Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets

  • 134 Replies
  • 26467 Views
?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #90 on: January 10, 2012, 05:32:32 PM »
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself. 


If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/retrograde.htm
Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.

Not every year.  Look at 2005 mars.
So you're arguing that because Mar's 2005 retrograde motion did not in reality cross its path that it somehow demonstrates that FEs (really lame) attempt with epicycles is false, right?

Heck, if FEers are already using special pleading to get epicycles to explain retrograde motion what would keep them from more special pleading that the epicycles move up and down relative to the plane of the planet's orbit to get the additional effect? Once they argue from fallacy, they can prove anything.

They would have to argue that the planet has an irregular orbit that includes an Ess shape in it.  And that would be just crazy.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #91 on: January 10, 2012, 06:06:42 PM »
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself. 


If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/retrograde.htm
Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.

Not every year.  Look at 2005 mars.
So you're arguing that because Mar's 2005 retrograde motion did not in reality cross its path that it somehow demonstrates that FEs (really lame) attempt with epicycles is false, right?

Heck, if FEers are already using special pleading to get epicycles to explain retrograde motion what would keep them from more special pleading that the epicycles move up and down relative to the plane of the planet's orbit to get the additional effect? Once they argue from fallacy, they can prove anything.

They would have to argue that the planet has an irregular orbit that includes an Ess shape in it.  And that would be just crazy.
And magical epicycles aren't crazy?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #92 on: January 10, 2012, 06:12:58 PM »
So FET has retrograde motion of the inner planets even though reality doesn't. I guess that's all the proof we need that you're wrong, again.

What? Please observe the retrograde motion of Venus according to RET. So whatever the reality (round or flat earth), retrograde motion is part of it. Its at this point I will bid you a good evening, whilst you spend some time plugging some of those embarressing gaps in your knowledge
 
Quote from: http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/retro/retro.html
As we view the moving Venus from the more slowly moving Earth, the line of sight (i.e., where in the sky, relative to the stars, we will see Venus) reverses its motion: it is first rotating counterclockwise, then (near the fourth and fifth position) starts rotating clockwise. This corresponds to the first reversal of apparent motion. A while later (around the ninth position) it starts rotating again in a counterclockwise direction, resulting in the second reversal. The same explanation works for the outer planets, too, only now it is the Earth that overtakes the other planet.
You're right. I'm wrong.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #93 on: January 10, 2012, 06:30:07 PM »
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself. 


If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/retrograde.htm
Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.

Not every year.  Look at 2005 mars.
So you're arguing that because Mar's 2005 retrograde motion did not in reality cross its path that it somehow demonstrates that FEs (really lame) attempt with epicycles is false, right?

Heck, if FEers are already using special pleading to get epicycles to explain retrograde motion what would keep them from more special pleading that the epicycles move up and down relative to the plane of the planet's orbit to get the additional effect? Once they argue from fallacy, they can prove anything.

They would have to argue that the planet has an irregular orbit that includes an Ess shape in it.  And that would be just crazy.
And magical epicycles aren't crazy?

No, in fact they are much more complicated than current FE theory, which is why they were abandoned.  But FE does not claim epicycles, the claim that the planets orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the northern hub, which produces epicycle like movement.  However that epicycle like movement cannot account for the Ess like shapes that some of the retrograde planets exhibit.  That would disprove FE.  Its just a matter of patterns, a planet orbiting the sun directly overhead in a circle or oval will always cross its own path, its only when observed from the same plane that you can see an ess shape.  That is what i am arguing.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #94 on: January 10, 2012, 08:46:02 PM »
No, in fact they are much more complicated than current FE theory, which is why they were abandoned.  But FE does not claim epicycles, the claim that the planets orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the northern hub, which produces epicycle like movement.  However that epicycle like movement cannot account for the Ess like shapes that some of the retrograde planets exhibit.  That would disprove FE.  Its just a matter of patterns, a planet orbiting the sun directly overhead in a circle or oval will always cross its own path, its only when observed from the same plane that you can see an ess shape.  That is what i am arguing.
Actually, FEers are inconsistent, as usual. Thork argues that the outer planets orbit around the northern hub, not the Sun. Tom Bishop and the Wiki have the outer planets orbiting the Sun.

Thork needs epicycles to get retrograde motion. Tom Bishop says he doesn't need epicycles without any sound reason.

I don't follow your reasoning with the highlighted claim above. Please elaborate.

I hope that helps.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #95 on: January 11, 2012, 04:31:11 AM »
Please use the search function and search "INS" and *Thork as the username. There you will find dozens of threads where I have had every conceivable conversation about INS and followed it out to every logical conclusion.

Please post an excerpt from your answer to my request that you say whether or not you think INS is capable of detecting the difference between a path that curves to left or right and a path that does not curve to left or right, something which I requested be answered several times in that thread. There are only three possible answers - "yes", "no" and "I don't know".
So which of these did you say?
Oh that's right - you refused to answer that question. Because saying "yes" renders FET unworkable, saying "no" renders INS unworkable, and saying "I don't know" means you shouldn't have mouthed off like an authority on INS in that thread. I also asked you for a better term than yaw to describe a deviation to left or right as you said it was the incorrect term, and you failed to respond to that too.
Care to answer these things now?

Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #96 on: January 11, 2012, 04:36:10 AM »
I'd take you more seriously if your avatar wasn't a badly drawn dick with a smiley face and a beard.

Says someone who really does have a Dick for an avatar...  ::)
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #97 on: January 11, 2012, 04:54:55 AM »
You were wasting my time. You were unable to wrap your head around schuler corrections.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuler_tuning
Schuler tuning is a modification to the electronic control system used in inertial navigation systems that accounts for the curvature of the Earth. An inertial navigation system, used in submarines, ships, aircraft, and other vehicles to keep track of position, determines directions with respect to three axes pointing 'north', 'east', and 'down'. To detect the vehicle's orientation, the system contains an 'inertial platform' mounted on gimbals, with gyroscopes that keep it pointing in a fixed orientation in space. However, the directions 'north', 'east' and 'down' change as the vehicle moves on the curved surface of the Earth. Schuler tuning describes the modifications necessary to an inertial navigation system to keep the inertial platform always pointing 'north', 'east' and 'down', so it gives correct directions on Earth.

As explained repeatedly (and ignored) INS is a flat earth instrument. A Schuler correction is apparently applied as an RET explanation as to how a flat earth instrument works on a round earth. Of course this is a woeful excuse by RErs and no such correction exists.

However your not being able to comprehend that INS is a flat earth instrument and your continued insistence that INS can detect "yaw" - (which it can, but you don't comprehend what yaw is) led to a break down in the debate. Yaw is the nose of an aircraft slewing left and right, whilst the wings remain unbanked and the pitch remains level. This puts one wing slightly forward of the other and the fuselage blocks some of the flow to the trailing wing. This then gives a higher amount of lift to the forward wing and tries to bank the aircraft. Correcting this means adding in aileron which increases drag on that wing and turns the aircraft about the z axis. This is why pilots are told the secondary effect of rudder is bank.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_surfaces
The rudder also has a secondary effect on bank.

However this is totally irrelevant to earth's shape. Yaw effects a flat earth as much as a round one. It is not the defining difference you make it out to be in your posts. The defining difference as my Schuler quote explains, is "down". A sensation an aircraft would not feel as it went around a circular earth flying "straight and level". And for that Mr Schuler adds a correction. Apparently.

So you may rest assured, it is not that I avoided the subject or could not provide an answer. The issue was that you do not have the capacity to understand the answer when it is being given. Hence my loss of interest in your objections.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #98 on: January 11, 2012, 06:19:34 AM »
This is why pilots are told...

Are they being lied to? Yes or no.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #99 on: January 11, 2012, 06:38:27 AM »
This is why pilots are told...

Are they being lied to? Yes or no.
No.
The rudder also has a secondary effect on bank. I have confirmed this myself (zetetic). A boot full of right rudder throws the nose right and the left wing begins to lift. Pro tip: When you have neither hand on the controls and autopilot disengaged (you may be messing around with a map or something) if a gust makes the aircraft bank unexpectedly, a squeeze of opposite rudder will right the aircraft using only your feet. This is a good little tip to help passing flying exams when you spend most of your time planning diversions and not actually controlling the aircraft.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #100 on: January 11, 2012, 07:21:36 AM »
Of course this is a woeful excuse by RErs and no such correction exists.
ITT: Thork again claims to know more than the experts. He even quotes evidence that he's wrong in the same post. It's no wonder FET can't make any headway these days.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #101 on: January 11, 2012, 07:23:07 AM »

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #102 on: January 11, 2012, 07:25:20 AM »
Also ITT:

You're right. I'm wrong.
So you do agree that you're claiming to be more knowledgeable than the experts. Thanks for the concession.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #103 on: January 11, 2012, 07:27:28 AM »
Well, it might not be more knowledge. Depending on which 'experts', they may be just deliberately misleading you.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #104 on: January 11, 2012, 07:28:47 AM »
they may be just deliberately misleading you.

So we're back to this again.

Are they lying? Yes or no.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #105 on: January 11, 2012, 01:04:05 PM »
You were wasting my time. You were unable to wrap your head around schuler corrections.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuler_tuning
Schuler tuning is a modification to the electronic control system used in inertial navigation systems that accounts for the curvature of the Earth. An inertial navigation system, used in submarines, ships, aircraft, and other vehicles to keep track of position, determines directions with respect to three axes pointing 'north', 'east', and 'down'. To detect the vehicle's orientation, the system contains an 'inertial platform' mounted on gimbals, with gyroscopes that keep it pointing in a fixed orientation in space. However, the directions 'north', 'east' and 'down' change as the vehicle moves on the curved surface of the Earth. Schuler tuning describes the modifications necessary to an inertial navigation system to keep the inertial platform always pointing 'north', 'east' and 'down', so it gives correct directions on Earth.

As explained repeatedly (and ignored) INS is a flat earth instrument[/u]. A Schuler correction is apparently applied as an RET explanation as to how a flat earth instrument works on a round earth. Of course this is a woeful excuse by RErs and no such correction exists.

However your not being able to comprehend that INS is a flat earth instrument and your continued insistence that INS can detect "yaw" - (which it can, but you don't comprehend what yaw is) led to a break down in the debate. Yaw is the nose of an aircraft slewing left and right, whilst the wings remain unbanked and the pitch remains level. This puts one wing slightly forward of the other and the fuselage blocks some of the flow to the trailing wing. This then gives a higher amount of lift to the forward wing and tries to bank the aircraft. Correcting this means adding in aileron which increases drag on that wing and turns the aircraft about the z axis. This is why pilots are told the secondary effect of rudder is bank.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_surfaces
The rudder also has a secondary effect on bank.

However this is totally irrelevant to earth's shape. Yaw effects a flat earth as much as a round one. It is not the defining difference you make it out to be in your posts. The defining difference as my Schuler quote explains, is "down". A sensation an aircraft would not feel as it went around a circular earth flying "straight and level". And for that Mr Schuler adds a correction. Apparently.

So you may rest assured, it is not that I avoided the subject or could not provide an answer. The issue was that you do not have the capacity to understand the answer when it is being given. Hence my loss of interest in your objections.

You manage to dodge answering my extremely simple and basic questions yet again. You also inadvertently re-raise something else which I challenged you on and you neglected to address. Let's break it down:
Schuler tuning is used.
If Schuler tuning was used on a flat earth then INS would give misleading information.
The fact that INS works when Schuler tuning is used proves that there is a curvature that needs to be compensated for.
You get round this by invoking the conspiracy - i.e. claiming that Schuler tuning isn't really used at all. (highlighted in red)
You have no evidence of this and have just added thousands of people to the many tens of thousands necessary to make the conspiracy work.
This is a fail for FE.

Now let's address your yammering highlighted in green. Let's quote from a post in the other thread:
Thork: yes, INS WOULD be more reliable on a flat earth. However, being on a curved earth doesn't render it useless.
See that quote there? Is that me "ignoring" the issue?
I will perfectly happily agree that INS would work just as reliably on a flat earth, and would not need Schuler tuning to do so. I have never ever claimed otherwise. My argument is that a component of curvature to a path of travel on a flat earth that is not present on a round earth would be detected by INS. That is the argument that you consistently will not confirm or deny.
And so finally we come to your semantic tapdance with the word "yaw". I think the definition of yaw you supplied (the slew of an aircraft nose to left or right) is perfectly in keeping with my description of a path of travel as yawed or non-yawed. Yaw does not only refer to aircraft and so your babbling about airflows and rudder compensation have no relevance. I have needed to use these terms because any reference to a "straight" direction of travel on a round earth is leaped on by the semantics police to crow about how "straight" is not possible. If an aircraft flies with yaw it will eventually describe a circular path such as that needed to circumnavigate your stupid flat earth. If it flies without yaw it can describe a great circle route around a globe earth.
Now stop being so pathetic and answer: yes, no, I don't know?  :P
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #106 on: January 11, 2012, 01:04:34 PM »
No, in fact they are much more complicated than current FE theory, which is why they were abandoned.  But FE does not claim epicycles, the claim that the planets orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the northern hub, which produces epicycle like movement.  However that epicycle like movement cannot account for the Ess like shapes that some of the retrograde planets exhibit.  That would disprove FE.  Its just a matter of patterns, a planet orbiting the sun directly overhead in a circle or oval will always cross its own path, its only when observed from the same plane that you can see an ess shape.  That is what i am arguing.
Actually, FEers are inconsistent, as usual. Thork argues that the outer planets orbit around the northern hub, not the Sun. Tom Bishop and the Wiki have the outer planets orbiting the Sun.

Thork needs epicycles to get retrograde motion. Tom Bishop says he doesn't need epicycles without any sound reason.

I don't follow your reasoning with the highlighted claim above. Please elaborate.

I hope that helps.

Im not sure how to explain it differently.  An Ess shape can occur because we orbit in the same plane as the other planets, well roughly the same plane.  if the planets were directly overhead the reason for retrograde motion would be different, we would be observing them based completely on their own motion.  Regardless if there are epicycles or the planets orbit the sun (tom or thorks model)  The movement of the planets would not be dependent upon the movement of the earth.  They would actually be crossing their own path, as opposed to us just seeing it that way due to our different movement speed.

Both epicycles are orbits are closed ovals.  When you have them in motion they would always cross their own path at some point, creating a loopty loop of sorts.  This is not what we see however, we can also see Ess shapes, where the planet exhibits retrograde motion during the year without ever crossing over its own path in the sky from our perspective.   So niether explanation can account for this.  Some years the planet will appear to cross its path, and other years it will form and Ess shape.

I hope this better explains the concept, it would be easier if i could simply draw it.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #107 on: January 11, 2012, 02:18:50 PM »
@The Knowledge              *snigger ... if ever a dog had a bad name.

Lets please put yaw to bed so you stop bringing it up. Yaw is not a direction. No more than pitch or roll. It is merely a rotation. One can yaw an aircraft to compensate for wind and fly exactly straight.

Where on earth did you get this strange idea that Yaw is something important to this debate? Its totally irrelevant. It has as much relevance as pitch or roll. They are all rotations about an axis. Not a direction measured by INS. INS measures North, East and Down. That's it. No Yaw. No Bank, it doesn't care about roll. Yaw is not important. Please make that the last time you rant about yaw. Yaw can happen on a flat earth, a round earth. Its just wiggling the nose left and right. It doesn't prove anything about earth's shape. FIN

Schuler tuning. INS works great on a flat earth. Like really great. Like better than it would on a round earth. RE people know this and trying to cobble a reason to calm suspicions. An adjustment.
So I say there is no schuler tuning ( because its not needed). You say there is schuler tuning even though you only just found out about it.
I say earth is flat. You say its round.
That is where the trail runs cold. Its why that boring INS thread ended after 20 something pages. Because it wasn't going anywhere. So can this thread now go back to retrograde motion? We have done INS to death.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #108 on: January 11, 2012, 02:45:12 PM »
RE people know this and trying to cobble a reason to calm suspicions. An adjustment.

So are those RE people lying? Yes or no.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #109 on: January 11, 2012, 03:00:15 PM »
INS measures North, East and Down. That's it.
Would you please document this outlandish claim? In particular, please show that INS doesn't measure linear acceleration or orientation. Thanks.

Also to be clear, am I correct in assuming that when you say North you include South, perhaps as a negative quantity? Thanks.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #110 on: January 11, 2012, 03:13:09 PM »
INS plots your position in 3D space. It will make all calculations based on your x, y and z positions. It does this with accelerometers and gyros.

Example: You fly in a straight line at 120 kts. You then make the same trip at 240 Kts. It took half the time. But also when you flew slower, you flew more nose up (higher angle of attack) to generate more lift at the lower airspeed. In other words you had your nose pitched up. The INS didn't assume you were climbing. It didn't give a sh*t. No more than it cares if you roll the wings or yaw the nose.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #111 on: January 11, 2012, 04:23:50 PM »
INS plots your position in 3D space. It will make all calculations based on your x, y and z positions. It does this with accelerometers and gyros.

Example: You fly in a straight line at 120 kts. You then make the same trip at 240 Kts. It took half the time. But also when you flew slower, you flew more nose up (higher angle of attack) to generate more lift at the lower airspeed. In other words you had your nose pitched up. The INS didn't assume you were climbing. It didn't give a sh*t. No more than it cares if you roll the wings or yaw the nose.
So you admit that you were wrong. INS measure more than just North, East, and Down. Noted. I guess we should start to doubt all of your postings regarding INS.

I do so like your example by the way. Your imagining that INS would 'care' about anything is quite cute.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #112 on: January 11, 2012, 04:39:12 PM »
It does this with accelerometers and gyros.

I see. Now, tell us, Thork -- what do accelerometers and gyroscopes measure?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #113 on: January 11, 2012, 05:54:55 PM »
So can this thread now go back to retrograde motion? We have done INS to death.

Yes please, an FE'er has yet to explain the phenomenon that i posted about.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #114 on: January 11, 2012, 06:07:08 PM »

Lets please put yaw to bed so you stop bringing it up. Yaw is not a direction. No more than pitch or roll. It is merely a rotation. One can yaw an aircraft to compensate for wind and fly exactly straight. Where on earth did you get this strange idea that Yaw is something important to this debate? Its totally irrelevant.
An aircraft with no crosswind acting on it, with continual yawing in one direction, WILL TRAVEL IN A CIRCLE OVER A FLAT PLANE, JUST LIKE FET DESCRIBES THE PROCESS OF CIRCUMNAVIGATION TO BE. Jesus bloody Christ, are you really that thick that you don't understand why I'm talking about it? Get rid of the "or" in your name and replace it with "ic", if I were you. At first I thought this was feigned ignorance (i.e. trolling) but since you deny indulging in this type of behaviour I can only conclude that it's genuine stupidity.

Quote
Schuler tuning. INS works great on a flat earth. Like really great. Like better than it would on a round earth. RE people know this and trying to cobble a reason to calm suspicions. An adjustment.
So I say there is no schuler tuning ( because its not needed). You say there is schuler tuning even though you only just found out about it.
Only just found out about it? I was talking about it months ago in the other thread (which I already made comments in that you didn't read it properly).
Your denial that it exists is pathetic and the feeble last gasp of someone who can't actually get out of the corner they've painted themselves in.
And anyway, it is irrelevant to my assertion that INS would be able to DETECT THE KIND OF YAWED TRAVEL THAT FET CLAIMS CIRCUMNAVIGATION NEEDS even without Schuler tuning. Let's say the earth is flat and Schuler tuning does indeed not exist - INS still shows you're travelling in a curve to left or right when attempting to circumnavigate. INS still blows the "you don't notice you're going in a curve" argument out of the water. You really haven't bothered reading the thread about this, have you?

Quote
That is where the trail runs cold. Its why that boring INS thread ended after 20 something pages.
5 pages actually, most of which were me trying to get any FE'ers at all to answer a question that STILL has not been answered by them, because all possible answers either disprove FET or directly conflict with real world experiences and mechanisms.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #115 on: January 12, 2012, 05:04:42 AM »

Lets please put yaw to bed so you stop bringing it up. Yaw is not a direction. No more than pitch or roll. It is merely a rotation. One can yaw an aircraft to compensate for wind and fly exactly straight. Where on earth did you get this strange idea that Yaw is something important to this debate? Its totally irrelevant.
An aircraft with no crosswind acting on it, with continual yawing in one direction, WILL TRAVEL IN A CIRCLE OVER A FLAT PLANE, JUST LIKE FET DESCRIBES THE PROCESS OF CIRCUMNAVIGATION TO BE. Jesus bloody Christ, are you really that thick that you don't understand why I'm talking about it? Get rid of the "or" in your name and replace it with "ic", if I were you. At first I thought this was feigned ignorance (i.e. trolling) but since you deny indulging in this type of behaviour I can only conclude that it's genuine stupidity.

I am also quite confused as to how such a simple and well known fact about planes is even being discussed. Both the roll and the yaw affect the direction that the plane takes. When you want to change your direction significantly you use both the wheel and the foot pedals to roll and yaw simultaneously, if you want small adjustments you can use either, if the wind rolls your plane you roll it back to horizontal, if the wind yaws your plane you yaw it back. All of this should be very simple for an aeronautical engineer as Thork, and he should know that he is not making any sense with his "yaw is not a direction, it is a rotation".

And going back to the OP, there is nothing to even discuss in this thread, except Ptolomey's model, created and defined around a small Earth with planets orbiting around it, not hovering above. If Ptolomey's model is right then we can declare the FES totally wrong and close this website and this society once and for all.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2012, 05:10:50 AM by trig »

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #116 on: January 12, 2012, 05:32:45 AM »
I am also quite confused as to how such a simple and well known fact about planes is even being discussed. Both the roll and the yaw affect the direction that the plane takes. When you want to change your direction significantly you use both the wheel and the foot pedals to roll and yaw simultaneously, if you want small adjustments you can use either, if the wind rolls your plane you roll it back to horizontal, if the wind yaws your plane you yaw it back. All of this should be very simple for an aeronautical engineer as Thork, and he should know that he is not making any sense with his "yaw is not a direction, it is a rotation".

The control of aircraft was brought in by Thick to cloud the issue and distract from the real one - his refusal to answer the main question about INS.
Yaw was only even mentioned by me in the context of a path that curves to left or right being described as "a yawed path" rather than "a curved path" which the FE'ers scream is what a global great circle route is. The word "yaw" was only mentioned in order to get round the FE Semantics Squad because the word "curved" was not specific enough to satisfy them. Its only relevance to the INS issue is to make sure the FE'ers understand what type of curved path I'm talking about.
You will notice that they still haven't answered the question of whether INS can detect travel along such a path. And what's more, they won't. RE win.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #117 on: January 12, 2012, 09:45:16 AM »
The word "yaw" was only mentioned in order to get round the FE Semantics Squad because the word "curved" was not specific enough to satisfy them. Its only relevance to the INS issue is to make sure the FE'ers understand what type of curved path I'm talking about.

Looks like the SS got you anyway. How about "a path in which the inertial Y coordinate* changes in an overall circular curve pattern".

*reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_dynamics_(aircraft)#Basic_coordinate_systems
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #118 on: January 12, 2012, 05:51:23 PM »
The word "yaw" was only mentioned in order to get round the FE Semantics Squad because the word "curved" was not specific enough to satisfy them. Its only relevance to the INS issue is to make sure the FE'ers understand what type of curved path I'm talking about.

Looks like the SS got you anyway. How about "a path in which the inertial Y coordinate* changes in an overall circular curve pattern".

*reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_dynamics_(aircraft)#Basic_coordinate_systems

That will do. Thank you for providing an alternate term, unlike Thork, who told me not to use yaw but when requested to provide an alternate term, declined to do so. Yet another of the 100 Proofs that Thork is a troll.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #119 on: January 14, 2012, 07:12:17 PM »
Now that the INS debate has run its course, any FER care to answer how an ESS shape is formed in FE?