1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 18, 2016, 06:11:28 PM »
Still waiting for any proof you know any engineering!
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.
2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the greatest flat earth fallacy ?
« on: January 17, 2016, 04:08:41 PM »
My favorite FE fallacy also relates to horizon:
Go to Mount Keck observatory and ask the operator to aim the optics at the horizon towards western USA .. specifically LA. The 15,000,000+watts of light that LA has every night would be equal to a 2.5watt light at the distance of Mt Keck (inverse square law) ... TO THE UNAIDED EYE. With the light gathering ability of the telescope at Keck, that would be greatly amplified. I have seen images taken by this facility of this exact night sky but there is no LA! I have had arguments that refraction disperse the light such that it cannot penetrate that thick of atmosphere. But if the star light is visible through the atmosphere on the horizon ... well past the distance to LA, this is not a justifiable answer. Even a wave 100m tall right at the cost would only block about 50% of the LA lights.
A star equal to our sun 1 LY away on the horizon would be about the same as a 1watt bulb ... but the closest stars are more than 4 ly away and would be minute fractions of a watt.
This experiment also works on night time flights during clear skies towards any major urban center. You will not see the lights of the major center until you get "close" about 1 hour out. But you will see the stars on the horizon for the entire flight ... and they will slowly rise as you travel towards the horizon.
Go to Mount Keck observatory and ask the operator to aim the optics at the horizon towards western USA .. specifically LA. The 15,000,000+watts of light that LA has every night would be equal to a 2.5watt light at the distance of Mt Keck (inverse square law) ... TO THE UNAIDED EYE. With the light gathering ability of the telescope at Keck, that would be greatly amplified. I have seen images taken by this facility of this exact night sky but there is no LA! I have had arguments that refraction disperse the light such that it cannot penetrate that thick of atmosphere. But if the star light is visible through the atmosphere on the horizon ... well past the distance to LA, this is not a justifiable answer. Even a wave 100m tall right at the cost would only block about 50% of the LA lights.
A star equal to our sun 1 LY away on the horizon would be about the same as a 1watt bulb ... but the closest stars are more than 4 ly away and would be minute fractions of a watt.
This experiment also works on night time flights during clear skies towards any major urban center. You will not see the lights of the major center until you get "close" about 1 hour out. But you will see the stars on the horizon for the entire flight ... and they will slowly rise as you travel towards the horizon.
3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coincidence
« on: January 17, 2016, 03:18:44 PM »Its like I told sandokahn, there are constantly thousands of people and equipment monitoring the moon, especially during an eclipse.Where is the moon during a solar eclipse?Well according to this:
Certainly not between the Earth and the Sun.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tidetables/2008/eutt2008book.pdf
It was high tide, so there is a good chance the moon was overhead. It would be easy for it to cross in front of the sun.
4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Don't like light as a global proof how about a different part of EM spectrum?
« on: January 17, 2016, 03:13:43 PM »
Jadyyn's post on the feather and gravity already dealt with this issue. It dosen't bother me that we don't have all the answers ...
Exactly how do the orbital dynamics work for a comet in the FE model. Show me the math!
quit reposting dribble you already posted in active threads that have mutual participation ... it is irritating as hell and I will just stop reading them and miss any potentially interesting point ... however unlikely that is!
Exactly how do the orbital dynamics work for a comet in the FE model. Show me the math!
quit reposting dribble you already posted in active threads that have mutual participation ... it is irritating as hell and I will just stop reading them and miss any potentially interesting point ... however unlikely that is!
5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coincidence
« on: January 17, 2016, 02:29:06 PM »
WTF, why should I follow any of your rules ... who died and made you my boss. I presented argument to force you to actually do some research ... is that really a bad thing? I guess if you want to determine them as pro or con, you will have to seek them out and read them ... And, I will have succeeded in at least temporarily opening your mind.
6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 17, 2016, 02:17:45 PM »
Same formulas you quoted .. only I have a valid number for "b". I even explained how this number is attained. I guess I was tooooo technical for you. I am sorry, here I will dumb it down for you:
You see there is this magic pixie dust which you FEers call Aether that has any property you want it to have and this stuff goes into your phone and puts the corrected time data into the proper place in your phone so that the leprechauns in there can use their abacus to calculate the distance .... now do you understand?
Still waiting for any sign that you know anything about engineering. I know for a fact you know nothing about rocketry or space in general.
You see there is this magic pixie dust which you FEers call Aether that has any property you want it to have and this stuff goes into your phone and puts the corrected time data into the proper place in your phone so that the leprechauns in there can use their abacus to calculate the distance .... now do you understand?
Still waiting for any sign that you know anything about engineering. I know for a fact you know nothing about rocketry or space in general.
7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Don't like light as a global proof how about a different part of EM spectrum?
« on: January 17, 2016, 02:09:40 PM »
"I told you that you do not anything about the theory of nonlinear differential equations: a dynamical mass can be easily incorporated into the variation of the parameters of such a set of equations, using high speed computing devices."
Oh really, why don't you show me how you would "fudge" the equations for any NEA. First, we do not have any real idea what the mass is other than through surface spectrum analysis (on a select few NEA) and through orbital observations ... Well, spectrum is only skin deep! and orbital observations are irrelevant if our formulas are inaccurate. So best case scenario, we know the mass of a NEA to what precision? Still our simple formulas work ... show me how yours works ... or how ours is in error on any NEA of your choice.
Oh really, why don't you show me how you would "fudge" the equations for any NEA. First, we do not have any real idea what the mass is other than through surface spectrum analysis (on a select few NEA) and through orbital observations ... Well, spectrum is only skin deep! and orbital observations are irrelevant if our formulas are inaccurate. So best case scenario, we know the mass of a NEA to what precision? Still our simple formulas work ... show me how yours works ... or how ours is in error on any NEA of your choice.
8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coincidence
« on: January 17, 2016, 01:33:29 PM »
OMG ... the BS and drool continues to ooze from your text.
Anyhow, here are the works of the names I quoted ... find your own sources ... I got access to them at my university library and through colleagues.
I am not surprised that you are not familiar with them since they contradict your stand:
Q. S. Wang, X. S. Yang, C. Z. Wu, H. G. Guo, H. C. Liu, and C. C. Hua, "Precise measurement of gravity variations during a total solar eclipse," Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000), 041101
A. Iovane,” Simultaneous Occurrence of Periodic Eclipse Anomalies at Distant Sites”, in "Should the Laws of Gravitation be Reconsidered? The Scientific Legacy of Maurice Allais", H. Munera editor, Apeiron, Montreal, 2011
E. J. Saxl and M. Allen, Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971), 823-825.
T. Goodey, A. Pugach and D. Olenici, "Correlated anomalous effects observed during the August 1st 2008 solar eclipse," Journal of Advanced Research in Physics 1 (2010) , 021007.
A. Pugach, "The Torsind—A Device Based on a New Principle for Non-Conventional Astronomical Observations,"International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 3 No. 2A, 2013, pp. 33-38. doi:10.4236/ijaa.2013.32A006.
Pugach, A.F., et al. (2008) The First Experience of Solar Eclipse Observations with a Miniature Torsion Balance. Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 24, 253-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.3103/S088459130805005X
D. Olenici and A. Pugach, "Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance," International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 2 No. 4, 2012, pp. 204-209. doi: 10.4236/ijaa.2012.24026
..... I can go on! You might note, that my research is CURRENT with only one quoted document predating the twenty first century.
There are a lot of works related to anomalous pendulum research .... but your narrow minded cultism prevents you from actually doing research!
Anyhow, here are the works of the names I quoted ... find your own sources ... I got access to them at my university library and through colleagues.
I am not surprised that you are not familiar with them since they contradict your stand:
Q. S. Wang, X. S. Yang, C. Z. Wu, H. G. Guo, H. C. Liu, and C. C. Hua, "Precise measurement of gravity variations during a total solar eclipse," Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000), 041101
A. Iovane,” Simultaneous Occurrence of Periodic Eclipse Anomalies at Distant Sites”, in "Should the Laws of Gravitation be Reconsidered? The Scientific Legacy of Maurice Allais", H. Munera editor, Apeiron, Montreal, 2011
E. J. Saxl and M. Allen, Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971), 823-825.
T. Goodey, A. Pugach and D. Olenici, "Correlated anomalous effects observed during the August 1st 2008 solar eclipse," Journal of Advanced Research in Physics 1 (2010) , 021007.
A. Pugach, "The Torsind—A Device Based on a New Principle for Non-Conventional Astronomical Observations,"International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 3 No. 2A, 2013, pp. 33-38. doi:10.4236/ijaa.2013.32A006.
Pugach, A.F., et al. (2008) The First Experience of Solar Eclipse Observations with a Miniature Torsion Balance. Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 24, 253-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.3103/S088459130805005X
D. Olenici and A. Pugach, "Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance," International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 2 No. 4, 2012, pp. 204-209. doi: 10.4236/ijaa.2012.24026
..... I can go on! You might note, that my research is CURRENT with only one quoted document predating the twenty first century.
There are a lot of works related to anomalous pendulum research .... but your narrow minded cultism prevents you from actually doing research!
9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Don't like light as a global proof how about a different part of EM spectrum?
« on: January 17, 2016, 12:55:27 PM »You have no experience in mathematics kibitzer.
None whatsoever.
My formula has an asymptotic property: the larger the n term, the BETTER THE APPROXIMATION WILL BE.
I only used n = 20, for higher n, the results will be approach the true value.
Are you really that ignorant?
I have just posted for you the entire documentation concerning comet Holmes P17: it totally defies even the faked RE orbital equations.
I have also shown you that those faked RE equations cannot approximate anything over a period of time longer than three hundred years: if you don't believe it, I can bring to your attention the Gauss easter formula.
Right, and I only used 9 decimals of precision ... my results also improves with greater precision. SO what?
Real scientists are not converted to cultists when something in nature doesn't match the model. Instead, we continue to hypothesis, experiment, analyze and repeat. While there are many intriguing phenomenon in nature that we still cannot fully understand, we do understand the FACT that the Earth IS a globe (roughly).
"RE equations cannot approximate anything over a period of time longer than three hundred years..."
But, our calculations are not approximations ... we know to the second where a NEO is ... lets see your formula do this!
Again I STRESS, we accomplish this in light of DYNAMIC UNMEASURED MASS CHANGES, including changes to the mass of the NEO which is very small in relation and thus most affected by fluctuations in mass.
NEO calculation ... is it forthcoming or are you a fake?
10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coincidence
« on: January 17, 2016, 12:28:54 PM »
"Of course it was observed: a pendulum, a laser gyroscope will attract ether in the form of a vortex which will add antigravitational effects to the entire experiment.
The extraordinary one hundred million times greater than a normal calculation effect will be observed, however, ONLY DURING AN SOLAR ECLIPSE."
You did not read the works I quoted since they report anomalies of the same scale as the Allais result ... not during an eclipse. Also, the results are not consistent which is not consistent with what would be expected if this mythical Aether were causing vortexes! Here we go again with the magical Aether .... that can fudge and make any claim by any FEer real and sound. What, the Aether only causes vortexes when it is in the mood? LOLOLOLOL
"Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov"
Wow, so the modern (current) works of Pugach, which I referenced, are of course less relevant since they continue today and started around the end of your so called experts era. But of course they conflict with your model .. so they are ignored!
once again LOLOLOLOLOLOL
The extraordinary one hundred million times greater than a normal calculation effect will be observed, however, ONLY DURING AN SOLAR ECLIPSE."
You did not read the works I quoted since they report anomalies of the same scale as the Allais result ... not during an eclipse. Also, the results are not consistent which is not consistent with what would be expected if this mythical Aether were causing vortexes! Here we go again with the magical Aether .... that can fudge and make any claim by any FEer real and sound. What, the Aether only causes vortexes when it is in the mood? LOLOLOLOL
"Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov"
Wow, so the modern (current) works of Pugach, which I referenced, are of course less relevant since they continue today and started around the end of your so called experts era. But of course they conflict with your model .. so they are ignored!
once again LOLOLOLOLOLOL
11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Don't like light as a global proof how about a different part of EM spectrum?
« on: January 17, 2016, 12:11:46 PM »
Your formula ... if it is even yours, produces an error of almost 2 parts per 100,000. With 9 decimal points of significant figures. Three of my calculators produce an error of less than 7 parts per 100,000,000. My results on the calculators were as follows: 99,999.99931, another was 99,999.99982 and the last 99,999.99976 not showing my calculations, because I simply used existing accepted formulas that have been built into calculators for many decades.
Nice try, though, I must admit
... BUT, I asked you to show me math for a NEO calculation and prove that our model is wrong with your obvious math superiority.
I will not rest assured of anything you claim, since it has all been a falsehood thus far!
LOLOLOLOLOL!
Nice try, though, I must admit
... BUT, I asked you to show me math for a NEO calculation and prove that our model is wrong with your obvious math superiority. I will not rest assured of anything you claim, since it has all been a falsehood thus far!
LOLOLOLOLOL!
12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 17, 2016, 11:34:08 AM »
BTW, I am not posting the link to the documents I am quoting because I want you to remain the ignorant bumbling fool you are ... your attempt to over simplify a system as complex as GPS shows you are NOT an ENGINEER. The document I am referring to for timing corrections alone is more than 45 pages! I am so proud of you that you were able to google and wiki out the fundamental distance formula. Guess what, It is far more involved than you think ... oh wait .. I keep forgetting that you CAN'T think.
I clearly demonstrated with my posts that I DO HAVE technical knowledge ... your over simplified steps is not technical knowledge but rather a clear indication that you have only scratched the surface in your attempt to understand GPS and this is supposed to be the result of several years of debate?
Wow you sure don't learn very quickly!
Ask yourself these questions:
What is the purpose of the P code?
What is the purpose of the C/A code?
How does a .001 accuracy clock correct for .000000000000001 accuracy errors? (probably too many zero's for you to comprehend)
Why does GPS use two different transmission bands?
Why does GPS use Phased Modulation and not one of the other far more popular modulation schemes?
Why is the GPS constellation at 20,200kms altitude when this is an unusually high orbital altitude? (something a so called rocket engineer should be quite versed in)
What is the purpose of encryption, is the satellite position and time of day a national secret?
What is the purpose of the XOR function and why is it applied to the incoming data stream? (that is the logic "exclusive" "or" BTW)?
Why is the P code so long and not repetitious?
What is the reason for the specific selection of the frequencies used by GPS?
Now reply to them is as technical a manner as you can!
LOLOLOL ... this is me laughing at you in advance.
I clearly demonstrated with my posts that I DO HAVE technical knowledge ... your over simplified steps is not technical knowledge but rather a clear indication that you have only scratched the surface in your attempt to understand GPS and this is supposed to be the result of several years of debate?
Wow you sure don't learn very quickly!Ask yourself these questions:
What is the purpose of the P code?
What is the purpose of the C/A code?
How does a .001 accuracy clock correct for .000000000000001 accuracy errors? (probably too many zero's for you to comprehend)
Why does GPS use two different transmission bands?
Why does GPS use Phased Modulation and not one of the other far more popular modulation schemes?
Why is the GPS constellation at 20,200kms altitude when this is an unusually high orbital altitude? (something a so called rocket engineer should be quite versed in)
What is the purpose of encryption, is the satellite position and time of day a national secret?
What is the purpose of the XOR function and why is it applied to the incoming data stream? (that is the logic "exclusive" "or" BTW)?
Why is the P code so long and not repetitious?
What is the reason for the specific selection of the frequencies used by GPS?
Now reply to them is as technical a manner as you can!
LOLOLOL ... this is me laughing at you in advance.
13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 17, 2016, 10:58:39 AM »
Once again Engineer Zero ... where is your technological explanation? Where is your math ... show me that you can actually calculate an exact position based on the numbers I provided.
14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Don't like light as a global proof how about a different part of EM spectrum?
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:53:56 AM »
Your an idiot! ... yup ... flat Earth ... it all boils down to a conspiracy .... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Explain exactly how fudging masses and distances allows us to achieve exact positions of a NEO.
The mass of a NEO is very small in relation to the masses of the Earth, sun and moon ... thus any dynamics in its mass should have a very measurable effect ... but it does not alter or prevent our formula from very accurately predicting its location. The most intriguing part of this is that the mass change of the NEO is not a monitored thing nor is its mass a precise number. Certainly with this level of vagueness our formulas should fail and the NEO should be nowhere near where we place it ... But again, this is not the case.
Give me math (your math) or shut up.
My group uses these formula regularly with great precision ... it works! This boils down to the repeated experimentation part of the scientific process ... Go right ahead and show me the math that will put a NEO in a place different than what our formula can do.
If you quote anything from someone else other than a raw formula, then you are a fake and a useless waste of my time. I actually thought there was hope for some of you here, but for you I digress.
Explain exactly how fudging masses and distances allows us to achieve exact positions of a NEO.
The mass of a NEO is very small in relation to the masses of the Earth, sun and moon ... thus any dynamics in its mass should have a very measurable effect ... but it does not alter or prevent our formula from very accurately predicting its location. The most intriguing part of this is that the mass change of the NEO is not a monitored thing nor is its mass a precise number. Certainly with this level of vagueness our formulas should fail and the NEO should be nowhere near where we place it ... But again, this is not the case.
Give me math (your math) or shut up.
My group uses these formula regularly with great precision ... it works! This boils down to the repeated experimentation part of the scientific process ... Go right ahead and show me the math that will put a NEO in a place different than what our formula can do.
If you quote anything from someone else other than a raw formula, then you are a fake and a useless waste of my time. I actually thought there was hope for some of you here, but for you I digress.
15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coincidence
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:35:07 AM »
This is the exact same thing you posted before but you added a picture. I am well aware of the results, when have I ever said the results were not as stated? However, I have stated that there is most definitely a discrepancy in the ability of the scientific community to confirm the results of Allais's experiment. Also I have stated that the effects witnessed by Allais have also been witnessed by others at times NOT ASSOCIATED with solar eclipses.
It seams you are the one that cannot read ...
You are the one that resorts to trickery.
Again ... I want you to prove you have math skills ... are you going to do this or are you a fake?
It seams you are the one that cannot read ...
You are the one that resorts to trickery.
Again ... I want you to prove you have math skills ... are you going to do this or are you a fake?
16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Don't like light as a global proof how about a different part of EM spectrum?
« on: January 17, 2016, 09:10:46 AM »Thank you rabinoz!Look, I would say Kibitzer has given evidence that he knows what he is talking about.
But he hasn't.
Aether was disproved by the Michelson–Morley experiment.
It was not, on the contrary.
You seem to be quoting what I said (without a reference), but in the Quote I took from Kibitzer's post I see no reference to "Aether" at all as repeated here:I am part of a global organization with members that have launched satellites and determined orbitals based on the RE physics and math ... and it works. We, collectively as a people, have launched over 8000 objects to space and currently there are about 3000 orbiting the planet .... all this is possible because of the physics and Math the RE model supports. We are able to accurately tell when a NEA will pass by Earth right down to the seconds for its perigee. This is tested time and again every time a NEA comes close to Earth ... This would not be possible if what you and your obscure pseudoscience are saying were accurate. The inaccuracy in dynamic mass calculations alone would make it impossible for us to make these calculations if what you say were true.
It was rather obvious that I was only referring to what he claimed to have done himself, a different matter entirely, so hardly any excuse for a memory dump of your well known ideas on aether.
Sandokahn, you claim to have great knowledge, why don't you explain how our so called flawed equations can determine the orbit of a NEO to within seconds especially in light of the fact that ALL the objects that affect the orbits have dynamic mass.
17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 17, 2016, 08:56:38 AM »
Um, no, wrong again ... as stated before, your phones clock is not accurate enough to correct for timing. Here is how timing IS corrected:
The C/A and P code bit pattern transmissions are encrypted to appear pseudorandom. The bit rates are very accurately controlled. An auto-correction algorithm in your GPS device interprets deviations in bit rates since C/A and P codes are on different frequencies, there are differences in transmission lag. the C/A code repeats 1000 times each second sending 1023 bites each cycle and the P code repeats every 266.4 days (this maintains uniqueness). The GPS must achieve a binary 1 from the auto-correction otherwise it is an erroneous data stream. While the clock in your phone is of limited accuracy(.001 seconds at best), the electronics that capture and interpret the bit patterns are much faster (in the order of .0000001 or better). While this is still not fast enough to be a valid tool to test timing, it is a valid tool to asses bit stream delays. These delays result in errors in the XOR function. This is how timing is accounted for. It has nothing to do with the clock in your GPS device. This is what produces the 'b' in your equation.
If this were not the case, then why would the GPS satellites not just simply transmit their exact position and TOD and nothing else? This would be enough if your GPS units clock could correct for lag! But that is not the case ... GPS requires this complex dual transmission in order to convey the necessary information to your GPS.
The C/A and P code bit pattern transmissions are encrypted to appear pseudorandom. The bit rates are very accurately controlled. An auto-correction algorithm in your GPS device interprets deviations in bit rates since C/A and P codes are on different frequencies, there are differences in transmission lag. the C/A code repeats 1000 times each second sending 1023 bites each cycle and the P code repeats every 266.4 days (this maintains uniqueness). The GPS must achieve a binary 1 from the auto-correction otherwise it is an erroneous data stream. While the clock in your phone is of limited accuracy(.001 seconds at best), the electronics that capture and interpret the bit patterns are much faster (in the order of .0000001 or better). While this is still not fast enough to be a valid tool to test timing, it is a valid tool to asses bit stream delays. These delays result in errors in the XOR function. This is how timing is accounted for. It has nothing to do with the clock in your GPS device. This is what produces the 'b' in your equation.
If this were not the case, then why would the GPS satellites not just simply transmit their exact position and TOD and nothing else? This would be enough if your GPS units clock could correct for lag! But that is not the case ... GPS requires this complex dual transmission in order to convey the necessary information to your GPS.
18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coincidence
« on: January 17, 2016, 08:19:43 AM »
First, I am never embarrassed when I am discussing any topic or issue, especially with unresolved conclusions. You should be embarrassed by your lack of ability to personally support your cut and pasted banter! Being wrong (when one is wrong) is part of the scientific process (hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, repeat) ... it is how we learn. However, I am not wrong and I still await your ... and I mean YOUR proof! (not cut and pasted dribble)
I bolded 'repeat', because it is the step you seam to ignore. You are following a very distinct line of reasoning and fail to accept anything outside that reasoning regardless of its validity .. and I remind you that there is arguably far more weakness within your reasoning.
I am still waiting for you to prove you have the math/physics knowledge ... I still wait for you to prove you can actually go through any of the formula you discuss, perhaps then I shall cater to your requests.
The authors and their skepticism:
"Types of apparatus that have been used in more recent eclipse experiments include pendulums of various types such as long Foucault-type pendulums, ball-borne pendulums, stationary pendulums, horizontal pendulums and torsion pendulums, vertically and horizontally operating gravimeters, tilt-meters and long water levels, gyroscopes, and atomic clocks. Many clear negative results and a number of disputed positive results have been obtained, but no clear picture has emerged. The subject is an outstandingly difficult one for application of proper scientific methodology, in particular because the circumstances of every eclipse are different and thus no experiment can be effectively repeated."
I find the part of the statement in red very interesting .. considering the source. The blue text is also very important ... they question the methodology in general. Their statement attributing the anomaly to "forces unknown" is vague and does not exclude possible experimental failure.
Events AFTER the eclipse:
"We considered this sudden jump was related to the solar eclipse, even though it occurred 2 hours after the fourth contact..."
In terms of the velocity of effects (speed of light, gravity etc.) in the physics world, attributing a result to an event hours before is poor science!The experiments conclusions should have included the possibility that the post eclipse event was due to an unrelated occurrence.
There are many documented cases of similar effects recorded during times not associated with any eclipse. See the works of: Wang et al., Saxl & Allen, Iovane and also the extensive works of Prof. Alexander Pugach.
Regardless, the moon, without a doubt, eclipses the sun. What causes the anomaly is perhaps related to the event but not the gravitational effects of the combined sun and moon.
I bolded 'repeat', because it is the step you seam to ignore. You are following a very distinct line of reasoning and fail to accept anything outside that reasoning regardless of its validity .. and I remind you that there is arguably far more weakness within your reasoning.
I am still waiting for you to prove you have the math/physics knowledge ... I still wait for you to prove you can actually go through any of the formula you discuss, perhaps then I shall cater to your requests.
The authors and their skepticism:
"Types of apparatus that have been used in more recent eclipse experiments include pendulums of various types such as long Foucault-type pendulums, ball-borne pendulums, stationary pendulums, horizontal pendulums and torsion pendulums, vertically and horizontally operating gravimeters, tilt-meters and long water levels, gyroscopes, and atomic clocks. Many clear negative results and a number of disputed positive results have been obtained, but no clear picture has emerged. The subject is an outstandingly difficult one for application of proper scientific methodology, in particular because the circumstances of every eclipse are different and thus no experiment can be effectively repeated."
I find the part of the statement in red very interesting .. considering the source. The blue text is also very important ... they question the methodology in general. Their statement attributing the anomaly to "forces unknown" is vague and does not exclude possible experimental failure.
Events AFTER the eclipse:
"We considered this sudden jump was related to the solar eclipse, even though it occurred 2 hours after the fourth contact..."
In terms of the velocity of effects (speed of light, gravity etc.) in the physics world, attributing a result to an event hours before is poor science!The experiments conclusions should have included the possibility that the post eclipse event was due to an unrelated occurrence.
There are many documented cases of similar effects recorded during times not associated with any eclipse. See the works of: Wang et al., Saxl & Allen, Iovane and also the extensive works of Prof. Alexander Pugach.
Regardless, the moon, without a doubt, eclipses the sun. What causes the anomaly is perhaps related to the event but not the gravitational effects of the combined sun and moon.
19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 16, 2016, 09:20:56 PM »So I still don't see the part where the GPS satellites knows the current time on the receiver. If the receiver can't correct for timing errors, it cannot determine its location. Supported by math.OMG, you can't really be that ignorant ... you must have some knowledge ... but you certainly don't display any here.
That's just one of those things us engineers know.
Whereas, in my explanation, the receiver corrects for timing errors and easily determines location. Using 4 transmitters. All supported by math.
Okay, Mr Engineer, use the time signals I gave in a previous post and show me the math as to how your GPS unit would calculate your position based on those time signals. I'll give you a year to come up with a mathematical answer ... but I won't hold my breath because I know you cannot do it! If you somehow manage to actually do the math, you will find that you have a margin of error for your possible position of numerous kilometers.
BTW, the satellite does not need to know the TOD that your GPS unit has. It isn't necessary for the calculations of the potential error margins ... but of course you knew that because you are an engineer.
20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 16, 2016, 08:21:14 PM »This is a fine display on your part of engineering ability. Is this how you tell your boss how you are going to build a rocket?Here are MY words based on my understanding of how GPS works ... not a cut and paste of some Wiki or other document.Blah, blah, blah.
It all has to do with the data sent in the C/A and P codes and how those transmissions work. Their frequency of repetition and the phase modulation of the XORed bit codes effect data and timing to the receiver unit. The C/A alone has a delta T to D accuracy of 293kms whereas the P code has an accuracy of 29.3kms. This along with very accurate Ephemeris and atomic clock accuracy aboard the satellites generates error margins which your GPS unit uses fist in a "pseudorange" determination fallowed by a more precise determination ... Math! This combined with the effects of Trilateration (triangulation using 3 points or more, 4 minimum for GPS) allows your GPS unit to determine an accurate position. P code includes data for local atmospheric conditions, relativity and many other variables.
I must have missed to part where you show me how GPS works if the receiver can't determine TOF since it can't correct for timing errors.QuoteThere is a lot more at play here, but I would doubt you would understand it!Lol! Sorry, which one of us is an engineer? Oh, that's right, me. Which one of us has been correct this entire time? Oh, that's right, me.
Which one of us used their 'multi-disciplined' knowledge to prove that GPS can't work, ever? Oh, that's right, you.
If you think I am wrong, show me your science ... show me your engineering.
I showed you with math that the accuracy of the clock in your GPS unit cannot account for timing inaccuracies. I also explained how the timing inaccuracies ARE accounted for ... what exactly have you said that amounts to Engineering or science ... or math? It really isn't my problem that you cannot comprehend how the C/A and P code transmissions affect the ability of the system to compensate for timing errors.
"I must have missed to part where you show me how GPS works if the receiver can't determine TOF since it can't correct for timing errors." did you not read this part: "This along with very accurate Ephemeris and atomic clock accuracy aboard the satellites generates error margins which your GPS unit uses fist in a "pseudorange" determination fallowed by a more precise determination ... Math!"
Read up and familiarize yourself with phased modulation (as opposed to AM, FM or PWM etc.). Do some reading on data transmission .. wireless specifically since you do not display any knowledge (whatsoever) in your comments. Also, radio wave propagation and atmospheric effects. How about getting a bit of understanding on encryption and data compression as well as basic digital logics. Also study the code (on the receive) a bit ... do some experiments. Note also, that GPS degrades as your altitude increases .. this is due to the shorter distances and less time difference.
"Blah, blah, blah." is the best you can do? How much do you charge your employer for your "Blah,Blah Blah." answers to their concerns?
EVERYONE, PLEASE GIVE A ROUND OF APPLAUSE TO OUR RESIDENT ENGINEER FOR HIS RESOUNDING PROFESSIONALISM IN HIS RESPONSE TO BOTH MATH AND ENGINEERING EXPLANATION BY kIBITZER BY PRESENTING THE ARGUMENT "BLAH, BLAH BLAH.". That response just oozes engineering all over it!
21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coincidence
« on: January 16, 2016, 07:47:10 PM »
I find it interesting and supportive to the avenue I am investigating that the results of the 2008 experiment show activity AFTER the eclipse whereas Allais's 1954 results indicated the anomaly DURING the eclipse. Other experiment have shown results before the eclipse proper.
Also, all test sites fall within about 4 degrees of longitudinal separation regardless of the 400+km of separation ... this is also significant within the data of my analysis. The comment by the author re: "... but over the period that we have been working with these miniature torsion balances we have often observed similar phenomena ..." this also supports my line of research.
BTW, have you read: http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22 because the authors admit that their methodology and equipment introduced errors that could not be accurately accounted for, errors that would have been present for Allais as well.
Further, the authors of the article you quoted state: "Anomalies in the behavior of long Foucault-type pendulums during solar eclipses have been reported by ... (BUT APPARENTLY LATER REFUTED)." (emphasis added)
Also, all test sites fall within about 4 degrees of longitudinal separation regardless of the 400+km of separation ... this is also significant within the data of my analysis. The comment by the author re: "... but over the period that we have been working with these miniature torsion balances we have often observed similar phenomena ..." this also supports my line of research.
BTW, have you read: http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22 because the authors admit that their methodology and equipment introduced errors that could not be accurately accounted for, errors that would have been present for Allais as well.
Further, the authors of the article you quoted state: "Anomalies in the behavior of long Foucault-type pendulums during solar eclipses have been reported by ... (BUT APPARENTLY LATER REFUTED)." (emphasis added)
22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Don't like light as a global proof how about a different part of EM spectrum?
« on: January 16, 2016, 06:07:10 PM »
Hmmm, once again the cut and paste king! I don't really care where your are cutting your data from. You continue to ignore my challenge. I asked you to show me "your knowledge ... your math" not pump out solutions calculated by someone else. Prove you actually understand any of this and go through the math and explain each step ... use real life data in your calculations, like the challenge to give me the location of a NEA at least as precisely as I can get from another source. If you cannot do this then you are a fake and you lie to yourself believing in something you cannot test yourself.
I am part of a global organization with members that have launched satellites and determined orbitals based on the RE physics and math ... and it works. We, collectively as a people, have launched over 8000 objects to space and currently there are about 3000 orbiting the planet .... all this is possible because of the physics and Math the RE model supports. We are able to accurately tell when a NEA will pass by Earth right down to the seconds for its perigee. This is tested time and again every time a NEA comes close to Earth ... This would not be possible if what you and your obscure pseudoscience are saying were accurate. The inaccuracy in dynamic mass calculations alone would make it impossible for us to make these calculations if what you say were true.
I am part of a global organization with members that have launched satellites and determined orbitals based on the RE physics and math ... and it works. We, collectively as a people, have launched over 8000 objects to space and currently there are about 3000 orbiting the planet .... all this is possible because of the physics and Math the RE model supports. We are able to accurately tell when a NEA will pass by Earth right down to the seconds for its perigee. This is tested time and again every time a NEA comes close to Earth ... This would not be possible if what you and your obscure pseudoscience are saying were accurate. The inaccuracy in dynamic mass calculations alone would make it impossible for us to make these calculations if what you say were true.
23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coincidence
« on: January 16, 2016, 05:23:07 PM »
I think I have found reason or explanation for the Allias effect. My reasoning would account for varied results and both positive and negative results ... Be patient ... still getting data.
BTW, It has nothing to do with a so called black body, but it does have a lot to do with the moon!
BTW, It has nothing to do with a so called black body, but it does have a lot to do with the moon!
24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 16, 2016, 04:41:29 PM »
There are specific reasons for the choice of altitude for the satellite constellation relating to relativity, accuracy of atomic clocks and minimal delta d's. While you can do Trilateration using cell towers, the accuracy is poor in comparison to GPS. The reason for this is that the time intervals for relatively short distances of line of sight are too small. Thus Earth based GPS system would need to be completely different.
25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 16, 2016, 04:23:18 PM »
Here are MY words based on my understanding of how GPS works ... not a cut and paste of some Wiki or other document.
It all has to do with the data sent in the C/A and P codes and how those transmissions work. Their frequency of repetition and the phase modulation of the XORed bit codes effect data and timing to the receiver unit. The C/A alone has a delta T to D accuracy of 293kms whereas the P code has an accuracy of 29.3kms. This along with very accurate Ephemeris and atomic clock accuracy aboard the satellites generates error margins which your GPS unit uses fist in a "pseudorange" determination fallowed by a more precise determination ... Math! This combined with the effects of Trilateration (triangulation using 3 points or more, 4 minimum for GPS) allows your GPS unit to determine an accurate position. P code includes data for local atmospheric conditions, relativity and many other variables.
There is a lot more at play here, but I would doubt you would understand it!
It all has to do with the data sent in the C/A and P codes and how those transmissions work. Their frequency of repetition and the phase modulation of the XORed bit codes effect data and timing to the receiver unit. The C/A alone has a delta T to D accuracy of 293kms whereas the P code has an accuracy of 29.3kms. This along with very accurate Ephemeris and atomic clock accuracy aboard the satellites generates error margins which your GPS unit uses fist in a "pseudorange" determination fallowed by a more precise determination ... Math! This combined with the effects of Trilateration (triangulation using 3 points or more, 4 minimum for GPS) allows your GPS unit to determine an accurate position. P code includes data for local atmospheric conditions, relativity and many other variables.
There is a lot more at play here, but I would doubt you would understand it!
26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 16, 2016, 02:31:43 PM »
Interesting: I am able to disprove something without knowing what I am talking about ... how is this logical?
You claim to be an engineer ... so get technical ... something I have yet to see from you!
You claim to be an engineer ... so get technical ... something I have yet to see from you!
27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 16, 2016, 02:07:44 PM »"...its time of flight..." how can your receiver know when the signal was sent and thus measure time of flight if it is not as accurate at measuring time as the satellite is? Eg. Satellites transmits TOD:1) The satellite does not need to know what time of day it is where your device is located .. dumb dumb!Except you just said:All timing issues are conducted at the satellites.So the satellites, according to you, need to know the current time of the receiver to correct for timing errors. dumb dumb!Quote2) It is triangulation and works on timing effects resultant for timing differences and the points at which the time intervals intersect. That means .. in childees so you can understand .. that the time deference in very precise timing signals form spheres at which the receiver could be located. These spheres intersect and it is this intersect (triangulation) that allows your GPS device to determine its position.It is not triangulation. It's not timing effects. It's time of flight. Please get it correct. Plus, what you describe would only work if your receiver had a synchronized atomic clock, which you agree is not possible.Quote3) Show me math of how you can justify a GPS receivers (2, 4 maybe 5 significant figures of accuracy in seconds) time being accurate enough to correct for errors in parts per femtosecond. Your clock in your GPS unit is counting in milliseconds not femtoseconds ... so how can it differentiate between a time difference of a few femtoseconds.So answer me this: If the receiver can't correct for timing errors, how does GPS in my phone work? How does my phone know what the time is on the satellite?
13:22:23.000009002786519 and your receive says the TOD is 13:22:23.0004
13:22:23.000014799234501 and your receive says the TOD is 13:22:23.0003
13:22:23.000008999450243 and your receive says the TOD is 13:22:23.0004
13:22:23.000009035765676 and your receive says the TOD is 13:22:23.0004
So, your device received 4 time signals and now go ahead, calculate where you are ... you cannot, because your precision of error is outside the differences in time between the different signals. Look at the 1st satellite, and superficially, it looks like the signal took 0.000390997213481seconds to arrive. but once significant figures are taken into account, your result is .0004 seconds (because the clock in your device cannot discern these decimals what if the actual elapsed time was .000351004658056). I hope you are bright enough that I do not need to further explain this. ALL the results will be between .0004 and .0003seconds ... which leads to a very inaccurate "triangulated" (technically 4 angle) point at which each timing sphere will intersect. The first satellite error alone causes a 2700m (about 1.5 miles) error resulting from the inaccuracy of the internal clock in your GPS unit. So your GPS in the middle of a city could place you out of city limits due to these compounded errors.
Math:
GPSTOD - SatTOD = transmission time
23.0004-23.000009002786519 = 0.000390997213481
your GPS units accuracy is not sufficient to discern the difference between .00039.. and .0004 and there is therefore at least a 0.000009002786519 possible variation which results in a minimum error of:
0.000009002786519s X 300,000,000m/s = 2700m
28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 16, 2016, 12:57:35 PM »1) The satellite does not need to know what time of day it is where your device is located .. dumb dumb!My claim that your GPS device cannot correct for timing is in fact precise.You spelled 'incorrect' wrong.QuoteAll timing issues are conducted at the satellites.Oh, really? So how does the satellite know what the current time is on the receiver?QuoteI reiterate: Your GPS device can interpret the data allowing it to calculate its position, but it cannot correct for timing issues."I reiterate: If your GPS device cannot correct for timing, it cannot calculate its position.
Perhaps you should learn how GPS works before making an even bigger fool of yourself. Maybe you are not ready for safety scissors yet. Stick to the crayons.
2) It is triangulation and works on timing effects resultant for timing differences and the points at which the time intervals intersect. That means .. in childees so you can understand .. that the time deference in very precise timing signals form spheres at which the receiver could be located. These spheres intersect and it is this intersect (triangulation) that allows your GPS device to determine its position.
3) Show me math of how you can justify a GPS receivers (2, 4 maybe 5 significant figures of accuracy in seconds) time being accurate enough to correct for errors in parts per femtosecond. Your clock in your GPS unit is counting in milliseconds not femtoseconds ... so how can it differentiate between a time difference of a few femtoseconds.
29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?
« on: January 16, 2016, 09:56:59 AM »You are not off to a good start. Taking quotes out of context is pretty lame. Or maybe you just can't read? I'll bet it's the latter.By asking you in detail how the current GPS system works,QuoteYou have for example asked how the GPS in one's phone works
The person in question made a statement:I specifically said your gps/phone could not possibly correct timing since it has not the accuracy. Your unit cannot perform step five
To which I replied:So if my phone can't correct for timing errors, how does GPS work on my phone?
So, as is plainly apparent, I am not asking the other party to detail how the current GPS system works on my phone. The other party made a false claim (that the receiver can't correct for timing errors; a claim made to try to discredit my logic) and I am asking that person how is it possible for GPS to work at all, based on his false claim.
So, yes, a fail, once again. It was a lame attempt at an attack, too.
Pro tip: Play less 'gotcha' games and read posts for content and meaning. Constantly trying to attack me doesn't end well for you. You always end up looking stupid. Just like you did this time.
My claim that your GPS device cannot correct for timing is in fact precise. All timing issues are conducted at the satellites. I reiterate: Your GPS device can interpret the data allowing it to calculate its position, but it cannot correct for timing issues."
30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coincidence
« on: January 16, 2016, 09:43:42 AM »Dr. Maurice Allais is one of the most respected physicists of the 20th Century: the fact that he also received the Nobel prize in economics is a testimony to his extraordinary skills as a scientist.
Allais' pendulum experiments earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society, and in 1959 he was made a laureate of the United States Gravity Research Foundation.
I have already carefully debunked the flawed Flandern paper.
THE ALLAIS EFFECT CONFIRMED IN 1961, 1970, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1626747#msg1626747
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22
UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO INCLUDE YOUR MATH AND SCIENTIFIC REASONING ALONG WITH IT
Dr. Maurice Allais:
In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.
In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.
What I have read says in the order of 100,000 not 100,000,000!
Let me explain again what happened during the Allais experiment.
Before the eclipse, there was a normal clockwise swing of the pendulum.
AT THE START OF THE SOLAR ECLIPSE, THE PENDULUM STARTED TO REVERSE ITS MOTION: IT RAN BACKWARDS, IN A RAPID COUNTERCLOCKWISE MOTION.
For the next 45 minutes!
Then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse”] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction.
Can everybody here understand these extraordinary details?
THE PENDULUM REVERSED DIRECTION FOR A FULL 45 MINUTES.
A TOTAL DEBUNKING OF NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION.
At the end of the eclipse, it resumed normal orbiting.
The Moon could not have possibly have caused this unimaginable effect upon the pendulum: the amplitude is ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES GREATER THEN THE AMPLITUDE CALCULATED BY THE THEORY OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION.
The most precise calculations: ONLY A NEW, DIFFERENT CELESTIAL BODY COULD HAVE CAUSED THIS INCREDIBLE EFFECT.
ITS RADIATION CAUSED THE ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT RECORDED BY DR. ALLAIS.
It is as simple as this: since no other scientist has been able to explain how the pendulum's swing reversed motion for a full 45 minutes, and the luni-solar component has been exceeded by AN EFFECT ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES ITS VALUE, it means the Moon could not have possibly have caused the solar eclipse.
You have been given the most precise mathematical calculations showing the extent of the Allais effect: the ball is in your court - please explain how is it possible for a pendulum's swing to have reversed its motion for a full 45 minutes, only to resume its normal orbiting AFTER the end of the eclipse.
I still don't see any math by YOU! You cut and pasted a picture of math .. by someone else .. and the "values" are absent. There is also no explanation ... and especially not an explanation by YOU. I reiterate, you have little or no MATH or physics skill or knowledge ... all you do is quote articles in ONE stream of research and ignore main stream science.
Your retort to my last post was essentially to re post what you previously posted ... guess what, it didn't answer my quarries the first time ... why should it the second time?
BTW: the 1999 "torsion bar" test for the Allias effect is perhaps the most precise test to date and its results were negative.
MORE TO COME ... I HAVE FOUND AN INTERESTING CORRELATION I AM FURTHER INVESTIGATING.