A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus

[smartcooky]

Personally, if I was to guard such an establishment, I think I could cut down on the number of soldiers by using some sort of early warning system, and a means to transport soldiers from a smaller number of central barracks locations to wherever they were needed. That should be able to reduce the number of soldiers needed by ~90%, although it would in turn require a sophisticated (and weather-proof) transportation system (plus the radar system)

The original FE loony argument I read was that you cannot climb the ice wall because it is "patrolled by armed guards". No mention of early warning systems and radar.

Its this loonacy that I was addressing.

Ah. Good point.

I wonder, then, when this guard system was introduced? Seeing as explorers have been visiting Antarctica since the late 18th century, is this where superannuated members of the Continental Army were sent? Or de-mobbed Confederates?

You should try Googling "Ice Wall Guards"

[Glom]

For me, it's the basic questions that are best. So Antarctica is a circle around all of this disc? Why can we not climb up this wall and peer over the edge?

Answer given: The US mans the ice wall to prevent anyone from doing so with a shoot on sight policy.

What the actual <bleep>?

That ice wall would have to be 60,000+ km long.
So where would they get the manpower?

A conservative estimate would be a minimum of four armed guards (two on two off) every 100m or so, in three, eight hour shifts. They cannot just be standing outside for eight hours, so they will need a decent sized guard house to live in for their tour of duty.

To cover 60,000 km, that is 600,000 guard houses and 7.2 million armed guards with 1.2 million of them on duty at any one time. And that doesn't even take into account the support staff and equipment to keep these men supplied, fed and watered, plus waste disposal, electrical power, guards going on leave and a raft of other considerations. If typical operational v support staff ratios (about 5:1) were applied, that is a huge army of about 40 million soldiers, several hundred thousand Antarctic-capable vehicles and several thousand helicopters. I haven't even begun to calculate the total cost of such an operation, but even just the wages and benefits using the only figures I could find ("As of 2010, a Congressional Budget Office report estimated that the average active duty soldier receives an average $99,000 per year in compensation that includes pay and benefits, with 60 percent of the total being non-cash compensation.") works out to a wages and benefits bill of 3.96 TRILLION US$ p.a. over six times the current US Military budget, and almost a quarter of the USA GDP!!!

That may ne true, but it's worth it to protect the secret because... er... it's important that people don't know for some reason.

Yep, and that's the illogic at the heart of the FE conspiracy: it's one of the most pointless conspiracies I can think of.

I mean, even though Tradosaurus endorsed the views of someone who was an anti-Semite, I still don't see the point - why exactly would The Jews want people to think a flat Earth was actually round?

Isn't it obvious? The Jews are winning at dradle because the dradles are loaded. But if everyone thinks the Earth is round they can blame the strange behaviour of the dradle on the Coriolis effect.

[molesworth]

Personally, if I was to guard such an establishment, I think I could cut down on the number of soldiers by using some sort of early warning system, and a means to transport soldiers from a smaller number of central barracks locations to wherever they were needed. That should be able to reduce the number of soldiers needed by ~90%, although it would in turn require a sophisticated (and weather-proof) transportation system (plus the radar system)

The original FE loony argument I read was that you cannot climb the ice wall because it is "patrolled by armed guards". No mention of early warning systems and radar.

Its this loonacy that I was addressing.

Ah. Good point.

I wonder, then, when this guard system was introduced? Seeing as explorers have been visiting Antarctica since the late 18th century, is this where superannuated members of the Continental Army were sent? Or de-mobbed Confederates?

Then there's Antarctic tourism.  A relatively modern development admittedly, but there are now thousands of ordinary people visiting every year, and none of them have reported any sightings of guard towers, armed personnel or the like.

I've been twice (and plan to go again) and even in Summer it's not the sort of terrain you could easily guard.  Of course most, if not all, the people who believe this sort of nonsense have no idea what it's like, apart from what they've seen on a few wildlife programmes on TV.

[Geordie]

C'mon. Occam's Razor dictates that the Hypnotoad is working double-time down - I mean, around there.

 

Seriously though, I'm envious that you've been there at all, though I have been to Inuvik, NWT, which is 200 miles north of the arctic circle (the farthest north one can drive, in the summer that is,) at the solstice, and have seen the sun go around and around in circles. You can't tell what time it is, even if you're wearing a watch - there're no clues as to what time it might be (three a.m.? three p.m.? I can't tell...)

[Count Zero]

It is hard to debunk stupid.

True, but the FE crowd have a proposed explanation.

See, the light bends in unexpected ways giving rise to the illusion of curvature...

Unexpected, but in a way that's totally consistent with what you'd see if you were standing on a sphere.  o.O

[molesworth]

Seriously though, I'm envious that you've been there at all, though I have been to Inuvik, NWT, which is 200 miles north of the arctic circle (the farthest north one can drive, in the summer that is,) at the solstice, and have seen the sun go around and around in circles. You can't tell what time it is, even if you're wearing a watch - there're no clues as to what time it might be (three a.m.? three p.m.? I can't tell...)

Another trip took me to Svalbard, and in the town of Longyearbyen there's a beautiful sundial, with a polar bear holding the gnomon, which has a 24 hour time scale :-)  (not my image below...)

[Everett]

The flat earthers are idiots, are the earth is round, but one of their arguments did leave me with an honest question. How to artificial horizons in aircraft correct for gyro drift? (They do, obviously, but I'm wondering how.) I've flown (in flight simulator, admittedly) a lot of planes with very old (1930's -1950's) autopilots, and while gyro drift for the directional gyro is corrected using the knob next to it and cross checking it against the magnetic compass every 10 minutes or so, the artificial horizon is a 3 axis gyro, so I would guess that said know wouldn't work for the other two dimensions? Just something I'm wondering about.

[ka9q]

That's actually a very good question. The artificial horizon is not a completely isolated gyro; it responds very slowly to gravity, which eventually restores it to a center position (wings level). In electrical engineering terms, the system is a high pass filter with a response zero at zero frequency that removes a constant (DC) term. This works because airplanes spend most of their time flying straight with wings level, turning for only short periods of time. This also works to adapt to the very slowly changing idea of "down" as you fly around the globe.

A true inertial navigation system, on the other hand, does keep an inertial reference in space as the earth rotates around it, so it does need to compensate for the earth's rotation and your movement around it. It takes a very stable platform to do this.

I've wanted to demonstrate the earth's rotation with a commonly available MEMS IMU (the kind now found in practically every smart phone, tablet computer and hobby drone) but the effect is right at the rated threshold of sensitivity of the gyro element.

These gyros produce a rate signal for each axis that you integrate to find actual orientation as a function of time. Static offsets and noise in the gyro causes the integrator output to drift without limit over time, so these devices also provide a magnetometer and an accelerometer to provide a long-term external reference for "north" and "down". The accelerometer is affected by actual accelerations as well as gravity, so its output has to be smoothed over time to take out short term movements to provide an accurate estimate of "down". All these sensor signals are combined in either a complementary filter or a Kalman filter to provide a best estimate of attitude and heading, and you can do even better by adding a GPS.

[Everett]

That's actually a very good question. The artificial horizon is not a completely isolated gyro; it responds very slowly to gravity, which eventually restores it to a center position (wings level). In electrical engineering terms, the system is a high pass filter with a response zero at zero frequency that removes a constant (DC) term. This works because airplanes spend most of their time flying straight with wings level, turning for only short periods of time. This also works to adapt to the very slowly changing idea of "down" as you fly around the globe.

Ah, so that's how it works. OK then. Most people don't seem to realize that autopilots predate computers that don't fill a room (or heck - computers AT ALL: Autopilots were invented in the 1930's, and as far as I'm aware, were in widespread commercial service by the time WWII started; All DC-3's (1935? give or take a year) came with them as standard equipment. (At least I "think" they did.) In 1949 Boeing was shipping aircraft from the factory with a 3 axis autopilot capable of making coordinated turns.

A true inertial navigation system, on the other hand, does keep an inertial reference in space as the earth rotates around it, so it does need to compensate for the earth's rotation and your movement around it. It takes a very stable platform to do this.

I've wanted to demonstrate the earth's rotation with a commonly available MEMS IMU (the kind now found in practically every smart phone, tablet computer and hobby drone) but the effect is right at the rated threshold of sensitivity of the gyro element.

These gyros produce a rate signal for each axis that you integrate to find actual orientation as a function of time. Static offsets and noise in the gyro causes the integrator output to drift without limit over time, so these devices also provide a magnetometer and an accelerometer to provide a long-term external reference for "north" and "down". The accelerometer is affected by actual accelerations as well as gravity, so its output has to be smoothed over time to take out short term movements to provide an accurate estimate of "down". All these sensor signals are combined in either a complementary filter or a Kalman filter to provide a best estimate of attitude and heading, and you can do even better by adding a GPS.

I'm pretty sure INS systems were widespread in airliner service by the 70's. Question - does an INS system require a digital computer, however primitive (such as the one Apollo used, with its core rope memory and all)? What a second, upon father thought - considering the dates - were INS systems developed for spaceflight in the first place? Then again, probably not, more likely missile guidance - I "think" the V2 rocket had what must of have the first one ever mass produced. So maybe, in a way. (Also not a very good one either, but they were inventing it for the first time, so I cut them some slack.)

[Everett]

Since I missed the actual thread with tradosaurus...
--First off, I could have sworn that Apollo suits used, my IIRC, it was either 4.2, 4.3 or 4.6 PSI, it was one of those. I guess I must have been thinking of the shuttle program. (In fact, I think that's where I read it. Or it could have been somewhere talking about spacesuit design in general.)--

My mistake, the above was actually from another different thread. Still had the same reaction though.

Side note, I'm pretty sure he's deleting posts, since I see responses to ones that are missing when I read the page.

Yes, I delete part of posts that I am replying, to condense the entire reply.  Can you not just go back to the original post to read the entire part?   Does it change the fact that NASA is a bunch of liars and thieves and the universe is much smaller than we were brainwashed to believe?

Actually, I'll have to defend tradosaurus here on this one. I regularly quote only the relevant portions of posts I'm quoting, on many different forums. Normally not a problem, although I see how it could be here. Also, I regularly break up long posts I'm quoting into multiple relevant chunks, with my reply in in between. (See post above) (Other than the striked out part of course.

[Everett]

2. If I am wrong on the tunnel dimension please show me the true dimensions of the tunnel entrance to the command module.  My shoulders are 24 inches from end to end and with a "space" suit on it would be much larger so hopefully your dimensions will be at least 42" or bigger.
3. Here is a picture of the Command module. Pay attention to the dimensions and then imagine the 3 parachutes with a lot of cord and all the other equipment plus 3 men fitting in this small space for 6 days of travel.  According to NASA, 3 crew members spent 3 days to the moon and 3 days back to earth IN THE CM.   One of the videos where Neil Armstrong manipulated the camera to show a "ball earth" it shows the astronauts with plenty of room.  They should have been in the CM.  Now look at the picture.  Can you imagine being strapped to the chair with 2 guys with no room to stand up?  Also the parachutes were stored in the top of the CM so how was it stored so that the astronauts still had room to make it thru the access tunnel?  I think NASA's Hollywood department should have done a better job. 

One, if you have 24" shoulders, you must be a football (American, not rest of world) linebacker. Second, and this is pretty darned ironic, he asks "can you imagine all that fitting in there?, with a picture."

Reading his post and looking at the picture, and going by nothing else, I'd actually have to answer that "yes, I can in fact imagine it all fitting in there, looking at the picture you posted. Looks like it fits well. They also rather smartly put the non-habitable stuff in the corners of the CM where it would be nearly useless as habitable volume anyway, due to the resulting shape. Pretty good space utilization, actually. Judging by the size of the astronauts in the picture, looks liked in zero-G it would be mildly cramped, but perfectly adequate. "

[Everett]

For another joke, his the post where his dismisses the picture of the satellite as 'CGI,' then provides a Hollywood picture of his own - I can almost guarantee that the object in the first photo exists. I'm not quite sure why, but the material surface properties - CGI just can't pull it off yet. (To be fair, it could easily be a studio prop (almost certainly full scale, a small model would look off) placed in front of a green screen, with CGI to remove the supports - that method could actually could to be used to make that picture with a true-to-life appearance.) The picture he posted as a rebuttal from some movie somewhere - I can almost guarantee it is CGI. Again, not sure quite what, but the surface properties - they're off in the way CGI is off. The quality CGI is capable of is often rather over estimated, it seems.

Also, his picture has the usual "stars in the background" mistake, they wouldn't be there on a real picture.

[Geordie]

That's actually a very good question. The artificial horizon is not a completely isolated gyro; it responds very slowly to gravity, which eventually restores it to a center position (wings level). In electrical engineering terms, the system is a high pass filter with a response zero at zero frequency that removes a constant (DC) term. This works because airplanes spend most of their time flying straight with wings level, turning for only short periods of time. This also works to adapt to the very slowly changing idea of "down" as you fly around the globe.

Ah, so that's how it works. OK then. Most people don't seem to realize that autopilots predate computers that don't fill a room (or heck - computers AT ALL: Autopilots were invented in the 1930's, and as far as I'm aware, were in widespread commercial service by the time WWII started; All DC-3's (1935? give or take a year) came with them as standard equipment. (At least I "think" they did.) In 1949 Boeing was shipping aircraft from the factory with a 3 axis autopilot capable of making coordinated turns.

A true inertial navigation system, on the other hand, does keep an inertial reference in space as the earth rotates around it, so it does need to compensate for the earth's rotation and your movement around it. It takes a very stable platform to do this.

I've wanted to demonstrate the earth's rotation with a commonly available MEMS IMU (the kind now found in practically every smart phone, tablet computer and hobby drone) but the effect is right at the rated threshold of sensitivity of the gyro element.

These gyros produce a rate signal for each axis that you integrate to find actual orientation as a function of time. Static offsets and noise in the gyro causes the integrator output to drift without limit over time, so these devices also provide a magnetometer and an accelerometer to provide a long-term external reference for "north" and "down". The accelerometer is affected by actual accelerations as well as gravity, so its output has to be smoothed over time to take out short term movements to provide an accurate estimate of "down". All these sensor signals are combined in either a complementary filter or a Kalman filter to provide a best estimate of attitude and heading, and you can do even better by adding a GPS.

I'm pretty sure INS systems were widespread in airliner service by the 70's. Question - does an INS system require a digital computer, however primitive (such as the one Apollo used, with its core rope memory and all)? What a second, upon father thought - considering the dates - were INS systems developed for spaceflight in the first place? Then again, probably not, more likely missile guidance - I "think" the V2 rocket had what must of have the first one ever mass produced. So maybe, in a way. (Also not a very good one either, but they were inventing it for the first time, so I cut them some slack.)

  Back in the seventies, this awesome and eccentric grade six teacher that I had told us about this guided missile system that used pigeons trained to peck at a bullseye which would move off-center when the missile started going off course. Detecting the off-center pecks, the guidance system would bring the missile back on course.
  Some years later I recounted this tale to a different adult who scoffed, sneered, and looked at me like I was some kind of conspiracy theorist.
  Well, it turns out that the internet has my back on that one:

  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/bf-skinners-pigeon-guided-rocket-53443995/

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

  Thanks, Mr. Miskelly, wherever you are.

[gillianren]

Actually, I'll have to defend tradosaurus here on this one. I regularly quote only the relevant portions of posts I'm quoting, on many different forums. Normally not a problem, although I see how it could be here. Also, I regularly break up long posts I'm quoting into multiple relevant chunks, with my reply in in between. (See post above) (Other than the striked out part of course.

But that's the opposite of what I was seeing.  I'd see people quote posts in response, but I wouldn't see the post itself when I read the page.