The proof of Flat Earth model within the Legal Science methods

The axis of the rotating bullet is constantly directed along the flight of the bullet. Therefore, a bullet in a circular orbit around the Sun is not pointed at a single point on the Celestial Sphere. Therefore, the Earth axis (in orbit around the Sun) should make a full circle (with an angular radius of about 23 degrees) for one year cycle. Why does the Earth axis look at the North Star, and does not draw this huge annual circle across the sky?

Because Earth is not a bullet travelling through an atmosphere.
It is the interaction with the atmosphere that keeps the bullet pointed along its trajectory.

A bullet in orbit around space will not stay pointed along its trajectory.

Also important is the axis and shape of the bullet, it is aligned with the trajectory.

Earth is more like a tennis ball in tennis.
You can have the ball spin. The axis it spins will typically be perpendicular to the trajectory (approximately) and remains roughly the same relative to an inertial reference frame.

Your "logic" also indicates tennis balls can't work like they are repeatedly observed to.

As your entire argument is based upon this false premise it is also false.

Try explaining your assertion, why should a bullet spin, with the axis aligned with the trajectory.

1. I have solid proof math in the file, see the link.

Your link doesn't work. It leads to topics, not any specific article.

My browsers do open the link. There is link to the file BMD8.pdf in the link. All my web-browsers do open it. So, try to install Firefox browser.

Why not link to that directly?
Even better, if it i a research article in a credited journal, why not do what most scientists would do and provide the link to the journal site or the doi?
Or perhaps the citation for it?

2. I am author in Physical Review, thus I understand the Legal Science.

So far that is just a baseless claim and a pathetic appeal to authority. If that is all you have, then you have nothing.
If you really were an author you would be able to defend your claims.
I am also yet to hear of any serious scientist call it "legal science."
So that also throws serious doubt on your claim.

There is then the fact that you are spouting pure nonsense which is contradicted at numerous tennis matches.
So I'm calling bullshit there.

3. Foucault pendulum responds to Earth rotation: the test is well known as proof of Earth rotation.

And due to how that varies around Earth, it would also show that Earth is round.
As such, even if your nonsense was true, the best you could do is show Earth is stationary, not flat.

1. Air resistance.

Yes. That is what makes the bullet change the direction it spins.
Now, without air resistance in space, why should Earth change direction?

The axis of the rotating bullet is constantly directed along the flight of the bullet. Therefore, a bullet in a circular orbit around the Sun is not pointed at a single point on the Celestial Sphere. Therefore, the Earth axis (in orbit around the Sun) should make a full circle (with an angular radius of about 23 degrees) for one year cycle. Why does the Earth axis look at the North Star, and does not draw this huge annual circle across the sky?

First of all, as others have pointed out,
      the "axis of the rotating bullet is" NOT "constantly directed along the flight of the bullet" but remains parallel to the direction it had when it left the barrel.
So "annual circle" does not have "an angular radius of about 23 degrees" but always has the diameter of the earth's orbit around the sun.

Hence the Earth's axis looking at the North Celestial Pole does draw a huge annual circle across the sky - it is slightly elliptical, but almost a circle.
The earth's axis remains in the same direction with respect to Polaris, just as the bullet remains pointed in the same direction relative to the direction it left the barrel.

And no-one is claiming that the earth axis points at precisely the same location on the "Celestial Sphere".

Short answer:
The earth's orbit is about 300 million kilometres, (near enough to 10 light-seconds) across.
Polaris (the North Star) is about 323 lt-yrs away, though you will find it often given 433 light-years (an older estimate).
Hence the angle change over half a year needed to keep point precisely to Polaris would be about (10 light-seconds)/(323 light-years) or 0.02 arc-seconds.
That is an extremely small angle, equivalent to viewing a Euro Cent coin of 16.25 mm diameter at a distance of 166 km!

A bit on units used for these tremendous distances:
The distance to stars is commonly specified as their paralax angle.
This the angular change that would occur if the earth moved by the average radius of the orbit around the sun. This radius is defined as the Astronomical Unit, or AU.
And since these angles are all so small, they are usually specified in thousandths of an arc-second or an mas.
If you look up Polaris in either Wikipedia or and an Astronomy site you will find "Parallax (π): 7.54 ± 0.11 mas" (that is for the 433 ly distance).
In Wikipedia the distance given as "Distance 323–433 ly or (99–133 pc)".
      The 433 ly is the old estimate and 323 ly is from the latest orbiting cameras.
      The 99 pc and 133 pc figures are those same distances expressed in units of "parsecs", which is the distance for which the parallax angle is 1 second of arc.
      One parsec is 3.26156 light-years.
I hope I haven't screwed up the 433/323 light year figures anywhere!
It is confusing, but these distances cannot be measured precisely and for most purposes, it simply does not matter.
 

Long answer:
Then let's sort out another little point before some pedant, like me, comes along and says that the earth's axis does not point quite to Polaris, but at a point about 0.74° from Polaris.
But I'll still refer to Polaris to save any confusion.

Now let's look at the scales involved.
            The diameter of this circle is near enough to 300,000,000 km.
            The latest estimate of the distance to the (current) Polaris is roughly 323 light-years from the sun and Earth.
The best estimate of the distance to Polaris is 323 light-years (though you will often see 433 light-years, an older estimate).
I say estimate because there is no way to measure distances this large with precision.

We could work in kilometres, but the numbers are so horrendously large that is might be better to use light-years as out distance measure.
One light year is (velocity of light in km/s) x (seconds in one year) or 9,461,000,000,000 km or 9.461 × 10¹² km.

So this circle described has a diameter of 300,000,000 km or close enough to 1000 light-seconds or 1000/(86,400 x 365.224) = 0.0000317 light-years.
But Polaris is about 323 light-years from the Solar System,
so from earth it looks as though the earth's axis is always aimed at the same point to within an angle of  (0.0000317/323) radians or 0.020 seconds of arc.

There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of North Star during one year cycle. But it is pointed. Thus, the official Science either lies or is incompetent. Correct? Yes. And the Flat Earth model is consistent with Nature here.

No, not correct, as seen above.

USED THEOREM:
The axis of the revolving bullet is constantly directed along the flight of the bullet.

No, it doesn't! It remains parallel to its original direction.

<< I don't believe any of this is now relevant >>

Almost this same problem plagued astronomers and philosophers from about 250 BC.

Aristarchus suspected the stars were other suns that are very far away, and that in consequence there was no observable parallax, that is, a movement of the stars relative to each other as the Earth moves around the Sun. Since stellar parallax is only detectable with telescopes, his accurate speculation was unprovable at the time.

But since this stellar parallax was so small it could not be observed by those early astronomers or even by Tycho Brahe in the late 1500s.
It was not detected till well after the development of the astronomical telescope (Galileo, Newton etc) that Bessel in 1812 measured steller parallax in 61 Cygni.

Quote from: Astronomy on May 01, 2018, 05:43:27 AM

The axis of the rotating bullet is constantly directed along the flight of the bullet. Therefore, a bullet in a circular orbit around the Sun is not pointed at a single point on the Celestial Sphere. Therefore, the Earth axis (in orbit around the Sun) should make a full circle (with an angular radius of about 23 degrees) for one year cycle. Why does the Earth axis look at the North Star, and does not draw this huge annual circle across the sky?

First of all, as others have pointed out,
      the "axis of the rotating bullet is" NOT "constantly directed along the flight of the bullet" but remains parallel to the direction it had when it left the barrel.
So "annual circle" does not have "an angular radius of about 23 degrees" but always has the diameter of the earth's orbit around the sun.

A. The Faith (e.g., in Flat Earth model) is the faithfulness to Knowledge, so please be not mad at me for proving within the Legal Science the Flat Earth Model. How one can argue against Legal Science mathematics?! In the file is the solid indestructible formulas!

B. In addition, following facts strongly support my calculation in the file (I am sorry, viXra is still considering it for publication; however one can register in researchgate academic forum to read it right now) and the Flat Earth model:

1. Enthusiasts from Hungary who went to the lake to prove Flat Earth went missing. Maybe they were killed?
Think for yourself, if the supporters of the Flat Earth are right (that the elite protects the secret of the Flat Earth), then no one will allow you to publish the experimental proof. You will be "removed" within half an hour: the rates are too high! The video in Russian: "The team from Hungary Promises Prove that the Earth is Flat!"

And I was not removed, because I publish everything very quickly (less than half an hour).

2. The user "На броне" writes 2.03.2018 there, in comments under the video:
"One can conduct an easy and simple experiment while we will fly on vacation. Before the flight at the airport, we'll switch on the built-in gyroscope in the smartphone and put the phone on the floor in airport "A", then it records the direction of gyroscope axis. On arrival at the the city of "B", (and this is about 5000 km from city A) at the airport we will lay the smartphone on the floor and compare new data with the saved parameters of the city "A" (departure point). There are people who conducted this experiment, and there was no difference between point "A" and point "B".

(I am sorry, viXra is still considering it for publication; however one can register in researchgate academic forum to read it right now)

<ctrl> C   <ctrl> V

"One can conduct an easy and simple experiment while we will fly on vacation. Before the flight at the airport, we'll switch on the built-in gyroscope in the smartphone and put the phone on the floor in airport "A", then it records the direction of gyroscope axis. On arrival at the the city of "B", (and this is about 5000 km from city A) at the airport we will lay the smartphone on the floor and compare new data with the saved parameters of the city "A" (departure point). There are people who conducted this experiment, and there was no difference between point "A" and point "B".

The gyroscopes in smartphones are totally inadequate for such measurements.

gyro drift
 July 2010 edited September 2010 in iOS SDK Development

Hi everyone,

I just made my first iphone 4 app and found out that there is a huge gyro drift. the gyro in a stationary position shows increase in the angle position (angular velocity*time) around 1 degree a second. my question is how to deal with that?

i was thinking about using either complementary or kalman filter. they parametrize an input of gyro and acc, meaning they shift the importance of acc measurement or gyro measurement. however both don't deal with the drift. i'm looking for smtn that find a drift (bias) of gyro and subtracts it out; i also found that bias is not constant but very slow varying.

any ideas?

--Kirill

Answer:

July 2010 edited July 2010
There is nothing you can do to eliminate drift using only the gyro. The drift is inherent in any system that attempts to track direction by integrating rate-of-turn data. And rate-of-turn is all the gyro can deliver, at the most primitive level. Even in airplanes that use gyroscopes to track direction, the pilot must periodically reset the directional gyro to a known directional source, like a magnetic compass, to cancel the accumulated drift. Now airplane gyros are much better than the iPhone gyro, and 1 degree per second would be unacceptable for an airplane. But it may be the best you can do on the iPhone. Now if you are willing to bring in some compass data and use it to periodically reset your direction indication, then you might be able to eliminate the drift.

Both and more in: iPhoneDevSDK
So, no go!

Quote from: rabinoz on May 01, 2018, 06:19:56 PM

Quote from: Astronomy on May 01, 2018, 05:43:27 AM

The axis of the rotating bullet is constantly directed along the flight of the bullet. Therefore, a bullet in a circular orbit around the Sun is not pointed at a single point on the Celestial Sphere. Therefore, the Earth axis (in orbit around the Sun) should make a full circle (with an angular radius of about 23 degrees) for one year cycle. Why does the Earth axis look at the North Star, and does not draw this huge annual circle across the sky?

First of all, as others have pointed out,
      the "axis of the rotating bullet is" NOT "constantly directed along the flight of the bullet" but remains parallel to the direction it had when it left the barrel.
So "annual circle" does not have "an angular radius of about 23 degrees" but always has the diameter of the earth's orbit around the sun.

A. The Faith (e.g., in Flat Earth model) is the faithfulness to Knowledge, so please be not mad at me for proving within the Legal Science the Flat Earth Model. How one can argue against Legal Science mathematics?! In the file is the solid indestructible formulas!

B. In addition, following facts strongly support my calculation in the file (I am sorry, viXra is still considering it for publication; however one can register in researchgate academic forum to read it right now) and the Flat Earth model:

1. Enthusiasts from Hungary who went to the lake to prove Flat Earth went missing. Maybe they were killed?
Think for yourself, if the supporters of the Flat Earth are right (that the elite protects the secret of the Flat Earth), then no one will allow you to publish the experimental proof. You will be "removed" within half an hour: the rates are too high! The video in Russian: "The team from Hungary Promises Prove that the Earth is Flat!"

And I was not removed, because I publish everything very quickly (less than half an hour).

2. The user "На броне" writes 2.03.2018 there, in comments under the video:
"One can conduct an easy and simple experiment while we will fly on vacation. Before the flight at the airport, we'll switch on the built-in gyroscope in the smartphone and put the phone on the floor in airport "A", then it records the direction of gyroscope axis. On arrival at the the city of "B", (and this is about 5000 km from city A) at the airport we will lay the smartphone on the floor and compare new data with the saved parameters of the city "A" (departure point). There are people who conducted this experiment, and there was no difference between point "A" and point "B".

Have you ever come across Youtube? If you go there you will see many videos purporting to provide evidence for a flat earth. Were the makers of all those videos clipped, rubbed out, or otherwise eliminated?
Your Hungarian story sounds about as far fetched as it gets. While flatearthers baulk at believing anything from ‘authority’ when it suits them, they fall over themselves to swallow any nonsense.

A. The Faith (e.g., in Flat Earth model) is the faithfulness to Knowledge

No, it's ignorance.

please be not mad at me for proving within the Legal Science the Flat Earth Model

Perhaps when you get around to doing so, unless your idea of "legal science" is pure nonsense.

How one can argue against Legal Science mathematics?! In the file is the solid indestructible formulas!

You are yet to provide this file and people have pointed out the problem with your baseless claims.

B. In addition, following facts strongly support my calculation in the file

Again, you are yet to present any.
Why can't you just present them here?

(I am sorry, viXra is still considering it for publication; however one can register in researchgate academic forum to read it right now)

Which makes me assume it is just a file you uploaded and not peer reviewed in any sense.
There are plenty of articles on researchgate you can easily find and link to, for example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324887626_Bound-state_effects_for_dark_matter_with_Higgs-like_mediators

So what's wrong with yours?

Another key giveaway is that it is a post, not a publication.
That indicates it is a question, not any publication.
Also, even if you have an account, it still doesn't show, so I think you are spouting pure bullshit.
You don't have an article, you are just pretending, that is why you refuse to post the contents here.

1. Enthusiasts from Hungary who went to the lake to prove Flat Earth went missing. Maybe they were killed?

Or maybe they realised Earth wasn't flat and didn't want to make a fool of yourself.

Think for yourself, if the supporters of the Flat Earth are right (that the elite protects the secret of the Flat Earth), then no one will allow you to publish the experimental proof.

Yet plenty of people are allowed to provide alleged proof on youtube. So that clearly isn't the case.
Logically they would also protect various other secrets you can easily find on wiki leaks.
So that doesn't hold at all.

Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence that shows Earth is round.

This video clearly proves Earth isn't flat, with the distant object obscured by the water. Or is that under water?

"One can conduct an easy and simple experiment while we will fly on vacation. Before the flight at the airport, we'll switch on the built-in gyroscope in the smartphone and put the phone on the floor in airport "A", then it records the direction of gyroscope axis. On arrival at the the city of "B", (and this is about 5000 km from city A) at the airport we will lay the smartphone on the floor and compare new data with the saved parameters of the city "A" (departure point). There are people who conducted this experiment, and there was no difference between point "A" and point "B".

Which is a useless experiment which shows they don't understand how the phone works. Especially as most have accelerometers, with only newer phones having gyros.
Then there is the issue of how the phone calibrates the gyro and if it only does that when you switch it on at the initial airport, or periodically, especially due to the high drift.

I also note you are now completely abandoning your prior claims and moving on to more nonsense. This shows you know you have no actual basis for your claims and instead are trying to bury potential opponents in mountains of BS.
Don't change topic; stick to the one point and argue that.

Which makes me assume it is just a file you uploaded and not peer reviewed in any sense.
There are plenty of articles on researchgate you can easily find and link to, for example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324887626_Bound-state_effects_for_dark_matter_with_Higgs-like_mediators

So what's wrong with yours?

Friends, I hope this is downloadable now:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324890738_Introducing_Light_Force

--Kirill

Answer:

July 2010 edited July 2010
There is nothing you can do to eliminate drift using only the gyro. The drift is inherent in any system that attempts to track direction by integrating rate-of-turn data. And rate-of-turn is all the gyro can deliver, at the most primitive level. Even in airplanes that use gyroscopes to track direction, the pilot must periodically reset the directional gyro to a known directional source, like a magnetic compass, to cancel the accumulated drift. Now airplane gyros are much better than the iPhone gyro, and 1 degree per second would be unacceptable for an airplane. But it may be the best you can do on the iPhone. Now if you are willing to bring in some compass data and use it to periodically reset your direction indication, then you might be able to eliminate the drift.

Both and more in: iPhoneDevSDK
So, no go!
[/quote]

That video confirms my theorem of the bullet, and, thus, my file:

Quote from: JackBlack on May 02, 2018, 01:57:28 AM

Which makes me assume it is just a file you uploaded and not peer reviewed in any sense.
There are plenty of articles on researchgate you can easily find and link to, for example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324887626_Bound-state_effects_for_dark_matter_with_Higgs-like_mediators

So what's wrong with yours?

Friends, I hope this is downloadable now:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324890738_Introducing_Light_Force

That's exactly what I debunked in:

But here's diagram, showing how the earth's axis remains pointing in the same direction all through the year:
Conservation of Angular Momentum (a vector) keeps the axis pointing in the same direction all year round. Hence this axis points (close to) Polaris all the time.

Because Polaris is so much further distant than the diameter of the earth's orbit (over 10,000,000 times) the axis of the earth remains point at the same location on the Celestial sphere all year around.
Polaris is not quite on the Northern Celestial Pole, but about 0.74° away.

But there is not the slightest problem, in this regard, with the Heliocentric Solar System.

If you are going to use a screen name of Astronomy you really should learn some astronomy.
Even the old Greek astronomers knew better than that - they knew what parallax, etc meant.

Friends, I hope this is downloadable now:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324890738_Introducing_Light_Force

So from that, it appears you got your Masters degree some time ago, and only have credible publications with co-authors.
You even have a publication titled "Mein Kampf".

The publication is titled today, and is just uploaded there, so it would be no better than just pasting your claims here.
You don't even realise that the moon does rotate.

You don't understand basic logic. You try to prove a claim about bullets following trajectories, and instead just assert what would happen in one instance, in which the path of the bullet is straight, which doesn't even apply to the situation you are analysing.

It is just nonsense based upon baseless (false) claims.

This crap would never pass peer review.

That video confirms my theorem of the bullet, and, thus, my file:

And there you go posting more crap and ignoring what has been said.

You are really grasping at straws.

But do you know what is even sadder?
The 2 arguments contradict each other.
The gyroscope spins. So by your first argument, its axis should follow the plane, so you shouldn't expect a change. But then you argue that this lack of change means Earth isn't flat.
So good job refuting yourself and showing yourself to be full of crap.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 01, 2018, 08:53:28 PM

--Kirill

Answer:

Quote from: RLScott

July 2010 edited July 2010
There is nothing you can do to eliminate drift using only the gyro. The drift is inherent in any system that attempts to track direction by integrating rate-of-turn data. And rate-of-turn is all the gyro can deliver, at the most primitive level. Even in airplanes that use gyroscopes to track direction, the pilot must periodically reset the directional gyro to a known directional source, like a magnetic compass, to cancel the accumulated drift. Now airplane gyros are much better than the iPhone gyro, and 1 degree per second would be unacceptable for an airplane. But it may be the best you can do on the iPhone. Now if you are willing to bring in some compass data and use it to periodically reset your direction indication, then you might be able to eliminate the drift.

Both and more in: iPhoneDevSDK
So, no go!

That video confirms my theorem of the bullet, and, thus, my file:

[/quote]
That video proves nothing! Those gyros are totally inadequate to measure such a slow rotation - just over 15°/hour.
If cheap gyros like those toys were adequate why would the original ships gyro-compasses be large precision devices?

An adequate gyro must have a drift rate far less than that 15°/hour and in addition absolutely no friction in the bearings and gimbals.
The older mechanical marine Gyro Compasses used air bearings and a servo-follower system to remove any friction in the gimbals.
More modern gyros use ring-lasers relying on the Sagnac effect. Here is an older version of such a gyro that will certainly measure the earth's rotation.
Honeywell, GG1320AN Digital Ring Laser Gyroscope
Angular Random Walk means that in the absence of any movement,  after an hour it will typically show 0.0035°.

Small precision gyros are used in Gyro Theodilites to find true north when underground. They rely on the earth's rotation to work.
The older ones commonly floated the gyro in a mercury batch to remove the friction in the horizontal plane.

Description:   The instrument pictured on the right is typically used by the military. Their principal application is in mining, tunnelling and gunnery, but in conventional surface surveys they can be used to provide initial orientation, in place of magnetic bearings or astronomical azimuths. The instrument shown on the right is referred to as a 'gyro-theodolite'. It basically consists of a gyroscope attached to the bottom of a Hilger & Watts micrometer theodolite. The gyroscope enables the direction of true north to be determined with a standard error of about 15" within a very short time. The instrument shown below is a 'meridian indicator' (also known as a Precision Indicator of the Meridian) which is connected to the gyroscope and includes external connection to the power supply. It is basically a meter graduated directly in angular units, and the reading is thus a maximum when the gyro is pointing north and a minimum when it is pointing east or west. The theodolite remains permanently attached to the gyro assembly. The gyroscope unit is suspended in vertical gimbals, which lie in the line defined by the downward extension of the (permanently) attached theodolite. The actual gyroscope is floated in liquid, and it is called a floating gyroscope to distinguish it from the pendulous type in which the gyroscope unit is suspended and hangs under gravity. History & comments   Any solid body, undergoing any rotation can generally be considered as being a gyro. Its fundamental characteristics are its inertia and its precession (directional change due to external moments acting on its rotational axis).

From: UNSW, GYRO-THEODOLITE

These instruments rely on the earth's rotation to find true north to within 15 minutes of arc in a short time.

The earth rotates and this rotation is used in Gyro Compasses and Gyro Theodolites to find true north. Get used to it - you will never disprove it.

That video confirms my theorem of the bullet, and, thus, my file:

[/quote]
That video proves nothing! Those gyros are totally inadequate to measure such a slow rotation - just over 15°/hour.
If cheap gyros like those toys were adequate why would the original ships gyro-compasses be large precision devices?
[/quote]

The problem of low angular velocity of Earth is solved by the very strong angular momentum of home-made gyroscopes. Correct?

Quote from: JackBlack on May 02, 2018, 01:57:28 AM

Which makes me assume it is just a file you uploaded and not peer reviewed in any sense.
There are plenty of articles on researchgate you can easily find and link to, for example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324887626_Bound-state_effects_for_dark_matter_with_Higgs-like_mediators

So what's wrong with yours?

Friends, I hope this is downloadable now:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324890738_Introducing_Light_Force

Waiting for to upload?

Seems that you were able to edit it while it was pending.  I particularly laughed at this:

VII. THE PROOF OF FLAT EARTH MODEL WITHIN THE LEGAL SCIENCE METHODS

There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of NorthStar during one year cycle. But it is pointed. Thus, the official Science either lies or isincompetent. Correct? Yes. And the Flat Earth model is consistent with Nature here.

Opponent: “Ok, but I can punch a giant whole in your theory using a football (American).When football is thrown in a spiral, the ball spirals on its axis while at the same time the ball follows an arced (ballistic) path. The axis of the football will remain relative to its release point. The axis does not follow the arc. You can see this very clearly on very long passes, where the ball is thrown with a high arc. The axis does not change when the ball has reached it’s peak and begins to come back to the ground.

”1. Air resistance.
2. I should watch it myself.
3. The ”Light Force”, which is introduced in the file. This new force-field makes thespacecrafts and airplanes travel ring-way in the Flat Earth model.

  I particularly laughed at this:

Quote

VII. THE PROOF OF FLAT EARTH MODEL WITHIN THE LEGAL SCIENCE METHODS

There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of NorthStar during one year cycle. But it is pointed. Thus, the official Science either lies or isincompetent. Correct? Yes. And the Flat Earth model is consistent with Nature here.

Why to laugh? Are we in circus?! No. Thus, I ask for huge amount of respect. Moreover: you are human, I am human. Why am I defected human, but you are not?!

Quote from: Astronomy on May 01, 2018, 08:08:20 PM

(I am sorry, viXra is still considering it for publication; however one can register in researchgate academic forum to read it right now)

<ctrl> C   <ctrl> V

I laughed way too long and loud at this with my office door open.  People are looking at me weirdly.  Dang moose, why must you do this to me.

What is this “legal science mathematics”?

I tried looking it up, and it doesn’t sound like physics at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_science

Is there a translation issue here?

.......
These instruments rely on the earth's rotation to find true north to within 15 minutes of arc in a short time.

The earth rotates and this rotation is used in Gyro Compasses and Gyro Theodolites to find true north. Get used to it - you will never disprove it.

The problem of low angular velocity of Earth is solved by the strong angular momentum of home-made gyroscopes (moreover, if you try to rotate the frame of the gyroscope, whereby in result the axis of gyroscope has not changed noticeably the direction, then you must be sure: it is the perfect and professional gyroscope. No need for expensive fricition-free gyroscope then.).

What is this “legal science mathematics”?

I tried looking it up, and it doesn’t sound like physics at all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_science

Is there a translation issue here?

The legal Science is the sincere science: the author is not writing the fake news.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on May 02, 2018, 06:13:26 AM

  I particularly laughed at this:

Quote

VII. THE PROOF OF FLAT EARTH MODEL WITHIN THE LEGAL SCIENCE METHODS

There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of NorthStar during one year cycle. But it is pointed. Thus, the official Science either lies or isincompetent. Correct? Yes. And the Flat Earth model is consistent with Nature here.

Why to laugh? Are we in circus?! No. Thus, I ask for huge amount of respect. Moreover: you are human, I am human. Why am I defected human, but you are not?!

Calm down, getting upset isn’t gaining you any points.

1) yes, this is a circus. It’s a FE message board.
2) one does not ask for respect. One earns it.
3) imho you are not a defect human being. You are just a human being, nothing more, nothing less.

.......
Calm down, getting upset isn’t gaining you any points.

1) yes, this is a circus. It’s a FE message board.
2) one does not ask for respect. One earns it.
3) imho you are not a defect human being. You are just a human being, nothing more, nothing less.

If I am not defected human, then I am respected one. Correct? German: "Ich bin nicht der Untermensch!"

Quote from: Astronomy on May 02, 2018, 06:26:18 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on May 02, 2018, 06:13:26 AM

  I particularly laughed at this:

Quote

VII. THE PROOF OF FLAT EARTH MODEL WITHIN THE LEGAL SCIENCE METHODS

There is obvious fact: axis of Earth rotation must not be pointed at the area of NorthStar during one year cycle. But it is pointed. Thus, the official Science either lies or isincompetent. Correct? Yes. And the Flat Earth model is consistent with Nature here.

Why to laugh? Are we in circus?! No. Thus, I ask for huge amount of respect. Moreover: you are human, I am human. Why am I defected human, but you are not?!

Calm down, getting upset isn’t gaining you any points.

1) yes, this is a circus. It’s a FE message board.
2) one does not ask for respect. One earns it.
3) imho you are not a defect human being. You are just a human being, nothing more, nothing less.

The Presumption of Innocence: everybody is like the God (and, thus, must be treated as like you would treat the God right from beginning), until opposite is proven. Not ``respect must be earned'', but the disrespect ``must be'' earned.

The problem of low angular velocity of Earth is solved by the very strong angular momentum of home-made gyroscopes. Correct?

No.
It is related to the friction and a few other aspects as already said.
It is also quite important to balance the gyroscope or it can drift.
Now how do you balance it and make sure there is no slight variation which might cause a significant drift?

Why to laugh? Are we in circus?! No. Thus, I ask for huge amount of respect. Moreover: you are human, I am human. Why am I defected human, but you are not?!

Considering you are completely ignoring counter arguments, you are being given more respect than you deserve.

The problem of low angular velocity of Earth is solved by the strong angular momentum of home-made gyroscopes (moreover, if you try to rotate the frame of the gyroscope, whereby in result the axis of gyroscope has not changed noticeably the direction, then you must be sure: it is the perfect and professional gyroscope. No need for expensive fricition-free gyroscope then.).

No it's not, as you are doing it at a vastly different rate.
Try rotating the frame of the gyro at a very slow rate and see what happens.
Also let us know how you balanced it.

The Presumption of Innocence: everybody is like the God (and, thus, must be treated as like you would treat the God right from beginning), until opposite is proven. Not ``respect must be earned'', but the disrespect ``must be'' earned.

No. The default position is neutral; neither respect nor disrespect.
If someone makes a fairly minor claim, like they have a baseball or saw a cat, that will typically be accepted.
If they make more grand claims like Earth is flat, that will be discarded as nonsense until they can back it up.
So far you have backed nothing up and instead just repeatedly asserted crap and ignored what has been said as a refutation.
You have done enough to earn disrespect, and have done basically nothing to earn respect.

Now how about you address what has been said, rather than just asserting more/the same nonsense?

P.S. I would treat no one like a god, no one deserves to be treated like that fictitious evil piece of shit.

No it's not, as you are doing it at a vastly different rate.
Try rotating the frame of the gyro at a very slow rate and see what happens.
.....No. The default position is neutral; neither respect nor disrespect......P.S. I would treat no one like a god, no one deserves to be treated like that fictitious evil piece of shit.

1. You are not neutral. Being neutral with stranger means to be respectful with 100 percent (otherwise the stranger will sue you). You have said word "shit" in relation to my Religion. It is not being neutral. It is part of WW3 war, and you are on the wrong side.
2. By rotating the frame of gyroscope one applies the friction force on the axis of rotation. Therefore, there is no difference at all: the slow rotation or fast rotation. This friction force is overcomed by gyroscope inertial forces. Moreover: if the work of this friction force would be non-zero, then direction of gyroscope axis will be changed over 6 hours of exposer (in relation to the test-area). But on the YouTube video it is perfectly constant.

1. You are not neutral. Being neutral with stranger means to be respectful with 100 percent

No it doesn't.
Respecting 100% is not being neutral.
Respecting 100% would mean basically doing whatever they said and trusting whatever they said.
That is not being neutral.

(otherwise the stranger will sue you).

If they did they would then have to pay all the court fees as they have no grounds to.

You have said word "shit" in relation to my Religion. It is not being neutral.

So?
Did I say I was neutral in regards to your abhorrent religion?

It is part of WW3 war, and you are on the wrong side.

I would rather be on the wrong side than the side of terrorists who would force their religion onto others.

2. By rotating the frame of gyroscope one applies the friction force on the axis of rotation. Therefore, there is no difference at all: the slow rotation or fast rotation.

This shows a complete lack of understand of fiction.

The force required to charge the axis of rotation will vary depending upon the speed.
The faster you do it, the more force is required.
The friction from the bearing can only transfer a limited amount of force.
As such, if you move it quickly, the bearing can't transfer that force and the gyroscope changes axis by a negligible amount.

Perhaps a simple comparison, a tablecloth and stuff above it.
If you pull it out quickly, the tablecloth cannot impart enough force to the items above it and they remain fairly stationary while the tablecloth is removed.
If you pull slowly, all the stuff above the tablesheet gets dragged off the table as well.

So no, the rate does matter, a lot.

And yet again, you ignore the fact that you have contradicted yourself.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 02, 2018, 01:57:28 AM

Which makes me assume it is just a file you uploaded and not peer reviewed in any sense.
There are plenty of articles on researchgate you can easily find and link to, for example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324887626_Bound-state_effects_for_dark_matter_with_Higgs-like_mediators

So what's wrong with yours?

Friends, I hope this is downloadable now:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324890738_Introducing_Light_Force

The first scientific paper I've seen on this forum. *applause*

But the general relativity in the paper itself is...interesting. It looks nice, but the theorems are used so loosely, well, it's impossible to verify and not very fair. On page 5, "FOR FORUM QA," you use the Schwarzschild metric to prove L is not directed at the north star...but you do absolutely nothing with the metric (other than writing it down). On top of that, look at these two lines in there:



One couldn't help but make the conclusion, K^μ = 0. 

........
So no, the rate does matter, a lot.

And yet again, you ignore the fact that you have contradicted yourself.

I have solid proof Legal Science mathematics in the file.
Can you show your mathematical disproof (using friction force you talked about) of my Flat Earth Model proof?

Quote from: Astronomy on May 02, 2018, 04:02:58 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 02, 2018, 01:57:28 AM

Which makes me assume it is just a file you uploaded and not peer reviewed in any sense.
There are plenty of articles on researchgate you can easily find and link to, for example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324887626_Bound-state_effects_for_dark_matter_with_Higgs-like_mediators

So what's wrong with yours?

Friends, I hope this is downloadable now:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324890738_Introducing_Light_Force

The first scientific paper I've seen on this forum. *applause*

But the general relativity in the paper itself is...interesting. It looks nice, but the theorems are used so loosely, well, it's impossible to verify and not very fair. On page 5, "FOR FORUM QA," you use the Schwarzschild metric to prove L is not directed at the north star...but you do absolutely nothing with the metric (other than writing it down). On top of that, look at these two lines in there:
......

One couldn't help but make the conclusion, K^μ = 0. 

The two formulas are not used in the same context. The latter formula is the replacement of the first one. The first one describes situations, where is no Light Force applied. The second formula is useful for general situations with non-zero Light Force. The Creator of Reality deals with the switching off and on of Light Force.

Quote from: tomato on May 03, 2018, 01:30:06 AM

Quote from: Astronomy on May 02, 2018, 04:02:58 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 02, 2018, 01:57:28 AM

Which makes me assume it is just a file you uploaded and not peer reviewed in any sense.
There are plenty of articles on researchgate you can easily find and link to, for example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324887626_Bound-state_effects_for_dark_matter_with_Higgs-like_mediators

So what's wrong with yours?

Friends, I hope this is downloadable now:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324890738_Introducing_Light_Force

The first scientific paper I've seen on this forum. *applause*

But the general relativity in the paper itself is...interesting. It looks nice, but the theorems are used so loosely, well, it's impossible to verify and not very fair. On page 5, "FOR FORUM QA," you use the Schwarzschild metric to prove L is not directed at the north star...but you do absolutely nothing with the metric (other than writing it down). On top of that, look at these two lines in there:
......

One couldn't help but make the conclusion, K^μ = 0. 

The two formulas are not used in the same context. The latter formula is the replacement of the first one. The first one describes situations, where is no Light Force applied. The second formula is useful for general situations with non-zero Light Force. The Creator of Reality deals with the switching off and on of Light Force.

Sorry, right. Thanks for the answer! Also, maybe this is more my issue:



So, with the second starting assumption, you don't seem to need K in order to have L always pointed at the North star.

Quote from: Astronomy on May 03, 2018, 01:41:11 AM

Quote from: tomato on May 03, 2018, 01:30:06 AM

Quote from: Astronomy on May 02, 2018, 04:02:58 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on May 02, 2018, 01:57:28 AM

Which makes me assume it is just a file you uploaded and not peer reviewed in any sense.
There are plenty of articles on researchgate you can easily find and link to, for example:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324887626_Bound-state_effects_for_dark_matter_with_Higgs-like_mediators

So what's wrong with yours?

Friends, I hope this is downloadable now:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324890738_Introducing_Light_Force

The first scientific paper I've seen on this forum. *applause*

But the general relativity in the paper itself is...interesting. It looks nice, but the theorems are used so loosely, well, it's impossible to verify and not very fair. On page 5, "FOR FORUM QA," you use the Schwarzschild metric to prove L is not directed at the north star...but you do absolutely nothing with the metric (other than writing it down). On top of that, look at these two lines in there:
......

One couldn't help but make the conclusion, K^μ = 0. 

The two formulas are not used in the same context. The latter formula is the replacement of the first one. The first one describes situations, where is no Light Force applied. The second formula is useful for general situations with non-zero Light Force. The Creator of Reality deals with the switching off and on of Light Force.

Sorry, right. Thanks for the answer! Also, maybe this is more my issue:



So, with the second starting assumption, there is no need to introduce K in order to have L always pointed at the North star.

One uses the covariant derivative of the body proper-time, so one uses the Christoffel Symbols "Gamma":
DL{mu}/dtau=dL{mu}/dtau+Gamma{mu beta alpha} L{beta} U{alpha}
The ordinary derivative is dL{mu}/dtau. The t is the cosmic, "coordinate" time, which, for slow motion equils to tau.