1.Cavendish experiment is a bullshit
2.FOUCAULT PENDULUM STUPIDITY
3 FOUCAULT GYROSCOPE MYTH STUPIDITY
4.DIRECTIONAL GYRO DRIFT LIE DEBUNKED
1. No it isn't.
2 & 3. Yes, what you say about it is stupidity.
4. Good thing the REers don't rely on lies about it.
If you want me to put in any more effort than that, put in the effort yourself.
5. In several videos i have shown how we can use attitude indicators (artificial horizon instruments) in order to demonstrate earth's motionless and flatness, now i would like to show you how we can use directional gyros (HEADING INDICATOR) and the hovering helicopter for the same purpose :
No you haven't. You have made a bunch of baseless claims and have been refuted.
If someone think that it is impossible to ensure helicopter's fixed position in an absolute spatial frame of reference, then i have to disappoint him : by using directional gyro a.k.a. HEADING INDICATOR we can easily maintain helicopter's fixed position in an absolute space frame which even allow us to determine if there is any motion of the earth IN A DIRECT MANNER (comparing fixed position of a helicopter in an absolute spatial frame of reference with the relative position of the earth)!
No we can't. Firstly, the gyroscopes used are imperfect and thus can drift which can include an inability to measure small changes.
More importantly, but less relavent is that a gyro will only measure rotation. You cannot have an absolute spatial reference frame, i.e. one which is not moving at all. The best you can hope for is an inertial one.
Then there is the other issue of moving the helicopter to keep it in a fixed position.
However, you can fairly easily use a decent gyro (e.g. laser ring gyro) to measure the rotation of Earth. It has been done, it shows Earth is rotating.
All we have to do is to take off and hover above the earth for some time, let's say 16 minutes...If the earth spins below us every 4 minutes our directional gyro would indicate 1 degree of horizontal displacement of the helicopter with respect to the designated orientation point (drawn straight line) on the ground below us
No it wouldn't.
That only applies at the pole (and using a solar day instead of a sidereal day).
At any other position the rotation would be less. At the equator, it would be 0.
I know that the first objection of round earthers will be : INERTIA (about which we have been talking in the beginning of this video), but there is very simple and irrefutable answer (in the form of a question) to such objection :
No, it would likely be that the gyroscope contains a correcting mechanism which needs to be set for the particular latitude you are at to compensate for the rotation of Earth, and would also need to be done periodically in flight.
Why don't you carry out this very experiment at THE NORTH POLE
Why don't you?
6. I know you haven't had the opportunity (up until now) to read these words :
No, I have, it has been posted elsewhere. It was bullshit then and it still is now.
This way, the aircraft hold's it's altitude without descending or ascending. This relieves the pilot, as well, of back or forward yoke pressure. Once the aircraft is trimmed, it's trimmed and will hold it's altitude, Mean Sea Level (MSL) all day long (Weather permitting). If there was a curvature to the earth, the amount of altitude loss would not only be visually noted on the altimeter but your body would feel pressure of constant G force as you would have to push the nose of the craft down to hold your altitude along the curvature of the earth.
It started out so well, then just completely ignored what it had said and spouted PURE BULLSHIT!!
If it was trimmed to maintain constant altitude the pilot would not need to dip down to adjust for the curvature of Earth.
This is because it is trimmed to follow the curve and maintain a constant altitude.
Why would you notice an altitude loss if you had it trimmed to maintain altitude?
It is only if it was magically trimmed to fly straight that that would be an issue.
As for the g-forces, yes, they would exist, and would make everything in the craft feel lighter if it was moving with Earth and heavier if it was moving against Earth. This has been detected, but only by sensitive instruments.
The g-forces experienced are not significant enough for people to be able to easily feel them.
Assuming it was flying with Earth, at 1000 km/hr, so a total speed of 2600 km/hr (assuming it is at the equator, for maximum effect), crusing at 10 km above Earth, then the g-forces would be v^2*r=((2600/3.6)^2/6388100) * m/s^2=0.08165 m/s^2. So for a 100 kg person, that would correspond to removing around 800 g from them, distributed all over their body.
So even without trying to correct it for the fact that they would naturally experience a roughly 300 g drop from Earth's rotation, that is effectively NOTHING.
It is far too little to be detected just by feeling it.
you would be constantly fighting to properly trim the airplane as the craft would be constantly trying to adjust it's altitude to deal with the curvature of the earth itself
Again, WHY WOULD YOU??
It is trimmed to maintain altitude. As such, as it flies following the curve of Earth it will adjust itself to maintain altitude. That means it wouldn't be trying to fly in a straight line and you wouldn't need to deal with the curvature.
7. THE GYRO MAINTAINS IT'S AXIS IN RELATION TO SPACE AND NOT TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH!!! Now, if we set one gyro without erection mechanism in an airplane next to standard attitude indicator built-in the cockpit of an airplane and performed an experiment like this : ,should we (according to you) expect any discrepancy on the display of these two pretty different devices no matter how long our experiment lasts and how far we fly while conducting our experiment?
Yes, you should.
The exact results will depend upon what you are doing and how it works, but without the erection mechanism, a gyroscope will drift.
This can be where it moves about changing its orientation relative to an inertial reference frame, while its mount maintains its orientation, or where it becomes "stuck" and moves with its frame during slow movements.
7A. If the function of the erection mechanism is to keep the gyro axis vertical to the surface of the earth), the consequence of the principle of work of this fraudulent erection mechanism (which isn't applied in reality) would be to prevent gyro from performing it's basic function. How? Well, when you spin up the gyro (before take off), the gyro axis is going to maintain it's vertical attitude throughout the whole flight. Now, imagine that we deliberately tip the front side (or it's rear side) of an aircraft 10 degrees before we spin up the gyro, and then take off, what would be an angle of the gyro axis (with respect to the surface of the earth) throughout the whole flight? In such hypothetical case the gyro would be 10 degrees off throughout the whole flight!
So don't calibrate it to be massively off.
This has nothing at all to do with the erection mechanism and instead is entirely to do with calibrating it. The same would happen on a flat, stationary Earth.
Also note that this could be desired at times, where the panel it is mounted in is offset by 10 degrees. As such, in order for it to read correctly, you would need a 10 degree offset.
Every gyro absolutely defies "gravity"! The principle of work of the gyro doesn't depend on gravity at all!
Only ones without an erection mechanism which are perfectly balanced.
8. Ibrahim Muñoz
I used to run tests on gyros for the C-5 and C-141 airplanes in the military. The tests usually ran for 4 hours. I had to make sure it could stay precise an all the axes. (Pitch Yaw and Roll) there was only one allowance made for the rotation of the earth. 15 degrees for every hour. Now this only affects the heading in terms of longitude position . But , there was NEVER I mean NEVER any mention or allowance for pitch or altitude adjustment for the curvature of the earth.
Again, they have a self-erecting mechanism. That compensates for the small change in pitch and roll.
The altimeter has nothing to do with it.
The heading cannot be compensated for by that as you are turning in a plane perpendicular to gravity.
So no, it is just proof you still refuse to understand how it works.
but no pitch commands to account for the curvature of the earth.
Why would there need to be?
It can either remain at a constant altitude, and thus follow the curve of Earth because of that, or it can follow Earth's surface, and thus follow the curve because of that.
There doesn't need to be a special one for following the curve.
If there were then there would have to be a continuous pitch down command to account for the earths curvature
So what you are really bitching about is that there is no "don't follow Earth's curve" command to magically make it fly straight and magically gain altitude.
I worked both on the flight line (on the aircraft) and the back shop so I got to learn the complete system and can tell you that there was never any signals to account for the curvature of the earth.?
Then perhaps you can tell us in detail exactly what the autopilot was doing to try and fly which was requiring a compensation for Earth's curve.
What was the input it was trying to match to a predetermined value?
In the 20+ years I research this subject I have not found one person or company that uses spherical geometry in their calculations
Then you haven't been looking very well.
this is impossible not even so much by the Laws of Physics as by the Law of Economics!
That's right. Economics is quite important. So perhaps you can tell us why Qantas flies a route which is based upon spherical geometry where it flies roughly a great circle route that is much longer than the corresponding straight line route on a flat Earth?
More importantly this route is done in the time required for a RE, not a flat one.
Why do they go to all that expense rather than following a much cheaper straight line FE path?
Is it because in reality Earth is round and the great circle route is cheaper than the ridiculous FE route?
ALL flight manuals assume a Flat and Stationary Earth.
Prove it.
Do they actually assume it or is it just you because they don't specifically say EARTH IS ROUND AND ROTATING!!!
In no flight map or any avionics will you ever see the inclusion of an Earth(v)D> (Earth Velocity/Direction of Spin) component in ANY flight, navigation or fuel calculations. Don't take my word for it but go to your local library and check it out.
Why should you expect to see that?
Do they include a term for the velocity of the air?
The cost overrun on miss-measured projects would be discovered by accountants if this were true! How can a land surveying company that makes high tech measuring surveying instruments (also for military) not use spherical geometry equations in their devices??? -- those errors would kill people and cause chaos.
The instruments are fairly simple devices which typically just measure angles and distances. They curve doesn't need to be factored into that.
If necessary it can be factored into calculations later.
This 6,666' GIANT gone missing is what turned me immediately -- I did not need any more convincing -- You CANNOT just lose 6,666 feet per 100 miles --- CANNOT!
Why?
Just because you don't like it?
GROW UP.
Provide a reason why it CANNOT!
Naval missile operators paint their targets which are over 55 miles away line-of-sight with a laser pencil beam, called beam riding. NOT possible on a globe with a curvature drop of 8 inches per mile squared.?
No. Completely possible. These targets are typically jets or other air craft which will fly above Earth, not on the surface, with a laser which is also mounted above Earth. So no, the curve doesn't get in the way except for very low flying craft.
HOW could a gyroscopic navigation system actually DO this, that is, "constantly correct itself automatically", if indeed the very x/y/z orientations that are being provided BY the gyroscope, is the very same data being required to constantly "recalibrate" the gyro while in motion
No, that isn't the same data required to re-calibrate it.
It is constantly righting itself, being corrected by Earth's gravitational field.
However it is not instant so it wont be effected at the timescale of manoeuvres.
If a simple magnetic compass could actually do that
It can't.
then why wouldn't you just be able to use a magnetic compass as the instrument
Because a compass is primarily used for bearing, not attitude.
Do you not see how self-contradictory their own explanation IS? It's circular-reasoning.
No, there is nothing circular about it at all.
Pure nonsense.
Yes, your objection is pure nonsense.
Not only this, but if their OWN claims are correct, and the gyroscope holds true "rigidity in space", and isn't influenced by the Earth's gravitational pull
No, it is. That is the whole purpose of the self-righting mechanism. To ensure the gyro stays upright.
What doesn't influence it is the attitude of the craft.
but it should ALSO deviate in countless other directions, due to the fact that the Earth and solar system etc. are all orbiting through deep space out thousands of miles an hour
How many times will you try and muddy the waters by using linear velocities when you should be using angular ones?
Earth's rotation about its axis is roughly 360 degrees a day or 0.25 degrees per minute.
Earth's orbit around the sun is roughly 360 degrees a year, or roughly 1/360th of that of Earth's rotation.
The sun's orbit around the galactic is even slower.
But all of those would be compensated for by the self-erecting mechanism of the gyroscope.
If their OWN claims are correct, then the gyro should actually be spinning wildly out of control all the time
No, only if your baseless insane bullshit is correct.
If our claims are correct (which they are), then you would expect them to work exactly as they do.