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 - mightyfletch

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 30, 2019, 08:51:13 PM »
Quote
The semi major axis of our orbit, roughly the radius of our orbit is used in a trigonometric function to calculate distance to the stars. 
You don't see the issue here?

Right, that's the way it works in the RE model.  Of course you can't do that in a flat earth model.  So, what's the explanation in the FE model?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 30, 2019, 07:21:11 PM »
Jane is upset when I say the FE model doesn't account for this, but instead of providing a convincing point of view to debate it, she just claims it's merely too offensive of an attack to say FET doesn't account for it.  For anyone, if this is a debate forum, then debate it.  Don't just get offended like I insulted your family's honor.
And now you're just straight-up lying. Great.
You do realise that on a web forum, people can just scroll back right?
No lies here.  I made a valid argument about how FE doesn't account for it, but you claimed I'm not using good forum etiquette.  It is absolutely relevant.

Quote

 I pointed out complaining FEers weren't having the same discussion for the hundredth time with someone acting like you are now was stupid, and provided what seemed to be the most common UA answer, along with reminding you that under FET everything on a celestial level is smaller-scale and thus stars are closer than you were saying, along with a brief sketch of how you could justify that to yourself. At no point did I complain you made an argument, just pointed out you were acting like you'd made some kind of brand new point that had never been thought of before, and how that's just a dumb way to act.
You then decided to jettison all discussion of gravity to make a totally different argument based solely on a different application of parallax which doesn't matter. The conclusion of the stellar parallax argument as you're using it has nothing to do with distance to the stars. That would be why you're saying 'how can FET account for this?' rather than 'And this shows the distance would need to be ___' Like, some stars being further away than others literally does not matter in the slightest, just that they aren't the trillions figure you supplied and are theoretically close enough to exert some kind of gravitational force. Could have fun running the numbers on that actually, might get to that sometime.
If someone has made the point I'm asking for, where is it?

Parallax is HOW you determine the distance to the stars.  That's how we know the stars to be 25 trillion miles away.

Quote
But anyway, the distance to the Sun gives an indication of the distance to the things beyond it. If the Sun is smaller in actual size, that means it is closer, which means things seen beyond it are closer. That was all I said, and apparently you disagree with that, otherwise why the objection? And you explained parallax to me after I already explained it to you, but whatever, par for the course at this point.

You missing a very significant point about parallax.  The greater the shift, the farther away the stars are.  That's how we know the distance to the stars. 

The semi major axis of our orbit, roughly the radius of our orbit is used in a trigonometric function to calculate distance to the stars. 

With all this back and forth, you still have yet to explain how a FE model can explain the shift.  If the Sun floats over a flat earth, why would the stars shift back and forth every 6 months at decreasing amounts for stars at increasing distances. 

Quote
Look, just admit when you make a mistake, in the long term it is way less embarrassing. You changed the topic, and you cannot just jam what you changed it into, into anything relevant to where we were originally. Free tips for basic usage of a forum volume 3.

You continuing to assert that does not make it reality.

Quote
In a thread dedicated to a totally different point. Like, this is hardly unique to this site, it's basic forum etiquette. You make a thread about A, switching subjects to something totally unrelated to avoid conceding is childish.

Again, it is absolutely relevant to the topic.  Why won't you just answer the question?  Why try so hard to deflect?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 30, 2019, 05:40:27 PM »
You said the discussion was overdone, so I made additional points.
In a thread dedicated to a totally different point. Like, this is hardly unique to this site, it's basic forum etiquette. You make a thread about A, switching subjects to something totally unrelated to avoid conceding is childish.
The stars do move under FET anyway, don't try to apply labels like geocentric or heliocentric, they were made for RET. Sure, the FE Earth is typically stationary (UA aside) but the Sun rotates above it, not around it, and ditto for the stars, and that's going to have pretty immediate consequences. Further free advice, rather than making claims like 'the stars would not shift' when I can't think of a single FEer who claims anything remotely like that, take a breath don't jump right to acting like you've refuted FET.
And that's about all I'm interested in saying, I'm tired and don't particularly want to waste time on a distraction.

Ok.  Maybe someone else has an answer. 

Jane seems to think I've taken us off topic somehow.  We started with acceleration is not constant on Earth.   

Tom posed that measurements of gravity can't be trusted because no one does them his way, in a vacuum.  That line was thoroughly discussed, and the point was made that whether or not his conditions were met, the variance would be far less than observations showed.

So, the other component of the original post was that decreasing gravity with altitude could not be accounted for in FE models.  The particulars behind this are what we've been discussing.  This is right in line with the main discussion. 

Jane is upset when I say the FE model doesn't account for this, but instead of providing a convincing point of view to debate it, she just claims it's merely too offensive of an attack to say FET doesn't account for it.  For anyone, if this is a debate forum, then debate it.  Don't just get offended like I insulted your family's honor.

The distance of the stars from Earth is a crucial point as to the effect of celestial gravitation, a claim supporting the phenomenon of decreasing weight measurements with altitude. 

So, I can make the argument that due to parallax shift, we can know the distance to the stars.  Basically, parallax shift is when our perspective when observing close stars compared to much more distant stars shows those closer stars of being in a different position in the sky.  Closer stars have a greater shift than more distant stars.  This parallax shift is observed at 6-month intervals when we are at opposite sides of the sun.  We are able to see varying displacement of stars in the sky, indicating their distance. 

My argument is that if the Earth is flat, then how can you account for this shift in the position of the stars?  This matters because it determines whether the stars have the ability to exert gravity on terrestrial objects, enough to cause a large gravity gradient.

If no FEer has an explanation for parallax shift with stars being on some kind of dome over the flat earth or something, it gives credibility to my whole point about gravity.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 30, 2019, 04:34:43 PM »
You can't have parallax shift in a flat Earth, especially if Earth is the center.  Yet, we still observe a shift in position of the stars....and they're all different.  Works great in the RE model...not so sure about the FE model.
...I mean, you can have a parallax shift no matter the shape of the object you're observing from, that's just what parallax is. You just get the same result as the Eratosphenes experiment, a lot of inconsistency in the net result from a FE that needs new principles to justify, but the undeniable fact that everything under FET has to be a whole lot closer is still there.
Also, free tips, if you actually care about getting answers, replacing bad arguments with completely different ones without even pausing for breath is not going to encourage any FEer to bother.

You said the discussion was overdone, so I made additional points.

For example, I made the point that gravity gradient was too great near the Earth for a FE Earth model to work, since the stars were too far away.  So, you said that it would work because they were a lot closer, using parallax shift on a FE to define them.  The biggest problem I see with that is the FE model is supposedly geocentric.  Parallax shift measures the apparent shift in position of the stars at 6-month intervals when the earth revolves around the sun.  With a geocentric model, the stars would not shift, since the earth doesn't revolve around the sun in the FE model.  Do you have an explanation of parallax shift of the stars in the FET? 

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect proves a globe
« on: July 30, 2019, 09:48:01 AM »
I realized you keep quoting Lord Rayleigh who died a hundred years ago.

The barometer pressure paradox stands unsolved to this very day.

From the World Meteorological Organization: "The interpretation of day-night differences must allow for real daily variation in geopotential height caused by diurnal and semidiurnal tides. Real day-night differences at mid-latitudes for 100 hPa geopotential heights can be as large as 30 m between observations at 1800 and 0600 local time (Nash, 1984), whereas real day-night differences between observations at 1200 and 0000 local time will usually be in the range 0 ± 10 m."

You are still dodging the main issue.

"The temperature produced by the sun on the surface of the earth, as measured by the thermometer, is increased during the former part of the day  and progressively diminished during the latter part and the night, as follows: it begins to rise a little before the sun,  increases until about one o'clock in the day, when it turns and  declines; and continues falling until about five o'clock the next  morning — making but one rise of eight, and one fall of sixteen, in the twenty-four hours. From these facts it sufficiently appears that  the two daily atmospheric tides or movements cannot be caused directly by the sun heating the surface of the earth.

Here are the facts:

BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


There is only one other element of weather which features a semidiurnal oscillation: atmospheric electricity.

Since terrestrial gravity is directly linked to electricity, the barometer pressure phenomenon is in direct relationship to the electric potential.

The potential variation is the cause of the barometer pressure oscillations:

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/atmospheric-science-burying-beals-barometer/

Here is the data gathered in the period 1898-1904 on the Kew electrograph:

https://ia800107.us.archive.org/14/items/philtrans07216443/07216443.pdf

Few mathematicians understand that Einstein's version of relativity is the lowest possible, this being the main reason why his efforts towards a unified field theory failed.

A much higher form of relativity is, as an example, the Reissner-Nordstrom metric:

https://archive.org/details/philtrans04375412

At an even higher level, we find the Weyl electrovacuum solutions:

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf (Hermann Weyl's formidable paper, showing why he was the best mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein, Pauli, Dirac or Lorentz)

In order to reach the final formula, H. Weyl states:

"In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for
the electromagnetic field in the ćther and of the “kinetic” energy-momentum tensor of the matter in the more restricted sense."

"Weyl’s new geometry was much richer than the Riemannian geometry in both its mathematical and philosophical content. Mathematically, the new geometry introduced new quantities into space that had no analogy in other geometries. Philosophically, these new quantities, unaccounted for by Riemannian geometry and thus unaccounted for in General Relativity, were used by Weyl to represent electromagnetic phenomena. Every point in space, represented by a vector having both magnitude and direction, could be displaced to another point in the same space yielding electromagnetism. When only the direction of the vector was taken into account, ignoring the vector’s magnitude, there remained a parallel displacement of the kind described by Levi-Civita, which accounted for gravity. The difference with Weyl’s geometry lay in the fact that it was no longer necessary for a vector’s magnitude or length to remain constant while being displaced between points in space."

“Later the quantum-theory introduced the Schrodinger-Dirac potential ψ of the electron-positron field; it carried with it an experimentally based principle of gauge-invariance which guaranteed the conservation of charge, and connected the ψ with the electromagnetic potentials Aµ in the same way that my speculative theory had connected the gravitational potentials gµν with the Aµ, and measured the Aµ in known atomic, rather than unknown cosmological units."

H. Weyl, Selecta, 1955

Rabinoz and I have already given you an in depth verifiable explanation of the semidiurnal phenomenon, yet you keep skewing off into unrelated topics.  There's not really much else to say on this. 

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect proves a globe
« on: July 30, 2019, 07:11:02 AM »
As I said, it's harmonic with the diurnal cycle.  In this case insolation is the direct cause of the diurnal cycle, and just to be more clear, the reference from NCAR also explains how the semi-diurnal effects are influenced by the tidal force of the sun, similar to how the moon and the oceans work.

Your statements and the quote from NCAR do not explain anything at all, on the contrary.

You have not addressed the main issue.

BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

I was wondering why you were so confused about this, then I realized you keep quoting Lord Rayleigh who died a hundred years ago. 

From the World Meteorological Organization: "The interpretation of day-night differences must allow for real daily variation in geopotential height caused by diurnal and semidiurnal tides. Real day-night differences at mid-latitudes for 100 hPa geopotential heights can be as large as 30 m between observations at 1800 and 0600 local time (Nash, 1984), whereas real day-night differences between observations at 1200 and 0000 local time will usually be in the range 0 ± 10 m." 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/meetings/CB/Ed-Board-2/EdBd-2_P-I_Ch-12.doc&ved=2ahUKEwiN9LqR69zjAhXhi1QKHTgxANMQFjAKegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1s1LsqmEzX9qnfS1Pk4wFk

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect proves a globe
« on: July 29, 2019, 11:25:54 PM »
Rising air parcels rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemishpere, while sinking air parcels and ocean currents rotate clockwise.  This large-scale effect is reversed in the southern hemisphere and is more noticeable at higher latitudes.  I have produced highly accurate weather forecasts for the last 14 years, using math that factors in the angular velocity of the rotating globe and the coriolis parameter.  Cyclones in the southern hemisphere would rotate opposite the way they do and be as much as 5 times larger than they actually are.  FE-theory would never be able to forecast out any cyclone with any degree of accuracy.

In case you forgot what this thread is about...

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect proves a globe
« on: July 29, 2019, 11:22:45 PM »
The semidiurnal pressure variation is harmonic with the diurnal cycle. 

You haven't got a clue as to the subject we are discussing here.

"Beforehand the diurnal variation of the barometer would have been expected to be much more conspicuous than the semi-diurnal. The relative magnitude of the latter, as observed in most parts of the earth's surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory."

Lord Rayleigh

The semidiurnal surface pressure oscillation is stronger and more regular than the diurnal oscillation.

It should be pretty obvious, even to non-meteorologists, that it's caused by insolation.

Completely wrong.

You have just been presented with ample evidence that solar heating has nothing to do with the semidiurnal atmospheric tide.

BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


A total defiance of Newton's alleged law of universal gravitation: modern meteorology cannot explain at all the barometer pressure paradox.

As usual, FEers lose their s**t.  As I said, it's harmonic with the diurnal cycle.  In this case insolation is the direct cause of the diurnal cycle, and just to be more clear, the reference from NCAR also explains how the semi-diurnal effects are influenced by the tidal force of the sun, similar to how the moon and the oceans work.  But none of that has to do with cyclonic circulation patterns.

Interesting how you absolutely lose your cool here and essentially scream, but the moderators sit quietly.

More interesting is how you keep harping on these semi-diurnal pressure highs and lows, which don't even address my point about synoptic-scale circulation driven by the coriolis parameter.  Why do keep avoiding the original post?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 29, 2019, 08:29:00 PM »
You say it's an overdone discussion. The Flat Earth Society forums have been online for at least 12 years, and I imagine at some point every topic imaginable has been discussed.
Some more than others. The problem is when you come in with the attitude of 'I and I alone have asked this question no one has thought to answer!' rather than considering how utterly exhausting the cliches are for the regular FEers in the upper forums. Bishop doesn't post too much, I'm playing werewolf in the lower forums, even now you're not getting the people that normally debate it because why would they? What could they possibly have to gain from having the same discussion for the hundredth time for someone that's given every indication they'll just ignore answers provided?

Quote
Which one do you feel like believing or defending?

I'd like to hear answers to these:
What source of energy is causing the Earth to accelerate upwards indefinitely?

If the Earth has no gravity and the stars exert gravity on us, how can there be such a tight gravity gradient on Earth?  The inverse square law is what I'm referring to. Double the orbital distance from Earth, you get 1/4 the gravitational pull.  With stars being over 25 Trillion miles away, there wouldn't be that kind of gradient.
I'll 'defend' any model that has a response to this question, rather than outright changing the topic to source of acceleration. (That just takes you through dark energy and sometimes tachyons, and has nothing to do with constancy of acceleration).
The stars aren't 25 trillion miles away under any FE model, outside of the non-Euclidean. It doesn't work; the Sun has to be a nearby spotlight of some sort for it to have anything even approaching the motion we observe, and by parallax that tells us the stars need to be much closer. That's more rigorous, more intuitively is just the fact that under FET, the centre of the Earth is the centre of motion for, well, pretty much everything, so that indicates the Earth is much more significant than in RET, and other celestial bodies are much smaller and closer than RET states.

You can't have parallax shift in a flat Earth, especially if Earth is the center.  Yet, we still observe a shift in position of the stars....and they're all different.  Works great in the RE model...not so sure about the FE model.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 29, 2019, 08:15:35 PM »
I'd like to hear answers to these:
What source of energy is causing the Earth to accelerate upwards indefinitely?
This has literally already been answered in this thread. Stop asking questions that have already been answered to you, and stop pretending you haven't seen them.

Quote
If the Earth has no gravity and the stars exert gravity on us, how can there be such a tight gravity gradient on Earth?  The inverse square law is what I'm referring to. Double the orbital distance from Earth, you get 1/4 the gravitational pull.  With stars being over 25 Trillion miles away, there wouldn't be that kind of gradient.
You are assuming orthodox rules of physics apply to FE, with distances deduced using those orthodox rules. Can you see the contradiction there?

For UA, I've seen "Dark Energy...an unknown form of energy with an unknown origin" as the description. I suppose that is supposed to suffice as an explanation.

As far as star distance, there is a different parallax shift for all the stars, which shows us their distance as we observe them at 6 month intervals as the Earth revolves around the Sun.  In a FE model, is there an explanation for this? I don't see any in the FE wiki. 

Why try so hard to make FE work, using explanations as "unknown origin, yet to be discovered" as the go-to when it doesn't work out, when everything fits nice and neat in the RE model?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 29, 2019, 04:17:33 PM »
His casual mention of celestial gravitation was not defended by FEers that I saw post on this thread, since they seem to not believe in it.  I wonder why.  Perhaps it doesn't fit the Unversal Acceleration model.  Who knows.  Tom Bishop seemed to think it wasn't worth mentioning.  Also, celestial gravitation does not explain decreasing acceleration at the equator.
Because everyone's sick to death of discussing it because it is an absurdly overdone discussion to the point that even Rabinoz will bring it up, and he'd kick up a fuss if a FEer said the sky was blue. Trust me, acting cocky is doing you no favours.

You get some people that deny accurate measurement of the variation, which more often than not ties into completely different aspects of FET because they've rather unsurprisingly got different laws of physics to RET because, see again, FET, naturally there are things an RE understanding doesn't take into account. There are those that reject them just generally, mind you, but hey.
Then you get to celestial gravitation, which functions on the premise gravity is more akin to magnetism; only certain materials exert it, and affect many more than just those that exert it. Hence stars can exert it, while not enough of the Earth to turn it into a ball does. You can easily use a variation of that with materials within the Earth to justify variation in net force depending on distance from the pole, though offhand I couldn't tell you how many do that. Latitude is definitely the better argument there but, again, doesn't justify lying about no answer being given to altitude.
Celestial gravitation fits with the UA model neatly. Then you get onto non-UA models, which most users here accept, from denpressure to DET to AFET to non-Euclidean and... how much time do you have?


You say it's an overdone discussion. The Flat Earth Society forums have been online for at least 12 years, and I imagine at some point every topic imaginable has been discussed.  Well, that's why there is a debate forum.  I want to see someone debate it.

Summarized from FE Wiki
UA: Earth does not have gravity but the stars do. The stars exert gravity on objects on Earth, while the Earth and the stars are all accelerating upwards.  Or is this the model that doesn't accept gravity?

Davis Plane: Gravity does exist, but the Earth is an infinite plane, accounting for variation with altitude but not latitude.

Which one do you feel like believing or defending?

I'd like to hear answers to these:
What source of energy is causing the Earth to accelerate upwards indefinitely?

If the Earth has no gravity and the stars exert gravity on us, how can there be such a tight gravity gradient on Earth?  The inverse square law is what I'm referring to. Double the orbital distance from Earth, you get 1/4 the gravitational pull.  With stars being over 25 Trillion miles away, there wouldn't be that kind of gradient.


12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where has it all gone?
« on: July 29, 2019, 03:41:24 PM »
I'd like to hear an answer to this as well.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 29, 2019, 03:32:46 PM »
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.

No lies here.  This post had 163 replies, but none of them, not even the Archbishop Tom, have an answer to why gravity is weaker with altitude or at the equator.  The only FE responses are any measurements already performed cannot be trusted, and no FEer is willing to perform them.  The closest anyone has come is that there might be an unknown, invisible force shaped like a ring over the equator that lifts every material like a magnet.  I have not seen any FE wiki explain it.  That's why I posted this, and that's why I'm calling FEers out.
*goes to first page*
*fucking Rab gives you an answer to altitude, if bastardised, by reply 2*
Yep, you're totally not making that up just to convince yourself you contributed something that hasn't been covered hundreds of times before.

His casual mention of celestial gravitation was not defended by FEers that I saw post on this thread, since they seem to not believe in it.  I wonder why.  Perhaps it doesn't fit the Unversal Acceleration model.  Who knows.  Tom Bishop seemed to think it wasn't worth mentioning.  Also, celestial gravitation does not explain decreasing acceleration/gravity with decreasing latitude.

Are you here to defend celestial gravitation?  Do you have some answer you care to share?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 29, 2019, 03:13:14 PM »
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude.
What thread have you been reading? Don't be one of those posters.
You're free to disagree with FET, but pretending the most overdone questions like this don't have answers is just silly. If you want to reject them for being unsupported, go right ahead, but denying their existence is thoroughly unnecessary and does nothing but give the impression you think RET is so weak you need to lie to defend it.

No lies here.  This post had 163 replies, but none of them, not even the Archbishop Tom, have an answer to why gravity is weaker with altitude or at the equator.  The only FE responses are any measurements already performed cannot be trusted, and no FEer is willing to perform them.  The closest anyone has come is that there might be an unknown, invisible force shaped like a ring over the equator that lifts every material like a magnet.  I have not seen any FE wiki explain it.  That's why I posted this, and that's why I'm calling FEers out. 

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect proves a globe
« on: July 29, 2019, 02:35:18 PM »
The Coriolis force involves a rotating frame of reference: either the Earth is revolving around its own axis, or the ether drift is rotating above the surface of the Earth.

That is why the Coriolis force, gyrocompasses, Foucault's pendulum cannot be used to prove either geocentricity or heliocentricity.

The deciding factor is the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

The fact that satellites DO NOT register/record either the orbital Coriolis effect or the rotational Sagnac effect has forced mainstream science to accept the local-aether model.

Mach's principle, Barbour-Bertotti experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747

Global Sagnac effect formula derivation (MGX, ring laser gyroscopes):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351


Flat earth long distance artillery projectiles DePalma effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2106204#msg2106204


Now, I am going to put an end to your presence here as a professional meteorologist.

Here is the barometer pressure paradox.

"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation."


First, the correct station pressure data as it is measured all around the world.

First reference.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (PG. 211)


Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.


Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.



Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).


The best reference from Soil Engineering.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.


Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


Seventh reference.


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Eighth reference.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.



Ninth reference.

Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf



U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am



Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm



NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. (Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.


BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’



Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.

Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.


Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS3290.1

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.

The semidiurnal pressure variation is harmonic with the diurnal cycle. 
It should be pretty obvious, even to non-meteorologists, that it's caused by insolation.  I don't know understand what you're confused about.  And who's talking about geocentricity vs heliocentricity here?

 "Solar heating and regional internal forcing cause gravity waves in the atmosphere at periods of integral fractions of a solar day, especially at the diurnal and semidiurnal periods." -NCAR 1999.

But in the entirely separate issue of the coriolis effect, surface pressure system circulation, and subsequently, geostrophic wind flow, you see contour gradient around subsiding height centers and pressure gradient around high pressure centers generating wind flow outward in a clockwise circulation in the northern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere.  In turn, upward vertical motion associated with low height centers or low pressure centers create inward spiraling winds, following a counterclockwise circulation in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere.  These are non-diurnal pressure changes.  They follow the coriolis effect...every time. 

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect proves a globe
« on: July 29, 2019, 09:56:57 AM »
Still waiting for a FE explanation for the Coriolis effect. 

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 29, 2019, 09:17:46 AM »
163 posts and counting...not yet an explanation of the FE model on variation in gravity due to latitude and altitude. 

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 29, 2019, 09:14:41 AM »
There is a practical explanation that such free fall.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

This is the flat earth society forums, not the общество плоской земли.  Try English.

Strange you are here. Yes, I do not speak English ... But I have not seen such information in English. If you are not able to read the subtitles, then where am I?
You are not interested in the result, and you are not aware that we may soon be flying, subjecting gravity. Acceleration is only a special case of the whole picture. How will I laugh, when you then argue about how all the same gravitole fly. No, you will say that they are not real as the satellites above us ... For now.

The subtitles look like they're in Russian.  I am not sure what you are writing either.  We have satellites above us that orbit the Earth and we have airplanes that fly.  I'm not sure if that answers your question.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 28, 2019, 04:55:46 PM »
Topic of the thread is gravity anomalies. Anomalies in gravimetey are inconsistent with the RE theory of gravity.

The RE effort is now to claim that the error of scales is imperceptible, in contradiction of the statements from authorities that the scales are highly affected by various factors and that regular calibration is necessary.

The following on uncalibrated scale drift portrays 0.5% variance as small, and gives it as an example of why frequent calibration is necessary.

https://precisionscale.com/scale-calibration/

" UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF SCALE CALIBRATION

In more complex terms, scale calibration involves the process of comparing a known standard, such as a calibration service’s certified weights, to the results given by the unit that is being tested (your company’s scales). Such a procedure ensures the accuracy of the unit being tested. When your business relies on accuracy of weights to run and operate smoothly and protect profits, calibration of your scales is not negotiable. It is an absolute must and will also ensure that your business is adhering to industry standards and Canadian laws and regulations if you use the weights and measurements to calculate truck loads.

Why Is Calibrating Your Business’s Scales So Important?

While you may not realize it, your business’s scales and the accuracy they produce have a direct impact on your company’s bottom line. If your scales are off, your profits can be off as well. For example, let’s say that your business deals in a very expensive powdered cleaning product. If the product cost is $10 per pound and on average you weigh 1,000 pounds of product per day, the total value of product weighed each day is $10,000.

Now, let’s say that your scale is out of balance by just 0.5 percent. That discrepancy will cost you approximately $50 per day, or $1,000 a month. Unless your company is in the position to literally throw away $1,000 a month ($12,000 a year), then it becomes very apparent why scale calibration is a necessity. In fact, keeping these numbers in mind, one can actually say that such a service is actually an insurance policy protecting your business’s bottom line, rather than just another routine business expense. "

No, Tom.  Gravity anomalies are an integral part of how a rotating globe works.  The centrifugal force at the equator is demonstrated in this experiment.   
Note, the scale is calibrated in the experiment.

   The Flat Earth model does not account for this at all.  Also, according to the inverse square law, gravity decreases with altitude...another element not accounted for in the FE model that is elementary in the RE model.

By the way, here is my original post for reference.


"FE theory claims the Earth is accelerating up at 9.8 m/s^2.  The problem is that you can measure a different force of gravity whether you're at the North pole, or Equator.  The acceleration is slighty less 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator, due to centrifugal force of the rotating globe. On the FE, acceleration would have to be the same anywhere on Earth.  Earth cannot be flat because of this......"


20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 28, 2019, 03:36:02 PM »
This geologist agrees that the theory of gravity variations is not coherent with theory:

https://lhcrazyworld.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/gravity-and-isostasy/amp/

" Gravity and Isostasy
 Louis Hissink

Gravitational theory is firmly entrenched as dogma and is unchallengeable and punishable by excommunication and if the heresy great enough, by permanent expulsion from polite society.  It is thus similar to religion in that as a basic premise it cannot be challenged.

So what about isostasy, a theory developed from the observation that surveying plumb-bobs were not attracted by an adjacent mountain? Or that they were not deflected as much as expected.  This observation is similar to the laboratory Cavendish experiment to determine big G, the gravitational constant, where bodies have the attractive force measured in the horizontal plane.  Herein lies the problem and the manner of thinking adopted when anomalous results are observed.

The reaction to the lack off deflection of the plumb-bob from vertical was to assume that the adjacent mountain had a mass shortfall, rather than question the theory that matter attracts matter.  Clearly the lack of attraction observed would lead to one questioning the principle, and not the data, but no, it is the data which are erroneous, and not the principle of gravitation.

This manner of thinking is simply the religious mind at work, for religious minds cannot contradict received authority, here the belief that come what may, matter always attracts matter.  Thuis attitude was driven home when I presented the anomalous downhole survey data to the consulting geophysicists, who opined that if the readings are true, then there had to be a gravitating mass above the drill hole and since this is not observed, which is correct, then the data have to be in error, and an instrument malfunction the cause of the anomalous data preented in Gravity Update previously.  It never occurred to them that maybe the theory is the problem.

Most scientists hold one or other religious beliefs, and the manner in which they think thus determines how they interpret scientific observations, especially observations that cannot be easily tested in a laboratory.  Minds dominated by a belief system inculcated by education, will tend to only see what the believe system asserts, here that matter attracts matter, and hence if the data do not confirm the theory, or belief, then the data have to be in error. This led to the idea of mountain ranges, or some of them, having deep low density roots into the upper mantle, and the development of Plate Tectonics theory. Except that plates with mountains on them with interpreted under-slab keels should not be able to move, but this inconsistency in the theory seems never a problem, and readily explained as a collision effect between two converging tectonic plates.

Because of this manner of thinking, which leads to the illogical scenario of low density rocks floating in a more dense substrate, ice caps are believed to depress the crust underneath them, and when the ice melts, the crust re-adjusts by expanding upwards. Proof of this is the crustal emergence around the Baltic sea due to the melting of the earlier Pleistocene ice age when an ice cap is postulated to have existed in this part of Europe, and also in Canada where crustal uplift is also observed. But just how a rock of density 1 Kg/M^3 can sink into crust of density 2.7Kg/M^3 is explained by the principle of isostasy.  This assertion is simply crazy – logical but crazy and came about from misinterpeting the earlier surveying data where the plumbline did not deflect as expected from calculations compensating for the mass of the adjacent mountain.

In both cases, the non-deflecting plumb-line and the anomlous downhole survey data, the mainstream reaction to the discordant data was to reject the data and confirm the supremacy of the belief in gravitation. But if the theory of gravity is wrong, then a great lot of theory and assumptions become, if not moot, just plain wrong. Retrocalculation of planetary orbits becomes problematical, gravitational accretion becomes a nonsense leading to a rather drastic paradigm shift in the physical sciences. It is tantamount to questioning our cultural world-view, that of the Abrahamic Religions, and that could be a most dangerous entreprise.

One challenge to this world view is being mounted by Tim Cullen at the Malaga Bay Blog, and of course this one has been politically incorrect for a long time.  It is an intellectual battle between the Oriental and Occidental world-views, that of a cyclical orientalism and a linear occidentalism.

Update: I now wonder if Gravity has replaced God as the prime  mover of the Universe. Both are words starting with a capital G "

" Louis Hissink (MSc, Macquarie University) was a consulting diamond geologist, formerly of John Taylors, Western Mining Corporation Ltd and De Beers. He has worked for other smaller companies in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. "

On discrepancies, one writer states:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190728080158/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae59/7456f647efb7155ac419edf5c9f38f240fb0.pdf

 “ On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that lowdensity rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: ‘There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.’15

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding. ”

"Bouguer Anomalies Over The Continents and Oceans" in the Journal of the Geological Society of India tells us:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj35rvk0_jeAhVknuAKHU-rC7EQFjAAegQIGhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geosocindia.org%2Findex.php%2Fjgsi%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F83944%2F64911&usg=AOvVaw2HzDoF7yD_h3qD27TuGMzb

  “ Why, in general, the Bouguer gravity anomalies are negative in continental areas and positive in oceanic areas? Extending the question further, why do the predominant negative and positive anomalies respectively correspond to the mountain peaks and ocean depths? Although the Bouguer gravity data are not brought on to an even datum, there is fairly a good inverse correlation of Bouguer anomalies with height/depth as well as seismic data. This obviously indicates the excess mass reflected as gravity lows and the deficit mass as gravity highs with respect to the geoid/ellipsoid surface. This is in contrast to the theory of the gravity field which is proportional to the excess or deficit mass. Mathematically speaking, the observed anomalies are proportional to the vertical gradient of gravity, indicating excess mass above the geoid as gravity lows and deficit mass below the geoid as gravity highs. If this were true, far reaching implications arise in the understanding of the theory and interpretation of Bouguer anomalies. ”

Your post is about the plumb-bob deflection experiment, which had to account for varying densities in the Earth's composition vs the mass of a mountain, making it difficult to ascertain either them.  Later experiments acheived greater accuracy, leading to a better understanding of Earth's composition.  Either way, positive gravity anomalies aren't necessarily at mountains.  They're also over India. 

But that's not even what my post is about.  It's that gravity decreases as you increase in altitude, and gravity is weaker at the equator.  Thus far, no FE model has been presented that provides an explanation for this.  The plumb-Bob test wasn't even testing that.


21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 28, 2019, 11:59:54 AM »
There is a practical explanation that such free fall.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

This is the flat earth society forums, not the общество плоской земли.  Try English.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 28, 2019, 10:22:21 AM »
Quote
Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

The differences seen in the devices are not significant. They are a fraction of one percent.

There are many factors to consider: weight of atmosphere, humidity, static build up, moisture, etc, all of which affects scales and the atmosphere. The experiment needs to take place in a vaccum.

The weight of atmosphere, when taken into account, gives greater buoyancy at higher lattitudes where the atmospheric pressure is greater than at the equator.  Since the measurements showed lower measured weights at the equator, you see the effect of centrifugal force far outweighing any of these issues you've listed that you say need to be accounted for.

Also, the scale is zeroed out before the steel weight is measured, thereby already accounting for the weight of the atmosphere.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites follow a path around the globe
« on: July 28, 2019, 08:52:00 AM »
With the use of satellite data being used for everything from GPS, surveying, weather forecasting to even things like archeology
 https://www.globalxplorer.org/about
Is it not about time for flat earth believers to re-think their position on this subject. With around 8000 satellites having been launched and 5000 give or take currently in orbit launched from over 31 facilities involving over 50 countries, with more being launched on almost a weekly basis, so much so that each launch receives very little if any news coverage. Last week for example very little was made here in the west of India’s moon mission Chandrayaan-2 that will arrive in lunar orbit in early Sept and set to make a landing soon afterwards.
Labelling all space related activity as being part of a greater conspiracy does not look at all credible.

Additionally, Space-X is planning on launching almost 12,000 cubesats, so you can access broadband connections almost at any point on the globe.  They'll be in Low-Earth Orbit at 340km, 550km, and 1,150km for their Starlink program. 

Next week, I'm going to track the International Space Station with their app, and take a picture of it as it flies by.

If that is your plan you may wish to read this:-
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/tutorials/how-to-easily-photograph-the-international-space-station

It’s not as easy to get a good shot as one would imagine. I’m not sure about your photographic expertise, but tripod, wide angle lens at f4, low ISO and 60 second exposure or so is a good starting point to get a nice trail. I would shoot some trial shots at your chosen location, and for the composition try and include some ground features, buildings, trees etc. Planning is all for this kind of shot. Trying to shoot the ISS with a telephoto requires a bit more skill and careful planning and positioning, but it can be done for sure.
https://petapixel.com/2017/11/06/photographed-iss-crossing-full-moon/
Good luck.

Yeah, hopefully we're not clouded over either.

My Avatar picture is a shot of the space shuttle Discovery meeting up with the ISS as seen from the ground.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 28, 2019, 08:48:17 AM »
In UA, the accelerator is a fundamental property of the universe. It's not a device.

I understand that part.  My point is that the FE model doesn't account for the lower weight measurements at the equator and at higher altitudes.  There's no proposed mechanism or "device" for this.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites follow a path around the globe
« on: July 27, 2019, 10:01:05 PM »
With the use of satellite data being used for everything from GPS, surveying, weather forecasting to even things like archeology
 https://www.globalxplorer.org/about
Is it not about time for flat earth believers to re-think their position on this subject. With around 8000 satellites having been launched and 5000 give or take currently in orbit launched from over 31 facilities involving over 50 countries, with more being launched on almost a weekly basis, so much so that each launch receives very little if any news coverage. Last week for example very little was made here in the west of India’s moon mission Chandrayaan-2 that will arrive in lunar orbit in early Sept and set to make a landing soon afterwards.
Labelling all space related activity as being part of a greater conspiracy does not look at all credible.

Additionally, Space-X is planning on launching almost 12,000 cubesats, so you can access broadband connections almost at any point on the globe.  They'll be in Low-Earth Orbit at 340km, 550km, and 1,150km for their Starlink program. 

Next week, I'm going to track the International Space Station with their app, and take a picture of it as it flies by. 

26
.

1. You don't know what their actual speed is.
We call this situation is science. If we examine enough number of flight then it gives us reliable statistics. I don't be surprised you a globularist does not aware what was science.

2.  Flights don't follow straight flight paths
no pilot wants to go more than required. In the globe world the way you appear in the curve is straight in the flat world. The great circle in the sphere world is actually calculated to describe the straight line in the flat earth.

3.  Air traffic restrictions are different at different altitudes and around different cities.  This can alter their cruising speeds.
this may cause minor differences in the locations of some cities. The average lost time occurs automatically when the error is distributed in the autocad drawing, as it affects all of the flights to all cities around a city's air traffic.
in other words,
a) all cities are surrounded by other cities. (except a few cornered)
b) the middle city has T-time air traffic density.
c) air traffic density causes all cities to appear as much as T time more on flights.
d) Causes distances to be appear more than actual distance as X.
e) This excess amount is the same in all cities. The city represents in map about an circle with a perimeter X.
f) The exact location of the city is in the center of this  circle.
g) thus, air traffic is shown in circles on the map. The circles have enough diameter represents the mistakes like air traffic. this means that it covers air traffic. The city can be anywhere in this circle. but most likely in the center.

4. Timing of when the next gate opens can cause a flight to run longer.

This issue is a copy of 3th problem.

5. Delays in the air traffic can alter flight paths.
these possibilities are taken into consideration by showing the city as a circle enough diameter.

6. You admit to not knowing their speed.  All your conclusions are rooted in speeds that are a total guess.
What? I did not admit that. Stop to manipulation.

You misunderstand the speed of an aircraft.  Aircraft have different cruising airspeeds.  The direction and speed of the air it is flying through will affect its ground speed. 

For example, if your air speed is 400kts and you are flying against the polar front jet of 150kts, your resulting ground speed will be 250kts. 

Your resulting flight duration increases significantly when flying into a headwind. 

There are very large discrepancies in your distance measurements when you don't know the groundspeed vs airspeed of the aircraft.

Also, flight paths are never a straight shot.  Pilots have to get clearance to fly in certain airspace, and may have to fly around certain areas due to various restrictions. 

Aircraft also fly at different speeds at different altitudes. 

You have many variables that are not accounted for in your analysis.

Weather also plays a role in flight levels, which again alters airspeed.  The intertropical convergence zone over Chad can force an aircraft to have to navigate around thunderstorms.  Thunderstorms in the Democratic Repulic of the Congo can make an airline fly a complicated flight path as well.

Turbulence can force a pilot to a lower or higher altitude and a different airspeed.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites follow a path around the globe
« on: July 26, 2019, 12:42:59 PM »


I can’t believe people still defend a NASA led fantasy.

Above 120 miles (200 km) above sea level, temperatures in the thermosphere can vary between 600° and 2000°C (1100 and 3600°F). The actual temperature range is highly dependent on solar activity.

Vacuum no vacuum,  it was a lie to make people believe in space.

The satellite was a magnesium container and has a melting point of 650°F

The balloon was 0.5 thick and made of Mylar and has a melting point of 482°F

When the direct sun rays hits the satellite (1000 miles up) it is going to start melting and the gas in the balloon is going to expand until it pops.

Where is your knowledge of any of the above coming from? How would a flat earther know:

"Above 120 miles (200 km) above sea level, temperatures in the thermosphere can vary between 600° and 2000°C (1100 and 3600°F). The actual temperature range is highly dependent on solar activity."

And how do you a globalist know?

I never said I do know. Just curious as to how a flat earther who doesn't believe space flight is possible would know what the temperature ranges are 1000 miles above the earth. Where is that information coming from?

You have not answered my question. How do you (you can take it as not you but globalists) know it?
I know because I operate satellites that orbit the globe.  It's part of my job.

I'm sure you do. Do you have a real proof other than  your job?

Those satellites have temperature sensors on them.  They read ranges between -250 ˚C and 300 ˚C.

What device have you used to measure temperatures in space?

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis Effect proves a globe
« on: July 26, 2019, 08:47:30 AM »
Rising air parcels rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemishpere, while sinking air parcels and ocean currents rotate clockwise.  This large-scale effect is reversed in the southern hemisphere and is more noticeable at higher latitudes.  I have produced highly accurate weather forecasts for the last 14 years, using math that factors in the angular velocity of the rotating globe and the coriolis parameter.  Cyclones in the southern hemisphere would rotate opposite the way they do and be as much as 5 times larger than they actually are.  FE-theory would never be able to forecast out any cyclone with any degree of accuracy.

I hear snipers have to account for the Coriolis Effect because of Earths rotation. Does this mean the target will have moved with the rotation of Earth before the fired projectile hits it's target?
Yes. The bullet leaves the stationary rifle in a straight line.  The Earth is moving underneath the bullet path. The apparent effect is the bullet curves slightly to the right.  The actual movement is the ground moving to left as the Earth rotates.

Well, the stationary rifle is really already moving with the Earth, so when the projectile is fired it's already in motion with the Earth, hence no need for any adjustments.

And if the Earth has already rotated while the projectile is in route, what direction will a fluffy feather fall on a calm still morning?

And balloonist's don't all drift the same direction on a calm still morning.

The rifle is moving with the Earth, but the Earth rotates in a curve, which a bullet can't follow once it has exited the barrel.  That's why it it ends up to the right.  The bullet follows a straight path, while the Earth follows a curved path.  From the perspective of a shooter, it appears that the bullet curves to the right.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 26, 2019, 08:39:41 AM »
So, out of 136 posts on this thread, there has yet to be an explanation as to how objects weight less at the equator, greater at the poles, and less at higher altitudes.

There's no observed device lifting everything off the ground.

Buoyancy causes objects to comparatively weigh more at the equator than at higher lattitudes with higher air pressure, albeit far less significant than any weight measurements taken.  So measuring in a vacuum is moot. 

I'm surprised no explanation has been brought forth to explain this.  Actually, I'm not.  Because the world is a globe.


30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration is not constant on Earth
« on: July 26, 2019, 08:32:36 AM »
I know what bouyancy is all about.  I got paid a great deal of money over the last 14 years to write operational weather forecasts. 

I consider grammar- and spelling-correction to be such an extremely poor form of argument that I have never before used it on this board, because in almost all cases it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument in question.

But I can't help pointing out that in an argument where one party claims expertise and long experience in a field, and then misspells a fundamental word in that field 10 times (hence not just a slip of the fingers while typing) while having an otherwise good command of English is an indication of the competence and attention level of the arguer.

Honestly, everytime I write buoyancy, reverse the u and the o.  Same goes with ei in chief. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7