### 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 - Rig Navigator

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27]
781
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Natural phenomena
« on: June 30, 2008, 07:36:20 AM »
2. Things like this: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=566851658830126;res=IELENG

Why is a paper on anomalies is tidal predictions relevant to a response showing why selenelions are possible.  I figure that I don't want to pay AU\$33 to read a paper on the measuring of anomalies of tidal predictions.  Since tidal predictions are based purely on lunar movement and basin topography, but can be effected by weather and other non-predictable variables, it is important for engineers that work with that environment to be able to take that into account.

That is based on the summary of the paper.  If there is information relevant to selenelions in the paper, please let us know what it is.

782
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites and the ISS
« on: June 30, 2008, 07:27:44 AM »
Actually on second thought, no, your idea will not work. The distance to celestial bodies are triangulated differently depending on whether a Flat Earth or a Round Earth is assumed. For example, simple triangulation can be used to calculate the sun to be 3,000 miles above the earth or 93 million miles above the earth depending on the earth model we assume.

Tom, you are losing your touch.  You are supposed to wait for us to finish the observations and post the results.  Then you are supposed to jump in and tell us that we assumed a spherical Earth for the calculations.

Quote
On the distance to the sun on an FE, for example: On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun must be an equal distance above the equator.

What if you aren't at 45° latitude on that day does the math still work?

I will save the time since that is the way that this thread is working.  You are right Tom, it does save time waiting for a response that we all know the answer to... it doesn't.

Here is data from our local noon position observation on 21 June...

Vessel Latitude - 28° 01.3' N
Sun Declination (Latitude) - 23° 26.3' N
Observed Altitude of the Sun - 83° 56.9'

Because of the fact that at Meridian Passage (Local Apparent Noon) the body being observed is directly south of your position, it is one of the best time to make an observation.  You can use one sight to determine your position.  It also happens to be the time that Mr. Rowbatham's observations were made...

Quote from: Rowbatham
The base line in any operation being horizontal and always a carefully measured one, the process becomes exceedingly simple.  Let the altitude of the Sun be taken on a given day at 12 o'clock...

Now my distance from the Sun's declination (the point where the Sun would be directly overhead) is is 363 nautical miles (417 statute miles).

Using planar trigonometry the equation would be...

Tangent of the observed = (altitude of the Sun)/(Distance from the Sun's declination)

or

Tan 83° 56.9' = (Altitude of the Sun)/363

or

Altitude of the Sun = Tan 83° 56.9' * 363

or

Altitude of the Sun = 3424 nm (3938 statute miles)

This is off by over 20% from the results that are used for 45° of difference in latitude and a observed height of 45° (21.1% to be exact).  That is a significant difference in the altitude of the sun.

783
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mapping the Earth
« on: June 28, 2008, 09:15:10 AM »
The more I think of it, this could probably be automated.  It would be possible to make a program that would automatically plot the positions.  That would reduce the time to the amount of time it would take to enter the positions into a database.  Many of these positions could probably be "read" by the computer off of the data sets available online leaving only the older observations to be entered manually.

784
##### Flat Earth Debate / Mapping the Earth
« on: June 28, 2008, 06:22:37 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
We'll be happy to start mapping the 197 million square miles (RE numbers) of the earth's surface as soon as you guys start donating towards the millions of dollars it will take to fund the project.

Here is a recommendation for starting your mapping project, on a low budget; it is time intensive though.

Start by plotting previous calculated latitudes and longitudes of known locations on a blank map.  There are plenty of references out there for the positions of cities, historical locations, lighthouses, etc.  These positions were determined using observations of the sun, moon and stars.  The older positions (pre-1750s) should be more suspect because of the lack of time information that created errors in the longitude measurements.  This shouldn't be a problem because there are later observations and positions.  If you choose, you can reject all post-1948 observations to eliminate any potential NASA bias in the positions.

Once this basic map is completed, then you can focus your resources on those "blank areas" that haven't been mapped.

The US has most of their lists of lighthouses and lights available for free online, and there are positions noted for each light and lighthouse.  There are also positions of points, islands and other significant features in the published accounts of explorers (Ross, Cook, etc).  Many of those resources are available online, or from large university libraries.

785
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: New Evidence of Flat Earth
« on: June 25, 2008, 08:09:52 PM »
So NASA, an agency funded by Congress that reports to the Executive, is responsible for keeping the entire world in the dark (no pun intended) for \$40M? Do FErs know how much other governmental projects (Iraq War, National Parks) cost? The US GDP is 13.3 Trillion Dollars. The Wal-Mart corporation could take a tiny tiny percentage of its revenue and debunk a \$40M conspiracy...

Actually, NASA's budget for FY2008 was 17.3 Billion dollars, or less than 1% of the total FY2008 budget.  That is about 3 Billion dollars less than the Department of Agriculture, about half of what the Department of Homeland Security received, and almost 28 times less than the Department of Defense.  It was about 7 Billion dollars more than the Department of the Interior (National Parks) received.

According to their 2007 filings, Wal-Mart had a net profit of 12.7 Billion.

Just figured that you would like the correct numbers for your argument.

786
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The moon
« on: June 25, 2008, 09:44:07 AM »
No. After reading the Wiki, it seems the TRANSIT system relied on a unique relative speed between the satellite and the observer for any relative position in which the satellite was visible. Therefore, calculating the satellite's apparent speed, combined with its known position, would give the observer's position. Not so for objects in deep space - their distances do not correlate with their apparent radial velocities except where caused by the expansion of the Universe in the RE model, and even then it is technically not caused by the Doppler effect, rather by the stretching of spacetime as the electromagnetic radiation passes through it.

I stand corrected.

787
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Long period comets
« on: June 25, 2008, 09:36:07 AM »
Don't forget Shoemaker-Levi 9.  That was the comet that broke up and collided with Jupiter.  There were some really good ground-based observations of that phenomenon.

788
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The moon
« on: June 25, 2008, 09:30:16 AM »
Using your road analogy, I could use the doppler effect to determine my position relative to the truck and the road.

If I was standing off to the side of the road (a much safer location) and measured the doppler shift of the truck, with known variables being the speed of the truck and the characteristics of the noise, I could determine my position fairly accurately.

This was the basis for the TRANSIT satellite navigation system (Transit on Wiki).  A constellation of satellite in orbit transmitted a known signal.  Based on the known orbit of the satellite, users on the ground were able to calculate their position.

With known variables, I am sure that observers on the ground could have reversed the situation and calculated the position of the satellite in its orbit, or the position of an object moving relative to Earth in a deep space situation.

789
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris and the Celestial North Pole
« on: June 25, 2008, 09:20:48 AM »
Excellent point!  I suspect from your posts that both you and Trig are possibly professional navigators.  Am I correct?

I can't speak for Trig, but I am a trained navigator.

790
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiracy Theory Why!?
« on: June 25, 2008, 09:17:13 AM »
It's a good thing that the Conspiracy has the precision and near-limitless resources of the United States Military behind it.

and several other governments running their own programs that don't have "near-limitless" resources like India and Japan.  I can't imagine that the governments of India or Japan would provide the resources necessary to maintain the illusion of a satellite system that can be seen worldwide.  The finances don't add up.  The advantages of the satellite based system is that once the satellites are in orbit, there is a relatively small cost for maintenance (ground support).

Quote
The Conspiracy is a black-ops military organization. After all, NASA was originally funded by the Department of Defense.

Actually, the funding came from the US government.  NASA inherited the budget allocated for aeronautical research to NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) and also received funding allocated to the US Air Force for satellite launches.

The original proposals for NASA were submitted as legislation through congress in a number of bills.  This occurred after the reentry of Sputnik II into the atmosphere.

You would think that it would have been in the best interest for the Department of Defense to prove that the Soviet satellites were hoaxes and keep from losing funding in a post-Korea era when they were suffering budget cuts.

791
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Long period comets
« on: June 25, 2008, 08:53:58 AM »
Here is my guess as to there response...

You don't have any proof that the comet observed by Halley and subsequent astronomers is the same comet reappearing over and over on a highly predictable schedule mandated by the laws of gravitation as defined by Newton and quantified by Keppler.

As more interesting question, I would like to know what the mechanism for comets are in flat Earth physics.  I would question how a small sun would have enough energy to give the observable effects to comets.

792
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiracy Theory Why!?
« on: June 24, 2008, 05:02:56 AM »
GPS Satellite companies don't exist. GPS Satellites are owned and operated by the United States Department of Defense.

The only way to know that the satellites exist as claimed is to take the DOD's word for it.

Our government isn't the only one to have a satellite navigation (Sat Nav) system operational or in development.

There is the NAVSTAR (NAVigation System using Timing And Ranging) system run by the US Air Force.  This is the system commonly referred to as GPS.
There is the Russian Glonass system which is being upgraded with more satellites every year, and is starting to approach the US system in accuracy.
The Japanese have their MSAS system that is going to be replaced by QZSS by the year 2010 if they hold to plan.
The Indian government is developing their IRNSS system, but I don't think that they have started launching satellites yet.
The EU is deploying Galileo which is supposed to be operational by 2012.
The Chinese is deploying their Compass system that should be operational by 2012.

The Japanese and Indian systems are primarily regional; their orbits are placed to give more coverage over those countries.  The other systems are, or will be, worldwide coverage.

793
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiracy Theory Why!?
« on: June 24, 2008, 04:48:49 AM »
What is the mechanism used for GPS if it isn't satellites?

I have seen two alternatives tossed out: terrestrial based and stratellites.  The mechanics of these two alternatives do not work well enough to explain the performance of the system as observed.

The terrestrial based system would require very high antennas to get the observed accuracy.  The difference in distance from the satellite for different satellites is what gives height data.  For airplanes, this limitation wouldn't be as noticeable, but it would be for vessels that rely on accurate altitude data as a part of their differential positioning.

High precision GPS antennas measure the difference in arrival times for the L1 and L2 frequencies to provide accurate position information.  With a terrestrial system, there would be no difference in the arrival times of these signals because they will not have passed through the ionosphere.

In order to prevent errors from signals reflected off of the deck or other structure, we place a "mask" that rejects all signals received from the lower 10 degrees of the antenna.  A land based antenna would not have the height necessary to not be rejected as an invalid signal.  There also are a lot of problems with the observed altitudes of the received signals.  They couldn't be in the position that they are observed to be in.  There are also questions as to why I would be receiving a signal from a Russian station (Glonass) from an altitude of about 40 degrees above the horizon, and why I am not seeing a large cluster of low altitude rejected signals from far distant stations on a flat Earth.

For a stratellite system, the stratellites don't have the altitude to get the consistency in observed altitudes that are seen by geographically separated stations.  Here is a screenshot from 2005 showing the signal locations received by our Trimble receiver and three shoreside stations around the US and Mexico...

It would be very difficult for the same statellite (if not impossible) to be within 30 degrees of overhead of my location in the Gulf of Mexico, the reference station in Gulf Breeze Florida and the reference station in Viburnum Missouri.  The changing altitude and bearing of the received signal shows that these transmitters are moving at a high rate of speed to be able to cross the sky in a short amount of time.

The signal to noise ratio is not strong enough for a transmitter at only an altitude of 20 km.   A 25 watt transmitter (which is what the specifications list) comes in clearly at those ranges.  That is the same transmitting strength as a shipboard VHF radio station.  We should be seeing values of greater than 50% if that were the case.

The presence of Russian Glonass signals doesn't make sense either.  Why would the Russians place stratellites over the Gulf of Mexico?  With a satellite based system its presence is a byproduct of the orbit required to have the satellites pass over Russia, but there is no rationale for it in a stratellite model.

794
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris and the Celestial North Pole
« on: June 24, 2008, 03:55:08 AM »
Both FE theory and RE theory agree that all the stars seen from any perspective on earth north of the Equator, appear to move in concentric, circular paths around a single point known as the Celestial North Pole, which is directly above the Earth's North Pole.

Polaris is located within 42 minutes or .7 degrees of arc of this point, thus it appears to be nearly motionless all night long directly north of any observer at any northern latitude as its path describes a very tiny circle only 1.4 degrees of arc in diameter.  To one standing at 90 degrees north latitude, polaris would be directly overhead, that is, 90 degrees from the horizon.  At any given northern latitude, the angular distance of  Polaris, or rather the Celestial North Pole, above the northern horizon matches the latitude of the observer.  For example, at the latitude that I reside, 39 degrees north latitude, one can observe on any clear night that Polaris is 39 degrees plus or minus 0.7 degrees above the northern horizon, and never moves from that position all night long.

I can confirm through observations that Polaris (North Star) does "wobble" within a degree of true north when observed using a compass.  I can also confirm that it is 28 degrees above the horizon when I am 28 degrees north of the equator (approx 660 nautical miles south of Gunnar)

Quote
...Anyone who has been close to or at the Equator and looked for Polaris at night, while there, will confirm that Polaris sinks towards 0 degrees above the horizon as one approaches the equator and sinks below the horizon as one continues south of the Equator.

Careful, they are going to pull out a single observation in Earth is Not a Globe that claims to have seen Polaris from 23.5 degrees south of the equator.  I have never personally observed this effect, but that is the observation that they are going to pull out.

Quote
Consider: if the earth were flat and Polaris were only 3100 miles above its North Pole as flat earthers foolishly claim, then in order for Polaris to appear to be 39 degrees above the horizon from my vantage point, the Earth's North Pole would have to be 3,828 (3100/tan 39 degrees) miles away rather than the 3,520 miles away all the standard maps say it is!  In addition, the distance I would have to travel north to cause polaris to rise an additional degree would be almost 134 miles, and to cause it to rise yet another degree would be an additional 128 miles.  Going the other direction, to cause its position to sink 1 degree closer to the horizon would require traveling almost 140 miles, and lowering it an additional degree would require traveling an additional 146 miles.  In other words, the relationship between the number of miles required to cause each degree change in the elevation of Polaris could not possibly be linear, as it is observed to be by any honest observer who has tried it, if flat earth theory is correct!

Consider also: if the Flat Earth Theory, as expounded in the FAQ on this website is correct, then the distance from the Earth's North Pole to its perimeter is 12,450 miles, and the distance to the Equator would be half that, or 6,225 miles.  At that distance, the angular elevation of Polaris above the northern horizon would have to be arctan(3100/6225) or about 26.5 degrees.  No way could it possibly be close to zero degrees elevation (as it is observed to be), and no way could it appear to dip below the horizon (as it is observed to do) no matter how far south one traveled!  Even at the Earth's rim, 12,450 miles away from the North Pole (according to Flat Earth theory), Polaris' angular distance above the northern horizon could not be less than about 14 degrees, if the Earth were really flat!

I agree with the math here.  There is also the problem that this math works when you try and explain the behavior of the sun in the sky.  As it moves north and south of the equator, the observed altitude changes more than that change in distance should indicate... if the Sun is only 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth.

795
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica
« on: June 23, 2008, 05:34:23 AM »
There are. Polar explorer Sir James Clark Ross reported perpetual days without a sun in his book South Seas Voyages.

Here is a quote from Ross' book A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions...

Quote from: Captain Sir James Clark Ross
January 4 1841 - At noon we were in lat. 65° 22' S., long. 172° 42' E. The power of the sun's radiation was measured at 9 PM by means of a thermometer whose bulb was blackened with Indian ink: it rose from 33° to 40.2°, the sun's altitude being at the time only four degrees...

The setting sun was also a very remarkable object, being streaked across by five dark horizontal bands, of nearly equal breadth, and flattened in a most irregular form by the greater refraction of its lower limb as it touched the horizon at 23h 56m 51s; skimming along to the eastward, it almost imperceptibly descended until its upper limb disappeared exactly seventeen minutes and thirty seconds afterwards.  The difference of the atmospheric refraction at the upper and lower limb of the was carefully determined by several measurements of the horizontal and vertical diameter.

There is evidence that Scott did see the sun at a southern latitude.  The time of sunset (almost midnight) shows that they were seeing almost continuous light.

The passage also shows that this isn't some "glare," but observations of the actual sun.

796
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The moon
« on: June 19, 2008, 07:12:56 PM »
Someone have a GOOD explanation as to why the moon and ALL the constellations are upside down in the southern hemisphere? RE Theory does to be sure ....

It is all a matter of perspective based on your position relative to the stars being observed.

Take two people lying on the ground looking at the stars with their feet pointing south.  One person is in the northern hemisphere and the other is in the southern hemisphere.  The person in the northern hemisphere sees Orion over their feet "standing" normally.  The person in the southern hemisphere sees Orion above their head "standing" on his head.  In both cases the "head" of Orion is pointing north in the same orientation as our observers.

The same perspective holds true when our two amateur astronomers look at the moon.  One will see the "eyes" facing normally, the other reversed.  The orientation of the crescent is based on the latitude of the observer compared to the apparent position of the moon.

I doubt this has the creativity that you were looking for in a response, but it does answer the question.
Theoretically, this should work the same in both a RE and FE model.  The motion of the constellations and moon through the sky in the two models are very difficult to rectify.

797
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Volcanoes, tellers of earths shape
« on: June 19, 2008, 01:10:39 PM »
...But how does a uniform field of gravity cause unequal pressure and temperature to begin with?

This doesn't deal with gravitation or UA.  It should be applicable on both an RE or FE as you choose.

Tectonics is based on the movement of heat and the surface of the Earth.

In section 11 of Earth not a Globe, Rowbotham talks of the...

Quote from: Rowbotham
That such an incandescent molten state of a great portion of the lower parts of the Earth still exists is a matter of certainty; and there is evidence that the heat is internally generated

Both models use the same model of internally generated heat as the driving force of volcanism.

798
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Volcanoes, tellers of earths shape
« on: June 19, 2008, 11:33:12 AM »
Volcanoes are an important feature of the earth. They are found all over, active and inactive. But most importantly, they exist because they erupt(ed). This means that all over the earth, volcanic eruptions have occurred....

...So if the earth is squeezed on all sides, how do volcanoes erupt? For an eruption to occur, there must be an uneven pressure. Something you cannot create with even pressure.

Unequal pressure can be created created by unequal temperature.

In a subduction zone, the melting of the subducting plate provides the material that "drives" volcanoes over the top of the melting plate.  An example of this are the volcanoes of the Pacific Northwest United States or the volcanoes of Indonesia.

Another type of volcano is located over an upwelling of hot material from deeper in the earth.  As the plate moves over the top of this "hot spot," a chain of volcanoes will be created.  An example of this type of volcano would be the volcanoes of the Hawaiian Islands.

799
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: The RE horizon.
« on: June 18, 2008, 06:32:27 PM »
The RE horizon is based on how far you can see distant as a function of:
1. the earths curve
2. height of observation

This implies the horizon WILL appear closer as the observer gets nearer the ground. Yet the horizon appears at the exact same distance, whether you are standing, kneeling, sitting, or laying down. The simple act of changing your position from standing to kneeling should make the horizon appear half as distant as it did.

Why is this not observed?

Here is a quote from the 2002 Edition of the American Practical Navigator (Bowditch)...

Quote from: American Practical Navigator
When first sighting a light, an observer can determine if it is on the horizon by immediately reducing his height of eye.  If the light disappears and then reappears when the observer returns to his original height, the light is on the horizon.  This process is called bobbing a light.

This is an observable phenomenon.  If you are 6 feet tall and stoop so your height of eye is 3 feet, you will be able to see approximately 0.8 nautical miles less than when standing.

800
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magellan
« on: June 18, 2008, 04:23:11 PM »
Here is an example of how to sail around a flat Earth...

Magellan's track didn't allow him to reach far enough south for him to have viewed either Antarctica or an Ice Wall.

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27]