Видео

I'm working on it, but had to move mid project and haven't finished.... ruclips.net/video/YmhXZQnd4n4/видео.html The gyro has an awfully small flywheel, I don't know how successful it's going to be.

Probably not: Water has a very high absorption and emissivity at the wavelengths involved, and so they absorb the energy and just re-radiate it as heat. However I will definitely try it out when I get a chance and some clouds!

I did 😀 ruclips.net/video/5U2BvH4k8GQ/видео.html I used same setup but in the moonlight, and no thermal latent shadow or hot spot was created.

Hey brother, good to hear from you! I haven't seen you around in a while, I hope you're doing well!

IKR

You and me both! I did get the strap on keel welded up but haven't had a chance to put in the tiedown holes yet. The reason I'm winding paracord is I need 1000ft of paracord as a leader to be on the end of the 6km of buoyant line in order to have something to run through the windlass as I tension it.

I know.. I know... So far I haven't figured out how to get the thermal imager app to record sound while recording video... This was just a quick test I threw up for you guys :D I didn't have time to dub in a sound track.

I'm using this, but if you have iphone you have to get the iphone version. www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0C23Z42KX

@@fromjesse Take those radiometric temperature numbers with a grain of salt wrt accuracy.....relative measures ok. Moon is white hot when I images with my 640 X LWIR.

@@pablosdog2808 Yeah, normally this thermal imager does the shutter-frame calibration every few seconds and is spot on.. But for some reason that night it was NOT doing the repeating dark frame calibration except once at startup, and so the temperature readings were going way off after a few minutes. I still need to figure out what's going on with that. However I did do some tests, and it was showing the difference in colors for temperature differences as small as about 0.2 degrees, so if there had been a cold moonlight effect I still should have seen it!

@@pablosdog2808 By the way, it would be great if you could do some videos showing your results of moon and moon light through your thermal imager and put them to youtube! The "Cold Moonlight" people are telling me that I'm the only one who has ever failed to measure moonlight to be cold...! We need more real world data!

@@fromjesse aka Flat Field Correction FFC. Try changing the temp of the camera a bit...some FFC every like ~.5 C delta or every 5 minute (on that order). I've played with many set-ups...IR radiometric cameras and t couples...and don't see the cold moon light...yet. Ken Wheeler did...with a FLIR One.

And PS Travis, watch out for guys with trundle wheels! I'm hoping more people will help in this experiment!

I wonder why he doesn't show up, he must be on holiday for the aether band tour.

That's great! Thank you!

Fortunately it measures as spheroidal and rotating :D

The top rubber knob slides of and does have to come of. As an update, the top end of the rubber boot has cracked where it was stretched over the rod. Its not perfectly water proof now but still better than it was. I think the uv got to it.

This experiment would be easier for you than it was for me! You have to push the wheel less distance!

Да

Backstory is that as more people do this it debunks flat earth because obviously on a flat earth, the length of an arcminute of longitude will simply increase linearly with distance from the center. However, on a globe -- And in Reality -- the length of a longitudal arcminute gets longest at the equator, then starts getting smaller as you progress southward beyond the equator. So this is basically checkmate against flat earth because anybody anywhere can use simple tools to measure the length of a minute of longitude at their location, and this shows that the surface is not flat. I am hoping more people all around the globe will do this experiment and publish their results!

@@fromjesse Gotcha, nice work as always. I figured that was the main idea but just thought maybe it also was in response to some recent specific bit of derp. I wouldn't use the word faith but it really is something how they don't at least "trust" science & the thousands of experts who got us where we are since the dawn of BIG thinking. & not only that but, to actually proclaim they know WAY better while simultaneously providing literally nothing except nuh uh is what makes this whole FE phenomenon sad, absurd, aggravating & funny AF, all in one. Anyway, it's like a catch 22, on one hand the best thing we could do is just ignore them but on the other, there clearly ought to be at least 100 debunks for every single one of their silly public proclamations. Which is why I learn towards supporting any such informative/educational content, it's about the only silver bullet IMO.

@@fromjesse Since the flerfs love Google Earth they could easily find East/West runways all around the world and test this for themselves with very little effort and zero expense. They won't even do that so don't hold your breath waiting for them to do a real experiment like you have. Great video!!!

@@sendintheclowns7305 Yup, I think it was either wolfie or wally who had already done just that several years ago now.

@@realcygnus I think it was Wally who did it with runways and others have done it using roads and even entire countries. CHL did something similar using Australia vs the USA if I recall correctly. Flerfs will of course avoid any such experiment like the plague.

Yeah, Dr. Lewin loves to put on a great magic show, and doesn't appreciate it when people point out his sleight of hand. He called me a "Flat Earther" for daring to question him about his claims regarding KVL! haha!

@@fromjesse just my naive (practical) interpretation noticed it was coupled inductors , a transformer. he maintained it was the E field which of course would be feeble at this freq and disregarded the well known rf principle of near field coupleing being inductively reactive at less than wavelength

Thank yo for checking it out!

That pretty much sums it up most of the time, but now and again I do have an interesting discussion!

LOOOOL. I love how people, like you, who know nothing and have never done anything in their life come along and dis on people who actually do stuff! But no, the toy gyro was brand new at the time and had not been dropped yet (LOL) and was very well balanced and just running very quietly. I had spun it up with it's little motor and it was working as good as it could. If you don't think so, get one and try it yourself!! If you really think that stainless on stainless pressure ball pivots have zero drag then you are just wrong. Go try it yourself before call stuff misinformation! You're the one spreading misinformation!

@@fromjesse I believed that because didn't see a 1:47 a micro cut (clock behind 6:23 -> 6:25) and then gyro was stoped. Where can I buy a real gyro in belgium please ?

@@bArraxas said: > _I believed that because didn't see a __1:47__ a micro cut (clock behind __6:23__ -> __6:25__) and then gyro was stoped._ Correct. Up to 6;23 on the stove clock the gyro was spinning. I was demonstrating the gyro effect. Then I paused the camera and stopped the gyro, then started the camera at 6;25 on the stove clock in order to show the bearing friction without the gyro spinning. Sorry if that confused you. > _Where can I buy a real gyro in belgium please ?_ How much money do you have to spend on it?

@@fromjesse 250 euros is it enough ?

@@bArraxas I'm afraid the best you could get for that is a "Heading Indicator" which is the type of aircraft gyroscope shown in this video: ruclips.net/video/xNYW8JWMVOY/видео.html They are not as perfect as is ideal, but if you are careful like I show in the link I just gave you, you can objectively test and see the 15 degrees per hour. But you have to be very careful and it is tedious. But it can be done.

Watch this carefully a couple times. Once you understand how they work, you'll understand how they track without losing angle: ruclips.net/video/EM051IXJD9Q/видео.html

Above all, Geo is clearly NOT arguing in good faith as he simply delivers monologues peppered with what seem to be rhetorical questions while never allowing you time to answer any questions or explain, in detail, the procedures that you've used. Maddening to listen to and I doubt I'd be able to remain calm under those circumstances.

I think top and bottom would only be zero if the two resistors were equal. If its really important I can set up and measure top to bottom for you.

@@fromjesse Thanks. Cyriel Mabilde made that measurement and results are as KVL says for our resistor ratio: 0.4V ;) (0.9-0.5 = -0.1+0.5 = 0.4) His setup was quite similar to yours with radial and movable probelines. 0.4 was the same result as I got for a simulated DC net with rings of batteries instead.

6km

Wow I don't remember exactly how I got the panel off, maybe it was some screws or plastic fasteners? I don't think it was too much trouble.

@@fromjesse yep; it was easy to pop off

@@mingus0706 Good to hear! Was your plastic screen chewed through? (Or were the holes big enough for mice?)

I don't understand your question.

@@fromjesse I'm saying that the way you draw your diagrams is the way you do your experiments. You raise the light stream upwards by manipulating it as if the light in the atmosphere initially rises up. This is not a question, but a remark that you are deceiving yourself.

@@algirdasbartusevicius473 I am not deceiving myself or anybody else. We can discuss this experiment once we get some basics settled, I asked you a question in another thread, and I will continue to ask it until you answer it.

@@fromjesse Trying to prove that light in the atmosphere bends down, but at the same time pointing the laser light up, is cheating and manipulation. I will also repeat this until you understand it.

@@algirdasbartusevicius473 You really don't understand density gradient refraction do you, even after literally seeing it in action in full color HD video. Maybe this will help. Light travels slower through more dense medium. In a gradient, this causes the light to veer towards the more dense medium. It doesn't matter whether the light starts with an initial upward, level, or downward slope, it steel veers more downward. Check out this video. It shows all kinds of different beam angles, and you can see I'm not forcing a particular outcome by fine tuning my entrance angle of the laser beam. ruclips.net/video/khOzbCXGnW0/видео.html

Yup, that's what I'm getting... Even though at 58ft my horizon is around 9 miles on the water, at 1.5mm observer height the horizon should be at 4.5feet... But it's not.. So they just say "You gotta do it bigger" but they provide no logical or mathematical reason as to why, or as to how much bigger.

@@fromjesse intuition bro 🤣

Lights bending up

@@ConcaveHollowEarth seems to be

@@brianleake7762 Consequence of light bending up, is it makes things APPEAR lower than they actually are -- the more so the greater upwards bending path of the light. So if the more so light is further away, it'll be taking a greater bent upwards path to the observer, making it appear more lower than it is This also (atleast for concave earth) explains the horizon dip as we go more up and up. To when you're in ISS territory, it "appears" like a convex globe but it isn't. Even sunsets and the like are explained with this same reason. The sun moon and planets are orbiting the celestial sphere up above us. They are small and contained within the earth, so why don't we look up and see Halo Earth and see the other side? The reason for this is because again light is bending up. The other side of the world the light never reaches the observer because it bends up towards the center of the earth....and the stars and sun seem to envelop us and go beneath us, but that's only because of an illusion caused by the upwards bending light. Rather than look up and see the celeestial sphere, its light is warped and bent around us like a tent... For concave earth, when we see boats bottoming out, it's really the light bending up at a ggreater rate than the curvature of the earth itself. THe difference between them makes it appear like its curving down but it isn't

​ @brianleake7762 Consequence of light bending up, is it makes things APPEAR lower than they actually are -- the more so the greater upwards bending path of the light. So if the more so light is further away, it'll be taking a greater bent upwards path to the observer, making it appear more lower than it is This also (atleast for concave earth) explains the horizon dip as we go more up and up. To when you're in ISS territory, it "appears" like a convex globe but it isn't. Even sunsets and the like are explained with this same reason. The sun moon and planets are orbiting the celestial sphere up above us. They are small and contained within the earth, so why don't we look up and see Halo Earth and see the other side? The reason for this is because again light is bending up. The other side of the world the light never reaches the observer because it bends up towards the center of the earth....and the stars and sun seem to envelop us and go beneath us, but that's only because of an illusion caused by the upwards bending light. Rather than look up and see the celeestial sphere, its light is warped and bent around us like a tent... For concave earth, when we see boats bottoming out, it's really the light bending up at a ggreater rate than the curvature of the earth itself. THe difference between them makes it appear like its curving down but it isn't

The laser spot should have appeared less bright at greater distance because the extreme angle means that only a very thin sliver is visible to the camera. This is just geometry. But the important thing is that every bit of the surface is still visible. You say I needed "another 30 or 40 feet." How do you determine that? If I did it with 50 more feet, would you just say I needed another 100 feet? And so on? The fact is, when I'm at 58 foot observer height at the boat launch, the horizon is about 9 miles away. On the scale model, the eye-height was 1.5mm above the surface, and by the same ratio as real life shows at 58ft observer height, the horizon should have been at 4.2 feet. And yet it wasn't anywhere even in 9 feet. 58 feet / 9.3 miles = 0.0011811665 1.5mm / 4.167 feet = 0.00118100788 So what gives? I recreate an exact scale model of a real-world observation I have, and it doesn't work. What basis do you have for saying I need more distance? I've got more than TWICE the distance I should need. Do you have some mathematical formula that predicts this phenomena? Or do you just say "Well if it didn't work you need to make it bigger because earth is flat and so it has to work on flat earth?" I mean I realize it's a tough point for flat earth. If you can't create a horizon on a flat surface without using bending light and temperature gradients, then you have no explanation for sunsets or bottom up obstruction in reality. But at the end of the day, as honest people, we need to come to grips with the fact that flat surfaces in and of themselves may not actually cause horizons like you think they do.

Do tell! What distances and what angles are needed for a horizon to form on an equal temperature flat surface?

@@fromjessemore than you have here Dude. Equal temperature. That’s hilarious. Also, who says flat surfaces “inherently” cause anything? Who? When we are looking out over the water to the horizon, it is not the surface causing anything. Ok? The surface is circumstantial, just like the sky. The cause of the limitation of view is always distance and elevation/angle, and the conditions of the medium. Have you seen SKYFREE? They do micro demos where they create horizons in their home as well as out in the field. Take a look at their work.

@@theubercaste > _Have you seen SKYFREE? They do micro demos_ I have. They used a WARM FLOOR under COLD AIR. Not equal temperature. Light curves towards the more dense region, so of course the warm floor would have a horizon under cold air. But the fact is, we have horizons on the ocean and lakes all the time when the water is not warmer than the air. > _more than you have here Dude._ Well, if you don't know how much, then how can you say I don't have enough? If I doubled it, you'd still say not enough. Your only criteria is that if it doesn't show what you wish it showed, it isn't enough. But that's circular logic. That's affirming the consequent: You're using your belief in flat earth to prove flat earth.

Ugh. You’re so tedious dude. You have claims here YOUVE NOT PROVEN. How about start with those. Look back at your comment and find your claims about bendy this and temperature that, and demonstrate your claim. The fact that you doubled down on the distance comment that I made, it’s just proof you’re thick as a brick dude

Ugh. You’re so tedious dude. You have claims here YOUVE NOT PROVEN. How about start with those. Look back at your comment and find your claims about bendy this and temperature that, and demonstrate your claim. The fact that you doubled down on the distance comment that I made, it’s just proof you’re thick as a brick dude. And no, if you doubled your distance I wouldn’t say that…bc you haven’t doubled your distance yet. So, put up, or shut up.

Ha! In my rough quick calculation, the angular size of the laser spot on the counter top at the far point would be about 0.0002 degrees or so. That would be about 1/200th of a single pixel! Waaay below the resolution limit of the camera. And yet still visible.

@@fromjesse It must be magic. That laser should have disappeared into the vanishing point, according to the laws of Flerspective.

If you ask Oakley, the flat table proves earth is flat. Especially if you use it to get an angle of elevation.

Ffs

The stars don't diverge. They only appear to because of the distortion of the lens. If you actually MEASURE the ANGLE between any two stars throughout the night, you will find that the angle between them actually remains CONSTANT.

@@fromjesse so they don’t 100%?

I'm 100 miles east of the West Coast, (Sequim, WA) so I really never thought of myself as being in the ring of fire. Earth quakes and volcanoes is something we here just never think about unless it's on the news from California or something.

@@fromjesse can you get elevated enough to sight Shasta?

@@Baron_Rutledge It's 450 miles from me, so I think not since I have no practical way to get 65000 feet high. However, when I was in California visiting family only 105 miles away from Mt. Shasta, I did get up on an 8900ft tall mountain and could see it! ruclips.net/video/J2gjuaO1hE4/видео.html

@@Baron_Rutledge I'm all the way up near the Canadian border :D

@@fromjesse 😂I didn’t do my research on that one!