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: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 23  Next >
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.

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!   

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.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gyroscopes - science and applications
« on: December 16, 2020, 07:17:55 PM »
All you have to do is lookup the info on Anshutz or Sperry marine gyros.  Admittedly the service information that's available on the internet isn't nearly as good as what's supplied with the units themselves, but the basic fact is that a ship's directional gyro requires that the earth rotates to work correctly.  If these units are shut down and dismantled during a routine maintenance procedure you can see that these are very professionally made pieces of equipment.  After everything is put back together and the gyro is fired up it typically takes many hours for everything to stabilize and for the instrument to start giving meaningful readings again. Now the main desirable output is just the ship's bearing relative to geographical North, but there is other information available if you have access to the service port. It was my job to keep track of the gyros on board and make sure they were outputting accurate readings to the ship's internal data buss.  Typically the 2 or 3 gyros aboard would be within 0.5 degrees with each other and would agree with the known heading of the berth when we were doing cargo operations.  If I were to access the service port while at the dock in the USA and again at the dock in China, for example, it was clear that the readings indicated that the earth was spherical.  Then after the trip back to the USA other reading were taken that was almost the exact image of the original reading at the dock in the USA. I have been on multiple ships (nothing to do with the government or NASA) and my readings were typical of what would be expected.  If a gyro was off 1 degree or so and wouldn't hold an adjustment, then it was time for maintenance. After that was done then usually everything would be back to normal again.  These are just my personal observations over many, many years.  This is an unambiguous indication that the earth is spherical and rotating.  Gyros are just heartless pieces of electro-mechanical machinery and just follows the rules of physics and doesn't really care what the shape of the happens to be.  The Gyros is always had an unanimous vote for a rotating & spherical earth.  I'm simply reporting what I would see on a routine basis.

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. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe
« on: December 15, 2020, 08:18:06 PM »
I am also a FAA licensed commercial pilot (retired) as well as a CG licensed Merchant Marine Officer (retired).  The 'computer' you were talking about mostly pertains to calculating the effects of winds on your aircraft's speed relative to the ground (among other things).  Your aircraft's air speed indicator only give you a relative speed indication (to the air).  It's use for navigational purposes is limited.  Mostly the air speed indicator is used to know how close you are to stalling, for setting your aircraft up during a climb, and for not exceeding your red line speed during a decent.  A boat, or ship, has a thru the water speed indicator as well.  It can only tell you how fast you are going relative to the water.  The water will also have a speed relative to the ocean bottom.  There are significant currents along the coast of Japan and of course the Gulf Stream along the coast of Florida.  So the thru the water speeds will only give you a 'ball park' number in relation to how fast you are going over the ocean bottom.  The important thing in this case (an ocean race) is how fast you are going over the ocean bottom and what is the distance.  The distance will be accurately determined by your WGS-84 charts (or maybe some British Admiralty ones).  Your speed can only be accurately be determined by using GPS (the best), or taking a couple of fixes relative to observable landmarks, or celestial navigation.  Celestial navigation is essentially similar to using landmass fixes because what you are doing is determining your position relative to a star, or planets zenith position on the surface of the earth.  You get these zenith positions from a nautical almanac but this is based upon knowing the exact time to the second of when your observations were taken. 

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

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.   

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 -

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.

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. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 16, 2020, 05:11:42 AM »
Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!
If a ball were thrown away from you in space it would stop accelerating immediately after it left your hand.  The reason for that would be, no force, no acceleration (F=MA).  After the ball left your hand it would continue forever in the direction thrown.  In order for it to slow down it would have to be influenced by a force external.  Energy can neither be created nor destroyed so in order for a ball to 'run out of energy' it would have to give that energy to some other mass, but in space there's no other mass to give it to.  There would be no force external.  The spaceman who threw the ball would be accelerated in the opposite direction assuming when the ball left his hand the velocity vector went opposite his center of mass.  Otherwise the spaceman would probably just mostly spin.  The spaceman would be accelerated less because his mass was greater (F=MA).  The spaceman would continue to move in the opposite direction forever. There couldn't be a force external applied because there's no other mass to run into. Since E=MV2 and energy can't be destroyed the velocity would be constant forever unless there was another force external which was available.  Maybe an asteroid could come by and modify the scenario.

PS: What might happen if the spaceman had a hand grenade?  There would be no 'force external' so would it blow up?  Would it kill the spaceman?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 15, 2020, 06:21:33 AM »
Your premise that all the navigational techniques that are assumed to be based upon the round earth model would produce 'adequate' results on a flat earth just doesn't compute.  That would especially apply to navigation South of the equator.  What is known, for sure, is that our navigational techniques were always said to be based upon a round earth.  Saying that the mathematical techniques based upon a round shape would be accurate when translated to a flat shape would have to be followed up with a lot more than words to be believed by real world navigators when accurate results are so important.  Do you have any information that shows how this could possibly work?  This would be of great interest to sailors & pilots world wide!  If we are incorrect in our round earth assumptions we all really need to know! Vague theory just won't help much for something this important.

PS:  For several years a did work aboard some well know research ships.  We weren't out there just traveling back & forth hauling cargo but actually staying out in the ocean for extended periods while scientists studied the earth below the oceans. So, yes there are those who do take measurements.   

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 15, 2020, 02:59:29 AM »

Of course you do! I appreciate that virtually no one goes around claiming that the earth is a globe to other people in daily conversation - however, in this one - that we are having right now - they (RET proponents) absolutely and unequivocally do.  Both implicitly and explicitly.  It would be dishonest for most "educated" to claim that they do not, in fact, claim/attest that the earth is spherical (and more commonly, that they merely believe that it is - and don't think of it at all - nor have they really ever).

The burden of proof, therefore, lies squarely with FET in my opinion as it is that which is challenging 2,500 years of science and advancement through observation and knowledge.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant.  The burden of proof for the claim that the earth is spherical is required by all claimants.  The "2500 years of science and advancement" are not proof, nor evidence of the claim.  When you evaluate that "room of smoke" (2500 years of ALL the evidences!!!) you find that individual claims and evidences evaporate when you try to evaluate them critically.  In my case, providing evidence and proof that water at rest does not have a curved surface the globe model requires is trivial.  In the presumptive case, the claim that the earth is a sphere is MUCH harder to defend and provide solid support for.  They have to get us young for this reason, but it has no bearing on the convention of the burden of proof.

@Mark Antony

Well said and explained!

I will gladly bear the burden of proof.  My life has depended upon the earth being round countless times.  On a ship we use charts and navigation equipment that are all setup according to the round earth model. All the navigational officers are trained to respect that model as well.  Now imagine what would happen if the earth were actually flat and not rotating. There could be egregious navigational errors.  Using round earth navigational techniques on a flat earth would be dangerous.  In the Pacific ocean there are some areas where the water is quite shallow but there's no island.  All these areas are marked on our WGS-84 or British Admiralty Charts we are required to carry.  You can imaging what would happen if any ship, due to a navigational error ran over these mid-ocean reefs and ripped the bottom out.  Any person working in the engine room or down in the cargo holds could easily be killed in such an event.  I've personally been deep in the forepeak tanks and in the engine room bilges while underway.  If the ship hit anything at that time, it would be very bad. 

So given these facts you can see that since I'm still alive and have never been on a ship that ever ran aground in the middle of any ocean I have a lot of confidence in the round earth model as taught to us at the Merchant Marine Academy.  The burden has been accepted and the model has been demonstrated to work by mariners for a long-long time.

Will there ever be a point where the flat earth model can be discarded given the extensive experience that seafarers have with the other model?  What other kind of 'proof' is required?  Don't bother to start looking up the records of all the ship disasters that have occurred in the last 100 years.  There are all kinds of other reasons why bad things happen.  I've always said on any given day there's 1000 ways to die at sea.     

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 14, 2020, 04:56:48 PM »
With regard to re-evaluating my position on rockets, I simply can't. I don't want to go off on a tangent here but rockets in space break Newton's First law which states "that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force". In a car, wheels -action, the road - reaction. A boat: propeller - action, water - reaction. A plane: turbines engine, jets - action, air - reaction. Rockets in space: Jets - action, no reaction. Can't do that. NASA use the skateboard bowling ball analogy, does not hold any water. You simply cannot propel yourself/change trajectory without a medium in which to do it. Lets not discuss this as it requires too much fundamental engineering and mathematical knowledge.
I don't think rockets break any laws of physics. This is one of the objections used to 'disprove' any pictures of space or any videos of astronauts on the space station. Since the astronauts would most likely agree that the earth is round they would be eye witnesses to that fact and could carry the 'Burden of Proof' for the round earth a long ways.
Don't be afraid of discussing how rockets work it because of the fundamental engineering and mathematical knowledge required.  I am an engineer and have math & physics books handy!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 03:38:56 AM »
Level and horizontal are synonyms, I am glad we agree on this.

Level and horizontal are both always level, by definition and, more importantly, in manifest objective reality.

Yes, I am aware of the incorrect definition of level being taught in "schools".  There is no curve-a-level.  Level is always both flat and horizontal.

If you disagree, and believe that your definition is correct - then please provide a demonstration in reality of level and flat ever differing.
You could do your best, on a calm day, to align a rod to the level of the sea, then align another rod at exactly a 90 degree angle with the first.  That second rod would result in a vector pointing upwards.  If you did that experiment once in Los Angeles, USA and again in Shanghai, China the vectors would point in completely different directions.  If the earth were flat, both of the upward pointing rods would be parallel.  If the earth were spherical, they would be at a much different angle.  This is what's effectively happening when you observe a gyroscope.  This is an unbiased observation, it's just the information produced by an instrument that couldn't care less what the earth's shape happens to be.  Now we are not talking about a single gyro but dozens, all producing the same results.  If you travel in any direction upon the high seas in a ship the gyros will indicate that the center line between the bow of the ship will relentlessly tilt further & further with the bow going down and the stern going up. 

It's a bit more difficult to make an exact determination of what is level while underway on a ship because the ship's tilt is always changing.  However it is certainly possible to observe a change in angle of 90 or 120 degrees with no ambiguity. It's also possible to see the level when a ship is at the dock.  Strangely enough ships always have large & accurate levels aboard.  Why? Because when they are at the dock and cargo & fuel are being loaded, it's important to keep the ship level to reduce stresses on the hull and not break any dock lines.  This is done by pumping ballast water from tank to tank.

Perhaps there's another explanation for these actual observations under real world conditions that I don't know about.  It would appear to me that the gyro is indicating that the ship is navigating on a very large sphere.  The size is large enough for the human eye to be unable to detect any curvature or a change in the Z axis, but the much more sensitive gyroscope is able to measure a change over days & weeks which would be expected because of the speed of the vessel and the size of the earth. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 12, 2020, 05:00:34 AM »
It looks like everyone is wasting time discussing the two theories of the earth.  In a court trial both sides call their witnesses.  An eye witness is the best.  I don't know exactly how many astronauts say they have been in space, but there's your eye witnesses.  I believe that they all would claim that the earth is round, if you could ask them.  That's the 'elephant in the room' here. In order for the flat earth theory to work it's an implied fact that all the astronauts would have to be lying. Now that makes things a bit more complicated for the flat earth theory.  An astronaut says the earth is round by his/her observation and it would be up to the flat earth side to prove it would be impossible for the witness to be telling the truth.  Is the astronaut blind?  Was the astronaut seen in a bar somewhere when he/she was supposed to be in space?  The space vehicle never got to orbit but was observed to land in the ocean somewhere and all the people aboard got off and went into hiding.  No one was ever in the space vehicle when it left the earth and the astronauts 'left the premises' unobserved and went into hiding.  Many astronauts are said to have died in the process of launching from or returning to earth.  There's been plenty of pictures out there of some of the 'alleged' astronauts that are supposed to be dead. That's all I've seen is just pictures, but no investigation.  If you say yes, I saw the earth from space and it was round, how do you prove it?  There's pictures, but that's been alleged to be fabricated.  There's moon rocks out there that have been observed to be unique and couldn't have been formed on the earth.  There's the audio tapes, the space vehicles that have returned, ect. ect.  It looks like the burden of proof would be on the flat earth side to demonstrate that the astronauts have all lied. Even if one astronaut was caught in a lie that wouldn't mean that all the others couldn't be telling the truth.  So even if a flat earth theory was developed that was 'air tight' how do you deal with the astronaut witnesses? 

Flat Earth Media / Re: International Shipping Agent
« on: November 07, 2020, 04:07:27 AM »
It would be difficult to determine the shape of the earth by the location of the ports or the route the actual cargo travels.  Any ship that doesn't fly the American flag would not be permitted to deliver cargo between two consecutive ports in the United States.  Check out the meaning of the Jones Act.  A Japanese company could pickup cargo in Los Angles and take it to Tokyo and then later on deliver it to Guam.  It wouldn't be the most direct route but it wouldn't violate the Jones Act.  I've been on plenty of ships going between LA --> Honolulu --> Guam delivering cargo but they were always American Flagged vessels.  A port also needs easy access to land routes and deep enough surrounding waters for large ships.  A bridge could also be too low for a large ship to pass under.  These are also considerations that are way more important than the shape of the earth.

Most of the time a ship would take a great circle route between two distant ports.  Even that scenario is often times subverted because of bad weather along the way.  Every once in a while I would be out for 90 days with nothing but calm seas and good weather.  At those times a great circle route was always planned and executed to the delight of the ship's crew and the owners of the cargo.

You can always use the directional gyros on a ocean going ship.  Unfortunately they are even more expensive than Knodel's laser gyro.  An additional difficulty would be access to the right software.  When you have access to this equipment it's possible to see the change in the z axis as the ship moves forward in any direction.  Since I was aboard a ship doing my job it wasn't much of a problem to witness a 90 degree change in the z axis when traveling to a foreign port 1000's of miles away.  That's a direct measurement of the surface of the ocean that wouldn't fit either of the two flat earth models.  The manufacturer of the gyroscopic equipment also specifically states (in the service manuals) that the proper and accurate operation of the equipment requires that the earth rotates.  I kept a close eye on the accuracy of the gyros and maintained a log.  It wasn't unusual for both of the gyros to be accurate to within about 0.3 to 0.4 degrees.  Verification of this was possible because we always knew the exact heading of the docks to within a degree.  I believe that this would constitute a direct and accurate measurement of the earth's shape by direct measurement.  If you wanted to make the effort you probably could also determine the size.  I never did that but correlating the change of the z axis to the distance traveled could give you a good idea of the radius.     

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 02, 2020, 12:08:53 AM »
Well no, there's a bit of a flaw in your argument there.  Under FET, if I'm at sea level viewing a ship, the vertical angle I'm observing it at never changes. All that would happen is the ship would get smaller.  Just like your flawed analogy with the Sun getting obscured in point 2, those waves would have to be as high as the ship to obscure it, which implies that the further out to sea you get, the bigger the waves get.  It's rather the opposite on Earth isn't it?  EA tries to explain why it disappears from the bottom up, but fails because if EA were true, the entire ship would just slowly fade out of view as its light rays curved away from you.

I'll give you an example of the opposite viewpoint.  After many years at sea on ships I've had the chance to view what the shore looks like when coming closer & closer to land before going into a port.  A really nice example is going into Japan and seeing Mt. Fuji at a distance.  Each & every time we would go there (weather permitting) I would see Mt. Fuji rise out of the sea (very small at first) starting with the white capped peaks.  At first the white peaks actually would be partly hidden in the tops of the waves and slowly rise out of the sea as we approached Japan.  The mountain would also appear to get wider and wider the closer we got.  You can't use the perspective argument because that would imply you should see the wide base first.  That never happened.  The only logical explanation that makes sense is that the earth is round.  Even using the EA argument I would expect to see the much larger & wider base of the mountain whenever you could see the peak.  That never happened.  We also went to many large cities in many parts of the world.  The highest skyscrapers would also rise out of the sea, the tops of the skyscrapers first then get taller & taller the closer we came.  These are my observations confirmed many times over by many others as well.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: October 28, 2020, 06:53:04 PM »

A few more thoughts that I realized I didn't express, but feel they are important :

I can simply use the inverse of your convex hypothesis! If the convex were measured as 0, I would reject the globe earth theory.

It has been measured as 0, effectively, every time water at rest has ever been measured in the history of humanity.  Rejoice! You have your data already.  Also, while this is a fine position for the "average joe" you are describing an unacceptable (and unscientific) position for an empirical scientist.  We do not get to believe/declare as true something we have no validation for in science.  It remains in the realm of unvalidated suspicion/speculation (at absolute best) and mythology/religion (toward the other end of the spectrum) until it is established as real by empirical science.  It is all well and good to speculate that the earth is spherical and the oceans curve at rest - however without extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim - this baseless claim is merely that.

I agree we can ignore calculations of convex as evidence for globe earth theory since that's obviously circular reasoning. We need real measurements. not calculations.

I am so glad you said (and understand) both of these things.  The vast majority involved in this discussion do not.

I have personally measured the curvature  (convex) of the Earth's oceans using gyroscopes.  This technology has been around a long time and the readings have been verified as accurate.
The only possible conclusion is that the Earth is round or using a gyroscope isn't a legitimate measurement technique.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications
« on: September 13, 2020, 02:02:37 AM »
The current standard for sensitive gravimeters are the superconducting gravimeters, which operate by suspending a superconducting niobium sphere in an extremely stable magnetic field; the current required to generate the magnetic field that suspends the niobium sphere is proportional to the strength of the Earth's gravitational acceleration.[4] The superconducting gravimeter achieves sensitivities of 10–11 m·s−2 (one nanogal), approximately one trillionth (10−12) of the Earth surface gravity. In a demonstration of the sensitivity of the superconducting gravimeter, Virtanen (2006),[5] describes how an instrument at Metsähovi, Finland, detected the gradual increase in surface gravity as workmen cleared snow from its laboratory roof.

Here is an instance of an isolated mass above the gravimeter.  You have a snow mass causing a vector in opposition to the main vector caused by the earth below.  As the snow was removed the opposition vector became less & less and there was an expected increase in the main acceleration vector caused by the mass of the earth.  If universal acceleration was a valid argument in the flat earth theory then you wouldn't expect the gravimeter to react to the snow on the roof of the laboratory.  Any dampening of the vibrations of the gravimeter due to snow on the roof wouldn't be expected either.  The gravimeter should be well isolated from it's surrounding building structure.   

Flat Earth Community / Re: Rocket Propulsion
« on: May 16, 2020, 02:23:24 AM »
Pressure is also required in the combustion chamber to expel the burnt fuel out thru the rocket engine nozzle.  The nozzle is the part where the speed increase (acceleration) occurs of the expelled burnt fuel.  Now, before the hot combustion products even leave the rocket engine itself there is lots of accelerating mass. You have an accelerated mass expelled out the rocket engine with a momentum in one direction, so it is required to have a force that provides momentum in the opposite direction.  All of these forces are entirely self contained within the rocket engine itself and the rocket could be in any kind of environment, vacuum or otherwise.  The accelerating mass of the fuel is going out in one direction and that momentum is transferred to the rocket in the opposite direction so the net momentum is zero.  Basic rocket science.  The rocket has a thrust in the direction of travel so will accelerate in that direction.  Any ambient conditions outside the rocket engine itself is entirely irrelevant.  Everything happens inside the rocket engine itself.  There's not a vacuum inside the rocket engine, but a very high pressure.  An accelerating force is against the inside of the rocket engine directly opposite the nozzle.  The rocket is much more massive than the portion of the fuel that's being burned at the time so the burned fuel is pushing against the rocket as it's exiting thru the nozzle.  Momentum in one vector direction equals the momentum in the opposite vector direction.  I've gone over the theory in several different ways, maybe it will be understood now.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Rocket Propulsion
« on: May 16, 2020, 12:15:33 AM »
If you look at the nozzle end of a operational rocket you can see plenty of very fast moving gasses coming out.  That gas has a mass and a very high speed.  Rocket fuel is very heavy. That mass is converted to gas (with the same mass).  It starts out at a speed of zero in the combustion chamber and exits at a very high speed into the vacuum.  That means by pure logic that there's a very high acceleration rate.  So you have a mass plus acceleration and the formula F=MA.  Since every action has an opposite reaction the force of the accelerating gas is pushing against the rocket and there's a nice momentum transfer taking place between the exiting gasses and the rocket itself.  That momentum transfer results in a force vector in the direction that the rocket is going and the rocket accelerates in the opposite direction of the accelerating gas using the same formula F=MA.  Remember that Force and Acceleration are vector quantities.  When the rocket is surrounded by a vacuum there's less of a impeding force vector on the nose of the rocket and no air for the accelerating gas to move aside so a rocket in a vacuum is more efficient.  It's just basic physics if you really stop to think about it. 

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 23  Next >