Flat Earth

[WorldWar1812]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8FVHOJko4c

 

[grav]

The psyop of space travel began in 1958 when Nazi scientists were brought to the US in a NWO project called Paperclip.
Walt Disney was a major player in the agenda to brainwash taxpayers into funding NASA. Tinker Bell was a clue telling us that everything Disney was really a fairy tale. As usual, the sheeple fell hook, line, and sinker for the sci-fi fantasy.
Then, we got all our ideas about space from Star Trek, Star Wars, and beaucoups of other tall tales from Hollywood and the government.
This propaganda program from 1955 got us ready for the fake space agency.
In 11 years, Nasa went from bupkis to the moon. 1962, touchdown.
After 4 more years of faking moon landings, they closed it down. We lost that great technology. Not making that up. That's been the official alibi for 62 years.



View: https://youtu.be/beofFQ_QuiA

 

[cnut]

I was researching info on the ring laser gyroscope, and found this video explaining
how rlgs are used on modern airplanes. It does a good job explaining how the rlg
actually works, and its function.
The End of Flat Earth? Ring Laser Gyroscope (bitchute.com)

Thanks,
cnut

 

[sandokhan]

The narrator in the video says that "the ring laser gyroscope is based on the Sagnac effect". That proves rotation at once. That is why FE believers, and geocentrists, are helpless when confronted with this kind of argument. They might try to deny statistically the MGX, claim anything they want, but in the end they have to accept that RLGs are an exemplification of the Sagnac effect. 99% of mainstream physicists do not understand the difference between the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect.

Each ring laser gyroscope must have TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS which describe its physics: the mechanical effect, which is simply a deflection of the light beam (Coriolis), and the electromagnetic effect, the modification of the speed of the light beams (c + v and c - v), (Sagnac). Modern physics uses only one formula, which is the Coriolis effect, and then claims that this is the Sagnac effect formula.

 

[6079SmithW]

I can't believe we're having this discussion

Earth is observably flat, and any 'evidence' to the contrary is demonstrably false.

If you still spout NASA, space x or heliocentric theory - I can't take you seriously

 

[sandokhan]

I can't believe we're having this discussion

Earth is observably flat, and any 'evidence' to the contrary is demonstrably false.

For the sake of this discussion, please debunk the ring laser gyroscope which the heliocentrists say proves that the Earth is rotating around its own axis.

 

[Safranek]

any 'evidence' to the contrary is demonstrably false.

The point here is that as yet nobody has PROVEN this to be false even though it must be false if the earth is stationary. I see only two options available;

1. Prove that the RLG is NOT measuring rotation.

2. Devise and conduct an experiment that proves the earth is stationary.

thereby two questions remain;

1. Who, how and when can prove the RLG to be false?

2. What instruments do we have available or can we devise that can prove the earth to be stationary.

At present, this is the situation. All other proofs on either side, no matter how convincing are simply not accepted as proofs for 'stationary'.

 

[sandokhan]

The world of mainstream science is a very nasty and unforgiving environment for those who challenge its basic premises, that is why everyone here needs a solid arsenal of arguments and proofs at their disposal.

1. RLG are true, the formula is false. Use the global Sagnac effect formula, the one which features the velocities.



2. Vertically launched projectile (a tennis ball will do).

Here is the formula for the lateral deflection:

g = 32ft/s2

TE = period of rotation = 86,400 s

λ = latitude

Let's consider 58 seconds needed time for a bullet to come back on the surface of the earth :

Using our formula above :

1. If we were at the North Pole our bullet should come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 75,27 feet (22,5 meters) away from our gun.

For a tennis ball the time measured might amount to 10-12 seconds.

 

[0x92]

The world of mainstream science is a very nasty and unforgiving environment for those who challenge its basic premises, that is why everyone here needs a solid arsenal of arguments and proofs at their disposal.

1. RLG are true, the formula is false. Use the global Sagnac effect formula, the one which features the velocities.



2. Vertically launched projectile (a tennis ball will do).

Here is the formula for the lateral deflection:

g = 32ft/s2

TE = period of rotation = 86,400 s

λ = latitude

Let's consider 58 seconds needed time for a bullet to come back on the surface of the earth :

Using our formula above :

1. If we were at the North Pole our bullet should come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 75,27 feet (22,5 meters) away from our gun.

For a tennis ball the time measured might amount to 10-12 seconds.

 

[sandokhan]

Well done.

Now, deal with this.

Now, go ahead and fire a projectile as follows:

Let vo = 1,000 m/s and θo = 45 degrees (neglecting air drag and other factors such as the Coriolis and the Eotvos effects).

R = [1,000^2sin90degrees][{1 + 1,000^2cos^2(45deg)}/(9.81x6,378,164)}]/9.81 = 102.7514 km

You will find that the formula which incorporated the curvature of the Earth does provide the CORRECT FIGURE.

The projectile will land at a distance of ~102.75 km.

So, how do you debunk this, if you are a FE?
[automerge]1607947042[/automerge]
This is the RE formula for a ballistic trajectory:

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g x {1 + [vo^2/gRe][cos^2(θo)]}

This is the FE formula for a ballistic trajectory (limit as Re goes to infinity):

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g

The difference is considerable: it amounts to kilometers.

That is why no other FE for the past 150 years has been able to address this very important matter. The most that some of them have done, is to deny the actual calculations.

Here are the trajectory range tables used by the US Navy during WWII:

OP-770 Page 1 Range Tables for 16"/50 caliber gun

Had the FE formula with a fixed g been used, each and every target during WWI and WWII would have been missed by a large margin (mobile targets - other ships, fixed targets - ports/cities).

 

[Safranek]

Well done.

Now, deal with this.

Now, go ahead and fire a projectile as follows:

Let vo = 1,000 m/s and θo = 45 degrees (neglecting air drag and other factors such as the Coriolis and the Eotvos effects).

R = [1,000^2sin90degrees][{1 + 1,000^2cos^2(45deg)}/(9.81x6,378,164)}]/9.81 = 102.7514 km

You will find that the formula which incorporated the curvature of the Earth does provide the CORRECT FIGURE.

The projectile will land at a distance of ~102.75 km.

So, how do you debunk this, if you are a FE?
[automerge]1607947042[/automerge]
This is the RE formula for a ballistic trajectory:

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g x {1 + [vo^2/gRe][cos^2(θo)]}

This is the FE formula for a ballistic trajectory (limit as Re goes to infinity):

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g

The difference is considerable: it amounts to kilometers.

That is why no other FE for the past 150 years has been able to address this very important matter. The most that some of them have done, is to deny the actual calculations.

Here are the trajectory range tables used by the US Navy during WWII:

OP-770 Page 1 Range Tables for 16"/50 caliber gun

Had the FE formula with a fixed g been used, each and every target during WWI and WWII would have been missed by a large margin (mobile targets - other ships, fixed targets - ports/cities).

This immediately raises a question;

Why would the data used at this 39th PTTI meeting (2007) NOT include the curvature of the earth in its documentation if they already had a formula for it in WW2?

I would surmise that;

Either the formula presented is incorrect (in which case it would have already been shown).

or,

The mechanical apparatus that was being used for aiming the projectiles was done according to a different formula which when applied these measurement would hit the correct spot. If this is the case then we would be able to discover this by analyzing one of the aiming apparatus.

 

[sandokhan]

https://www.ion.org/publications/browse.cfm?proceedingsID=68
Why should the formula for a ballistic trajectory have been included at those proceedings? Did they even mention this fact?

Now, the formula which has been derived above is correct, and was used correctly by the US Navy.

What is going on then?

 

[Safranek]

What I meant was 0x92 's post. One of his documents was a 2007 PTTI document.

What is going on then?

I would surmise that;

Either the formula presented is incorrect (in which case it would have already been shown).

or,

The mechanical apparatus that was being used for aiming the projectiles was done according to a different formula which when applied these measurement would hit the correct spot. If this is the case then we would be able to discover this by analyzing one of the aiming apparatus.

The 3rd option would be a RE, but then why are they assuming a flat non-rotating earth in the PTTI documents in 2007?

 

[sandokhan]

They are assuming a flat non-rotating earth for flight dynamics, which is a different subject. Not for the ballistic trajectory.

The formula for the ballistic trajectory of a projectile is correct, see the derivation. Had it not been correct, all of the targets would have been missed badly (WWI and WWII). This fact excludes the possibility that a different formula would have been used secretly. Anybody can fire a projectile, use the formula, and see that it works indeed.

But that is a formula for a globe.

That is why no other FE has ever been able to tackle this issue, not Rowbotham, not anyone else.

If we use the FE ballistic trajectory formula, the target will be missed badly.
[automerge]1607959288[/automerge]
Here is the FE formula:

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g

Can't modify vo or the angle.

So, is g a constant, or can it become a variable?

 

[0x92]

They are assuming a flat non-rotating earth for flight dynamics, which is a different subject. Not for the ballistic trajectory.

The formula for the ballistic trajectory of a projectile is correct, see the derivation. Had it not been correct, all of the targets would have been missed badly (WWI and WWII). This fact excludes the possibility that a different formula would have been used secretly. Anybody can fire a projectile, use the formula, and see that it works indeed.

But that is a formula for a globe.

That is why no other FE has ever been able to tackle this issue, not Rowbotham, not anyone else.

If we use the FE ballistic trajectory formula, the target will be missed badly.
[automerge]1607959288[/automerge]
Here is the FE formula:

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g

Can't modify vo or the angle.

So, is g a constant, or can it become a variable?

I dont care about complicated formulas. Are you able to debunk these both videos?

Both videos proof that theres no Earths Curvature.


View: https://youtu.be/G19hmYbk87g



View: https://youtu.be/bMFOtW-FagA

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

I was researching info on the ring laser gyroscope, and found this video explaining
how rlgs are used on modern airplanes. It does a good job explaining how the rlg
actually works, and its function.
The End of Flat Earth? Ring Laser Gyroscope (bitchute.com)

Thanks,
cnut

It does do a good job of explaining the theory of measuring rotation, provides animations, but then does not demonstrate this with an actual device to show this device at work. If it is so easy to measure rotation with this "precise" device, they should have no problem demonstrating it by actually using this device, placing it anywhere on earth, and thus measuring the supposed rotation of 15 degrees per hour. Animations are great at providing a visual idea of an experiment, but it still cannot substitute for an actual experiment. Do you know of a video that actually demonstrates this experiment?

 

[Citezenship]

Just for giggles, this strange shaped thing penetrating the upper atmos-fear, how do they get away with this??


View: https://youtu.be/6KWGxt-DXAQ

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

Just for giggles, this strange shaped thing penetrating the upper atmos-fear, how do they get away with this??


View: https://youtu.be/6KWGxt-DXAQ

Very interesting! Basically demonstrates what happens once you cannot go any higher. The velocity actually hits zero and then the rocket quickly descends back to earth after it hits whatever it is (firmament perhaps?) that stops it from both climbing higher in altitude and in velocity, yet the announcer is saying the rocket has entered "space", only to turn right back around and re enter the atmosphere! Talk about spin!

 

[sandokhan]

Those two videos (the first showing 'setting' behind an alleged curve) are not nearly enough to even start a debate. What you need is a video taken on the beach, on the European side of Gibraltar, showing the other shoreline from top to bottom.

So, the lesson to be learned from those formulas for a ballistic trajectory, is that you absolutely need ether theory (DePalma spinning effect) in order to apply the FE formula to real time situations.

Most physicists do not understand the implications of the existence of ether.



The calculation was carried out by Wolfgang Pauli, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

If the ether drift field (zero point energy, scalar waves) does exist, then the radius of curvature of the observable universe is 31 km.

Not the spherical radius, but the radius of curvature: if you look up, the distance to the second dome must be less than 31 km (including stars, planets, sun, moon, black sun, shadow moon). So the size (diameter) of the Sun must be much smaller than we have been led to believe, perhaps some 1000 sacred cubits (636 meters) in diameter.

If it is so easy to measure rotation with this "precise" device, they should have no problem demonstrating it by actually using this device, placing it anywhere on earth, and thus measuring the supposed rotation of 15 degrees per hour.

The rotation is being picked up daily by thousands of ring laser gyroscopes: we are talking about a light interferometer, and the Sagnac effect upon the light beams.

One cannot debunk the ring laser gyroscope by denying its effects, or its existence.

The RE are claiming that the RLG fringe shift is an example of the Earth's rotation. But is that the true Sagnac effect?

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

Those two videos (the first showing 'setting' behind an alleged curve) are not nearly enough to even start a debate. What you need is a video taken on the beach, on the European side of Gibraltar, showing the other shoreline from top to bottom.

So, the lesson to be learned from those formulas for a ballistic trajectory, is that you absolutely need ether theory (DePalma spinning effect) in order to apply the FE formula to real time situations.

Most physicists do not understand the implications of the existence of ether.



The calculation was carried out by Wolfgang Pauli, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, the radius of the universe would then be 31 km."

If the ether drift field (zero point energy, scalar waves) does exist, then the radius of curvature of the observable universe is 31 km.

Not the spherical radius, but the radius of curvature: if you look up, the distance to the second dome must be less than 31 km (including stars, planets, sun, moon, black sun, shadow moon). So the size (diameter) of the Sun must be much smaller than we have been led to believe, perhaps some 1000 sacred cubits (636 meters) in diameter.

If it is so easy to measure rotation with this "precise" device, they should have no problem demonstrating it by actually using this device, placing it anywhere on earth, and thus measuring the supposed rotation of 15 degrees per hour.

The rotation is being picked up daily by thousands of ring laser gyroscopes: we are talking about a light interferometer, and the Sagnac effect upon the light beams.

One cannot debunk the ring laser gyroscope by denying its effects, or its existence.

The RE are claiming that the RLG fringe shift is an example of the Earth's rotation. But is that the true Sagnac effect?

You keep claiming that rotation is being detected without demonstrating it in an actual experiment where we see 15 degrees of rotation per hour. Stating and then re stating theories and formulas proves nothing until it can be trialed in a repeatable experiment. I am not denying that this laser gyroscope may be able to detect motion or rotation or movement of any kind. What you are not demonstrating is this "precise" device showing that the earth is rotating by conducting the actual experiment. Does the earth rotate? Let's use this gyroscope to answer that question! But then no demonstration. If it is being picked up by thousands of devices, show me.