Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TomInAustin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12  Next >
1
Flat Earth General / Re: The Moon
« on: Today at 12:06:30 AM »
Attached is the moon cube file.  Get Sketchup, it's a great program.  This file will make you smile when you rotate around views and see how impossible it is to have a moon 3000 miles away and still have everyone see the same face.


2
Flat Earth General / Re: The Moon
« on: August 18, 2017, 11:56:09 PM »
Perfect proof using Tom's favorite Rubix cube model of a 32x32 mile cube at 3000 miles

Shots were slightly south of center line to show the 3d geometry

Figur d1 shows 3000-mile geometry
Figure d2 shows that the east face is Light blue and dark blue, the bottom is black and white, and the front face of light and dark green
Figure d3 shows the west face is light pink and dark pink, the bottom is black and white, and the front face of light and dark green
Figure d4 shows that a viewer east of the center line would see the bottom black and white, the east blue face and the front green face
Figure d5 shows that a viewer west of the center line would see the bottom black and white, the west pink face and the front green face
Figure d6 shows that a viewer on the center line would see the bottom black and white and the front green face

This proves what we already knew, you can never see more than three sides of a cube and 3000 miles is not nearly far enough away for everyone to see the same view of a cube or the moon.

Obviously, distance is not relevant.  This works at 3 microns, 3 mm, 3 inches, 3 miles, 3000 miles.   Tom would have us believe in some magic light bending where all my viewers saw the same thing.  Not going to happen. 

Case closed.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: The Moon
« on: August 18, 2017, 11:07:54 PM »
Again you try to twist the point.  Perspective has nothing to do with viewing angle.   If a person is standing in front of you, facing you dead on.  You are not going to see their back.  I dont care if you are 3 inches or 30 feet.  As already proved, the moon is not 3000 miles away.  It's quite obvious to anyone that can think it through.

Your evidence is based on a thought experiment, not what actually happens at large distances.

No, it's based on reality.  You can't read a billboard from the back or see the other side of a sphere no matter how bad you want it to be so.   It's proven that the moon is much further than 3000 miles.  Angles do not lie, the math does not lie. 






4
Flat Earth General / Re: The Moon
« on: August 18, 2017, 10:40:20 PM »
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.   

Case closed.

Next

Please back up your ideas for how perspective works at that scale with an example of where we have seen distant objects turn to perspective like that.

Again you try to twist the point.  Perspective has nothing to do with viewing angle.   If a person is standing in front of you, facing you dead on.  You are not going to see their back.  I dont care if you are 3 inches or 30 feet.  As already proved, the moon is not 3000 miles away.  It's quite obvious to anyone that can think it through.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: The Moon
« on: August 18, 2017, 09:15:45 PM »
You are assuming that large scale perspective works in that manner.

I can only assume this was a response to my proof.  Perspective and viewing angle are not the same thing. The diagram as simple as it is, took all of 2 minutes, is all the proof anyone needs that  3 viewers at the distances used would see totally different views and features of the moon.  There is no evidence and in fact, it is plain silly to think that people on one side could see the other side because it is totally blocked.  The distances are not relevant, it could be 3 feet, 3 miles, 3000 miles.  The viewing angle is what dictates what we can see.   

Case closed.

Next

6
Flat Earth General / Re: FES Think Tank - Week 1 Poll
« on: August 18, 2017, 09:09:03 PM »
Whatever topic we decide to discuss democratically, I'll chime in.

I voted perspective, but I'll discuss conspiracy if that's what people want to talk about.

I don't know much about distances, and I'm not that interested in them, I don't know why, just bores me or overwhelms my brain for some reason.
There's only so much room in my brain for flat earth topics, so that one sort of fell by the wayside...althou I have a strange, sort of semi-serious theory about how distances might work on a flat earth.

Everyone should pay attention as the distance question is the biggest hole in FE as there is no possible flat map that can be drawn using verifiable and proven distances.


7
Flat Earth General / Re: The Moon
« on: August 17, 2017, 07:08:04 PM »
That was merely an example of possibility, not an actual figure. There is a lack of research on the maximums of perspective theory and it is quite possible that it may scale or operate differently than the scenario I invented on the spot.

Here is proof you are wrong.  Assume 3 people standing on a line where the center is roughly under "your" 3000-mile high moon that's 32 miles in diameter.   I made my line 2627 miles as that was a random drag across the USA in Google Earth (but that's not relevant)  This diagram proves that someone on each end and one in the middle would see 3 totally different views of the moon.  Since we know that's not possible we know the moon is not 3000 miles high.

8
Blart, the stars could be technological metallic spheres flying/orbiting around.

Or they could be huge spheres of hydrogen, so large that gravity creates a fusion reaction so bright we can see them from trillions of miles away.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airplanes lit from below
« on: August 17, 2017, 02:27:06 PM »
Your usual unhelpful answer.  It was not true then or now and I am sure you know that.

Why would the London Journal lie about this subject?

Quote
Equipment list for determining the shape of the earth please.

What are you talking about and what does it have to do with this thread?

It has never been proven in a laboratory.  Please provide evidence.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: In FE what are meteors
« on: August 17, 2017, 01:26:05 PM »
Quote
But I thInk I read something somewhere where they were chunks of ice or something falling off the dome ?
geckothegeek, if meteors were made of ice, then any observer could see watersplashes from melting ice, since the meteors haven't been observed falling with too much speed for the water too be leaned in to the chunk and to be solid, if i got physics right. Correct me if not!
Quote
Could it just be rocks falling through the atmosphere
Smokified, from where? These rocks need to be falling from really far or high enough to start burning from friction against air particles, if i again got physics right.
And it would be even more inconsistent with meteors, if there is actually the dome/bi-dome mantle around/above earth.

Smokified, have you ever seen how high-altitude balloons are falling down after reaching some point and ripping into "umbrella skeleton" stripes. After that camera falls down, and doesn't burn in atmosphere, but falls down with at variable speed, sometimes similarly to a ball falling from the hands of a boy.
So does it mean that burning of an object in the atmosphere, while falling down, is dependent on the material this object is made of? Do regular objects even burn in the atmosphere, while falling down, or is this just another of many non-materializing indoctrinations we believe in(it's supposed to be materialized...)?

Quote
It is Atmoplane, Atmoplane !
There is no atmosphere on a flat earth !
geckothegeek, why not, it would be just one-sided demi-atmosphere!

Quote
Questioning things simply to question them does not make you smart, it in fact makes you an idiot trying to appear smart.
Smokified, I don't wanna be smart or look smart, i wanna know the truth(and i CAN handle it - whatever it is).
Quote
What motive would there be to make up anything about meteors?
Smokified, and what motives would be to make up things about space, sun, moon, stars, etc! It's obvious these objects in the sky are not what've been taught with.
What motives would be to trick us into eating GMOs and other garbage, that destroys our health and permits cancer cells, whether cancer exists and it's not different illness with different properties than we've been told, to evolve in the organism!!
What motives would be to indoctrinate us in schools, universities and throughout all our lives!
What motives would be to link in our minds the murdering of each other as patriotism and vigilant guarding of the people, country!
What motives would be to make us use toilet paper, and in future '0s and 1s' as money and to use possible earth's blood(oil) as most valuable resource! I won't go on.

Quote
Do you ever spend any time at all questioning your own bullshit?
Smokified, of course i do. Whenever i get more older i analyze my past lifeages and what've said, felt, thought, experienced. But don't be surprised(or do, that's your will...), if my fantasies will be proven correct, because anything can be LITERALLY materialized through our consciousness/mind.

Quote
To question something, you need to have some sort of tangible evidence in mind to suggest that the observations are false.
Smokified, perhaps that's my intuition that's telling this to me, and "intuition almost never lies". I just doubt that information about meteors is true and not "shifted from something else".
"Questioning things simply to question them" is my reality check in case i'm stuck in a lucid dreaming state.

Smokified, you supposed to insult me to tears? But you haven't achieved that. However if you purely believe in yourself and literally "apply in mind" your imagining of getting me very emotional and crying to your next post, you might get, what i fantasize right now, what you wanted.
I don't forget to keep in my mind or in my subconsciousness buffer that there are paid government/of companies paid by the government with large amount of money shills in the truth/resistance/spiritual awakening movement to discredit the truth and to control portion of sheep, that leaved the herd and compassionately want other sheep to leave too. Including in (whether belongs to the truth or not, but in what the awakened people interested in) Flat Earth Society. I'm just saying - in case you're one of them, but i hope not. I hope you're just a human, experiencing a paradigm/indoctrination shift/break, which makes you angry and aggressive towards new and, at first, crazy ideas.

Let's not make this thread a debate thread for junker to work on.


So if i reduced your beliefs down to one concept it would look like this?  Everything is a lie, a conspiracy, a scheme, and a sham.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: need more information
« on: August 17, 2017, 01:22:48 PM »
It's not?!?!?...and here I was hoping to become a convert...but no one is addressing any of my questions...hmmmm...

The grand poohbah of flat earth is Tom Bishop.  Read the debate thread about airlines and distances to get an idea of how he thinks.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: In FE what are meteors
« on: August 16, 2017, 04:14:39 PM »
I am curious what the FE group says about meteors.  What are they, where do they come from.  Tonight is peak viewing BTW


https://www.space.com/32868-perseid-meteor-shower-guide.html

I could be mistaken (as usual) But I thInk I read something somewhere where they were chunks of ice or something falling off the dome ?

Since they are predictable maybe it is a scheduled defrosting of the dome? 

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 16, 2017, 01:39:19 PM »
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".

What you are saying is you will disregard any science that doesn't go along with your superstition. 

A short list of Proofs that have been provided here

GPS accuracy
Mapping accuracy
Radar Accuracy
Flight duration accuracy

Of course, you have the luxury of hiding behind the "We don't have a map" concept.  The good news is that other than blind fanatics, anyone reading this thread will see right through the obvious fear and dishonesty you display.   Case in point,  I showed this thread to a few people and the common reaction was belly laughter.  "How can someone be so stupid?" was at the top of the list.







14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 16, 2017, 02:04:34 AM »
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.

So you have no intention of having an honest debate?  GPS is proven to be accurate and you know it. 

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 15, 2017, 08:57:22 PM »
TB is, maybe on purpose, confusing GPS which is an accurate location system with applications that use the location data.  There is no doubt about the accuracy and repeatibility of GPS data.  Those in the US will be familiar with its original purpose.

What I hoped for here is an honest debate.  Trying to derail a debate with talking points is too much like politics, not science.

I think the debate should just be on "flat earth" and not a debate on "flat earth-vs.-round earth."


Very good point

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 15, 2017, 06:35:09 PM »
TB is, maybe on purpose, confusing GPS which is an accurate location system with applications that use the location data.  There is no doubt about the accuracy and repeatibility of GPS data.  Those in the US will be familiar with its original purpose.

What I hoped for here is an honest debate.  Trying to derail a debate with talking points is too much like politics, not science.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: FES Think Tank - Week 1 Poll
« on: August 15, 2017, 05:27:10 PM »
I vote Distances.  This should be the one that the FE crowd would embrace as it would be possible to create a rough draft map based on verifiable distances.   No one is ever going to agree on the conspiracy and the science of the perspective thing has way too many nebulous areas.  But distances via flight times with a very small margin of error can't be disputed.

Google Sketchup is a very common and free program that anyone can download and the files can be shared.   I submit we create a file that contains triangles scaled to 3 points on each southern hemisphere continent and are spaced according to direct flight miles between 3 cities that have nonstop flights to the other continents.   Circles are placed on each city with a radius of flight miles to a point on another triangle. (Such as Sydney to Johannesburg). It will be simple to drag the groups around and see if there is any way possible to align the continents(triangles) in such a way that the distances work on a flat map.  This eliminates any argument over the actual shape of each continent.

Since there are variations on routes based on engine count I suggest we only use flights that are direct with 4 engine aircraft.  Note: I believe the 787 has been rated to fly the same routes as a 747 but I need to dig deeper.   


The one point in the Flight distance thread that Tom repeated was that distances are unknown.   Therefore I suggest we either use the published cruise speed or a constant (average 747 and Airbus cruise) to calculate the distance based on flight times that are known and provable.  This should stay within an acceptable accuracy given the fact that published flat earth maps show 2x to 4x factors of great circle distances.


Comments?

I found Tom Bishop's statement  : "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown." rather curious.
This information is known and readily available for reference.

I pointed that out so we can eliminate that argument in advance.   The flight times are known, the aircraft cruise speeds are published. Flight Aware has been shown to be accurate within a couple of minutes of refresh time.* All we have to do is agree on a format and we are good to go.  I would like to do this in as nonconfrontational a way as we possibly can.  As stated I think the FE team would welcome this as a way to get their rough draft map.  It would be great if we could get the usual cast of characters involved too.  If all we get is Tom disputing every step it's a complete waste of time.  We can do a lot better, but even an error rate of 5% would be better than anything I've seen yet.

Tom, you agree?  If not what would you change?  What is an acceptable error? 



* I picked my wife up at the airport Saturday on a flight from Atlanta.  I had my iPad open to Flight Aware and it showed the flight landing within 30 seconds of the plane flying past my windshield in the cell phone lot.

Just an observance.:
It seems to me that any data other than any thing they, a flat earther, personally, have done by and for themself is either a fake, is erroneous, inaccurate or is questionable  in all aspects of flight times, speeds, distances, etc . ?

I am assuming the positive here.  It would be easier if Tom was not still over in the Debate thread saying GPS is not accurate but maybe sanity will prevail.  What I would really like to know is where are the rest of the FE team in all this.


18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 15, 2017, 05:18:13 PM »
That post was already addressed. Here was my reply:

If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.

The only reply from the poster was a statement that Latitude and Longitude is correct. No evidence was provided for this statement. The only evidence in this thread are my sources showing that GPS provides incorrect distances. No sources have been provided show that any Round Earth navigational system provides correct distances. You and Frank continually refuse to provide evidence of such. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter.


There has been evidence posted as to the accuracy of GPS, both links and anecdotal (that you seem to approve and use yourself).  This link is all that needs to be said about it.  These guys built it, maintain it and document it.

Quote
For example, GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees.

High-end users boost GPS accuracy with dual-frequency receivers and/or augmentation systems. These can enable real-time positioning within a few centimeters, and long-term measurements at the millimeter level.


http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

That is about the accuracy of finding your own coordinates. It says nothing about the accuracy of the distances between the coordinates. Once you have your own coordinates, the distance between other coordinate points is in the software, and should not be in error, since the distances between the Round Earth longitudes and latitudes is supposedly a matter which is already known.

The fact that there are distance discrepancies, and the fact that the discrepancy grows with increased distance, shows that GPS is not accurate.

Correct, that is what maps are for.  They have been in use for a while now.  Oddly enough GPS's use maps as part of their operation.  One can drive 1, 10, 50, 1000 miles and be well within an acceptable margin of error.  I drove to Fayetteville AR, via Tulsa OK a few weeks ago and hit my GPS ETA in Tulsa within a minute in 504 miles door to door.  Not too shabby.



19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 15, 2017, 05:06:05 PM »
That post was already addressed. Here was my reply:

If any of those navigational systems use Latitude and Longitude then they are using a Round Earth coordinate system. It is difficult to imagine that Longitude and latitude is not used in any navigational system.

The only reply from the poster was a statement that Latitude and Longitude is correct. No evidence was provided for this statement. The only evidence in this thread are my sources showing that GPS provides incorrect distances. No sources have been provided show that any Round Earth navigational system provides correct distances. You and Frank continually refuse to provide evidence of such. There is nothing further to discuss on this matter.


There has been evidence posted as to the accuracy of GPS, both links and anecdotal (that you seem to approve and use yourself).  This link is all that needs to be said about it.  These guys built it, maintain it and document it.

Quote
For example, GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees.

High-end users boost GPS accuracy with dual-frequency receivers and/or augmentation systems. These can enable real-time positioning within a few centimeters, and long-term measurements at the millimeter level.


http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/


20
Flat Earth General / Re: FES Think Tank - Week 1 Poll
« on: August 15, 2017, 05:01:57 PM »
I vote Distances.  This should be the one that the FE crowd would embrace as it would be possible to create a rough draft map based on verifiable distances.   No one is ever going to agree on the conspiracy and the science of the perspective thing has way too many nebulous areas.  But distances via flight times with a very small margin of error can't be disputed.

Google Sketchup is a very common and free program that anyone can download and the files can be shared.   I submit we create a file that contains triangles scaled to 3 points on each southern hemisphere continent and are spaced according to direct flight miles between 3 cities that have nonstop flights to the other continents.   Circles are placed on each city with a radius of flight miles to a point on another triangle. (Such as Sydney to Johannesburg). It will be simple to drag the groups around and see if there is any way possible to align the continents(triangles) in such a way that the distances work on a flat map.  This eliminates any argument over the actual shape of each continent.

Since there are variations on routes based on engine count I suggest we only use flights that are direct with 4 engine aircraft.  Note: I believe the 787 has been rated to fly the same routes as a 747 but I need to dig deeper.   


The one point in the Flight distance thread that Tom repeated was that distances are unknown.   Therefore I suggest we either use the published cruise speed or a constant (average 747 and Airbus cruise) to calculate the distance based on flight times that are known and provable.  This should stay within an acceptable accuracy given the fact that published flat earth maps show 2x to 4x factors of great circle distances.


Comments?

I found Tom Bishop's statement  : "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown." rather curious.
This information is known and readily available for reference.

I pointed that out so we can eliminate that argument in advance.   The flight times are known, the aircraft cruise speeds are published. Flight Aware has been shown to be accurate within a couple of minutes of refresh time.* All we have to do is agree on a format and we are good to go.  I would like to do this in as nonconfrontational a way as we possibly can.  As stated I think the FE team would welcome this as a way to get their rough draft map.  It would be great if we could get the usual cast of characters involved too.  If all we get is Tom disputing every step it's a complete waste of time.  We can do a lot better, but even an error rate of 5% would be better than anything I've seen yet.

Tom, you agree?  If not what would you change?  What is an acceptable error? 



* I picked my wife up at the airport Saturday on a flight from Atlanta.  I had my iPad open to Flight Aware and it showed the flight landing within 30 seconds of the plane flying past my windshield in the cell phone lot.






Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12  Next >