Recent Posts

91
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by SexWarrior on August 16, 2017, 07:10:47 AM »
So you would agree that if this weren't Trump we're talking about, his statements would be fine?
See, the problem here is that you're not reading Trump's mind correctly. We're all experts at knowing exactly what's going on in other people's minds, especially if we never spoke to said people. You'll have to step up your game if you want to roll with the FES lefties.
92
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« Last post by inquisitive on August 16, 2017, 06:57:19 AM »
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
You have no evidence that the WGS-84 shape of the earth is incorrect.  Still waiting for details of what equipment you need.

If you are claiming that some device or method is accurate, then you are obligated to post the evidence here rather than repeat "prove me wrong".
What equipment would you use to determine the shape of the earth?

Why do you not look for evidence and give us the details here?  What do you define as evidence?

Is the timeanddate.com correct for your location?
93
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« Last post by frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 05:20:46 AM »
Have you ever flown on an airplane Tom?
94
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« Last post by Curious Squirrel on August 16, 2017, 05:14:13 AM »
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.
http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html Surveying does not use Long/Lat for Triangulation and it uses simple trig to determine distances for mapping. An older map or road map would have used the method of laying known lengths of material down to measure the starting distance. If I can show a map from 1884 has the same distance information (within reasonable margin of error) as one done today, will you accept those distances? (US government offers maps from 1884 here but at the time of this post their system for retrieving older maps is down.)

From your link:

Quote
because the distance between the survey points is generally long (typically about 30 kilometres) the calculations also allow for the curvature of the Earth.
How about if I can find a map that uses only trilateration or traversing? Hopefully not too difficult. Neither method mentions the curvature of the Earth (although I would note this is why I mentioned comparing to older maps, as if the Earth was flat and surveying was used maps would not come out the same every time. As such older maps should show likely significant discrepancies as they didn't have the same 'base' locations as todays maps would.)

Second option. Give us a set of points and distances between them you know are accurate. If we can present a map that can match those distances, we can build outward from there.
95
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« Last post by frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 05:11:31 AM »
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


[quote  author=frodo467]Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".
[/quote]

Yup. Confirmation bias claims another. No point arguing if he won't consider any data because he "knows "What he knows, except he doesn't know what he doesn't know and no amount of talking or evidence will change that. He has has belief entrenched and any consideration of opposing evidence simply causes a state of cognitive dissonance. Being comfortable in a lie is too damn comfortable.
96
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« Last post by Tom Bishop on August 16, 2017, 05:06:58 AM »
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


Quote from: frodo467
Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".
97
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Expedition to Antartica
« Last post by treerings on August 16, 2017, 05:04:14 AM »
Don't under estimate the difficulties in exploration. Admiral Byrd had the entire resources of the US Gov. 4,700 men, 13 ships and 33 aircraft in operation highjump.

As the movie jaws said. We're gonna need a bigger boat !

I agree It would not be an easy expedition, however we didn't really hear about his successful expeditions.

I do see some logistical issues with brining enough fuel and trying to get vehicles that are "Arctic ready".
98
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones
« Last post by Hollocron on August 16, 2017, 04:59:46 AM »
fuck that episode was dope as fuck af

The white walkers are going to win.

nope

This is Game of Thrones, not Lord of the Rings.

You have to admit that Game of Thrones has always had a general "good guy wins" vibe to it. There's a lot of bad things happening to good people, and sometimes the villain gets away with it, but ultimately the "good" tends to win out despite the odds.


They set it up to make it look like the good guys are going to win, and then do a red wedding. I think it's going to end with some of the major characters becoming sentient white walkers/undead (like Benjen), and then they control the armies of the undead as Westeros is forced to rebuild.

Also, one question I have is: are the show's creators working with Georgo to make sure the show plot lines up with what will be in the final book, or are there going to be two separate storylines?
99
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« Last post by frodo467 on August 16, 2017, 04:49:54 AM »
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.
http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html Surveying does not use Long/Lat for Triangulation and it uses simple trig to determine distances for mapping. An older map or road map would have used the method of laying known lengths of material down to measure the starting distance. If I can show a map from 1884 has the same distance information (within reasonable margin of error) as one done today, will you accept those distances? (US government offers maps from 1884 here but at the time of this post their system for retrieving older maps is down.)

From your link:

Quote
because the distance between the survey points is generally long (typically about 30 kilometres) the calculations also allow for the curvature of the Earth.

So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all.  He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 



Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.
100
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Expedition to Antartica
« Last post by J-Man on August 16, 2017, 04:34:50 AM »
Don't under estimate the difficulties in exploration. Admiral Byrd had the entire resources of the US Gov. 4,700 men, 13 ships and 33 aircraft in operation highjump.

As the movie jaws said. We're gonna need a bigger boat !