Flat Earth: Why doesn't a Plane's altitude meter (gyroscope) pitch up and down if it's a round earth

[keith99]

Hi,

I can totally believe that. I am an experimental researcher. The way I work primarily is to do experiments where the outcome is not totally predictable. I would have used an experiment like Goddards, just to shut everyone up, or shut me up if I was wrong.

So, I did not know that no true Physicist of their day, doubted Newton's third law back then. Thank-you for sharing that.

I just came back from a visit to my old haunt. Evergreen Aviation Museum, the Space side. They called me up to say hi this morning. I went up there to say hi to them. It is about an hour away from my home. I think it was fun, to be in this discussion and then to go and see the Rocket motors, airplanes, and even three full missles capable of taking satellites into space. Additionally they have a lunar rover, the Russian Lunar rover and enough stuff and customers to once again say, Yes, this is reality.

I like the Redstone. I like the Titan II. I like the Titan IIB. I like the fact that the Titan IIB has been used recently, as the Space Shuttle disaster lowered funding and they were used again. The fun part is, they have a 100% success rate, and so far no other motor combination has that.

The lunar second and third stage motors are there. I looked. I like the way cooling tubes are the exit nozzle, meaning the fuel circulates through tubes that form the exhaust nozzle, thus cooling the exhaust cone in all but the Titan II series of rockets, as it seems so weak, but it works and is the industry standard.

LOVE,

For the fairly modern era I tend to use Einstein's work done in 1905 which included the theory of special relativity and the Michelson-Morley experiment done in 1887 as benchmarks for what the big boys were dealing with. When one realizes just where the frontiers of physics were at those points it becomes obvious that certain misconceptions were not held by real scientists in the 1920s and 30s.

 

[The Cadet]

There is no possibility (presently) to alter a rocket's direction (course) in-space ~it is in free-fall

So, in other words, this can't happen? Someone should probably tell NASA that something they use on a regular basis to alter a rocket's direction in space is impossible.

Just some logical thoughts...

No, not logical thoughts. You just don't understand physics.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Time lapse purported to show larger Sun)

The video on the left just overexposed more, to make the flare around the sun larger. Unless you shut down well enough to keep the disk apparent, you can't make any comparison.

 

[SkyWriting]

Look, let's have a little experiment, Davebajobauk:

Go into your shower and turn up the water. You will feel the shower head push against your hand in the opposite direction of your hand. You will realise that this force stays constant, no matter if the water is directed against a wall or against the ceiling.

Why? Because for every force in one direction, there is another force in another direction. If you sit in a boat on a lake, and you throw a bowling ball over the side of the boat, the boat will move a short distance in the opposite direction. This is not because of the bowling ball "pushing" against the air.

And yes, this works in a vacuum, too.

That's a good experiment.
When my wife takes city kids to the zoo, they ask if the animals are real.
When she takes them to the museum, they ask if they are alive.

 

[davedajobauk]

So, where is Australia in this video ?....
https://support.google.com/youtube/?p=report_playback
We should surely be able, to see it ... and the Arctic, by turning our heads around ??

Whaat ?

 

[davedajobauk]

#
Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth)
noticed that during lunar eclipses
(when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round.
This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.

#
Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth
is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.


#
If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.

But – you say – ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round.

Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view.
If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon”
because of the curvature of the Orange.
If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed:
The ant would have slowly ‘materialized’ into view

#
Let's be done with this FLAT EARTH view....¬v

http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

 

[The Barbarian]

These were things observed before Christ was born, and from it, the ancients knew the Earth was round. Roman coins exist, showing the Earth as a sphere.

They were smarter than some people living today.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let's be done with this FLAT EARTH view.

That's impossible. 99% of the population experiences a flat earth.
Let me illustrate.
You hire me to build a "perfectly flat" sidewalk from the front
of your house that extends three miles. The next day you come
home from vacation and decide to take me to court.
Your two complains are that the first step up to the sidewalk
is six feet and your second is that once on the step it slopes
downhill and so is not level. Also at the other end, six feet
above ground it is sloping upward again. You lose the lawsuit
because you asked for the sidewalk to be perfectly flat, not level.

To you, perfectly flat and level means curved to the earth.
In your mind "flat and level" is curved and curved is flat and level.

 

[SkyWriting]

These were things observed before Christ was born, and from it, the ancients knew the Earth was round. Roman coins exist, showing the Earth as a sphere.

 

[davedajobauk]

That's impossible. 99% of the population experiences a flat earth.
Let me illustrate.
You hire me to build a "perfectly flat" sidewalk from the front
of your house that extends three miles. The next day you come
home from vacation and decide to take me to court.
Your two complains are that the first step up to the sidewalk
is six feet and your second is that once on the step it slopes
downhill and so is not level. Also at the other end, six feet
above ground it is sloping upward again. You lose the lawsuit
because you asked for the sidewalk to be perfectly flat, not level.

To you, perfectly flat and level means curved to the earth.
In your mind "flat and level" is curved and curved is flat and level.

No I have-to disagree.... Horizontal is "level"
and "Flats" can occur as an 'hypotenuse' ~at any angle or vector

Both a Wall and a Ceiling can be flat and, whereas a wall may be level at it's finished height, it's foundation may well have incorporated an unlevel base (on the ground)
Generally speaking, a ceiling is both, flat and level

 

[SkyWriting]

No I have-to disagree.... Horizontal is "level"
and "Flats" can occur as an 'hypotenuse' ~at any angle or vector

Both a Wall and a Ceiling can be flat and, whereas a wall may be level at it's finished height, it's foundation may well have incorporated an unlevel base (on the ground)
Generally speaking, a ceiling is both, flat and level

In my illustration, a mildly curved surface is considered flat and level by the population
based on their experience with gravity dictating what is flat and level.

A flat earth is what people experience both here and in China.
The concept of the earth as a globe is an intellectual curiosity
that has no practical application for most of the population.

It's just like explaining that most of the cosmos is "DarK Matter"
and that the space between atomic particles is so great that
all that we see is mostly empty space.

 

[davedajobauk]

In my illustration, a mildly curved surface is considered flat and level by the population
based on their experience with gravity dictating what is flat and level.

A flat earth is what people experience both here and in China.
The concept of the earth as a globe is an intellectual curiosity
that has no practical application for most of the population.

LOL

Again, I would have-to disagree
and, so would everyone that lives on a hill (hillside)

'Line of sight' has it's limitations, obviously

 

[SkyWriting]

LOL

Again, I would have-to disagree
and, so would everyone that lives on a hill (hillside)

'Line of sight' has it's limitations, obviously

Most of the world's population lives near water and knows what "flat and level" means to them.

 

[katerinah1947]

For the fairly modern era I tend to use Einstein's work done in 1905 which included the theory of special relativity and the Michelson-Morley experiment done in 1887 as benchmarks for what the big boys were dealing with. When one realizes just where the frontiers of physics were at those points it becomes obvious that certain misconceptions were not held by real scientists in the 1920s and 30s.

Hi,

To calibrate me, for you, I did Semiconductor Research at Fairchild Research and Developement Labs in Los Altos California, with of course the great hopes of taking my BSEE equivalent from DeVry Institute of Technology and converting it to a real BSEE as they said would happen within a few months of my working for a firm in my field. Oh, by the way, I still only have that BSEE equivalent. It's really frustrating, even though working in a research lab with the top 5 and 10%'rs of the world is an education. The education is rather diverse, as it includes all nationalities of the earth, and actually all disciplnes of science.

Physics was a part time field. Later I became interested in who "I" fondly call M&M's. That is a memory item, like using PJ's for the transfiguration event, that is only possible if you are not a Christian, as for Christians it is a belief, and for me with the research it is a fact.

M&M's is what all this is for. I am going to see if I can avoid the research on this, by asking if you know.

As near as I can figure out, Michelson and Morely could have just summarized their results. And to defend that notion, all of my work merely is a summary of my experimental results. So, if they had summarized their results, it would seem to me that the statement they could have made was the speed of light is constant, no matter what the relative velocities of the observer are.

Did they do that?

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

Research has many essential elements. The one I wish to talk about is calibrations. All things in research, including the researher are calibrated for error. Usually equipment has only 1% or less of error in todays world. Listeners who are asked to recall their information, normally have an 85% error or so. Only, because I left the feild in 2008, do I now not remember all the calibrations of people numerically.

At work, because folks, corporations, my family, eating, all depended upon me to be accurate in the 1985 to 2008 set of years, my accuracy at work was above 80%, even on personal projects that involved people rather than errant machines, or processes.

What I am proposing, I am still proposing. "One experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions."

All the Flat Earth People, if. If they are being honest in wanting to know, just have to do one experiment to find out whether or not the earth is flat.

However, and again if they are being honest, all it takes is one of them that they have calibrated, to a level of accuracy they can use, then have that one person talk to or take the jet ride, or the ballon ride.

One experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions.
(For me this was first seen on the glass blowers wall of Fairchild Research and Developement Labs, as you entered their area in the machine shop in the basement of that facility. I knew what it meant. It meant, don't ask me a million questions about whether this fixture or that fixture will work better, just have me build it, out of Quartz usually, and then you test it. You would be the engineer. As, a disclaimer, I don't remember if I asked, and those may have been my thoughts on that subject. However, it is not the first time that I had heard of the concept. It was just the first time it was so well told to all of us egg heads. I liked it.)

LOVE,

 

[ecco]

I have repeatedly asked you to present a visual depiction of your concept of the earth. I have even offered a possible example.

How do you perceive the shape of the earth?

 

[keith99]

Hi,

To calibrate me, for you, I did Semiconductor Research at Fairchild Research and Developement Labs in Los Altos California, with of course the great hopes of taking my BSEE equivalent from DeVry Institute of Technology and converting it to a real BSEE as they said would happen within a few months of my working for a firm in my field. Oh, by the way, I still only have that BSEE equivalent. It's really frustrating, even though working in a research lab with the top 5 and 10%'rs of the world is an education. The education is rather diverse, as it includes all nationalities of the earth, and actually all disciplnes of science.

Physics was a part time field. Later I became interested in who "I" fondly call M&M's. That is a memory item, like using PJ's for the transfiguration event, that is only possible if you are not a Christian, as for Christians it is a belief, and for me with the research it is a fact.

M&M's is what all this is for. I am going to see if I can avoid the research on this, by asking if you know.

As near as I can figure out, Michelson and Morely could have just summarized their results. And to defend that notion, all of my work merely is a summary of my experimental results. So, if they had summarized their results, it would seem to me that the statement they could have made was the speed of light is constant, no matter what the relative velocities of the observer are.

Did they do that?

LOVE,

No. remember they were working in a time when it was thought there had to be a medium that light traveled through just as a water wave traveled through water. The aether. There experiment was to try to detect it. It was a case of success by failure. Their design should have detected it and did not. I'm pretty sure the observation that was expected was a shift in interference patterns when the device was rotated because the aether could only be stationary in one frame of reference. It would be quite unlikely to pick exactly that frame and after repeated tests have it do so every time.

When a car passes you while the driver leans on the horn you will notice the pitch changes, there is a shift in the wavelength depending on the speed of the car relative to you and this changes from coming towards you to going away. The equations for that include the speed of the car and also any speed you would have relative to the air (the medium the sound wave travels through). If you check the equations for a similar shift with light you will see it is only relative speed that matters. This is directly testable today, it was not in 1887.

 

[katerinah1947]

No. remember they were working in a time when it was thought there had to be a medium that light traveled through just as a water wave traveled through water. The aether. There experiment was to try to detect it. It was a case of success by failure. Their design should have detected it and did not. I'm pretty sure the observation that was expected was a shift in interference patterns when the device was rotated because the aether could only be stationary in one frame of reference. It would be quite unlikely to pick exactly that frame and after repeated tests have it do so every time.

When a car passes you while the driver leans on the horn you will notice the pitch changes, there is a shift in the wavelength depending on the speed of the car relative to you and this changes from coming towards you to going away. The equations for that include the speed of the car and also any speed you would have relative to the air (the medium the sound wave travels through). If you check the equations for a similar shift with light you will see it is only relative speed that matters. This is directly testable today, it was not in 1887.

Hi,

Thanks.

LOVE,

 

[SkyWriting]

If they are being honest in wanting to know, just have to do one experiment to find out whether or not the earth is flat.

However, and again if they are being honest, all it takes is one of them that they have calibrated, to a level of accuracy they can use, then have that one person talk to or take the jet ride, or the ballon ride.

We never make decisions based on one experiment, nor should we ever.
Visual observations are not always accurate especially over long distances.

 

[SkyWriting]

It would be quite unlikely to pick exactly that frame and after repeated tests have it do so every time.

Even repeating tests may not reveal the needed details.
"In the real world there are however atmospheric effects of mainly ray refraction that tend to cause objects beyond the theoretical horizon to sometimes be visible. Thus the visible setting sun is usually a little below the theoretical horizon. In like manner, the effect is to increase the apparent height of distant peaks."

So experiments could show the earth to be flat.
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html