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 ... 9  Next >
1
1. LEGO experiment link states vaguely that several feet of curvature is accounted for . Which model , pearshape or squashed ball or imaginary R= 6370km is used in this curvature correction? Could just be allowance for topography .
Sigh.

And this is the problem with debating anything with someone like you. You said

Quote
Surveyors take no account of ( cannot find ) any curvature over any area of 100sq. miles - because we live on a plane

You provided no basis for that claim or no supporting evidence, you just asserted it.
So I found a link about a large scale project which I imagined would probably have had to take account of the earth's curve and, sure enough, found some information on their website where they said they did have to do that.
This is the people who build the sodding thing saying they did indeed have to take the earth's curve into account because of the scale of it.

This is the point where you're supposed to concede the point and see the error of your ways but instead you're just saying "well, maybe it's this, maybe it's that". Again, with no basis or supporting evidence. It's easy to prove yourself right if you ignore or dismiss all evidence showing you to be wrong...

You could have wiki'd that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveying

Go down to the part about " plane and geodetic surveying " . 100 square miles .

Then you can check out some survey books  - the older real explanatory types are better . You will find  that plane survey is used in areas up to 100 square miles because no curvature is found that does not fall within error limits of precision survey equipment . That's alot of missing curvature over a circular area of 100 square miles - 80 feet or so .

So how much curvature over a few square miles did bob the ligo builder account for? , in exact terms . Vague statements mean nothing .

Zack - all the scientists have to do is measure , as exact as possible, the amount of curvature over the distance they use for their experiment . Measuring gradients of pressure , heat etc then applying imaginary values into their equations turns everything into mere ramblings.

2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 17, 2020, 11:29:03 AM »
But WGS-84 is a reference co-ordinate system system , not a globe models. Clearly explained here.
https://gisgeography.com/wgs84-world-geodetic-system/

OP's original post shows how surveyors who believe the earth is a sphere ( he kindly quotes this in his 2nd post) use a set of equations including a constant of refraction k calculated with a value of R = 6370km .  This is valid is on a perfect sphere only . We know this is not true whichever model we choose to believe .

WGS-84 is an ellipsoid reference co-ordinate system applied to one of many geoids which in the words of that site leads to Geodesists to " believe the error is less than 2cm which is better than NAD83."

The use of that word " believe " leads me to conclude that we are encouraged to have faith in whatever they tell us. Science now has the appearance of religion in which no one is allowed to question the high priests and the faithful have no need for truth .

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 16, 2020, 05:06:33 PM »
Then which globe model does it say on the tin?

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 16, 2020, 11:14:41 AM »
1. LEGO experiment link states vaguely that several feet of curvature is accounted for . Which model , pearshape or squashed ball or imaginary R= 6370km is used in this curvature correction?
Could just be allowance for topography .

2. Yes , as stated before WSG is a mathematical ellipsoid surface used to model a globe ,with all vertices converging at earth's supposed centre of gravity . Where is that in whichever  ellipsoid model used?

3. High altitude craft , balloon satellites , signals reflected of the dome, triangulation masts.

4. It's easy to brainwash young people . That's what schooling is about . Critical thinking is not part of the curriculum hence people cannot question what they are told they know .

i

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 14, 2020, 11:25:32 AM »
Wgs84 is a mathematical defined surface that approximates the geoid which itself is a model based on the assumption that earth is some sort of pear shape or oblate spheroid.It's use is to map the earth as some sort of globe . Tom is correct imo .
This globe is then flattened to produce workable maps and to allow gps to function.
The flat earth geocentric model is used in all endeavors that involve navigation or survey . Geodesy is system of measure of earth based on the assumption of it's shape.

The shape of earth is easily measured by survey that doesn't have to include any atmospheric refraction or assumption of shape . Surveyors take no account of ( cannot find ) any curvature over any area of 100sq. miles - because we live on a plane .

Refractive distortion provides a smoke screen for the non existence of the globe . That is why science uses a coefficient of atmospheric refraction based on figures that cannot be accurate.

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: Sorry were not going to Mars now....Really?
« on: January 11, 2020, 05:06:32 PM »
Am getting fed up o' this . First I had to cancel my holiday to the moon which we were told the resort would be open by the 80's . Then the holiday hotel orbiting the earth project fizzled out.

Was all geared up to fly against the earths spin to reach Australia from London in 3hrs with Rich Branson. Now this . Very disappointing but not unexpected .

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 11, 2020, 04:39:00 PM »
As King Arthur's horse once said - It's only a model . https://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html

9
So the original computer model based on data from observations was obviously wrong. Simple case of cherry picking the wrong data .

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 08, 2020, 10:56:14 AM »
In the LIGO experiment which model of earth curvature (oblate spheroid or pearoid) did the building bods account for ? Did they just account for the fictional R = 6370km in such a delicate experiment ?



11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
« on: January 07, 2020, 03:43:52 PM »
I'd say no FEr has ever said Brahe's data is faked because all his astronomical data was studiously observed . His model based on his own observations was geocentric - earth at the centre of the universe. Like FE models . He had already accounted for all planetary motions . Nor  did the model require the stars to be at stupid distances .
 After Brahe's death Kepler ,his unwanted assistant , stole his records and plucked his planetary laws out of his backside - the globe model being in danger with no new data ever introduced to back it's acceptance .

Tycho Brahe - great observational geocentric scientist - probably why we don't hear a lot about him .

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question on Direction.
« on: January 07, 2020, 11:02:09 AM »
South of the equator compass points become confusing , Currently the magnetic southern dip pole is given as outside the antarctic circle at 64S 135E . Can't really see how to calibrate for that  or navigate around Antarctica .
Any ideas ?

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 06, 2020, 03:12:43 PM »
Like your sensible conclusion BP .

I don't have a problem with formulae . Math is a good tool to help describe reality but once assumption is built in to a formula then it no longer describes reality .

The logical way to avoid that would be to actually survey across the land . Use precise physical , optical and laser measuring equipment - would show us the true shape .


14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 06, 2020, 10:57:26 AM »
Then lead away , I am interested to see the logical steps .

I would like to point out again that R is assumed to be equal to 6370km , a value that cannot be arrived at by empirical measurement since it cannot exist if the earth is an oblate spheroid . This is why it will always be quoted as an assumption when used in experiment .

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 04, 2020, 04:28:41 PM »
Pretty equations but as the saying goes , you can't polish a turd. I see you are trying to distance yourself from the  imaginary k = R/r so prevalent in your original post in which these imaginary results are used in your "real world"

Please forget about that you say . But k , that imaginary coefficient with no basis in reality , is central to all your linked experiments . Hope you've learned a bit more about the silly pear shaped squashed orange model you think bears a resemblance to reality .

Also ,angles can be measured using something called "degrees" . Look it up along with the word " assumption " which is used several times in your not so empirical experiment links .

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 03, 2020, 10:35:31 AM »
Do you not read the articles you link . Ref 3 introduces big imaginary R in equation 10 and combines with equation 7 to give what can only be an imaginary answer . Big R is defined as 6370km -which apparently is a mean value which tells us that it is not a measured value .

Why bother measuring to the nth degree the pressure ,altitude , humidity etc over the surface of an area of land and then not measure the curve of the land over which the experiment is carried out.

Again the real value of big R is there to be measured but is ignored and a mean value ,which cannot be accurate over any part of the surface , inserted which invalidates the results. Pseudoscience . And mathematical trickery in plain language . Who, and when , carried out the measurements of our pearshaped squashed orange which allowed a mean value of 6370 km to be deduced . A curvature we cannot find or measure .

All any scientist has to do to find the shape of the earth is carry out a physical survey .

Insults are thrown when debates are lost .




17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: December 30, 2019, 10:31:02 AM »
someled
Sorry that I was not careful enough in explaining the appearance of R in the equation in my submission from Dec 20. You were absolutely correct when you stated that what people perceive as the radius of a round earth should in no way affect the calculation of the amount of refraction of light in the atmosphere.

So let me try again :

As stated :

k = 503*p*(0.0343 + dT/dh)/(T*T)

divide that equation 6370,000 then by definition of k=R/r you get :

1/r = 79*10^{-6}*p*(0.0343 + dT/dh)/(T*T)

with r now in meters. The value of R does not appear anymore. You can verify the validity of this division by inspecting the equations (8) through (10) in reference [3]. Feel free to calculate values for r for various values of dT/dh, the vertical temperature gradient, assuming standard atmospheric conditions.

Now, this equation and similar ones incoporating humidity, wave length of the light (think of lasers) and other effects have been used for decades. It seems to me somebody would have caught on to significant errors on the part of surveyors.

All this quarrel about refraction can of course be avoided by conducting a laser-based experiment inside a vacuum-filled, long tube. Maybe, if we were to look around, somebody has built already such a tube ? Maybe they did it for another purpose, but with the condition that the laser beam coincides with the tube's central axis all the way from one end to the other ? Did they consider earth's supposed curvature ?

Happy Holidays to you and everybody else ... Zack

I will make the point again , k is the coefficient of refraction deduced from the assumed (imaginary) curvature of a globe earth of R = 6370. Hence the silliness of using it anywhere in calculations . If these scientists wanted to carry out real experiments then the curvature , or lack of , would have to be accurately surveyed by good old proper measurement methods using real precision instruments and there would be no need to use imaginary values.
 
      I mean the earth is either pear shaped or squashed orange shape , depending on which greengrocer you believe so why use this R = 6370 since it doesn't exist . It's interesting that in the case of k=1 light follows the curvature ,or lack of , of the earth . If Rowbotham had used a better telescope he'd have seen his own arris since the light was clearly following the " curve " on globeworld.

     No one disputes that there are atmospheric effects but putting these down to refraction is pseudoscience . Refraction takes place at distinct boundaries dependent upon angle of incidence and differing density of medium involved . The atmosphere diffuses ,absorbs , diffracts etc.

Refraction calculated using this mathematical trickery is used to cover the fact that there is no curvature and the trick always provides an answer although it is nothing to do with reality . 



     

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: HF Radio Signals, Propagation and DX.
« on: December 23, 2019, 03:27:37 PM »
A good internet search will show you that the atmosphere is not transparent to radio waves.
Bouncing a signal of the ionosphere/dome will be easier than line of sight since the atmosphere is only a thin layer which decreases in density rapidly as altitude increases.
Well that all depends on the wavelength in use. If you look above, i posted a picture from the good old internet which explains it a bit.

Im actually sat here now listening on 7mhz... quite a few stations coming in this evening :)

It will affect all wavelengths to varying degrees - higher frequecy more interference .Atmosphere hinders 7mhz signals - that's classed as a HF wave . That good old picture needs the bottom line straightening - the dome bits ok though ho ho. The  sun's interference on radio signals is a good indicator of  electrical interference of the local sun imo. Enjoy your listening to the signals reflecting from the dome .

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: December 22, 2019, 03:33:33 PM »
somerled,
sorry to say, you are wrong. R=6370km is merely used as a convenient reference for those surveyors who believe in a round earth. R has no influence on the amount by which a light beam gets refracted in terms of feet (or whatever units you prefer) for given atmospheric conditions and distance between target and observer. Personally, I would have chosen to not have R appear because it leads to confusion as it happened to you. It was more important to me to represent the equations in a form given by the authors.
The main point remains, experiments like the Bedford level experiment need to determine the temperature gradient with a very high accuracy and document carefully their measurements. Do you know of any such experiment ?

Don't talk bollards. The imaginary R is the basis for the coefficient k as stated in all those experiments so k is imaginary and this is then used in an equation with real atmospheric temperature measurements to give imaginary results.

Now if these scientists had surveyed the curvature across the land over which they took their pressure , temperature and altitude measurements then we might have had a real experiment rather than bumph designed to shore up the their imaginary model globe of 6370 imaginary km big R.

Still, tis the pantomime season I suppose . Have a merry Christmas and good new year .


20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: December 21, 2019, 07:48:42 PM »
The whole bumph depends on the assumption that earth is a sphere where R = 6370km
 so use of an imaginary equation K=R/r to quantify any observation falls into the category of pseudoscience .

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >