• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Are there any pilots here? Please debunk this!

RebelYell

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Likes
134
Space is a vacuum, no? What prevents the atmosphere from being dispersed away from Earth? The magical theory of gravity?

Speaking of that vacuum, if there is no friction in space, how does thrust work on rocket engines in space? What are they pushing off of to propel through space?
You are misunderstanding how a rocket works. The fuel explodes (for lack of a better word) inside the rocket engine. When it explodes it expands extremely fast pushing equally hard on any surface it comes into contact with. If the fuel exploded inside a box the box wouldn't move anywhere whether it was in space or here on earth as the rocket fuel would exert an equal force on each wall of the box and those forces would all cancel out. If the forces were strong enough it might blow the box up of course, but assuming the box remained intact it wouldn't move.

In the case of our rocket engine though, it works by effectively leaving one side of the box open. The explosion pushes very hard on all the walls but not of course the opening, and the engine therefore accelerates in the direction opposite to the opening since no there is no force in that direction to counter the force on the opposite wall. It doesn't make any difference to the rocket whether its fuel exhaust is expelled through the opening into the air or into a vacuum - the exhaust doesn't propel the rocket by "pushing off" on the air. It does make a difference to the fuel exhaust though. In the vacuum of outer space, the fuel exhaust will hurtle at very high speed in the opposite direction to the rocket almost forever. While here on earth it will rapidly slow down transferring momentum to the air molecules it collides with.
 

RebelYell

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Likes
134
Another thought here...

Where exactly is the spin of the earth being measured from? The surface or the outer edge of the atmosphere? Like a spinning tire on a wheel, the further from the center point, the faster the spin and force generated. Thus, planes taking off from the surface and ascending to 6 miles up would encounter different speeds than that which they started out with.
Spin is measured in angular velocity at revolutions or degrees (or radians) per second. So a balloon floating straight up from the ground would not experience any change in air speed from the phenomenon you describe - the air would continue to seem still relative to the ground and the balloon itself. Except for any wind of course - but that's not what you are talking about here.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,819
Likes
5,726
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Solarion et al,

I studied physics for a while - but rather a long time ago now - so it's entirely possible that knowledge has moved on without me - but nevertheless think I can add some bits and pieces to the discussion.

First of all - I think it's worth pointing out that almost nothing in science can be absolutely proven. There are various terms in science to describe scientists' ideas. In the case of gravity, Newton proposed a "law" rather than a theory - and a law is merely an observed relationship. In the case of gravity - Newton simply observed that the force between two objects is proportional to their combined mass divided by the square of the distance between them. The reason that scientists widely accept this law is that it seems to explain very well all the phenomena we are able to observe - although I believe there are some anomalies that we have yet to explain at the sub-atomic particle level.

It's worth noting however that a law is merely an observation of the way things are - how things behave. It's interesting of course - and it's all an engineer or an explorer needs to do his job - but scientists want more. They want to explain the law and understand why it is the way it is. And that explanation is called a theory.

In the case of gravity, there are two theories that attempt to explain how it works: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory (aka gravitons). However there are problems with both of these theories so it would certainly be true to say that nobody yet knows how gravity works, or at least if they do they're keeping it secret.

It's quite possibly also true to say that we will never know for certain how gravity works - or anything else for that matter. Scientists constantly test laws and theories, and as thinking evolves and technology advances, are able to perform experiments that show that previous laws and theories are not perfectly correct. Other scientists then go to work to try and improve the existing law or theory, or come up with an entirely new one which accounts for the new evidence.

So to that extent, you are correct. We do not currently understand perfectly how gravity works, and perhaps we never will. And if this is a purely philosophical debate, then I can't even prove that we're not all living in test tubes plugged into the matrix, let alone the existence of gravity. But then again, on that level, nor can you prove that gravity doesn't exist, nor that the earth is flat.

Assuming that we're not operating on that level, then rationally we should accept that

(1) Laws (nearly?) always precede theories in science. And the lack of a theory does not invalidate a law, although obviously a good theory provides support for a law.

(2) Just because a law or a theory isn't perfectly correct doesn't mean it isn't useful, nor that it cannot be used to draw conclusions or make accurate predictions about our environment.

(3) New theories, to become accepted, must explain all the known facts better than the old theories.

And this I think is where you fall down, because - at least in my opinion - Newton's law of gravity does explain nearly all observable phenomena very well. And certainly better than any alternative I have yet encountered. Which of course doesn't mean that somebody won't one day find a law and theory which is even more broadly applicable than what we currently have. But I am not prepared to accept that your no gravity / flat earth proposal is the one :-).

You raise a number of questions and put forward evidence that you believe shows that earth is not a spheroid, but is instead flat. As you might expect, you quickly finds that you can only maintain the flat earth theory if you also calls into question the existence of gravity. However, in my opinion

- your logic is flawed when you correctly points out that nobody knows how gravity works, but then conclude that the law of gravity must be false simply because there is no theory to explain it. This is a logical fallacy.

- the evidence you put forward to disprove the law of gravity and the shape of our planet does not in fact show what you believe it shows. The law of gravity and a spherical earth are entirely consistent with all of your observations.

Forgive me for not re-reading the entire thread and ensuring I cover every question you raised but I think the main ones were:

1. There is no way for you to verify gravity - only NASA can do it and they are lying.

What about Cavendish's experiment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment. This experiment allowed scientists to measure the very small force between small metal balls in a laboratory and can and has been repeated thousands of times.

2. Water doesn't stick to a small sphere, why would it stick to a large one? And I'm going to lump this together with "Why doesn't the sun rip water off the earth's surface"?

Newton's law of gravity does account for both of these phenoma. In the case of the small ball

- here, close to the earth's surface, the earth's gravitational pull is much stronger than the small ball's so the water slides off the small ball onto the earth.

- if the small ball were far enough away from the earth, and the water were cold enough (and/or the ball large enough) that the water molecules did not possess sufficient kinetic energy to escape the ball's gravitational field then the water would stick to then small ball.

In the case of the sun and the earth: close to the earth, the earth exerts a stronger gravitational force than the sun. The law of gravity clearly states that the force is proportional to the product of the masses of the two objects divided by the square of the radius - and therefore this close to the earth, it's gravity is stronger.

Note however that the gravitational force of the sun does have some effect on our water, influencing the tides.

If some water were placed mid-way between the sun and the earth, it would indeed experience a much stronger pull from the sun than the earth and accelerate toward the sun.

3. Planes and submarines, using gyroscopic navigational aids, don't have to make altitude adjustments as they circumnavigate.

This is because navigational gyroscopes are specifically designed with vanes to address exactly the problem you raise. These vanes cause the gyroscope to slowly adjust as the direction of gravity changes. Otherwise you would indeed have to make complicated altitude adjustments.

See the following link for an explanation which was actually in response to a question about an aircraft turning but includes the information you need:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...-enough-will-the-ai-show-im-level/14659#14659


Now equally, if you want to posit a flat earth, then there are some things which are very difficult to explain.

1. Along similar lines to your flawed gyroscope example - but showing the precise opposite, Foucault used a pendulum in his very famous experiment to show that the earth is rotating. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum.

The fact that the pendulum precesses at different speeds and in different directions depending on its position relative to the poles and the equator is very strong evidence that the earth is a spheroid.

2. If the world is flat, how is it night in some parts of the world while it is day in others? Try phoning up somebody in China right now and ask where the sun is?

3. Why do we see different stars in the Southern hemisphere (if it's not a hemisphere)?

4. The difference in the angle of the sun's rays at noon at different latitudes is not consistent with a flat earth. Eratosthenes was able to use this information to actually calculate the circumference of the earth very accurately over 2000 years ago: http://www.eaae-astronomy.org/eratosthenes/eratosthenes-99456.

5. Why can you see further from a mast top or a tree top, than from a ship's deck or the ground?

6. This one's a bit subjective, but there are countless reports of people seeing the curvature of the earth from Concorde which used to fly at about 60,000'. I'm not going to hang my hat on this one though - as I agree that this could certainly be Mockingbirded.

Now I'm pretty sure that I'm not suffering from cognitive dissonance. I went through that period a long time ago. But, having woken up, I have realized how difficult it is to determine the truth of any matter. Just because the government cannot be trusted, and indeed frequently lies when it suits their purposes, doesn't mean that everything they say is a lie. And I have come to terms with the fact that I will likely never know for certain many things which I would like to know.

It is also important to remember that the entire sum of human knowledge and philosophy built up over thousands of years is not all a propaganda device designed to mislead you. There are, and always have been good people and good scientists in the world doing their best to tell the truth. And in this case I'd far rather trust the scientists who proposed that the earth was round, than the catholic church which violently suppressed the theory for a thousand years. Both from a human assessment of their motivations, and from my own ability to understand the arguments of both sides and filter them based on my own understanding of the world.

RebelYell
Absolutely phenomenal post there RebelYell. Another "nail meet hammer" response. You should post more often.


And that which defies gravity? How do you explain it?
What exactly is it that defies gravity?

Not accurate. The moon landings were faked and it has nothing too do with whether or not the Earth is flat....nor anything else mentioned in that list.
That's not what sol says.

What happens at the meeting point between the edge of our atmosphere and the vacuum of space? Why doesn't our atmosphere get sucked into the vacuum?
The "vacuum of space" doesn't work like that. It doesn't "suck" anything.

Space is a vacuum, no? What prevents the atmosphere from being dispersed away from Earth? The magical theory of gravity?
Uh, yea. Gravity is what holds the atmosphere to the Earth.
...and some of it is lost to space, just not an appreciable amount. Probably any hydrogen released into the atmosphere, along with helium might eventually escape into space.

Speaking of that vacuum, if there is no friction in space, how does thrust work on rocket engines in space? What are they pushing off of to propel through space?
Why would you think a rocket needs something to push off of? That's not how rockets work. Rockets work via the rapid expansion of gas, not because they have something behind them to push off of.
...and read the response by @RebelYell a couple posts above this one. He nailed it for ya.

Where exactly is the spin of the earth being measured from? The surface or the outer edge of the atmosphere? Like a spinning tire on a wheel, the further from the center point, the faster the spin and force generated.
Thus, planes taking off from the surface and ascending to 6 miles up would encounter different speeds than that which they started out with.
The difference is negligible and the power of a plane handles it just fine.

True pseuedo-science religious fanatics even toss Newton under the bus when it comes to his assertion that gravity must possess "infinite speed",
Who said that? Gravity propagates @ the speed of light. It's not "instant". Ie: this isn't Quaker Oats were talkin' here.

Hey science challenged idiot
Idiot? Do we really want to go down that path? I could easily call you an idiot for believing half this stuff, but I don't. Instead I spend time trying to help you to understand the part of our World you're having trouble with. Why? Because I like ya Sol, that's why.

It's mental gymnastics.
To believe in flat Earth, yes.

due to temperature/barometric pressure differences air is moving up and down relative to the Earth while allegedly spinning in lock step with the Earth.
Yep. Just like a tossed object inside a moving car goes up and down as it moves along with the car.

I mean really, sol. How would it be any different? According to your logic, if you are riding along in a car at 50mph and toss a small object upward, if should fly backwards at 50mph striking you in the chest. Why doesn't it do that? Answer that question and you'll have figured why a plane can land on a North/South runway on a surface moving at 1000+mph.
...and have you ever considered the case of aircraft landing on an aircraft carrier moving along at 20knots?
...and their runway is even angled, which makes it even harder. Yet they can do it all day everyday.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
So we all know that Newton never finished his work before he died. We know also that Cavendish's torsion rod experiment only work when conducted by unicorns.

There ya go. Gravity debunked.

It's a bunch of crap maths that are never re-created in the real world. Newton took a bunch of garbage assumptions from Copernicus' model of the solar system, built some garbage maths...croaked before he could finish it and then Cavendish picks it up and creates a physical experiment that somehow magically, allegedly works for him once and we're stuck with this lemon for the next couple centuries.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,373
Likes
3,272
How do you know that? Maybe you doubt that humans landed on the moon. But it's not the sort of thing you can know for certain one way or the other is it? Unless of course you were one of the people who actually landed on the moon. And even then you might have been tripping I suppose :-)

RebelYell
I know based on a preponderance of evidence along with the fact that it was simply not possible in 1969 just as it is not possible today.

Just ask NASA... ;)
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,373
Likes
3,272
Solarion et al,

I studied physics for a while - but rather a long time ago now - so it's entirely possible that knowledge has moved on without me - but nevertheless think I can add some bits and pieces to the discussion.

First of all - I think it's worth pointing out that almost nothing in science can be absolutely proven. There are various terms in science to describe scientists' ideas. In the case of gravity, Newton proposed a "law" rather than a theory - and a law is merely an observed relationship. In the case of gravity - Newton simply observed that the force between two objects is proportional to their combined mass divided by the square of the distance between them. The reason that scientists widely accept this law is that it seems to explain very well all the phenomena we are able to observe - although I believe there are some anomalies that we have yet to explain at the sub-atomic particle level.

It's worth noting however that a law is merely an observation of the way things are - how things behave. It's interesting of course - and it's all an engineer or an explorer needs to do his job - but scientists want more. They want to explain the law and understand why it is the way it is. And that explanation is called a theory.

In the case of gravity, there are two theories that attempt to explain how it works: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory (aka gravitons). However there are problems with both of these theories so it would certainly be true to say that nobody yet knows how gravity works, or at least if they do they're keeping it secret.

It's quite possibly also true to say that we will never know for certain how gravity works - or anything else for that matter. Scientists constantly test laws and theories, and as thinking evolves and technology advances, are able to perform experiments that show that previous laws and theories are not perfectly correct. Other scientists then go to work to try and improve the existing law or theory, or come up with an entirely new one which accounts for the new evidence.

So to that extent, you are correct. We do not currently understand perfectly how gravity works, and perhaps we never will. And if this is a purely philosophical debate, then I can't even prove that we're not all living in test tubes plugged into the matrix, let alone the existence of gravity. But then again, on that level, nor can you prove that gravity doesn't exist, nor that the earth is flat.

Assuming that we're not operating on that level, then rationally we should accept that

(1) Laws (nearly?) always precede theories in science. And the lack of a theory does not invalidate a law, although obviously a good theory provides support for a law.

(2) Just because a law or a theory isn't perfectly correct doesn't mean it isn't useful, nor that it cannot be used to draw conclusions or make accurate predictions about our environment.

(3) New theories, to become accepted, must explain all the known facts better than the old theories.

And this I think is where you fall down, because - at least in my opinion - Newton's law of gravity does explain nearly all observable phenomena very well. And certainly better than any alternative I have yet encountered. Which of course doesn't mean that somebody won't one day find a law and theory which is even more broadly applicable than what we currently have. But I am not prepared to accept that your no gravity / flat earth proposal is the one :-).

You raise a number of questions and put forward evidence that you believe shows that earth is not a spheroid, but is instead flat. As you might expect, you quickly finds that you can only maintain the flat earth theory if you also calls into question the existence of gravity. However, in my opinion

- your logic is flawed when you correctly points out that nobody knows how gravity works, but then conclude that the law of gravity must be false simply because there is no theory to explain it. This is a logical fallacy.

- the evidence you put forward to disprove the law of gravity and the shape of our planet does not in fact show what you believe it shows. The law of gravity and a spherical earth are entirely consistent with all of your observations.

Forgive me for not re-reading the entire thread and ensuring I cover every question you raised but I think the main ones were:

1. There is no way for you to verify gravity - only NASA can do it and they are lying.

What about Cavendish's experiment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment. This experiment allowed scientists to measure the very small force between small metal balls in a laboratory and can and has been repeated thousands of times.

2. Water doesn't stick to a small sphere, why would it stick to a large one? And I'm going to lump this together with "Why doesn't the sun rip water off the earth's surface"?

Newton's law of gravity does account for both of these phenoma. In the case of the small ball

- here, close to the earth's surface, the earth's gravitational pull is much stronger than the small ball's so the water slides off the small ball onto the earth.

- if the small ball were far enough away from the earth, and the water were cold enough (and/or the ball large enough) that the water molecules did not possess sufficient kinetic energy to escape the ball's gravitational field then the water would stick to then small ball.

In the case of the sun and the earth: close to the earth, the earth exerts a stronger gravitational force than the sun. The law of gravity clearly states that the force is proportional to the product of the masses of the two objects divided by the square of the radius - and therefore this close to the earth, it's gravity is stronger.

Note however that the gravitational force of the sun does have some effect on our water, influencing the tides.

If some water were placed mid-way between the sun and the earth, it would indeed experience a much stronger pull from the sun than the earth and accelerate toward the sun.

3. Planes and submarines, using gyroscopic navigational aids, don't have to make altitude adjustments as they circumnavigate.

This is because navigational gyroscopes are specifically designed with vanes to address exactly the problem you raise. These vanes cause the gyroscope to slowly adjust as the direction of gravity changes. Otherwise you would indeed have to make complicated altitude adjustments.

See the following link for an explanation which was actually in response to a question about an aircraft turning but includes the information you need:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...-enough-will-the-ai-show-im-level/14659#14659


Now equally, if you want to posit a flat earth, then there are some things which are very difficult to explain.

1. Along similar lines to your flawed gyroscope example - but showing the precise opposite, Foucault used a pendulum in his very famous experiment to show that the earth is rotating. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum.

The fact that the pendulum precesses at different speeds and in different directions depending on its position relative to the poles and the equator is very strong evidence that the earth is a spheroid.

2. If the world is flat, how is it night in some parts of the world while it is day in others? Try phoning up somebody in China right now and ask where the sun is?

3. Why do we see different stars in the Southern hemisphere (if it's not a hemisphere)?

4. The difference in the angle of the sun's rays at noon at different latitudes is not consistent with a flat earth. Eratosthenes was able to use this information to actually calculate the circumference of the earth very accurately over 2000 years ago: http://www.eaae-astronomy.org/eratosthenes/eratosthenes-99456.

5. Why can you see further from a mast top or a tree top, than from a ship's deck or the ground?

6. This one's a bit subjective, but there are countless reports of people seeing the curvature of the earth from Concorde which used to fly at about 60,000'. I'm not going to hang my hat on this one though - as I agree that this could certainly be Mockingbirded.

Now I'm pretty sure that I'm not suffering from cognitive dissonance. I went through that period a long time ago. But, having woken up, I have realized how difficult it is to determine the truth of any matter. Just because the government cannot be trusted, and indeed frequently lies when it suits their purposes, doesn't mean that everything they say is a lie. And I have come to terms with the fact that I will likely never know for certain many things which I would like to know.

It is also important to remember that the entire sum of human knowledge and philosophy built up over thousands of years is not all a propaganda device designed to mislead you. There are, and always have been good people and good scientists in the world doing their best to tell the truth. And in this case I'd far rather trust the scientists who proposed that the earth was round, than the catholic church which violently suppressed the theory for a thousand years. Both from a human assessment of their motivations, and from my own ability to understand the arguments of both sides and filter them based on my own understanding of the world.

RebelYell
I appreciate you taking the time to post all this. I will get back to it later when I have more time to dissect it.

-JP
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
The Apollo stuff is like a happy fairy tale that Amerikans hold unto just for warm fuzzies.

I rather ask NASA how the ISS is electrically grounded. Twenty years allegedly buzzing the Earth without a ground. Right.
 

RebelYell

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Likes
134
So we all know that Newton never finished his work before he died. We know also that Cavendish's torsion rod experiment only work when conducted by unicorns.

There ya go. Gravity debunked.

It's a bunch of crap maths that are never re-created in the real world. Newton took a bunch of garbage assumptions from Copernicus' model of the solar system, built some garbage maths...croaked before he could finish it and then Cavendish picks it up and creates a physical experiment that somehow magically, allegedly works for him once and we're stuck with this lemon for the next couple centuries.
I don't believe you're correct on Cavendish's experiment. It's constantly recreated in high schools and university labs around the world. I've witnessed it myself.

Is it possible you are not keeping a sufficiently open mind yourself?

RebelYell
 

RebelYell

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Likes
134
The Apollo stuff is like a happy fairy tale that Amerikans hold unto just for warm fuzzies.

I agree that this is possible. I just think it is very hard for anybody who wasn't actually involved in the program to know this for an absolute fact, as opposed to simply suspecting it based on an after-the-fact analysis of available evidence and an assessment of witness credibility.

I rather ask NASA how the ISS is electrically grounded. Twenty years allegedly buzzing the Earth without a ground. Right.
There are two aspects to grounding the ISS.

Firstly it is necessary to ensure that each component of the ISS does not have a charge relative to any other component. This is the same problem that you have with your car, and it is solved the same way. In a car, or a plane for that matter, ground is achieved by connecting all the components to a single "sink". In the case of your car, the sink is the chassis. This ensures that voltage does not build up on any component of the vehicle relative to another so that no dangerous sparks or shocks - caused by a difference in voltage - can happen. Smaller spacecraft use exactly the same system. Larger spacecraft like the ISS use a multi point ground where there are many sinks which are themselves interconnected.

Secondly it is necessary to prevent the entire spaceship from picking up a large positive or negative charge relative to ambient space. This is done by something called a plasma contactor unit which works by firing out either electrons or positive gas ions into space in order to adjust the charge of the spaceship. This isn't rocket science (sorry couldn't resist that one :-)). Back in the old days (i.e. more than about 15 years ago) TVs worked in a similar way - by firing a ray of electrons from a cathode, hence the acronym "CRT", or cathode ray tube.

RebelYell
 

RebelYell

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Likes
134
There are two aspects to grounding the ISS.

Firstly it is necessary to ensure that each component of the ISS does not have a charge relative to any other component. This is the same problem that you have with your car, and it is solved the same way. In a car, or a plane for that matter, ground is achieved by connecting all the components to a single "sink". In the case of your car, the sink is the chassis. This ensures that voltage does not build up on any component of the vehicle relative to another so that no dangerous sparks or shocks - caused by a difference in voltage - can happen. Smaller spacecraft use exactly the same system. Larger spacecraft like the ISS use a multi point ground where there are many sinks which are themselves interconnected.

Secondly it is necessary to prevent the entire spaceship from picking up a large positive or negative charge relative to ambient space. This is done by something called a plasma contactor unit which works by firing out either electrons or positive gas ions into space in order to adjust the charge of the spaceship. This isn't rocket science (sorry couldn't resist that one :-)). Back in the old days (i.e. more than about 15 years ago) TVs worked in a similar way - by firing a ray of electrons from a cathode, hence the acronym "CRT", or cathode ray tube.

RebelYell
PS None of this is of course proof that the ISS exists. But it does weaken your argument that it can't exist.
 

chrisflhtc

Seeker
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
109
Likes
115
Kewl, good to know. No doubt it will surprise to hear that I also suffered through grade skool physics classes. I realize when we're young and being indoctrinated that silly things like...oh I dunno...proof aren't really a thing, but doesn't reason and evidence have to manifest at some point? ...or is it empiricism be damned forever?

So WHAT IS IT? Is it a force? ...a curvature? ...an acceleration? ...an attraction? Magic?

How does gravity work? ...do you think? More specifically, how does it work at > light speed?

Happen to know off hand, how massive an object must be before its gravity magic begins to manifest? I can't seem to find that formula anywhere.

I'm dumb, ignorant, and lacking in common sense according to you though so that should surprise none. I just figured with your wealth of knowledge + common sense you'd have that information at your fingertips.

lolwut? I cannot possibly be interpreting that the way in which someone with your obviously keen intellect intended. Please clarify for us stupid ignorant dummies. Probably I'm just too dumb to comprehend your wise words due to my overwhelmed brain cells.



THIS stupid dummy Army tank gunner says he doesn't take into account the coriolis effect, gravity magic, or Earth's alleged curvature while doing his job. What an idiot. Only five tours though so probably any day now he'll smarten up...


O-M-G stupid people are everywhere. I can't believe the Army would let this moron even get near an abrams.

No doubt a bunch of ex-Army guys are about to show up and explain how they always had to take into account the Earth's alleged curvature, the coriolis effect, and/or alleged gravity magic into their calculations.

...looking forward to hearing about how all these guys are just really stupid and don't "get it".

In a world of historically stupid dummies, this idiot stands head and shoulders above others. His failure as a scientist is well documented. What kind of a stupid dummy fruitcake would conclude that Earth was stationary? Probably had a hard hat to protect his few brain cells.

Why don't you try talking to a battleships gunner that fires some of those 16 inch shells many miles, they most definitely have to take into account "coriolis effect, gravity magic, or Earth's alleged curvature while doing his job." All this talk is very interesting and is making me think a lot more than I normally do which I hear is good for the brain.:2 thumbs up: Thanks for the stimulating discourse.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
I don't believe you're correct on Cavendish's experiment. It's constantly recreated in high schools and university labs around the world. I've witnessed it myself.

Is it possible you are not keeping a sufficiently open mind yourself?

RebelYell
I was indoctrinated with ball Earth philosophy same as everyone else. The simple fact is that the experiment currently labelled "the Cavendish Experiment" is not the same experiment conducted in 1798. When people try to re-create what Cavendish claimed he did, they fail. None of these experiments are evidence that all matter attracts all matter and does so at any speed...let alone infinite speed...or even light speed.
Why don't you try talking to a battleships gunner that fires some of those 16 inch shells many miles, they most definitely have to take into account "coriolis effect, gravity magic, or Earth's alleged curvature while doing his job." All this talk is very interesting and is making me think a lot more than I normally do which I hear is good for the brain.:2 thumbs up: Thanks for the stimulating discourse.
So, your position is that the guys in the interviews I linked...are lying then? Don't know what they're talking about? Convenient that your position doesn't require any evidence.

Do you happen to have a battleship gunner's contact information? I'd love to discuss it with him/her. You are seemingly suggesting that Naval gunners at the battle of Jutland also took into account the alleged spin + curvature of the Earth. Any evidence of that...by chance?


Well that's weird...wonder what's wrong with all these Navy guys?



Navy guy above says they paint targets with a focused pencil beam radar at up to 50 miles...presumably nautical miles, but he did not specify. If any Navy guys here would like to refute that claim, now would be a great time to do so.

Search radar at up to 200 miles. How the heck does one get a return signature from that range on a spheroid?

I wonder how Navy ship mounted rail guns would deal with Earth's alleged curvature. lol
 
Last edited:

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
In the case of the ISS it's grounded to what? You use a car example, but ignore the fact that a car sits on the ground...even alleged NASA "space/time" craft don't ordinarily spend a couple decades without touching the ground. It's fairly easy to accept that the shuttle aircraft, for instance, could just ground when they next landed...that doesn't work for the ISS.

BTW there is no source I consider to be less credible than NASA. If my neighbor told me his 2nd cousin's dog relayed information to him I'd consider it more credible than the constant lies coming out of NASA. I believe NASA has claimed recently to be in contact with Voyager 1(9.5 billion miles) ...cuz apparently they're unfamiliar with the inverse square law. The department of war seems to think everybody is dumb + gullible. Fortunately people are finally waking up to these fraudsters.



It may be fun to theorize that the ISS wouldn't be melted into a pile of slag while hurtling around in the thermosphere @ 17k mph due to heat flux density, though I would quickly point out that humans have a far lower melting point than does aluminum. It's a weak excuse even for astro-nots just passing through, it's ridiculous to think guys could live up there for months at a time.

Just the same, I think heat density is the excuse most oft cited for the ISS being able to remain in an environment that's clearly hot enough to melt it and the humans aboard...and do so for a couple decades uninterrupted. So if it's not melting because of lack of air density, then how does one get to turn around and suggest that the thin air there is somehow thick enough to allow for an electrical ground?

There are dozens of problems with the notion that the ISS is traveling in the thermosphere at 17k mph and has been doing so for decades, but frankly I think the entire notion is so absurd I don't usually bother. Just watching the astro-nots pretending to be aboard the thing is enough debunking. HVAC requirements, electrical grounding, fuel resupply issues, maintenance issues(do they have a machine shop up there?), etc...

Here's a valve guy talking about the ISS absurdities:


There's evidence of what is being said all around us, we just choose not to notice.



 
Last edited:

RebelYell

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Likes
134
In the case of the ISS it's grounded to what? You use a car example, but ignore the fact that a car sits on the ground...even alleged NASA "space/time" craft don't ordinarily spend a couple decades without touching the ground. It's fairly easy to accept that the shuttle aircraft, for instance, could just ground when they next landed...that doesn't work for the ISS.
Not sure you read my response properly, or perhaps you didn't understand it?

The "sink" or common ground is used to provide a conductivity path between all the different parts of the spaceship to ensure that they are all at the same potential and thus preventing discharges between different parts of the spaceship. This is the mechanism that works the same as your car.

It is also true that the entire spaceship might acquire a charge. This could be a problem when the spaceship interacts with other spaceships (e.g. docking craft) or even just ambient space (which is of course not an absolute vacuum) which has a different charge. Sparks could easily result which would damage delicate electrical components in the space ship - especially the exterior mounted and very delicate solar panels. This problem - as I described above - is addressed by the plasma contactor unit. The PCU literally fires rays of electrons (or positive gas ions depending on which direction it needs to adjust the charge) into space thus reducing the charge on the spaceship as a whole.



It may be fun to theorize that the ISS wouldn't be melted into a pile of slag while hurtling around in the thermosphere @ 17k mph due to heat flux density, though I would quickly point out that humans have a far lower melting point than does aluminum. It's a weak excuse even for astro-nots just passing through, it's ridiculous to think guys could live up there for months at a time.
No it's not ridiculous. As you clearly acknowledge, the atmosphere is so thin that even at these very high temperatures, not much heat is gained by the astronaut due to conductivity. In fact so little heat is gained that the heat loss through radiation vastly outweighs the heat gained through conductivity from the thermosphere.

Heat conduction between substances at different temperatures across a surface works as follows. The sign of the temperature difference determines the direction of heat flow - in this case heat does flow from the thermosphere into the astronaut. And the rate of heat flow is proportional to the magnitude of the temperature difference - so a difference of 1000 degrees will cause 100 times as much heat to flow as a difference of 10 degrees. But that doesn't matter if the rate of heat flow at a 10 degree difference is small enough. 100 x a very, very, very small number is still a very, very small number.

This is slightly counterintuitive because, here on earth we don't usually encounter conditions where heat conduction is negligible compared to radiation - it is usually the other way around. Nevertheless it is easy enough to show the impact of air density on the rate of heat conduction by putting some hot coffee in a thermos flask and observing the rate at which it loses heat compared to coffee in a regular container. And if you want to see what happens in an environment which conducts heat better than air, then jump into a cold lake. A lake at 40 degrees is warmer than the air at 35 degrees, but you will "feel" a whole lot colder, and lose heat a whole lot faster, and die a whole lot quicker! The thermosphere is just an extreme example of that. It hardly conducts heat at all, so it doesn't actually matter how hot it is.
[/QUOTE]

Just the same, I think heat density is the excuse most oft cited for the ISS being able to remain in an environment that's clearly hot enough to melt it and the humans aboard...and do so for a couple decades uninterrupted. So if it's not melting because of lack of air density, then how does one get to turn around and suggest that the thin air there is somehow thick enough to allow for an electrical ground?
I don't think anybody is suggesting that the atmosphere provides the electrical ground. A PCU is used as I described above.

That said I don't see that there is an obvious, simple relationship between the rate of heat transference from the space ship to the atmosphere and the ability of the atmosphere to act as a ground either - so - if it actually mattered - which in this case it doesn't - I think you would need to prove that there is a relationship here.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
Read it, just found it to be like 75% of what NASA claims. That is to say it's bs. I guess if you believe they actually sent 3 guys to the moon with 1960's tech then you're primed to believe most anything. It's a nice fairy tale, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



Belief structures need not be founded upon logic and reason...particularly when they make people "feel good".
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
At some point common sense must take over right? Perhaps it is...finally.

https://www.google.com/search?q=iss+fake+footage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab



These fraudsters can't even say conclusively what gravity is, but they're now planning to use it to go to Mars...and apparently Alpha Centauri. lol This stuff is ridiculous.

So you're on this allegedly spinning ball Earth and you dump your theoretical 1960's tech paper thin space/time craft into space/time on it's way, allegedly, to the moon. How does it not deal with the same forces one would expect when tossing a paper bag out a car window on the highway at 75mph? ...only multiplied exponentially? Gravity majik? How is it not ripped to shreds when it goes from the allegedly spinning atmosphere to the alleged vacuum of space/time? Sounds like hitting a wall at those speeds.
 

skychief

enthusiastic stacker
Silver Miner
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
678
Likes
794
Location
California Coast
Im a (private) pilot. I haven't read all 5 pages of posts, so I apologize if someone has already stated this:

The gyros in aircraft use the center of the Earth as a reference. They are weighted slightly, so on power-up, they will begin functioning with the proper orientation to the Earth's surface - no matter where on the planet it is. If this weren't true, the artificial horizon indicators would indicate the aircraft is upside-down on a plane that flew from Seoul to Sidney! But they dont. Because the artificial horizon gyro always knows which way is up.

The Earth is not flat. Get over it.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
Didn't watch any videos, doesn't refute any of the testimony, but the Earth is not flat...get over it! lol Well now that's very definitive.

Any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Think about an aircraft traveling North across the arctic circle. Does a gyroscope just automagically flip itself over when you cross the North pole?



So here you are with angular momentum > the decelerating atmosphere around you as you travel North and your gyro is just flip flopping as the alleged center of the Earth changes relative to your position. Come on man, not only is that directly contradictory to all the career guys whose testimony I've linked to, it doesn't even stand up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny.

Agree that gyros know which way is up, but it's not because they're automagically linked to the alleged center of the Earth by a magical non-force none seem able to identify. Your argument makes the assumption that the Earth is a spheroid and proceeds from there...which is about as unscientific as can be. You do realize there's at least one moar reason a gyro would not freak out during a flight from Korea to Australia right?

Gravity majik is just this "fix all" for everything people don't understand and don't want to confront. What sheds the thousands of miles of alleged curvature that must be dealt with during a 5k mile flight...gravity majik. Why don't gyros freak out when you're allegedly on the bottom side of a spheroid...gravity majik. What holds trillions of gallons of water to a spinning spheroid...gravity majik.

What is gravity? Beats the hell out of me...

Doesn't seem to bother anyone.



Nope you're wrong! Gravity majik can fix that. Doesn't work that way because...reasons.
 
Last edited:

AguA

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
360
Likes
252
@solarion

Some people seek discourse in order to overcome ignorance, others seek only to validate their ignorance.

You're interaction here is little more than the bratty kid who says nothing other than "why?" to every answer he's given. It's all simply for his own entertainment in the attempt to frustrate others.

It is interesting, however, that you use the voices of "experts" whose faulty knowledge supports your play (and pre-discredit other experts that will contradict them) while failing to provide any proof to support your own ideas in your own voice. I knew a guy like once. "Sir, that's incorrect, improper, etc, and if you have a moment, Mr. So and So would be happy to explain it to you." Always someone else's voice but never his own. There wasn't any need for us to shed light on his lack of knowledge and understanding. It was the only thing in which he excelled at all by his lonesome.

Anyway, I'm glad to have read this thread. I previously thought there was added value from you in other subject areas but no. Your excellence is in your ongoing Theatre of the Absurd. When all is said and done, you simply aim to bring this board to a conclusion of silence.

I'm sure it's of little care to you, but, your voice is the one now fallen silent to me. I'll discuss and learn from others interested in intelligent dialog as opposed to just wreaking havoc in a sandbox.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
Kewl, thanks for sharing. I'm a bratty kid, I'm stupid and I listen to stupid people that also don't seem to understand what everyone else understands.

Awesome arguments you have there. lol

I'm familiar with the usual defense of gravity majik. They generally begin and end with "you're stupid if you don't accept that gravity majik can do anything...".

What is gravity? Fux if I know, but you're ignorant if you don't believe it. #ironcladreasoning

Just now somebody suggested that gravity magic is an acceleration. There goes Einstein right under the bus. That moron said gravity magic was a curvature of space/time...but suddenly it's an acceleration when it needs to be. Nobody seems to notice...nobody seems to care.
 

skychief

enthusiastic stacker
Silver Miner
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
678
Likes
794
Location
California Coast
...Gravity majik is just this "fix all" for everything people don't understand and don't want to confront.

What is gravity? Beats the hell out of me...
I completely understand your frustration. Without understanding principles of gravity and gyroscopic precession, it would be impossible to understand why gyros in aircraft will always orient themselves to the center of the Earth... and they maintain that orientation until they are powered down (shut off).
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
Please contact msargent23@comcast.net 303-494-6631 so he can notify the Army guys, Navy guys, and flight instructor that they're stupid and don't understand how gyros work.

Also while you're over there, please sort out the idiot (still active)Navy guy who's so dumb he thinks he can see targets at 26nm using infrared...at sea level. Clearly he doesn't understand how the alleged curvature of the Earth works...I mean that's 600ft of missing curvature, but of course gravity magic can fix that right up. Weird they put someone so stupid in charge of sea sparrow missile batteries.

Also there are some stupid dummies here that don't seem to understand how gyros work...better sort them out too:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/my-gyroscope-says-the-world-is-flat.90561/

Then there's that retard Einstein you tossed under the bus.

How would you btw land at a North South oriented runway near the equator? Just don't really care about the fact that the runway would be moving laterally at 1037 mph? Gravity magic armor will protect you?

I know I know...I'm stupid and just don't get it because I don't understand gravity magic...like the other 7 billion people...

Anyone want to take a crack at Halley's ridiculous orbit? No? ...didn't think so.

Michelson-Morley? Dummies?
Michelson-Gale? Retards?
Airy? Idiot?
Sagnac? pffffftttt
Bedford level? Whatev man...

Gravity magic pwns!

Enjoy your involuntary sun worship. What day is that again? Sun-day is it?

 
Last edited:

skychief

enthusiastic stacker
Silver Miner
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
678
Likes
794
Location
California Coast
How would you btw land at a North South oriented runway near the equator? Just don't really care about the fact that the runway would be moving laterally at 1037 mph? Gravity magic armor will protect you?

I know I know...I'm stupid and just don't get it because I don't understand gravity magic...like the other 7 billion people...
Gravity is not magic. Its effects can be observed everywhere in the universe. If it weren't for gravity, the Moon would not orbit the Earth. It would drift away. And the Earth would drift away from the sun. We should be very thankful for gravity!

There are four basic fundamental forces in the universe:


  • Gravitational Force
  • Weak Nuclear Force
  • Electromagnetic Force
  • Strong Nuclear Force
They can't be seen, but we know they exist.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
You think you know a bunch of stuff about gravity magic because NASA told you so. Hey, they landed on the moon 49 years ago...you can trust them! You don't "KNOW" shit about gravity and neither does anyone else...including NASA. Hell they cannot even define it.

Electromagnetic force is everywhere. It ain't weak...at all and it's very very easily tested. Two seconds with a statically charged rod and you can watch water bending itself. This is not mysterious at all.

Not gravity magic though. In fact gravity magic doesn't even have a known opposite. lol

...don't worry about all the laws of natural science that gravity magic belief must of necessity force you to ignore. It's a fact mang!
 

chrisflhtc

Seeker
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
109
Likes
115
"Anyone want to take a crack at Halley's ridiculous orbit? No? ...didn't think so." Gravity:bombing aircraft:belly laugh:
 

chrisflhtc

Seeker
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
109
Likes
115
Oh I forgot thrust from the gases on the side of the comet facing the sun being flashed off from the heat being absorbed. Every time you get an answer you ask a different question. We could do this for a little over a month or until it gets tiresome.:tired:
 
Last edited:

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
Nobody's making you defend your gravity god. You're doing so of your own volition.

I've seen the tail of a comet being explained away by alleged light from the sun, but never heard anyone suggest it's causing "thrust" in an alleged space/time vacuum...that's also allegedly filled with mysterious gravitons, dark energy, and dark matter + whatever else pseudo-science needs to invent next to support their silly gravity magic crap. Thanks for the chuckle. :2 thumbs up:
 

chrisflhtc

Seeker
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
109
Likes
115
Ok instead of tiresome let me call it my lack of being able to keep up because of my shortcomings. You have asked questions that are beyond my understanding to explain I can see the answer in my head but I can't properly explain it so I will leave it to guys like RebelYell. You make my head hurt.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
I like you boba fett. It's a shame we got off on the wrong foot...but I didn't start the shooting war, you did.

...and believe me, this stuff hurts my head too. Just sick to effing death of hearing gravity magic used as an excuse for everything we don't understand. ...and of course the usual source of bs is NASA with their firm foundation in NAZI science. They lie constantly.



As I've said, over and over, I do not pretend to know the shape of terra firma, but I'm convinced it is not a pear shaped oblate spheroid that's 24,901 miles in circumference.


FREAKING LOVE this old dood! LMAO

"(curvature)...it's almost like al-ciaduh. Can't find them, but they're there!" ~old dude
 
Last edited:

RebelYell

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Likes
134
Read it, just found it to be like 75% of what NASA claims. That is to say it's bs. I guess if you believe they actually sent 3 guys to the moon with 1960's tech then you're primed to believe most anything. It's a nice fairy tale, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



Belief structures need not be founded upon logic and reason...particularly when they make people "feel good".
Well I have never claimed that NASA tells the truth about everything, nor that they sent three guys to the moon. Nor am I claiming that they didn't by the way. I've just put that one in the "I'll probably never know for sure" bucket and refuse to waste any more of my time on it. I just don't care. I know that every government agency lies sometimes and tells the truth sometimes - I don't really need to spend my whole life trying to figure out which statement is true and which a lie.

I am however claiming that cathode ray technology exists because it was in every TV I watched for the first umpty years of my life. I had a science teacher at high school who took one out of a TV and used it to build a mass spectrometer too. That evidence was good enough for me that this technology exists and clearly it could be used to remove charge from a spacecraft - or anything else for that matter.

As far as I can see, most of your argument is based on a position that whatever the government says is a lie, and therefore if the government (be it the CIA or NASA or the president himself) says it, then it cannot be true and you don't even need to investigate it.

If only things were that simple...

RebelYell
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
I can respect your position, I mean obviously we won't "know" the Apollo missions were filmed in a studio until the department of war is ready to admit it's so. That may be some while off yet...or it may be never, but we can still use our common sense. Like discussing 9/11, just because NIST claims they can explain away 3 steel framed skyscrapers being brought down by 2 planes, doesn't mean rational people have to accept it. One can go through the available evidence, the thousands of still photos and the poor quality video and make up their own mind about the Apollo missions. Frankly I don't see a whole lot to debate there, but you're welcome to your own opinion.

I know what CRTs are, I still have a few around myself, I just haven't turned one on in awhile. Mater of fact I used CRT's tendency to generate magnetic fields as an argument in the NASA faked the moon landings thread.

When NASA says they've got voyager 1 on speed dial, I mean come on. Plainly they think everyone is dumb. To me it might as well be an onion news release.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/voyager-1-fires-up-thrusters-after-37



I've already been called ignorant, stupid, bratty, dumb, blah blah blah. Don't care. Someone tell me how that graphic up there, that I just made in freaking paint is wrong.

Where is the curvature?
 
Last edited:

RebelYell

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Likes
134
Please contact msargent23@comcast.net 303-494-6631 so he can notify the Army guys, Navy guys, and flight instructor that they're stupid and don't understand how gyros work.

Also while you're over there, please sort out the idiot (still active)Navy guy who's so dumb he thinks he can see targets at 26nm using infrared...at sea level. Clearly he doesn't understand how the alleged curvature of the Earth works...I mean that's 600ft of missing curvature, but of course gravity magic can fix that right up. Weird they put someone so stupid in charge of sea sparrow missile batteries.
I'm not addressing this one because I don't have the time to watch a very long video.

Also there are some stupid dummies here that don't seem to understand how gyros work...better sort them out too:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/my-gyroscope-says-the-world-is-flat.90561/
This thread clearly shows the correct explanation - pendulous vanes which make continuous small adjustments to reorient the gyroscope with earth's gravitation field - for the behavior you are struggling to understand.

Then there's that retard Einstein you tossed under the bus.

How would you btw land at a North South oriented runway near the equator? Just don't really care about the fact that the runway would be moving laterally at 1037 mph? Gravity magic armor will protect you?
I think this has been discussed before - the atmosphere moves with the earth - and the plane flies in that same atmosphere. Any motion that the plane experiences is relative to the air. When there are strong cross-winds at ground level, it is indeed difficult to land. And if the atmosphere remained still while the earth spun, it would indeed be impossible to land a plane on a north south runway - or most likely any runway. But this is not the case. You can easily see why the earth's atmosphere moves with the surface of the earth by stirring a cup of coffee with a coffee stirrer. The force between the stirrer and the coffee rapidly causes the coffee to swirl around the cup.

I know I know...I'm stupid and just don't get it because I don't understand gravity magic...like the other 7 billion people...
No - as far as I am aware - nobody understands gravity magic - at least not completely - so that doesn't make you stupid - or at least no stupider than the rest of us :-).

You do come across as extraordinarily certain in your own knowledge though - and most of your counter arguments to others amount to "because I say so" rather than any attempt to use reason or logic. And may of the examples you promote, upon closer inspection, don't actually show what you think they show. And your refusal to acknowledge weaknesses in your argument and then either refine your argument or abandon it is not very scientific.

This is a pity because at the end of the day your most fundamental position is probably that the establishment is bunch of evil, lying assholes who lie to, cheat, enslave and steal from the rest of us whenever they think they can get away with it. That position is one I largely agree with - I just don't think that a round earth is one of their lies. I actually suspect that the flat earth conspiracy is likely a red herring invented by some government agency or other, in order to discredit conspiracies and conspiracists in general. So you may well be helping them - which would be a pity wouldn't it. Unless that is actually your job of course :-).

Anyone want to take a crack at Halley's ridiculous orbit? No? ...didn't think so.
I'm not quite sure what concerns you about Halley's comet. I thought that Halley's (who was Newton's friend) prediction of when the comet would reappear, based upon the law of gravity was one of the early triumphs of Newton's law. And the elongated elliptical shape of the orbit fits entirely with the law of gravity. And in fact all the planets' orbits are elliptical too, although they are much closer to circular than Halley's comet. Or is there something more specific which you feel is wrong with the orbit of Halley's comet?

Michelson-Morley? Dummies?
Michelson-Gale? Retards?
Can you explain how you think these famous experiments support your case? I thought they supported mine :-)

Airy? Idiot?
Sagnac? pffffftttt
Bedford level? Whatev man...

Gravity magic pwns!

Enjoy your involuntary sun worship. What day is that again? Sun-day is it?

 

RebelYell

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Likes
134
I can respect your position, I mean obviously we won't "know" the Apollo missions were filmed in a studio until the department of war is ready to admit it's so. That may be some while off yet...or it may be never, but we can still use our common sense. Like discussing 9/11, just because NIST claims they can explain away 3 steel framed skyscrapers being brought down by 2 planes, doesn't mean rational people have to accept it. One can go through the available evidence, the thousands of still photos and the poor quality video and make up their own mind about the Apollo missions. Frankly I don't see a whole lot to debate there, but you're welcome to your own opinion.

I know what CRTs are, I still have a few around myself, I just haven't turned one on in awhile. Mater of fact I used CRT's tendency to generate magnetic fields as an argument in the NASA faked the moon landings thread.

When NASA says they've got voyager 1 on speed dial, I mean come on. Plainly they think everyone is dumb. To me it might as well be an onion news release.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/voyager-1-fires-up-thrusters-after-37



I've already been called ignorant, stupid, bratty, dumb, blah blah blah. Don't care. Someone tell me how that graphic up there, that I just made in freaking paint is wrong.

Where is the curvature?
I'm beginning to think you are paid by the government to discredit people who disagree with them. Hopefully I'm wrong. Are you?
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
Totally. I adore the gubmint. Heck, why else would I speak so highly of the scumbags at NASA or the maggots in DC.
I think this has been discussed before - the atmosphere moves with the earth - and the plane flies in that same atmosphere. Any motion that the plane experiences is relative to the air. When there are strong cross-winds at ground level, it is indeed difficult to land. And if the atmosphere remained still while the earth spun, it would indeed be impossible to land a plane on a north south runway - or most likely any runway. But this is not the case. You can easily see why the earth's atmosphere moves with the surface of the earth by stirring a cup of coffee with a coffee stirrer. The force between the stirrer and the coffee rapidly causes the coffee to swirl around the cup.
Somehow we're just not connecting on this. It's not about crosswinds, but if you want me to accept that an aircraft that takes off in say NYC and tries to land at a North South runway in Ecuador auto-mysteriously picks up lateral velocity due to gravity magic that's supposedly spinning 300 miles of atmosphere in lock step with a theoretical molten iron core...then that will be a new one. I'd love to see that one explained in depth.

Does this magical transfer of energy from the Earth's alleged core to the aircraft propagate instantaneously, at the not constant speed of light, or whenever the gravity god gets around to it?

"The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.

— Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887"
 
Last edited:

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
I was out on the jetty and fell flat on my ass. lol

I figured it out guys. My bad!



Someone should have told me.
 
Last edited:

Irons

Deep Sixed
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
25,192
Likes
36,924
If the world was flat you could stand on the pier in Grand Haven and see Milwaukee, or at least the lights of Milwaukee with a telescope.
Ya can't.


.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,044
Likes
7,592
The air is still primarily nitrogen irrespective of the shape of Earth. Human vision still has limitations.

Mount Whitney in Commiefornia is the highest point in the contiguous 48 and it's a paltry 14,505 feet.
 

RebelYell

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Likes
134
Totally. I adore the gubmint. Heck, why else would I speak so highly of the scumbags at NASA or the maggots in DC.

Somehow we're just not connecting on this. It's not about crosswinds, but if you want me to accept that an aircraft that takes off in say NYC and tries to land at a North South runway in Ecuador auto-mysteriously picks up lateral velocity
Well yes - I do expect you to accept that the plane picks up lateral velocity - at least in the inertial frame of reference.

due to gravity magic that's supposedly spinning 300 miles of atmosphere in lock step with a theoretical molten iron core...then that will be a new one. I'd love to see that one explained in depth.

Does this magical transfer of energy from the Earth's alleged core to the aircraft propagate instantaneously, at the not constant speed of light, or whenever the gravity god gets around to it?
No the energy to accelerate the plane is not transferred by gravity.

Let's start by initially imagining a spinning, spherical earth without any atmosphere at all. On this earth you are absolutely correct that the plane, during flight, would maintain a straight line in the inertial frame of reference. To an observer on the earth of course it would appear that the plane was accelerating sideways. You can sort of see this - at least in two dimensions - see this in the animation on this web page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force.

So yes, if the pilot did not correct for this effect, the plane would be moving sideways and very fast relative to the surface of the earth when it arrived at its destination. And if the atmosphere did not exist then - yes - pilots would have to steer the plane continuously by a very, very small amount throughout the flight to correct for the Coriolis effect.

But the atmosphere does exist. And it spins around in lock step with the earth. You seem to be implying that this is unlikely but I don't follow your logic here. If the earth is spinning (and I understand you don't like that idea, but bear with it for a minute) then it seems to be extremely unlikely that the atmosphere wouldn't be spinning too. Why would the earth be spinning and not the atmosphere in the first place? And even if the atmosphere wasn't spinning why wouldn't the friction at the surface of the earth and the viscosity of the atmosphere itself cause it to start spinning and quickly align itself with the solid earth (just like my cup of coffee with the spoon when I stir it)? Of course if the earth were indeed not spinning, I would expect that - for exactly these reasons - the atmosphere would not be spinning either.

So if you are willing to accept for the sake of this argument that the atmosphere spinning is at least consistent with the idea that the earth spins and therefore that if one is true so can the other be, then the plane experiences a gentle breeze as the wind speed changes (in the inertial frame of reference) as the plane approaches the equator. This breeze causes the plane to accelerate very slowly sideways, continually adjusting to the velocity of the earth's surface throughout the flight.

In practice of course local wind effects due to pressure differences significantly outweigh the coriolis effect so its not like the pilot sees a constant light breeze the whole way. He sees updrafts, downdrafts, and sideways drafts in both directions for the entire journey so he is constantly steering to keep the plane on track. Hidden unnoticeably amongst all of that is the small wind which is caused by the Coriolis effect on the atmosphere itself which I have just described.

If we assume the plane flies at 500 mph and needs to acquire something like 600 mph of velocity over the course of a 6 hour flight that's an acceleration of 100 mph/h. In other words the same acceleration that would produce a 0-60 time in a car of something like 35 minutes - in other words not detectable by a human. And no - I didn't bother to do all the math properly in this example - but the estimates are good enough to make the answer close enough to be useful and illustrate my point.

"The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.

— Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887"
So...? The end result of this experiment, and its successors, was the confirmation of Einstein's theory of relativity. That
- the velocity of light is a constant in all frames of reference
- the aether (previously assumed to be an omni-present, undetectable medium which supported the transference of light waves, rather as water supports the transference of water waves) does not actually exist
- the earth is indeed spinning.

If you would rather interpret this as proof that the earth isn't moving, then you are also
- claiming the existence of an utterly undetectable substance called aether, capable of affecting the speed of light. How is this aether magick, any better than gravity magick?
- denying all the other proofs of the earth's motion that exist - where you haven't for example addressed Foucault's pendulum, nor the spin direction of cyclones above and below the equator, nor Cavendish's experiment (other than to say it's rubbish without providing a clear reason), nor Eratosthenes observation, nor the existence of timezones and the consequent co-existence of night and day etc.

So I still maintain that
- you are entirely correct about the corruption of our establishment
- it is certainly within the bounds of possibility that we did not in fact land men on the moon
- the government and its agencies frequently lie about all sorts of things
- none of those things are dependent upon the earth being flat or gravity not existing
- the preponderance of evidence weighs very heavily in favor of a spheroidal earth and gravity :-)

RebelYell
 
Last edited:

RebelYell

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
159
Likes
134
Well yes - I do expect you to accept that the plane picks up lateral velocity - at least in the inertial frame of reference.



No the energy to accelerate the plane is not transferred by gravity.

Let's start by initially imagining a spinning, spherical earth without any atmosphere at all. On this earth you are absolutely correct that the plane, during flight, would maintain a straight line in the inertial frame of reference. To an observer on the earth of course it would appear that the plane was accelerating sideways. You can sort of see this - at least in two dimensions - see this in the animation on this web page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force.

So yes, if the pilot did not correct for this effect, the plane would be moving sideways and very fast relative to the surface of the earth when it arrived at its destination. And if the atmosphere did not exist then - yes - pilots would have to steer the plane very slightly to correct for the Coriolis effect.

But the atmosphere does exist. And it spins around in lock step with the earth. You seem to be implying that this is unlikely but I don't follow your logic here. If the earth is spinning (and I understand you don't like that idea, but bear with it for a minute) then it seems to be extremely unlikely that the atmosphere wouldn't be spinning too. Why would the earth be spinning and not the atmosphere in the first place? And even if the atmosphere wasn't spinning why wouldn't the friction at the surface of the earth and the viscosity of the atmosphere itself cause it to start spinning and quickly align itself with the solid earth (just like my cup of coffee with the spoon when I stir it)? Of course if the earth were indeed not spinning, I would expect that - for exactly these reasons - the atmosphere would not be spinning either.

So if you are willing to accept for the sake of this argument that the atmosphere spinning is at least consistent with the idea that the earth spins and therefore that if one is true so can the other be, then the plane experiences a gentle breeze as the wind speed changes (in the inertial frame of reference) as the plane approaches the equator. This breeze causes the plane to start slipping sideways and adjust to the velocity of the earth's surface.

In practice of course local wind effects due to pressure differences significantly outweigh the coriolis effect so its not like the pilot sees a constant light breeze the whole way. He sees updrafts, downdrafts, and sideways drafts in both directions for the entire journey so he is constantly steering to keep the plane on track. Hidden unnoticeably amongst all of that is the small wind which is caused by the Coriolis effect on the atmosphere itself which I have just described.

If we assume the plane flies at 500 mph and needs to acquire something like 600 mph of velocity over the course of a 6 hour flight that's an acceleration of 100 mph/h. In other words the same acceleration that would produce a 0-60 time in a car of something like 35 minutes - in other words not detectable by a human. And no - I didn't bother to do all the math properly in this example - but the estimates are good enough to make the answer close enough to be useful and illustrate my point.


So...? The end result of this experiment, and its successors, was the confirmation of Einstein's theory of relativity. That
- the velocity of light is a constant in all frames of reference
- the aether (previously assumed to be an omni-present, undetectable medium which supported the transference of light waves, rather as water supports the transference of water waves) does not actually exist
- the earth is indeed spinning.

If you would rather interpret this as proof that the earth isn't moving, then you are also
- claiming the existence of an utterly undetectable substance called aether, capable of affecting the speed of light. How is this aether magick, any better than gravity magick?
- denying all the other proofs of the earth's motion that exist - where you haven't for example addressed Foucault's pendulum, nor the spin direction of cyclones above and below the equator, nor Cavendish's experiment (other than to say it's rubbish without providing a clear reason), nor Eratosthenes observation, nor the existence of timezones and the consequent co-existence of night and day etc.

So I still maintain that
- you are entirely correct about the corruption of our establishment
- it is certainly within the bounds of possibility that we did not in fact land men on the moon
- the government and its agencies frequently lie about all sorts of things
- none of those things are dependent upon the earth being flat or gravity not existing
- the preponderance of evidence weighs very heavily in favor of a spheroidal earth and gravity :-)

RebelYell
PPS I also agree that the government has clearly told lots of lies about 9/11. Another one of those "I'll never know what really happened" events - but again I don't need to know. I already know enough to know that our government is utterly corrupt and we need some kind of reset.
I was indoctrinated with ball Earth philosophy same as everyone else. The simple fact is that the experiment currently labelled "the Cavendish Experiment" is not the same experiment conducted in 1798. When people try to re-create what Cavendish claimed he did, they fail. None of these experiments are evidence that all matter attracts all matter and does so at any speed...let alone infinite speed...or even light speed.

So, your position is that the guys in the interviews I linked...are lying then? Don't know what they're talking about? Convenient that your position doesn't require any evidence.

Do you happen to have a battleship gunner's contact information? I'd love to discuss it with him/her. You are seemingly suggesting that Naval gunners at the battle of Jutland also took into account the alleged spin + curvature of the Earth. Any evidence of that...by chance?


Well that's weird...wonder what's wrong with all these Navy guys?



Navy guy above says they paint targets with a focused pencil beam radar at up to 50 miles...presumably nautical miles, but he did not specify. If any Navy guys here would like to refute that claim, now would be a great time to do so.

Search radar at up to 200 miles. How the heck does one get a return signature from that range on a spheroid?

I wonder how Navy ship mounted rail guns would deal with Earth's alleged curvature. lol