Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Yendor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 56
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope
« on: February 23, 2019, 10:57:50 AM »
what gyro did Bob use, because small laser gyro (up to a perimeter length of 60 cm) used for navigation are unable to detect Earth’s rotation and need to be dithered to avoid lock-in.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: How many are involved?
« on: December 23, 2016, 09:38:19 AM »
The thing is, if you're creating nothing but pretence then it's not hard to keep it a secret. It's not hard because nobody knows what the hell the NOTHING is.

You got that right.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity
« on: December 23, 2016, 08:50:34 AM »
Read what I said. I knew you would jump right in and think I said air passes straight through into the bottle.
Read what I said.

You said gases pass in and out. There is no other way to read that other than that gases move into and out of the bottle.
Ok let's see if you're on the same wavelength.

Do you agree that glass will expand and contract and if so, how do you think it could happen.
Basically what do you think is happening when expansion and contraction happens?

The glass will expand and contract as it warms and cools. More so than any expansion and contraction caused by pressure (especially the low levels of pressure you get in a can of fizzy drink).
Another one who has no clue. You are ignored as you are a waste of my effort. Join the granger person.

Scepti...it's amazing they still don't get it after all this time you have spent explaining it to them.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: How many are involved?
« on: December 23, 2016, 08:45:16 AM »
More than 130,000 people worked on the Manhattan Project and I quote, " Secrecy in the Manhattan Project was so complete that many people working for the organization did not know what they were working on until they heard about the bombing of Hiroshima on the radio."
Ref: http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/mp/p4s1.shtml

The development of the F-117 project was kept secret for 14 years. There are 1200 to 1800 people working at Area 51 and none of them will tell what goes on there and I'm sure most don't even know, only speculations.

The government is good at keeping secrets.

I disagree. We're talking about an organization that couldn't even keep a blow job secret.

I don't believe he tried to keep it secret. His ego wouldn't allow it.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: How many are involved?
« on: December 23, 2016, 08:04:30 AM »
More than 130,000 people worked on the Manhattan Project and I quote, " Secrecy in the Manhattan Project was so complete that many people working for the organization did not know what they were working on until they heard about the bombing of Hiroshima on the radio."
Ref: http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/mp/p4s1.shtml

The development of the F-117 project was kept secret for 14 years. There are 1200 to 1800 people working at Area 51 and none of them will tell what goes on there and I'm sure most don't even know, only speculations.

The government is good at keeping secrets.


6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 20, 2016, 02:39:58 PM »
From this experiment, it looks to me we would see elongated star trails at night instead of circular star trails. Unless the notion is the stars are also being drug along with a rotating earth.
This just shows linear motion, not the rotation of Earth.
This would correspond to star trails near the equator (i.e. the stars directly "above" the equator, observed from the equator).



It looks to me the above image shows a stationary earth with the stars rotating around it because if the earth was rotating the stars would go out of view of the camera as it and the earth rotates past the stars.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 20, 2016, 08:41:26 AM »
We can consider these three different situations :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

Now, if we assume that the stars are stationary, by conducting our "Taking Long Exposure Photographs" experiment IN ALL THREE CASES we are going to yield THE SAME RESULT in a sense that IN ALL THREE ABOVE CASES star trails are going to go IN THE SAME DIRECTION. - I wont tell you which EXACT direction would that be since the true answer to this question you can find in one of my older videos "THE FLAT EARTH - THE STARS (A STAGGERING PROOF AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH) " :



Another big difference will be seen in a drastically different lengths of star trails comparing the photographs that are going to be taken in three different circumstances regarding the difference in absolute speeds of our EASTBOUND motions!

- However, if the earth is at rest the results will be as follows

1. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" (see my video)
2. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" but for a different reason than in the case 1. (see my video)
A BRIEF EXPLANATION :
In 1. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by our EASTBOUND motion
In 2. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by Star's/Sun's WESTBOUND motion

3. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "B" and caused by our local WESTBOUND motion (see my video)

CASE CLOSED!!!
STAR TRAILS XXX :

STAR TRAILS XXX 2 :


The apparent position of light changed in both instance in the same way, so what is your point ?

Oh because you KNOW when you pushed the light and when the camera moved :D so you can mark the "source"

Now try this with a low light led and an empty dark room, and ask on of your friend to A rotate the cam B move the led

Can you possibly decide from the footages which is which ?

From this experiment, it looks to me we would see elongated star trails at night instead of circular star trails. Unless the notion is the stars are also being drug along with a rotating earth.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites
« on: September 25, 2016, 03:55:24 PM »
What you are saying may be true, an angular error of 0.5o may not hurt signal level enough to be noticeable. I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that if you get your dish set to nearly a perfect picture, then go outside and pick your dish up and move it 6 meters in any direction, not changing the azimuth or elevation, and set it back down, I feel your dish will now have to be realigned because the angle to the satellite will be more then .5o off and the signal will be much weaker. I've never tried this, so I may be wrong. Please, will someone with a dish try this for us to see what happens to the signal.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites
« on: September 24, 2016, 02:06:45 PM »
I just read most of this thread and the subject of geosynchronous satellites, the kind that brings TV signals to a lot of paying customers around the world is mentioned a few times. We are told that the satellites are in perfect sync with the orbiting Earth directly above the equator and they send down to us crystal clear TV signals. I know the signals are crystal clear because I use to subscribe to DirecTV and the picture quality was nearly perfect. At the time I believed there were satellites up there beaming down the TV signals to my dish antenna. I also know that the dish has to be pointing spot on to a supposedly satellite in order to receive the signal. Off by almost any amount will cause the signal to pretty much go south. It is very critical getting the antenna position correctly if you want a good signal. Once the antenna is set correctly and the mounting bolts and nuts are tight, It never has to be repositioned, or at least mine never did. This thought leads me to ask the question, why not? I'm sure most of us has heard the Earth wobbles on it's axis as it rotates. This is like a spinning top will wobble a little as it spins around and the wobble increases as it slows down until it stops spinning and falls down. The Earth, we are told does the same thing. This wobble is called Chandler wobble, it was named after Seth Carlo Chandler in 1891. He is credited with discovering it. Over a period of slightly more than a year (about 430 days), the Chandler wobble shifts the north-south spin axis of the Earth about three to six meters. In 2005 it actually shifted by 180o. This is where I have to wonder if geosynchronous satellites are really bring TV signals to our televisions or is it something else? I simply don't see how the Earth can wobble 3 to 6 meters per year and we never have to re-adjust our satellite dishes. Like I stated above, the dishes are very non forgiving. If you are off just a slight bit, the signal goes south.

The way I see it is, If the Earth wobbles or actually move six meters throughout the year, that to me is the same as your satellite dish moving six meters also, in reference to the stationary satellite beaming down TV signals. Anyone who has a dish knows you can't move your dish six inches let alone six meters and expect to receive a good TV signal. I've never heard of a method that compensates for this wobble, so I lean towards believing they must be using another method to beam TV signals to us or the Earth is not wobbling or rotating like we are told.

10
Why then, are you basing whether or not there would be a left or right curve while following that latitude, off of a view as seen from directly above the equator?  There is a left curve following that latitude east.  Can you prove otherwise?

I drew a line, parallel with the equator, around my beach ball and I can rotate it while being lined up with a mark on the wall and it spins straight.
Were you viewing it from straight above the equator, or from straight above the latitude line?  Viewing from straight above the latitude line and following it on the surface, there is a left turn if following it east. 


he is not walking straight, he is walking east. It may not look like it from my drawing, but he is.
Wow, you finally got something correct.  By walking east, yes, he would be turning left slightly.  (you did state in the previous post he would be walking in a straight line though, what made you change your mind again?)

Quote
I believe you should get a globe and play with it. You are really confused.
I believe you are lying when you state you drew lines on a ball.  You have been far too confused over this and constantly change your mind so much it's obvious you have no solid grasp on what is being discussed.

I don't appreciate you calling me a liar.


11
Okay, here I am standing perpendicular on the globe earth. As the earth rotates west to east and I walk west to east, I will be walking around the earth in a straight line.

Do you believe that's true?



No.  At a latitude of 80 north heading east, you would have to turn left as you walked it.  As the globe rotates, the ground is turned left.  If you stand still, you'll rotate with the ground.  Same for 75, only less, and for 50, 40, etc. 

Why are you viewing from above the equator again?  Did we not just talk about this?  If your figure in that drawing walked "straight", he would end up heading south.  Notice the latitude line he is on is going to his left?  Try drawing it looking straight down from above from above your figure.

he is not walking straight, he is walking east. It may not look like it from my drawing, but he is.

I believe you should get a globe and play with it. You are really confused.

12
If I stopped the world spinning and I could walk along any latitude line, I would be walking in a big circle, but I would still be walking straight. This is because the lines are parallel with the equator and the equator is straight.

Do you agree with that?
Parallel? Yes.  Would you be walking straight? No.  Is a left or right turn required to follow the equator?  No. 

If you are standing level on a globe at 80 degrees north, is your body parallel to someone standing at the equator?

No, I would be at an angle.
Why then, are you basing whether or not there would be a left or right curve while following that latitude, off of a view as seen from directly above the equator?  There is a left curve following that latitude east.  Can you prove otherwise?

I drew a line, parallel with the equator, around my beach ball and I can rotate it while being lined up with a mark on the wall and it spins straight.

Quote
Quote

look at it like someone walking around a cylinder, except because of cone shape, you would be leaning at an angle as you go up in latitude above the equator. You would still walk straight however. It would be like this until you were at the very top where it would be nearly flat. then you would be walking in a curved path.

Try applying it to a sphere.

Okay, here I am standing perpendicular on the globe earth. As the earth rotates west to east and I walk west to east, I will be walking around the earth in a straight line.

Do you believe that's true?


13
If I stopped the world spinning and I could walk along any latitude line, I would be walking in a big circle, but I would still be walking straight. This is because the lines are parallel with the equator and the equator is straight.

Do you agree with that?
Parallel? Yes.  Would you be walking straight? No.  Is a left or right turn required to follow the equator?  No. 

If you are standing level on a globe at 80 degrees north, is your body parallel to someone standing at the equator?

No, I would be at an angle.

look at it like someone walking around a cylinder, except because of cone shape, you would be leaning at an angle as you go up in latitude above the equator. You would still walk straight however. It would be like this until you were at the very top where it would be nearly flat. then you would be walking in a curved path.

14
I've understood how they say Foucault's pendulum works for a while now. I admit I didn't know at first, but I do now.

I live on the latitude of 75o, If I decided to take a walk around the world along that latitude, I would walk in a straight path and arrive back at the same location from where I started from. I would never have to walk in a curve path what so ever. If I had walked in a curved path, I would probably end up at the north pole. I'm surprised you don't realize that.
Are you talking about following the 75th latitude while maintaining an east or west heading?

Yes, that's correct.
Now let's review what you learned a few days ago about a latitude of 80 degrees.

  Did you draw a latitude line close to the pole yet?  Let's say 80 degrees N.
Yes, yes I have drawn a line close to the pole, now what?

Looking straight down at any spot on that line, does it curve as you follow it?

Yes, it curves.
After reviewing your replies, perhaps you should try drawing another latitude line at 75 degrees and do the same you did with the 80 degree line.

Once you do this, if you would be so kind as to explain to us (perhaps with a drawing?) of how you believe you would have ended up at the north pole by turning while following that latitude, that would be great.

If I stopped the world spinning and I could walk along any latitude line, I would be walking in a big circle, but I would still be walking straight. This is because the lines are parallel with the equator and the equator is straight.

Do you agree with that?

15
I've understood how they say Foucault's pendulum works for a while now. I admit I didn't know at first, but I do now.

I live on the latitude of 75o, If I decided to take a walk around the world along that latitude, I would walk in a straight path and arrive back at the same location from where I started from. I would never have to walk in a curve path what so ever. If I had walked in a curved path, I would probably end up at the north pole. I'm surprised you don't realize that.
Are you talking about following the 75th latitude while maintaining an east or west heading?

Yes, that's correct.

16
There really isn't any other options I am aware of. Even shooting a rocket up in space wouldn't help much as speed is relative anyways. The rocket would either still have the momentum of earth, or if "stopped" you would have no form of reference to measure your speed from. You could use the earth, but is it stopped or are you? Are you moving or is it, and so forth.

Maybe if you could shoot something directly above one of the poles, and get a couple million of miles away, then someone how stop it from moving and spinning then watch for a few days with a camera facing towards earth. Maybe that could provide some video proof lol.
You could launch an equatorial geostationary sattelite, then use Kepler's third law to measure how fast it spins.

Or you could just measure how long it takes for the background stars to go around once.

Yea, I could do that. I'll get right on it.

17
The ball would rotate at the same rate as the air around it.

I can keep air from it.
If you put it in a vacuum, then it would stay rotating at whatever speed it had. You could set it spinning any direction and it would just keep on going that way forever. That wouldn't help. If you kept it still (relative to the rotating earth) it would keep the same speed as the earth.

This...

That is the whole point of a pendulum why it is the best way to attempt to see the earth's motion. An object in motion likes to stay in motion, so between the heavy weight of the pendulum and inertia created by its movement, this creates a force that can resist the attempted change in direction of the earth.

As I said before, this saddened me a while back when I was attempting to build a geocentric world.

Also why I am kicking around in my head to build two identical pendulums side by side, and see if they have the same identical movement. I believe that would 100 percent break or make the theory of the pendulum. As their movements vary on placement around the earth. If I could somehow build one at one of the poles this would be even better, but not a possibility

Here is what I've read about pendulums and I kind of believe it's true because I had the same problem when I tried it swing one. No teacher will tell you this and no science guy will tell you either. If you don't believe me that's fine.

They say a pendulum will swing in a straight path once it is released. In my experience I found this not to be true. In fact it is hard to get it to swing straight at all. I have found that it all depend on how it is released. If there is any slight torque when it is released it will swing in a progressive path towards that way. This is what i did. I used a plumb bob as the weight. I used loops of thread to hold it and I hooked the thread to a hook on my ladder as far back as I could to get as much arc as I could. Then I would burn the thread to release it. I would burn the thread on the left side and the bob would swing to the left a little further with each swing. I would burn the thread on the right side and the bob would swing to the right a little further with each swing. I could only get maybe 6 or 7 good swings before it would slow down enough to become erratic. I tried this probably 10 time and it was very consistent each time. It just seems it only takes a small torque one side or the other to get it to swing one way or the other. I tried to get it to swing straight and it was almost impossible. I could only do it a few times. Like I said, I was working in small scale compared to the ones in museums. However, I just wonder if they work the same as mine.   

18
Creative idea yendor....

Though magnetism is in its own form "friction". The ball is not separated from the base because of this. You would have much less friction with a low friction bearing.

I would think that it would work because I can turn the base and the globe doesn't. That would mean to me that if the base is setting in a room which is anchored to the ground, the earth rotating would cause the room to rotate along with the base and the globe would not rotate. That should give me an indication of the earth rotating, would it not?
No. Because it is the air around the globe that will rotate it.

Okay, it won't work then. Any suggestions? I like the approach not using a swinging pendulum because I've tried to use one and I don't have the height necessary to keep it swinging very long and It always want to veer left or right. It doesn't like swinging straight.

19
The ball would rotate at the same rate as the air around it.

I can keep air from it.
If you put it in a vacuum, then it would stay rotating at whatever speed it had. You could set it spinning any direction and it would just keep on going that way forever. That wouldn't help. If you kept it still (relative to the rotating earth) it would keep the same speed as the earth.

a vacuum is a space void of matter. With that thing in it, it wouldn't be a vacuum. I could try to pump out some air, but I couldn't create a vacuum.

20
Creative idea yendor....

Though magnetism is in its own form "friction". The ball is not separated from the base because of this. You would have much less friction with a low friction bearing.

I would think that it would work because I can turn the base and the globe doesn't. That would mean to me that if the base is setting in a room which is anchored to the ground, the earth rotating would cause the room to rotate along with the base and the globe would not rotate. That should give me an indication of the earth rotating, would it not?

21
The ball would rotate at the same rate as the air around it.

I can keep air from it.

22
No, at 75degrees, you are still more aligned with the "top" than the equator. You would curve alot.

You think, wouldn't I still be walking parallel with the equator?

23
Didn't see if someone already suggested this:

No matter how smooth is ball bearing, it still has its friction,
and it will pull your static hammer with the rotation.
What would be much harder to pull by it, would be gyroscope.
Small electric motor could rotate flywheel around horizontal axis.
Hang it instead of hammer (together with batteries, or solar phone
charger) and your angle between 3:00 and 6:40 should be bigger.

Hang it from both sides of center of mass, otherwise it will
rotate by itself when weight tries to turn it downwards.

Earth rotates 15 degrees per hour.
Set the flywheel axis east-west and see the deviation from
curve of your local latitude line as the Earth spins,
or set it north-south and see the deviation from local meridian.

Let me ask you, Do you think the thought I present is feasible if in fact the earth is spinning?

I will answer this question. Yes, it would actually work IF you could hang it with a literal 0 resistance bearing. Or if it could magically float it in the air of a room that is enclosed from zero air disturbances.

Neither is possible unfortunately

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying.

You believe a hanging object would work to detect earth's rotation is I found friction-less bearings and I could keep air from it.

How about this put in a closed box. It is held suspended with magnetism and I could put it in a closed box. Do you think this would work as well? The earth does not rotate on this model, some model it does. It will only rotate if you physically do it.


 

24
No, you would actually curve slightly at 75degrees.

Think of it this way, if you are a foot away from the pole, and walk along the lattitude, you would walk in a near circle. Farther away, you would walk in less of a circle, and on the equator, it truly would be a straight line.

At the top of the earth it would be different because you are at the top which is nearly flat. At 75o I would be walking straight parallel with the equator.

25
..... the rest of us who understand have at least a college education ....
College education?!  Heck, you don't need that to understand this stuff.

Nope. I would have guessed not, I am struggling to see what is so difficult to understand. The theory of a foucault pendulum is a pretty solid one, even if the associated math can be quite complex.

I guess i'm just feeding a troll.

I just think you don't understand my point of view on the matter. There is no math involved.
So now that you understand the ground does slowly turn at latitudes between the poles and equator, you should understand how the pendulum works.  Glad to have helped clear up the matter.

I've understood how they say Foucault's pendulum works for a while now. I admit I didn't know at first, but I do now.

I live on the latitude of 75o, If I decided to take a walk around the world along that latitude, I would walk in a straight path and arrive back at the same location from where I started from. I would never have to walk in a curve path what so ever. If I had walked in a curved path, I would probably end up at the north pole. I'm surprised you don't realize that.

26
..... the rest of us who understand have at least a college education ....
College education?!  Heck, you don't need that to understand this stuff.

Nope. I would have guessed not, I am struggling to see what is so difficult to understand. The theory of a foucault pendulum is a pretty solid one, even if the associated math can be quite complex.

I guess i'm just feeding a troll.

I just think you don't understand my point of view on the matter. There is no math involved.

I do understand your point of view. But ITS WRONG, and no matter how many times people explain to you the reasons why, the more you drag the thread on with utter shit and silliness.

10 pages of disagreement with you and your method of testing/measuring rotation, and you think everyone else is wrong.

LOL to that troll.

Others like you are still coming here...why for? You obviously enjoy my company. Do you have a thing for me?

27
..... the rest of us who understand have at least a college education ....
College education?!  Heck, you don't need that to understand this stuff.

Nope. I would have guessed not, I am struggling to see what is so difficult to understand. The theory of a foucault pendulum is a pretty solid one, even if the associated math can be quite complex.

I guess i'm just feeding a troll.

I just think you don't understand my point of view on the matter. There is no math involved.

28
Didn't see if someone already suggested this:

No matter how smooth is ball bearing, it still has its friction,
and it will pull your static hammer with the rotation.
What would be much harder to pull by it, would be gyroscope.
Small electric motor could rotate flywheel around horizontal axis.
Hang it instead of hammer (together with batteries, or solar phone
charger) and your angle between 3:00 and 6:40 should be bigger.

Hang it from both sides of center of mass, otherwise it will
rotate by itself when weight tries to turn it downwards.

Earth rotates 15 degrees per hour.
Set the flywheel axis east-west and see the deviation from
curve of your local latitude line as the Earth spins,
or set it north-south and see the deviation from local meridian.

Let me ask you, Do you think the thought I present is feasible if in fact the earth is spinning?

29
I design, install, maintain and provide technical documentation for the control gear associated with AC generators and their control systems, in working power stations.
This includes electronic prototyping and PCB design, SELV DC operator control circuits, mixed power/data control circuits, Low voltage AC circuits, Solar PV, and High Voltage grid distribution.

When everything is running smoothly electrically, you may find me changing a dirty greasy old bearing in a motor shaft.

This is my world.... well I delve beneath the covers.....



Looks impressive..

30
I guess the lad who pushes the broom is pushing the broom because he isn't capable of much more. He doesn't believe in a flat earth, he just doesn't understand how a pendulum can detect earths rotation. He also does not understand that if a helicopter hovers, the earth does not pass by below and how water sticks to a ball. Bless him.  :-[ 

He keeps a good clean floor though.

My job is highly skilled, lots of problem solving, Electrical/electronic circuit design on a massive scale. Ever thought about the control gear that is required for power generation, the cooling, the distribution, the safety features? Not a job for the weak minded. 

We all started somewhere, lots of us progress but if at 40 you are still on the broom, then perhaps you just cant learn very much, very quickly.

His artwork is fantastic. He draws war scenes and they are realy very good.
you know, not everyone has the means to go to college. Some can't spend the money because they have a family and other reasons. I couldn't go to college until I got out of the service. We all do the best we can to survive in this world.

If you don't mind me asking, what kind of circuit design are you doing?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 56