341

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 07:17:11 AM »

Yes, we can measure speeds and distances accurately using GPS and the WGS-84 model.

You are providing words, not demonstration. Showing is more powerful than saying. You are making a positive claim that something is accurate. You are expected to provide something more than an assertion.

Documentation available and used everyday.  What would you like to see and what can you provide?

https://confluence.qps.nl/qinsy/en/world-geodetic-system-1984-wgs84-29855173.html

342

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 07:10:03 AM »

Are you seriously saying the way we can measure distances is incorrect?  And you are the first and only person to say this?  Please say where the errors are in the WGS-84 model.

We went over this already. There is no internal way for an airplane to know its speed independently of external navigation systems such as GPS or other signal type broadcasting systems that tells it where the spherical coordinates are, and with a calculation between those points to determine speed.

The airplane is traveling in fluids that are traveling within fluids. Airspeed indicators only tell the airplane how fast the air is traveling locally, and is not used in navigation.

Curious Squirrel provided a link earlier: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed

From that link: "Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed"

Ground speed navigation systems are GPS or similar external broadcasting systems. It is the only way to get the speed. There is no such thing as an odometer for an airplane.

Yes, we can measure speeds and distances accurately using GPS and the WGS-84 model.

343

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 06:49:02 AM »

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

The coordinate points in the latitude and longitude system which wraps around the earth are spaced out equidistantly, as if the earth were a sphere. Calculating the distance between any two points would give your the spherical coordinate distance.

It's not really that hard to see that the entire system is based on the idea of a spherical earth. Both latitude and longitude wrap around the earth in 360 degrees. It's a system that assumes a round earth. The points are mapped onto the earth as if it were round.

Pull the line from North pole through subsolar point to Ice Wall.
All places on that line will have solar noon at that same moment.
All places east of the line will have Sun more to the west and lower in the sky.
All places west of the line will have Sun more to the east and lower in the sky.

As Sun circulates above Equator (or anywhere between Tropics) the line will go with it, 15 degrees per hour.
All places on the line at its new positions will have the same situation.
Regardless of the shape of the continents.

Where is globe in that?

EDIT: That was the way in which we know this:
If two or more places have solar noon at the same moment, it means they are on the same line drawn from North pole, through subsolar point, to Ice Wall.
Such line we call "meridian".

All of this would perfectly work in globe theory. Unfortunately you bring no real world observations or reports to the table to say that all of this happens like clockwork, only theory.

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

The coordinate points in the latitude and longitude system which wraps around the earth are spaced out equidistantly, as if the earth were a sphere. Calculating the distance between any two points would give your the spherical coordinate distance.

It's not really that hard to see that the entire system is based on the idea of a spherical earth. Both latitude and longitude wrap around the earth in 360 degrees. It's a system that assumes a round earth. The points are mapped onto the earth as if it were round.

And works with accuracy, there is only one distance between 2 points.  Do you have an alternative?

There is no evidence that it works with accuracy.

Are you seriously saying the way we can measure distances is incorrect?  And you are the first and only person to say this?  Please say where the errors are in the WGS-84 model.

344

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 06:38:46 AM »

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

The coordinate points in the latitude and longitude system which wraps around the earth are spaced out equidistantly, as if the earth were a sphere. Calculating the distance between any two points would give your the spherical coordinate distance.

It's not really that hard to see that the entire system is based on the idea of a spherical earth. Both latitude and longitude wrap around the earth in 360 degrees. It's a system that assumes a round earth. The points are mapped onto the earth as if it were round.

And works with accuracy, there is only one distance between 2 points.  Do you have an alternative?

345

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earth does not preclude the full moon

« on: April 16, 2018, 05:05:18 PM »

That page needs some work. I don't like how it is presented. I've rephrased the argument here:

According to Round Earth Theory the sun is illuminating the earth and moon as in this top-down view:



However, it has been observed that during the day, on the "day" side of the earth, the moon can be seen with phases which show significant lit area.

It should be impossible for the moon's phase to display significant fullness during the day. But the moon is seen on many occasions to do just that. Here is an example which should be impossible under the Round Earth model:



In the video the author pans across to the sun, showing that it is significantly above the horizon. This person is clearly somewhere on the day side of the earth. How is this observation possible?

Further on in that thread we did the math on the above video in question. We looked at the degrees of the sun and moon in the sky and they don't match up to the 95% of moon visible.

It's all explained online in many places, please comment on those.

Your use of the word 'we' is tedious and clearly incorrect.

346

Flat Earth Community / Re: Research and advice for the theory of flat Earth for a project..

« on: April 16, 2018, 02:32:40 PM »

That is correct. Samuel Birley Rowbotham is the authority on Flat Earth Theory.

Who alive today is?

Eric Dubay

Who says:

If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone, yet no one in history has ever experienced this alleged Eastward motion; meanwhile, however, we can hear, feel and experimentally measure even the slightest Westward breeze.

and:

So-called “satellite” TV dishes are almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle towards the nearest ground-based repeater tower. If TV antennae were actually picking up signals from satellites 100+ miles in space, most TV dishes should be pointing more or less straight up to the sky. The fact that “satellite” dishes are never pointing straight up and almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle proves they are picking up ground-based tower signals and not “outer-space satellites.”

347

Flat Earth Community / Re: Research and advice for the theory of flat Earth for a project..

« on: April 16, 2018, 12:09:59 PM »

That is correct. Samuel Birley Rowbotham is the authority on Flat Earth Theory.

Who alive today is?

348

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Radii of Certain Circles of Latitude

« on: April 16, 2018, 09:59:36 AM »

If you want to talk about theodolites you have to read the work we have done on it and start your arguments from there. You are just showing us the results we have already written about. You are wasting my time.

Please describe recent work. Please provide names rather than just 'we'.

349

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of The Sun

« on: April 16, 2018, 08:12:29 AM »

Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.

Great! So, have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement?

Of course, he did the measurements himself.

I think you've missed my point. Have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...)? Also confirmed means that someone else measured it and his readings were the same as Rowbotham's.

Rowbotham performed the experiments many times over a 30 year period. His results were also vetted by a journal dedicated to that purpose called The Earth Not a Globe Review. Today we can also see water convexity experiments on Youtube, including different experiments with lasers. Check them out.

Water being convex shows the curve of the earth.

350

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 15, 2018, 09:19:33 PM »

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

What system wouod you use. If or when you give us your proposal for mapping the earth.

351

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA influence in Australian Air Traffic Control

« on: April 15, 2018, 09:17:49 PM »

So it is part of NASA's mission to improve the air traffic control systems of foreign nations now? Why can't Airservices Australia maintain their own systems or call upon on one of the many companies who specialize in that?

The fact that NASA is involved in the air traffic control systems in Australia creates distrust with the accuracy of Australian flight data.

What actual data and in what way?

352

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Math Evidence (calcs and data) corroborating turning torso and radius 6371km

« on: April 14, 2018, 07:42:09 AM »

Disagreeing with the explanation is one thing. Disagreeing with the observation is quite another. Rowbotham saw the sinking ship effect on the sea, which he did not see on calmer bodies of water. In order to properly combat the material of a work, there must be an understanding of what is being claimed.

Rowbotham's work has been the basis of Flat Earth Theory over 150 years. You did not understand it because you did not read Earth Not a Globe, and the Youtube debunkers do not understand it because they have not read Earth Not a Globe. If there was better understanding on what the Flat Earth Theory actually claims, then perhaps there could be some progress in these debunk attempts. As it is, these efforts have gone to waste. They have only shown us what we expected to see.

To combat us you must combat the source material the theory is based on, not your own personal idea of Flat Earth Theory.

Have you seen this effect?

353

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few more bases to cover…

« on: April 14, 2018, 07:34:57 AM »

The illustration shows scattering of an unknown quantity. This casts doubt on this test as a demonstration of curvature. That is all we will say on the matter.

Who is this 'we' you like using?

354

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Math Evidence (calcs and data) corroborating turning torso and radius 6371km

« on: April 13, 2018, 09:50:45 PM »

Look at the metabunk calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Put 29.7 mi as the distance in miles

Put in 4 feet and 9 feet as the observer's height.

4 feet = 495.19 feet hidden
9 feet = 415.34 feet hidden

That is a 80 foot distance, from only a slight difference in height. This is why we need to know the exact height these photos are being taken from if we are going to assess whether they "perfectly match" RET predictions.

How about you actually do some measurements.

355

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Radii of Certain Circles of Latitude

« on: April 12, 2018, 10:05:03 PM »

The experiment that was provided was insufficient, and I have explained why it was insufficient.

No, you're just spuriously declaring it insufficient because it shows you to be wrong.
The lengths you go to in order to do anything other than admit you're incorrect about anything really are ridiculous.
All you said was:

The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.

Is it impossible to hold a glass of water above the line of the horizon?

So you start by pretending you don't understand the experiment at all.
When someone pointed out that it wasn't just a glass of water, it was two connected tubes so you could be sure that water was level in both and could look across the top of the two tubes of water to determine whether the horizon is indeed at eye level you decided you did understand the experiment after all and then claimed:

the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line.

So I helpfully went through the video for you and picked out these stills:



Which clearly show the two tubes level, proving the camera is at the water line. You can clearly see the horizon dipping more below that level as altitude increases, exactly as expected.
You never replied. 

Later in the thread someone else posted a video of a similar experiment but with professional equipment which gave exactly the same result, you ignored that too.
It's all here in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9338.0

It's your usual tactic. Make a ridiculous claim which is demonstrably false.
You post a bit of flim-flam and then when you're clearly shown to be wrong you simply run away from the thread and declare yourself to be right.
It's a very dishonest way of debating.

You have all the information you need to repeat the experiment, it would cost you virtually nothing.
You claim to be an empiricist, if you dispute the empirical measurements you have been shown then do your own experiment, report the findings and we can have a look.

Parallax responded to you:

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.

He's right. This experiment is not carefully calibrated or controlled. A slight angle with that experiment can cause issues. It is just one guy holding a camera in one hand and his water device in the other. It's a bad experiment.

How would you improve the accuracy?  Water is level, camera is level.

356

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EnaG Chapter XIV. Examination of the So-Called ''Proofs'' of the Earth's Rotundi

« on: April 12, 2018, 09:35:44 PM »

Oh look, tontogary badmouthing Dr Rowbotham yet again. Anyone would think he's got nothing else to do with his time...

Anyway, how is this 'proof'? It's not. A compass points north and all I've seen from you is speculation. The top scientific boffins of the day couldn't disprove Dr Rowbotham, yet you apparently can now. Hmmm. Tom has already posted a quote that proves Dr Rowbotham correct.

Examining the Charlatans flawed statements and providing experiments and actual physics of why they are false is called badmouthing is it?

You should listen to your mentors words, and not be so hypocritical!

“The true business of a critic is to compare what he reads with known and provable data, to treat impartially the evidence he observes, and point out logical deficiencies and inconsistencies with first principles, but never to obtrude his own opinions. He should, in fact, at all times take the place of Astrea, the Goddess of Justice, and firmly hold the scales, in which the evidence is fairly weighed.

I advise all my readers who have become Zetetic not to be content with anything less than this; and also not to look with disfavour upon the objections of their opponents. Should such objections be well or even plausibly founded, they will only tend to free us from error, and to purify and exalt our Zetetic philosophy.”

You should in fact be thanking me for helping your “Zetetic philosophy” understand the real world!

Please, I know full well what Dr Rowbotham opened his book with, but all you do it disrespect his memory and badmouth him at every opportunity.

His statements are not flawed. Yours are. He provided facts, equations, and statistics to back up his research. Unlike you, however, who is nothing more than an armchair 'scientist', whose 'experiments' amount to posting some guff on the internet and proclaiming it to be true, while the other round earthers proclaim you to be absolutely correct in all that you say. You've already been proved wrong. Not by me. Not by Tom. By Dr Rowbotham. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence that

1) Dr Rowbotham was a charlatan
2) His experiments were incorrect
3) That earth is round

And yes, you do badmouth him. Calling him 'charlatan Rowbotham' constantly and saying his experiments were wrong is pretty disrespectful. The top scientific minds of the day did not prove him wrong, and neither are you. So post your 'experiments', which is nothing more than a wall of text on a forum. He is remembered today. I somehow doubt you and your 'experiments' will be remembered over 100 years from now, no, you'll simply be lost in the mists of time.

If you are so correct in all that you say, prove one thing. One thing and I will believe you.

Prove to me Dr Rowbotham was a charlatan and not a true flat earth believer.

There are measurements and maps that prove a round earth.  Do you understand the WGS model?  The path of the sun across the earth proves a round earth.

357

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: April 12, 2018, 07:59:56 AM »

When you know where the information bounces off the dome, it's very easy to require someone to use that area to broadcast their signals. Charge them 10's of millions for satellite time or even a whole one blasted up to this imaginary space in the universe. Point your round funny disks at the reflection and boom, futbol.....

Who would know the diff?

Not any of the knuckle draggers here.

Satellite transponders have tightly defined coverage areas, how would that work in your scheme?

358

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the diameter/radius of the Earth? How wide is it, essentially?

« on: April 11, 2018, 08:16:48 PM »

Lets take this quote

Yes. Dr Rowbotham hasn't been debunked at all, the people that 'debunked' him made flaws in their experiments so produced incorrect results. I trust Dr Rowbothams work.

If an RE person made such a claim you would have demanded every shred of proof from the beginning of time.

I would be asking for evidence of the claim that a study was debunked, since that is the positive claim. The negative claim is that a study was not debunked. The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. "Prove to me that Rowbotham's study was not debunked" is a ridiculous statement. The burden is clearly on those who believe that it was.

The information we have today has been shown to be correct, have you studied the WGS-84 model?

359

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the diameter/radius of the Earth? How wide is it, essentially?

« on: April 11, 2018, 05:30:04 PM »

I'm curious as to why people think we are trolling? Why is it so difficult for people to accept that there are those of us who believe in a flat earth? Is it because we are not part of the social norm? That we don't believe what is 'true'? I would say that its the people who come here constantly disrespecting Dr Rowbotham and trying to 'prove' earth is round she calling us flat earthers 'trolls', that are the ones most representative of that which they call us.

Now that Parallax sounds like a great thread to discuss! I guess if we talk here Junker will tell us off so its best to start a new thread and I humbly request that you start it as it is a FE question.

Please do start it and I'm sure you will get lots of answers.

PS I should add that Troll is not (in my opinion) an insult here, I merely mean it as someone having fun with this forum pretending to believe in this theory for amusement which is not a "bad" thing, I'm not seeking to oiffend anyone 

Well allaround the world seems to just brand everyone a troll because he can't get his head around the fact there are people that believe in the earth being flat. I honestly have better things to do with my time than troll, I believe the earth is flat and come here to discuss it. I've never trolled here once.

Why then, do you choose to not debate?  Quoting ENAG is not debate.

How is referencing evidence from a study not debating?

How about a study using equipment available today?

360

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Theories is all we have

« on: April 10, 2018, 09:51:17 PM »

Dr Rowbotham or a blogger? Yeah, I'm going with Dr Rowbotham.

Also it is less than 700 miles.

Classic argument ad hominem. If the blogger is right then he's right, if he's not he's not. Having "Dr" before your name doesn't mean you are always right or better than someone who is "just" a blogger. The argument itself is independant of its "creator".

Dr Rowbotham was a respected doctor who was able to provide scientific research to back up his experiments. In this case, Dr Rowbotham is correct.

Please explain how measurements today prove him wrong.  If it was 700 miles high then angle from different parts of eg. US would be very different.