6221

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 04:57:30 PM »

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.

Yes, in both models.
Why would it be mutually exclusive?
"We can't have meridians in Flat model because 'they' have meridians in Globe model"?
Very "good" reason... LOL
It would be just like saying "we can't have sky in Flat model because 'they' have sky in Globe model" (or Asia, or South).
Some things exist in both.

You are acting like there is no solar noon in Flat model.
Or there is no subsolar point in Flat model?
Or there are no meridians in Flat model?
Or the Sun path is not circular in Flat model?
Or the center of Sun's path is not North pole in Flat model?

So, let me ask you for the third time: is there solar noon in Flat model?
It should be easy to answer.
Try.

We make no claim on where and when it occurs. Maybe the sun's path is circular. Maybe it's oval. Maybe the sun makes a figure 8 over the year with a bi-polar type model. Much of that seems to be unstudied. The Flat Earth is a blank canvas that will require a lot of research.

No one is really claiming certainties on the subject. But you (RE'ers in general) seem to be claiming certainties on a lot of subjects. Since you are so certain, you need to demonstrate your claims. If you cannot demonstrate your claims, then we cannot join you in your certainty.

6222

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 04:52:58 PM »

To repeat, we have the WGS-84 model. Why do you not comment on it?

WGS84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields.

Again. You are claiming that a system is accurate. You need to PROVE IT. You are not even being asked to prove it yourself. You need to provide the data/experiments/trials that proves it. A low bar.

Why do I?  You have the link.

There are no experiments in that link.

You need to prove it because you are coming here with a claim that a particular system is accurate. If that is your claim, then you need to do something to demonstrate its accuracy. If you cannot do that, then you cannot claim that it is accurate. We work with evidence here, not assumption.

Realization introduced by DoD on 2013-10-16 based on GPS observations.

You have not even described how you would determine the shape of the earth, no experiments, no evidence.

Post the experiments or data that proves its accuracy. You need to show that it is accurate.

I am guessing you ignored or glossed over the above Tom?

Tom’s argument (which i dont agree with) is that as they dont know the distance(?) then they cant know the speed.

My rebuttal to that shows that we use Doppler to calibrate our logs, and logs to verify our calculated distance. He has ignored that point.
Ok we do it at sea, whilst the OP uses published flight distances. The flight distances are calculated in the same way as we calculate marine distances.
I have provided empirical evidence that we measure our distances and they are accurate.

Find and show the doppler data that verifies that GPS is accurate. "It's been done" doesn't get you very far. You need to show, not tell.

6223

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of The Sun

« on: April 17, 2018, 04:46:12 PM »

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

He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong?  If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.

At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.

Correct. And I'm not sure how they come to 3k miles, Dr Rowbotham was pretty clear. It does seem like certain people out there cherry pick what they want from Enag and pretend the rest isn't there.

This is what Tom wants to prove the 700 miles:

You need to prove it because you are coming here with a claim that a particular system is accurate. If that is your claim, then you need to do something to demonstrate its accuracy. If you cannot do that, then you cannot claim that it is accurate. We work with evidence here, not assumption.

Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?

6224

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 07:53:28 AM »

To repeat, we have the WGS-84 model. Why do you not comment on it?

WGS84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields.

Again. You are claiming that a system is accurate. You need to PROVE IT. You are not even being asked to prove it yourself. You need to provide the data/experiments/trials that proves it. A low bar.

Why do I?  You have the link.

There are no experiments in that link.

You need to prove it because you are coming here with a claim that a particular system is accurate. If that is your claim, then you need to do something to demonstrate its accuracy.

This is an honest forum and we need to see the evidence in order to accept a claim. If you cannot provide the evidence, then we cannot honestly say that the system is accurate.

6225

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 07:39:52 AM »

To repeat, we have the WGS-84 model. Why do you not comment on it?

WGS84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields.

Again. You are claiming that a system is accurate. You need to PROVE IT. You are not even being asked to prove it yourself. You need to provide the data/experiments/trials that proves it. A low bar.

6226

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 07:31:18 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.

The demonstration is that airlines get passengers from A to B reliably and (mostly) on time.
They obviously have to know how far A and B are apart and how fast their airline flies to do this.
Otherwise they wouldn't know how much fuel they needed or how to make a timetable.
The assertion that airlines don't know how fast they've travelling is ridiculous.

Knowledge of the time taken to get from point A to point B does not directly tell us the distance traveled. It tells us the time taken, and fuel spent. The distance is calculated as a later step, based on a spherical coordinate system of a round earth.

They know the time it takes to get from A to B, but none of it tell us anything about the shape of the earth until the data is put together to prove or disprove something. There are many continental configurations possible, with two pole and one pole models of a Flat Earth.

The distance between continents must conform somewhat to flight times, but the distances that airplanes think that they fly is all based on a spherical coordinate system, and so the distance cannot be used to make a map.

6227

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 07:28:57 AM »

Read the link. If you disagree with it please explain why as it is accepted and used.

What would you accept as evidence and how would you prove it to be correct or otherwise?

The link didn't have any experiments or tests. You need to demonstrate the accuracy of your claim. You need to provide direct links to reports, data, or experiments. This is your claim you are making. You are claiming that this is accurate. If you want to support that idea of accuracy, then you need to demonstrate.

6228

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Egg Earth

« on: April 17, 2018, 07:24:08 AM »

Who said that the earth is always CGI in NASA's media? Using a fisheye lens on a flatter horizon is another alternative for creating a round earth and making it look like you are at an orbital altitude.

6229

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 07:18:33 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

You need to provide evidence to demonstrate YOUR claim. If YOU are claiming that a technology or system is 100% accurate, then YOU need to demonstrate YOUR claim.

6230

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 07:12:36 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.

6231

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 07:01:08 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.

And this is NOT saying that the planes in the Southern Hemisphere are "traveling faster than the speed of sound without knowing it." The standard monopole Flat Earth model is for visualization purposes only. There are other possible bi-polar and monopole models with an infinite number of continental configurations to be investigated.

6232

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 06:40:00 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.

6233

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 17, 2018, 05:13:16 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.

6234

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The ultimate proof that the Earth is ROUND...

« on: April 17, 2018, 04:57:48 AM »

The first experiment we've covered in some detail. The difference of 6 feet is borne out by a round earth, I've done the maths now and 6 feet is correct, see previous post. This really is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of geometry.

You are using an earth drop calculation. Over a distance of 3 miles, the earth drops 6 feet, assuming a height of 0. You used the Theorem of Pythagoras, the same method we use in places in our Wiki.

You can get the same thing by going to https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ and putting in 3 miles and 0 feet in height. You get 6 feet. This one is also based on Pythagorean Theory.

This method isn't finding the "tilt" of the boat due to Round Earth curvature. It is not based on the alternative approach you were trying to pursue.

I and Stagirl have also explained why how much of the boat the laser can "see" is different from the height difference in where the laser hits the boat at the two distances if the laser starts parallel to the ground and the earth curves away. I have proven that laser height cancels out and doesn't change this difference. You really have no valid objection to the first experiment.

I just did object. You copied a regular Theory of Pythagoras calculation that is used to find the drop. It's the same thing as the online calculator I've linked above.

The second one. Honestly, I think the objection here may be more valid. I do think there is a possibility they have over-stated the height of the helicopter when he could see it, although I don't know whether the altimeter measures from the bottom of the helicopter and refraction may be a factor here. There is admittedly some doubt  and I agree the value being exactly 24 feet is suspicious. BUT...the fact is you CAN clearly see the helicopter disappear below a "hill" of water and then rise from behind it.

The value being exactly 24 feet is vary suspicious, considering that is the value we get if we calculate for that distance and leave the observer height at 0.

All you can really do is grow this slight seed of suspicion about the exact height of the helicopter into a full blown conspiracy about how the makers of the programme are lying about this for...reasons. I guess anything other than modify your beliefs, eh?

It's pretty clear that the experiments were fraudulent to me. They didn't just come up with random numbers. They came up with numbers that would be the case if the observer height were 0. Fraud.

6235

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The ultimate proof that the Earth is ROUND...

« on: April 17, 2018, 04:42:41 AM »

Right. This is very rough, but...



For speed I've assumed that AC = 3, the same as the distance travelled. This is not quite correct, 3 is actually the distance around the arc of the circle but the angle is so small that the error is negligible.

And I forgot to state that the 3959.00113... = BC, but it does because of Pythagorus.

So it is about 6 feet.

That's just a standard Pythagorean Theorem earth drop calculation that shows a 6 foot drop over 3 miles assuming an altitude of 0...

The same method is described here under the Pythagorean Theorem section: http://flatvsround.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-to-calculate-earths-curvature.html

6236

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Egg Earth

« on: April 17, 2018, 02:25:52 AM »

fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

Seems like that is the point of the article.

6237

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

« on: April 16, 2018, 07:51:35 PM »

made another set to clarify the side view w.r.t. area vs circumference. the circumference of the left side in the side view maps to the center of the front view

https://i.imgur.com/hBUcD0N.png

https://i.imgur.com/kOVQId8.png

Tom's position has officially been

GENTLY CARESSED

I see what you are talking about now. Thank you for clarifying.

I don't think the middle illustration is 64 degrees, either, though. I will get back to you.

6238

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

« on: April 16, 2018, 06:43:55 PM »

the angles you've labeled 50% dark and 25% dark do not have the relationship to luminosity you think they do. luminosity is the word for what percentage of the moon's area is seen as lit, so in math terms, 'dark' is the Y coordinate of the end of the line between light and dark expressed as a percentage. i.e. 100 * (y + 1)/2, or (y+1) * 50



A 45 degree angle from the center of the moon, aka your claim of 25% dark, would actually appear to be 15% dark. (-rt2/2 + 1) * 50 = 14.6447%

The angle required for 5% dark / 95% luminous is 64 degrees down from the center of the moon.



Tom can't do math QED

Also

saying 'I win' isn't the same as winning, right? so when I write, 'his argument was pretty finely ground up,' I know that doesn't prove he lost. but I find it worth pointing out that Tom felt the need to respond in kind but with STRONGER LANGUAGE

DEMOLISHED

go ahead, look at the numbers in that thread. tom doesn't know what he's talking about

one hopes some of the smarter flat Earth believers here can do trig. CS PhD Dr. Pseudonym can barely help himself from jumping to nitpick and correct people - pete where you at with helping Tommy B do math

Xeno, what are you talking about? I divided up the left side of the moon by 4 equal pieces.

I'm not seeing the problem with seeing a mostly full moon during the day.  I added another moon position just a tad further.

Check how high in the sky the 95% illuminated moon is from that thread. The numbers don't add up.

6239

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve

« on: April 16, 2018, 06:28:19 PM »

Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.

Not a chance. The ramblings from a Victorian Showboatman are not going to be relevant... ever. No, you explain, in your own words, what the 'horizon' is on a flat Earth.

Let me use this simple image again:


The top image shows how the horizon is 'created' on a spherical Earth. Sky above the red line, ground below it. Everything is honky dory.
The bottom is the flat Earth model. Let's say Stickman's range of vision is where the red line touches the ground. You claim that that's where the horizon forms. But if you follow his line of sight above the red line, the ground is still in his field of vision. What if I placed a giant, 100km*100km*100km, black cube right behind the point where you claim the horizon appears. Would that black cube be invisible and I would see only blue sky and clouds? Of course not.

Your turn:

The explanation for why we don't see to infinity and why the horizon doesn't fade out is in Earth Not a Globe. I think you should probably read it and then get back to us about what you found wrong.

6240

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

« on: April 16, 2018, 06:20:45 PM »

The math earlier on in that thread demolishes the Round Earth Theory. We should not be able to see a 95% full moon during the day at the angles we discussed.

Your calculations determined that we should not be able to see a 100% full moon during the day. If the Moon was 100% full in the video, that would be different. But it's not; it's 95% full, meaning that it's 18.2° away from the full Moon's position.

No. Look at the numbers in that thread. That 95% illuminated moon should not have been seen.