of relativity and astronomers confirm it my making experimental measurements is pseudoscience?

Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out.

It looks like Einstein and some astronomers are engaged in zeteticism.  Einstein came up with the question and the astronomers are providing the meaningful observations.  So I would translate your pseudoscience assertion to mean that the zetetic way is also pseudoscience.

A normal laboratory scientist would setup a specific state in a device (perform an experiment) then alter that state and observe what happens.  If what happens is expected & predicted by a scientist then a theory or part of a theory may be confirmed.  It's hard to move a planet or star into a particular desired state so an astronomer can only observe and has no influence on a bodies state to perform an experiment.  An astronomer could come up with a theory of how light or gravity works, for example, and then search around to find a particular alignment or natural state of bodies to confirm a theory just like a laboratory scientist would but with a lot less control of the conditions of the experiment.  For that reason being an astronomer is actually a more difficult discipline than being a laboratory scientist.

20
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: December 14, 2020, 01:31:22 AM »
Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?
I refer you back to reply #155 on the previous page, which you seemed to miss, and where I invited you to start that discussion

From the FES Wiki:

Explanations for Universal Acceleration
The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct.
Dark Energy
This model proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globularist physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is unknown.
Davis Plane

This model states that there is an infinite plane of exotic matter somewhere below the disk, pushing in the opposite manner of traditional gravity. This is a recent theory, and is in progress.

If you choose to believe in Universal Acceleration as per the FET then how could space be empty?  There has to be some form of energy out in space pushing the Earth and accelerating it continuously.  Why couldn't a rocket's thrust just push against the same energy that is allegedly accelerating the whole mass of the earth?  Most rockets take off and then head off in a definite direction and not continue straight up.  Why couldn't those rockets just be heading off towards the edge of the flat earth where is could enter the presents of the 'dark energy' so the rocket could continue it's travels?

That would solve the mystery of how a rocket could actually work in space!

Perhaps the same 'dark energy' could be pushing on the outside of a pressurize space suit and making it a lot easier for an astronaut to move around in as well.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22  Next >