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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 291  Next >
In wake of the recent Black Hole picture Jeran discusses Nar Holes, the hypothetical cousin to Black Holes. Runtime: 22m

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory gravity
« on: April 20, 2019, 03:59:21 PM »
You are describing a violation of the equivalence principle. A container filled with gas will behave the same under gravity or under upwards acceleration. Gradually increase the size of that container and it behaves the same. There isn't a point where it suddenly violates the equivalence principle.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elon musk
« on: April 20, 2019, 03:29:21 PM »
Almost every industry is subject to some sort of government regulation.  That doesn't preclude the idea of private industry.

Regulation means that the government controls it. The government controls space. Your idea of private space industry is just that, an idea. An idea that the government controls.

Hence your argument loops back around to an appeal to the integrity of the government. When you say "private space companies" we must add "who are instructed by government" to that sentence.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elon musk
« on: April 19, 2019, 08:36:27 PM »
Driving is not a public freedom, markjo. Not everyone can drive large trucks and heavy machinery. Cars are dangerous to yourself and others, and your license to drive will be taken away if the government chooses.

Your example shows that the government does say what happens in regards to rockets and space, and can impose as many restrictions and requirements as they wish.

Your example of a book with rocketry principles (which you apparently can't even buy unless you are a member of that organization or an affiliated institution) is hardly comparable to rocket technology and the substantial research and engineering design and testing needed to get to orbit. You may as well tell us that anyone can build a nuclear weapon because there are some reaction equations on Wikipedia.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elon musk
« on: April 19, 2019, 07:09:47 PM »
Ummm...  Tom.  Have you heard that over the last 10 years or so, the space launch industry has exploded with dozens of new companies all over the world designing and building their own rockets to launch small to medium sized satellites?  Established defense contractors are no longer the only ones building "what are essentially ICBMs".

Can you link us to these companies? I am sure that you know that it is illegal to launch rockets above a certain class into civilian or military airspace without government approval. This is not a private venture. There are no "orbital rockets plans for sale" websites, or any possible place to buy that sort of thing.

If you are of the belief the government would give out rocket technologies to purely private companies to do with as they wish, you would be in error.

Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Core Mechanical Gyro Test
« on: April 19, 2019, 06:48:17 PM »
The article goes over what the anchor points and datums are. "The Earth is Not Round!" sounds pretty clear to me. If the article was about WGS84 distributing round earth measurements the title of the article would be "The Earth is Round!" Ellipsoids are round.

Geographic coordinates use latitude and longitude values to define positions on the 3D surface of the earth, which is of course, best modeled as an ellipsoid, not a sphere.


Latitude and Longitude are useless for measuring distance and area


Web Mercator's significant weakness is that measurements of distance and area in its native coordinates are completely unusable.

It says that RE is based on longitude and latitude. The article then says that latitude and longitude are not used.

I would recommend taking it to another thread, as it is off-topic to the subject of gyroscopes and is distracting. Please start a new thread and tell us how this system works if latitude and longitude measurements are not used. I am sure that several others in the community would like to know.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elon musk
« on: April 19, 2019, 06:31:14 PM »
I think the likes of Lockeed Martin & Boeing (and JPL-Though it's sort of a hybrid CalTech managed, gov't funded entity) would disagree with your off-the-cuff assertion/opinion. Both are steeped in design. Not just providing bodies to crunch numbers and weld pieces together in clean rooms.

LM is right now pitching NASA on a moon launch for 2024. Lots of elements to the puzzle involving plenty.

Do you really believe that the government would let a private company build and have plans for bombers and other weapons without any government oversight or management, on their own facilities?

"Here you go, here is last year's design. Make some improvements and have at it!"

Is that how it works?

Anyone who has ever worked for a government contractor knows that they are working for the government and its managers, not the contracting agency.

"If NASA wants to use Lockheed's architecture, the space agency will likely need to start funding it now." probably doesn't know that the government owns all property rights to the technologies that it funds. Who could believe that NASA is giving Lockeed and SpaceX billions of dollars to let them own it? Something that can be double-purposed as an ICBM, no less?

Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Core Mechanical Gyro Test
« on: April 19, 2019, 06:10:48 PM »
The sentence you quoted is talking about a different device, a military gyroscope that is being sold for $71,000. While expensive, there is no guarantee that if they buy it that it would be adequate for the purpose (although I suspect that those would be capable of detecting 15/deg hour too). If its shoddily built or if there are issues then it's a lot of money wasted...

The rotating platform helps to provide a control and ensure that the gyroscope they are building would be capable of detecting 15/deg hour.

Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Core Mechanical Gyro Test
« on: April 19, 2019, 05:21:41 PM »
An update was made last month a few days after this thread was last active.

Mechanical Gyro March Update
by Robert Scott | Mar 11, 2019 | News & Updates

The purpose of the mechanical gyroscope project is to provide a method to directly demonstrate the rotation of the earth on its axis. Although the Foucault pendulum is claimed to accomplish this there is enough reports of Foucault pendulum constructions which did not precess according to the theory until several adjustments were made to call into question the validity of the claim.

FECORE’s efforts began with inertial measuring units or IMUs. IMUs are small electronic and mechanical devices found in many cell phones and other sensing devices. They are extremely sensitive and in fact they are not usable for many observations because they are so sensitive that small vibrations can’t be adequately filtered out. The other problem is that they always use a magnetic field sensor to constantly reorient the sensor. This was the reason the project shifted focus to a mechanical gyroscope.

Now let’s get up to speed on the state of the mechanical gyro.
Some observations in testing brought about some changes.
As the gyro was spun up to 3000 plus rpm it created a lot of wind. This air resistance slows down the flywheel after it was spun up by Dremel device. Stefan reduced the air resistance by encasing the entire flywheel with a close fitting plastic case.
Even with the reduced air friction the time of spin above say 6000 was less than 10 minutes and not long enough for any meaningful observations. Attaching a motor would introduce the problem of a wire to the motor which could influence drift or no drift. Stefan decided to have the motor driven by batteries which would also act as a counterweight to balance the weight of the motor.

The result of Stefan’s excellent workmanship is a very balanced gyroscope capable of 10,000 rpm.

In the picture you can see the coupling device between the motor and the flywheel. Below is a close up of it and a sample coupler to show the construction.Also on the motor support mount you can see the bolts used to attach the motor assembly directly to the gyroscope’s frame.

Recently Stefan has been trying to reduce some mechanical vibration at high rpm. Different motor mountings and motor to fly wheel couplings have been tested but more testing is needed.

To place the magnitude of this project into perspective it should be understood that prior to Loran for ocean navigation Sperry Marine made gyro compasses with the express purpose of maintaining rigidity in space as the boat turned and moved. This meant that once the compass was set to true north the gyroscopic action would keep it pointed there. This is the internal workings of a Sperry Mk 14.

These instruments are no longer sold by Sperry. The Sperry Mk 27 was last in production 30 years past. The cost of a refurbished Mk 27 is $71,000 which includes a 90 day warranty. And there is no guarantee that such a device is sensitive enough to measure a movement as small as 15° per hour.

We are thinking that Stefan can give a better warranty and the cost of donated time and labor is more in our budget. Thank you for your dedication Stefan.

Quote from: stack
If I'm to understand this, FECORE's one 'experiment' funded by membership so far (No other experiments have seemingly taken place) found that, for instance, the 10's of km's in distance measurements show the WGS84 to be off by 6 inches at the shortest distance and less than 2 feet at the longest? Am I mistaken in interpretation?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elon musk
« on: April 19, 2019, 02:30:00 PM »
Government contractors actually do little more than send their workers to work on government bases under the direction of government managers and directors, with government clearances. They are more like temp agencies than anything, used for liability reasons and because they are easy to fire. Anyone who has ever worked for the DoD can attest. The only involvement the workers get from their company is a paycheck and benefits. When the contract changes to another company the workers don't even change cubicles.

Think about it. The government wouldn't hand out bomber and warship plans to any company to build on their own... in this case the technologies are what are essentially ICBM plans. It's a controlled environment and the technologies are likely considered on the level of weapons of mass destruction or at least of a very sensitive nature.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory gravity
« on: April 18, 2019, 09:51:34 PM »
Yes Tom, I get it. And you describing what would happen if the earth were moving upwards at constant speed and the marbles were not. But the earth is accelerating - so the pressure we see at the bottom should increase.

I am talking about acceleration. If a rocket were moving upwards at constant speed through space everything inside of a rocket would just quickly become weightless once the speed is matched, not pinned to the floor of a rocket. To keep things pinned to the floor of a rocket (or rocket ship earth) acceleration is required.

The marbles are not getting heavier, we are colliding with them at larger and larger speeds.

The only other option is that the marbles are moving with the earth.

This is freshman mechanics we’re talking about here.

According to the equivalence principle a rocket filled with marbles and accelerating upwards at 1g through space would behave the same as a rocket filled with marbles that is sitting on a launch pad and being pulled down by gravity at 1g.

Why would a sensor on the floor of the rocket react, or feel, anything differently in either scenario?

Change it to air, water, etc, and the result will be the same. An assertion that there should be a difference seems to violate the equivalence principle.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory gravity
« on: April 18, 2019, 08:52:03 PM »
Consider the following analogy: The earth is flat and accelerating upwards with a contained atmolayer. The atmolayer, rather than being composed of individual molecules, is composed of marbles... the "marblelayer." There are two people; one buried at the bottom of the marbles and another person buried one layer deep at the top. A person at the bottom is being pushed up into more marbles than a person who is only buried one layer deep. The person at the bottom will encounter more inertial resistance to the mass of marbles above him, as the earth accelerates upwards and pushes him into the marbles.

The person at the bottom of the mass of marbles perishes in this scenario, but one should see the gist. Atmosphere is heavier on the surface of the earth than at higher altitudes... we do feel it and it doesn't need to be coupled. We are just used to the atmosphere's sea level weight of 14.7 lb/square inch, as measured by the barometer, which is a weight scale for the atmosphere.

Yes, and that pressure should be an increasing function of time. But it isn’t, so the atmosphere must be coupled to the plane’s acceleration, which means the environment above the plane is coupled. So once we jump, and enter this environment why do we fall back down?

I don't entirely see what you are conveying and would ask for some clarification. Why would the pressure increase if the acceleration is constant? In the above analogy the weight of the marbles would not continually increase over time at either the bottom of the mass of marbles or at the top of it.

As per the equivalence principle, a rocket filled with marbles and accelerating upwards at 1g through space would behave the same as a rocket filled with marbles that is sitting on a launch pad and being pulled down by gravity at 1g. The weight of the marbles on the floor of the rocket would not become increasingly heavier over time in either scenario, as far as I am aware.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory gravity
« on: April 18, 2019, 07:51:20 PM »
Can the criticism of "we should feel the wind" be restated? If the fluid of the atmosphere is contained in some manner, like water in a bowl, then we should feel greater weight of the atmosphere at lower altitudes than at higher altitudes. Which we do, as per atmospheric weight and barometers. The weight of the atmosphere at sea level is about 14.7 lb/square inch.

Per the speed of light: Frames of reference and relative motion are concepts which long predate Einstein's flavor of it. I believe that there are existing experiments in literature which suggest that frames of reference are independent of each other, and which form the basis for the current theories about it, but it would be a research project to collect them.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Suggestion: Upvote/Downvote Idea
« on: April 18, 2019, 05:01:26 PM »
It's an interesting idea, but probably not suited for the forum format. It would be better for an entirely differently structured debate platform in which each side gives arguments, which are presented and voted on or commented on for user participation.

I've always thought that a platform for debate of ideas on merit would be a better situation than "talk to the flat earthers," of which there are comparatively few.

It is possible for the Foucault Pendulum to be an inconsistent or invalid experiment, or explained through other means, without the earth needing to be flat, as an example. Such a platform would further FET without forcing its users to argue for or believe in things that they do not believe in. It would take careful consideration and presentation... A debate club v.2.

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Need help with map
« on: April 18, 2019, 12:05:23 AM »
I know there exist transform tools that will reproject a Mercator map that you upload into different projections. However, the names of those tools escape me at the moment and that is about all the help I can provide.

As a Flat Earth information repository, the Wiki should include information on the popular alternative models, simply because they are popular and people want to learn more about the beliefs. Ideally there would be some sort of patrolled submission or edit process where people can submit to the Wiki editors for review for glaring errors and chicanery. However, at the moment, if you can help to document some of the models in the Projects forum, with some detail, we can start on an alternative models section, and then probably advertise that there are various models.

Most of the Wiki pages on phenomena are pretty model-agnostic, and we wrote them to be that way.

Flat Earth Community / Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« on: April 17, 2019, 01:57:37 PM »
I am considering whether or not to de-list the Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof articles from the main pages. They come from the early era of the other website, and can be interpreted as mainly trolling. However, it is possible that they are not trolling.

If either or both should stay, or if they should be rewritten, how should it be done and what should they say? These are subjects that come up on a regular basis.

Addressing items such as the Foucault Pendulum or the Cavendish Experiment is a matter of all science, for all models, and tells us what is happening and what would need to happen -- whether it is explained with a mechanism, and which one, or whether the experiment is inconsistent and of questionable value. Addressing experiments or phenomena is a description of nature and the earth, and is not "RE".

To the OP:

Celestial Rotation Monopole Model: P-Brane: Anti-rotation in the south explained by perspective

Celestial Rotation Bi-Polar Model: New Flat Earth Model Tears Globe A New AE

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Fauxcault pendulum
« on: April 16, 2019, 06:21:57 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Right of the start of the document it says:

"It is important for the photo beam adjustments to be made accurately for power to be applied equally in all directions to the armature"

Your statement of "Right of the start of the document" kills your argument.

Then, after that in the document, it says to spend several days adjusting it until one has determined that the "precession is operating properly":

“Pay close attention to the photo beams alignment. This adjustment can effect the Ball’s precession around the pit. It may require a couple of days to determine if precession is operating properly. Precession is a function of the Earths rotation.”

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Telescope images of moon
« on: April 16, 2019, 06:15:18 PM »
I found these recently online and found them interesting. Apparently one can observe evidence of the moon landing through telescopes.

These are not "telescope images of the moon" and one cannot "observe evidence of the moon landing through telescopes."

The images are from the LROC spacecraft.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 291  Next >