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 ... 23  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 17, 2021, 04:06:18 AM »
The flat earth theory pontificates that the heavenly bodies have a property of attractive force on all objects of mass located the Earth and this property has been assigned the term Celestial Gravitation.  Effectively, the term Gravity has been relegated to a property of mass that doesn't exist under the flat earth theory because the proclamation has been made that there is no attractive properties of mass when that mass is located on the Earth.  The former term Gravity meant that ANY object of mass would exhibit an attractive force between any other object of mass regardless of it's location in the universe. The Wiki does doesn't claim one way or the other that a heavenly body contains any material that has mass.  So Celestial Gravitation could be a completely new (and/or fictional) selective property of mass that has attractive properties depending upon where that mass is located. 


It's fine that the flat earth theory could make such an outrageous postulation but it's completely unsupportable by any gravimetric study made and these studies are probably made somewhere on the earth every day.  If the flat earth supporters what to support the zetetic mantra then they have to believe that the earth is round.  QED       

2
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 14, 2021, 05:59:45 PM »
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction of objects of mass on Earth to heavenly bodies.  this is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.  Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

The Wiki quote is a bit sneaky.  It does use the term Celestial Gravitation to justify things like tides and other anomalies but does, technically, leave the door open for attraction between objects of mass on the Earth.  The quote only says that Celestial Gravitation does not IMPLY the attraction between objects of mass on the Earth, but does not rule them out either.  You have to read between the lines of the wiki some more because there are gravimetric anomalies across the 'Earth's plane' that are due to Celestial Gravitation, but those anomalies are in the minority.  Gravimetric studies are not conducted to see what's in the heavens, but to locate mass differentials in the Earth that can lead to the location of oil, gas, or other sought after minerals. In many cases after a gravimetric study has been conducted, a core drilling program is carried out, and if everything goes well the results lead to the oil or minerals sought.  This proves that objects of mass on the surface of the earth can be gravitationally attracted by an other mass below the Earth's surface.

All the nice gravimetric maps wouldn't be possible if universal acceleration was valid.  The effects of the Sun & Moon are eliminated as much as possible because the gravitational attraction information they provide isn't desired.  The information desired is the gravimetric anomalies produced by the changes of mass density below the surface of the earth.     

3
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 14, 2021, 04:18:19 AM »
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction of objects of mass on Earth to heavenly bodies.  this is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.  Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

The Wiki explains why the earth could be moving upwards (universal acceleration) but results in lots of other unexplained problems.

The Wiki proclamation says a heavenly body has a special property that can attract an object of mass on the earth that an object of mass on the Earth doesn't exhibit (selective gravitation).  I am speculating that the Flat Earth Theory would imply that the source of this selectivity property of heavenly bodies is unknown.  Since the Sun and Moon could be classified as 'heavenly bodies' they must exhibit the property of gravitational attraction between all the other 'heavenly bodies'.  It has been stated that the Sun & Moon orbit around the center of gravity of the Sun, Moon, and all the other planets.  This wouldn't happen if the traditional equation of gravitational force were applied.  I couldn't find another equation in the Wiki to justify all the Celestial Gravitation properties so it looks like the Wiki needs to be updated.  It would also be nice to have an explanation for the unique properties of mass of the heavenly bodies that can exhibit gravitational forces when a mass on the earth does not.

4
I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind. 

We would investigate your claims but you've never actually backed them up with any of the sources or results of your research into any of these matters.
When I went to college to become a ship's officer we spent plenty of time doing the regular math & physics stuff.  Then we applied all that to global navigation and did plenty of homework & lab exercises.  During the summer we didn't get to go home.  We had to get aboard a ship and set sail to international destinations.  All of the things that were taught in school by the professors had to be put into practice supervised by already competent & licensed ship's officers.  If there was something taught in class that didn't work in the real world out at sea it would become immediately obvious.  In this case we were effectively evaluating all the professor's claims on their merits and challenging their 'authority' and confirming their teachings.  Guess what?  They claimed that the earth was spherical and we confirmed that out in the real world.  How could we be brain washed by any BS?   

5
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 12, 2021, 05:57:37 PM »
Celestial gravitation in the wiki implies that the moon can attract the water on the earth and can cause other observed gravimetric anomalies.  Gravity does exist but only between heavenly bodies and a mass on the earth.  If you used a gravimeter to take a measurement you would have to take into account the position of the moon first.  You could take a series of measurements at a fixed location on the earth as the moon passed overhead and expect to see some predictable changes in your readings.  This doesn't happen so the idea of celestial gravitation is invalid. QED. 

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 12, 2021, 05:14:42 AM »
The Wiki seems to attribute tides to the gravitational attraction of the moon and stars.  Additionally, the observed and documented differences in gravitational attraction in different areas on earth are also attributed to the moon & stars.  This implication in the Wiki causes some problems.  The mass of the moon & stars are exhibiting the property of gravity, but there is no property of gravity exhibited by the mass of the dry land of the earth.  The implication is that mass of the moon & stars is different from the mass of the earth, except for the water of the oceans.  Dry land of the earth has weight but no mass, while the water of the oceans has mass, but no weight.  This doesn’t make any sense.  Universal acceleration isn't a viable alternative to gravity.  The experimental evidence (in the zetetic manner) doesn't support it either.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 25, 2021, 04:27:58 PM »
The LIGO equipment as setup would work under FET + EA, maybe.  I say maybe because there’s no known value of the Bishop constant.  If that constant was zero, then the LIGO experiment, as constructed, would NOT work if placed on a flat earth.  You have the ‘unknowing’ scientists do a design based upon a round earth placing the actual structure on a flat earth and due to EA see a perfectly operating system. Understood.  The physical tube has a slight skywards bend to exactly compensate for the EA effect as outlined in the Wiki equation and all is good with the world.  I do have a ‘gap’ of my own here.  If you go to another part of the FET wiki you will see the outline of the Bedford Level Experiment.  The nice diagrams illustrate the FET desired outcome of a perfectly level body of water for 6 miles and a level sight lines as well.  In fact, one of the photographers made the statement: This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should be more than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."
So now the conundrum: In ENAG Rowbotham maintained that the earth was flat.  The Bedford Level Experiment required NO electromagnetic acceleration.  In other words, flat earth + flat water surface + light rays that are perfectly straight = a valid proof of a flat earth.  QED.  Today with LIGO you have the upwards curving beam tube + curving rays of light (EA) = indications that the earth is flat and the LIGO experiment works as expected.  So the collaborating CalTech & MIT scientists were totally fooled into thinking that they were compensating for a round earth when they were really compensating for EA.  The bottom line is that either EA is correct and Rowbotham was wrong, or visa-vera.  Who gets thrown under the bus?

8
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.   

9
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'.
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.
  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.
Your statement was incorrect.
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.

10
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.

11
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. 

12
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.

13
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.   

14
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. 

15
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?
 
 

16
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.   

17
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.

18
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.   

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe
« on: December 24, 2020, 03:24:33 AM »
Celestial navigation mostly involves triangulation.  You use a nautical almanac to determine the zenith point of the star, planet or moon you are using for navigational purposes.  After using a sextant to measure the angle above the horizon you can use that data (and the exact time) to plot a line on your chart.  Repeat that process using other stars or planets.  Where the lines cross is your position via triangulation.  It's a difficult process because usually your vessel is in motion while you are taking the sights.  This motion has to be accounted for.  If everything is done correctly your position will be accurate to about 1 or 2 miles depending on how good of a navigator your are. GPS does the same thing but a microcomputer inside the receiver does all the calculations and all the observations are done very quickly so your vessels movement isn't much of a factor.  Both GPS & celestial navigation require that the earth be a sphere to properly work.   

20
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.
 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23  Next >