Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So this is totally off topic but since you were explaining the pendulums at Lagrange points thing, and thus caused this strange thought, I'm hoping you may have an answer. Or that you'll be just as confused as I am, either is acceptable really.

Ok so, gyroscopic "reactionless" propulsion systems are real and have actually been used on satellites. I have to get that out of the way because people will say Nuh uh dats impossible! But it's not, the ESA has public information about tests they've done with them and they do work.

Anyway, my question is would a gyroscopic reactionless propulsion system work at a Lagrange point?

I'm pretty sure that they would work just fine, but by no means certain.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Pendulum will not stop at lagrangian but will stop at the event horizon of a black hole

Wow can we keep our theories constant at least? from everything you have ever stated, the pendulum would swing infinitely fast around a blackhole, not slower. You stated in your many replies in other threads, when you lift a pendulum into the air, it swing slows because time dilation works in an opposite manner to relativity that Relativity is exactly backward.

Following this, using basic logic, you have now changed your mind, and presented inconsistent observables.

a reply to: roguetechie

Anyway, my question is would a gyroscopic reactionless propulsion system work at a Lagrange point?

It would, since it utilizes angular momentum which operates just fine in freefall.

But it's not a propulsion system, it's an attitude control system.

a reply to: Akragon

Surely, some of us do. I know I do. You roundies always like to group all the most unlikely facets into a more easily debunked bundle, but variety is the spice of life.

This whole grand conspiracy goes back before the roundies mustered their forces too. It really all goes back to the demonization of the square (I.e. "you are a square) and the age old culmination of the battle of titans: Pythagoras and Archimedes.

It has since fractaled out into the circumstances we see today. The clear takeaway is that the battle field of flat earth is just one conflict between two religions. The arbiters of Truth, those who believe the earth is flat clearly, and the adversary: Roundies.

This great battle goes back many, many generations and was alluded to even in Scripture. Because of this, we can easily deduce that roundies are the devil.

originally posted by: roguetechie

Scale is very important in these discussions for this reason. (And really in all technical discussions)

scale, proportion, spatial reasoning, and et cetera are all very important to these questions and topics but they aren't really taught well at all even in college unless you're on a STEM track or in certain trade school pipelines.

Roguetechie, I agree, and I think there’s another complicating factor in play—intuition. Even when taught the dispassionate skills you mention, as well as others, one has to be taught at the same time to favor those skills over intuition and the senses. For example, in instrument-flight training, students must learn to disbelieve the seats of their pants and their inner ears, and to trust the instruments instead, because the seats of their pants and their ears will lie to them. FlatEarthers talk an awful lot about trusting their senses, without understanding that in many settings the senses are unreliable, even ineffective altogether, and that the information they produce is not only useless but deceptive. A good illustration is to stand at the shoreline, look out and declare, “It looks flat…so it must be flat!”

Scale throws people off if they trust their own intuition too much. They will assume a large aircraft doesn’t have to contend with a crosswind like a small one does, simply because they’ve seen someone lose a hat in a stiff breeze without losing their own footing. Or they’ll assume that a trailing satellite must thrust forward to catch another one ahead of it, because that’s what you’d do in a car on a highway. FlatEarthers are notorious for denying scale when it counts, such as the variance of gravity at distance. Yet they harp on scale when it doesn’t count, for example believing that in absence of acceleration, higher velocities should be more easily felt by the human. Their intuition tells them that if the ground is moving some 1,000 mph at the equator, then that speed should be felt twenty times more than what a passenger feels in a car that’s doing a steady 50 mph. Hurtling through space at tens of thousands of mph? Hell, that should give us all whiplash!

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Pendulum will not stop at lagrangian but will stop at the event horizon of a black hole

Wow can we keep our theories constant at least? from everything you have ever stated, the pendulum would swing infinitely fast around a blackhole, not slower. You stated in your many replies in other threads, when you lift a pendulum into the air, it swing slows because time dilation works in an opposite manner to relativity that Relativity is exactly backward.

Following this, using basic logic, you have now changed your mind, and presented inconsistent observables.

Lol I have never said the above. yes time dilation does work opposite to GR

Where does the idea of hollow earth originate?

a reply to: Rollie83

YES!!

This is a massive issue here!

I was always taught that in the absence of better instrumentation you can trust your judgement if you absolutely have to, but to be extremely conservative.

Just like I want to know how to do the math I'm trusting software to do for me so that I can know if the results it's returning are reasonable!

There are days when I look around at the world and wonder if we have hit our high water mark as a species and what we're witnessing now isn't the beginning of the slow decline...

a reply to: Phage

Fine, attitude control system...

Don't tell laithwaite that, he'd be sad... If he's not dead by now.

From what I am reading on he net laithwaite died under mysterious circumstances

a reply to: Hyperboles

citation required

a reply to: ignorant_ape

To be clear that post wasn't me endorsing laithwaite, I think stuff like that is interesting and thought provoking and there's some reality to it as can be seen by the satellite thing as well as the amphibious ball drones some company was experimenting with awhile ago.

But is it possible to make it truly useful? That is an entirely different question.

originally posted by: roguetechie

See you act like you're saying something profound here and have found some sort of gotcha moment, but here's the thing...

OUR MODEL ALSO INCLUDES GRAVITY!!

Yes, I'm aware you're including a non-existent, non-provable THEORY in your model.

Even that doesn't help you explain the problem.

Flying over a sphere is not possible without a descent, without the VSI measuring around a 6 fpm descent, no matter WHAT magical power is supposed to force planes to fly around a sphere at the same altitude.

What is the VSI reading as 0 fpm? A 6 fpm curvature magically shows 0 fpm?

originally posted by: roguetechie
If you incorrectly use science and math you will get trash for answers... That's it...

You're wasting your own and everyone else's time by continuing to post your nonsense. If you want to be a moron you are free to do so, but no one else is under any obligation to pretend that you're anything else but a moron.

A moron uses a non-existent theory to claim everything 'just works that way'.

TRUE science uses physics, and real measurements - not absurd 'catch-all' theories.

originally posted by: Ghostsinthefog
Where does the idea of hollow earth originate?

Jules verne and Jeremiah N. Reynolds were the two that really brought it to the public's attention. Jules verne journey to the center of the earth of course became a literary classic. And Jeremiah N. Reynolds was well known for his expeditions at a time when people believed there be monsters.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

So, according to you every single pilot in the entire world is either an idiot or lying? And there are no flights at all to the South Pole, every navigator on every ship is an idiot or lying and every geologist, physicist, astronomer, cartographer and hell, schoolteacher is a liar?
Get back under your bridge and stop trolling us please.

I take only facts, and all of the evidence, into account. I don't care what some supposed 'authority-figures' deem as true or false, all based on an absurd theory.

You act like 'gravity' is a scientifically proven fact, or something!! Not a theory, which it IS...


Insisting it is not a theory, that it is a proven fact, won't make it so, no matter how often you repeat it. No matter how many scientific papers suggest it is so, imply it, or presume it, and move on....it is merely a theory, and nothing more.

How do planes follow curvature without the VSI measuring any descent, which happens to be impossible, since a descent of at least 5 fpm is required to follow the same path of curvature. No exceptions. Not fairy tale 'forces' which make planes fly above a sphere like it were a perfectly flat, and level surface!

originally posted by: turbonium1
TRUE science uses physics, and real measurements - not absurd 'catch-all' theories.

You mean like when Erastothenes measured the size of the round earth over 2000 years ago?

a reply to: turbonium1
Why don't you launch your own goPro? You're not getting anywhere talking about flight dynamics, it's a dead end. Take some pictures from space yourself if you don't trust NASA's pictures, or these or other goPros or similar attached to rockets.

GoPro Awards: On a Rocket Launch to Space


There's a rapper trying to get funding for a project along these lines, but I think it can be done for a lot less than his figures. If the rapper got pictures of a round earth from space in that project, would you even believe those? Or would that just mean he went from being a flat-earther to being hijacked by the round earth conspiracy?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

He would say its just CGI...

Can't fix stupid

originally posted by: Rollie83 For example, in instrument-flight training, students must learn to disbelieve the seats of their pants and their inner ears, and to trust the instruments instead, because the seats of their pants and their ears will lie to them. FlatEarthers talk an awful lot about trusting their senses, without understanding that in many settings the senses are unreliable, even ineffective altogether, and that the information they produce is not only useless but deceptive. A good illustration is to stand at the shoreline, look out and declare, “It looks flat…so it must be flat!”

Actual instruments would .....measure feet per minute (fpm) as a plane's rate of ascent, and/or rate of descent, during a flight??

This is not about the surface being level, or not level, or being curved, or anything else!

If you know what an ascent is, and what a descent is, you'd also know what level means, too...

Ascent or descent don't refer to the surface of Earth.

A plane can ascend/descend over a mountain range, over a deep canyon, over lakes, etc.

Ascent or descent has nothing to do with a supposed 'curvature' of Earth's surface!!

They are aerodynamic terms, and so is level flight.


Do you need me to post a few sources?


The surface of Earth has nothing to do with a plane's flight being level, or being in an ascent, or being in a descent.


These conditions are based on the atmosphere.

Atmospheric pressure, is used, mainly, in determining the ascent, or descent, or a level flight. This is all explained by various sources.

Instruments DO NOT measure ANYTHING about a 'curvature' of Earth....just the opposite, in fact.


Instruments measure for flat, level surfaces, when it IS a flat surface.

A curved surface is not measured as flat, level surfaces are.


We can actually measure planes in descent, or not in descent.

It is all a grotesque lie, to claim the Earth is just a big ball!

a reply to: turbonium1

The surface of Earth has nothing to do with a plane's flight being level, or being in an ascent, or being in a descent.

By George!
I think he's got it!

a reply to: Phage


No he doesn't

He still doesn't have a clue