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 - jimster

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: September 04, 2021, 05:35:15 PM »
Rays bounce off objects in all directions, that's why you can see objects from every angle.  Some of the rays do bounce at a low angle or bend slightly and hit the ocean. If the ocean were flat calm, you would see this as a reflection. But rays do not bounce in one single direction, they bounce in all directions. That's why you can see mountain across a flat calm lake at the same time you see its reflection. One ray reflected down and off the lake, while another went straight to your eye.

So if there is a ray that bends down and hits the ocean, there was also a ray that bounced slightly higher such that this one ends up hitting your eye.

/  \

      X                                      _o__
                      _____________\     /

Tell me the angle of refraction and I will draw a curve at that angle from X to my eye. There is an unblocked path from everywhere down to the shoreline through the path of refraction. Refraction doesn't make things disappear, it makes them look higher than they really are. Like the pics I posted about looming.

You can draw an unblccked path to my eye through the curve of refraction to any point on the mountain down to the shoreline. I should be able to see the entire mountain if the earth is flat.

Simple example, a man looking at X. Here I show a ray that bounces down and hits the ground, yet X is still visible!

   X            O
     \           /|\
      \           /\

Now suppose refraction is bending the light down at 45 degrees after it bounces of X. Has X become invisible? No, because light is bouncing off X in all directions, including 45 degrees up, where the refraction would bend it right into your eye.

     /    \
   X        O
     \      /|\
      \      /\

But because your mind interprets as though light rays travel straight, you would see this:


See "looming". Search "atmospheric refraction". Refraction causes the entire scene to seem higher than it is. It does not make part of it invisible.
You see things if they are not blocked. On FE, nothing blocks it. On RE, the crest of the curved ocean surface blocks it.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: September 01, 2021, 06:47:27 PM »
jack44556677 - Whatever you want to call it, there is a huge group of people doing what they call "science" most of which is "settled" (f=ma, periodic table, RE, etc). The same ideas, equations, experiments all consistent with each other, all over the world in schools, engineering labs, etc. It works, chemistry, physics, etc produces working gadgets, airplanes, computers, internet, including google earth and nav equipment and gps. All matches, all works, all based on RE. There is a part of this which is blurry or controversial at the edge of what is known (string theory, quantum, big bang, etc). But that is not what we are talking about here, the science of refraction is well known and not controversial, the are many refraction calculators available.

Then there is Bob Knodel, seeing 15 degrees per hour on his ring laser gyroscope and refusing to accept RE, attributing it to "unknown forces". In FE, some say gravity does not exist, in the FAQ it says light bends (due to unknown forces with unknown equations) to explain the problem that the north star angle above the horizon matches latitude, but if the earth is a flat disk, the angles don't meet in the same place, see the diagram in the FAQ.

I call the collection of settled proven consistent science believed by consensus RE science. I use the phrase FE science to describe whatever changes, exceptions, misunderstandings, etc used to explain the gap between observed reality (north star/sextant/latitude) and the mismatch to FE geometry.

You got me on temperature, it is density, but the point is the same, both contribute, lessen with altitude, and both bend the light down. Search astral navigation refraction and you will find warnings that if you shoot a star near the horizon it will appear higher than it really is. This makes no sense, as the mountain appeared to sink into the water.

Let's get to the heart of the OP. Here is a diagram of where I was with the earth surface flat:

   /  \
 /     \                                               _o__
/        \_________________________\    /

Here is what I saw:

 / \                                                   _o__
/   \                     ________________\    /

Per your explanation, the real position of the mountain would be, minus the part I didn't see:

   /  \
                           ________________\    /

Please draw the light rays to show how they travel. Bear in mind that your ray is just one of many, there are rays going lower and higher, all directions, some crash into the ocean and some reach the eye if no object blocks it. In RE what blocks it is the crest of the curved surface of the ocean. In what I call FE science, the light bends however it needs to and disappears entirely without equation, explanation, or experiment.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: August 29, 2021, 05:04:41 PM »
Refraction as known to conventional RE science is explained by light traveling through layers of air at different temperatures. Sometimes, as over a body of water, a cool, dense layer of air underlies a heated layer. An opposite phenomenon will then prevail, in which light rays will reach the eye that were originally directed above the line of sight. Thus, an object ordinarily out of view, like a boat below the horizon, will be apparently lifted into the sky. This phenomenon is called looming.

Refraction through the atmosphere results in things appearing higher than they are, while I saw the mountain appear to sink into the sea. This is consistent with the air being denser, thus slowing the speed of light, at lower altitudes.

Ironically, this phenomenon is responsible for pictures of cities across lakes that shouldn't be visible per RE, yet they are. RE will tell you about temperatures on different days that make this happen or not. FE uses this as proof of FE. So on one FE post we have "you shouldn't see this, yet you do, so FE!", but here, you claim it as an explanation for what you don't see.

Two conclusions:

1. FE refraction works the opposite of RE refraction. RE has diagrams, explanations, experiments for refraction. FE does not.

2. FE uses the word "refraction" without detailed rigorous explanation to explain why the world that appears RE is actually FE. For FE, light bends however it needs to. Ref position of sun at sunset/sunrise, north star angle above the horizon equals latitude, etc.

Apologies if I failed to see your (wrong) explanation. There are so many off-topic, personal, and otherwise irrelevant posts I have trouble reading through the BS.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: July 01, 2021, 05:07:16 PM »
Pardon me for not reading 13 pages of replies, but coming down to the end of this, it seems to me that none of this is necessary. The target of an ICBM will be in a very different place if the earth is flat or round. All that is necessary for the question of FE vs RE is to observe that if you get the shape of the earth wrong, the missile will miss by hundreds of miles. The US has multiple test ranges and tracks missiles with radar, gps, and hydrophone grid at landing site. Russia shoots them at Siberia and can see where they landed. They want to get the CEP (circular error probability) down as low as possible (certainly less than a mile) to hit hardened targets.

The equation for a multi-stage rocket would be very complex, and I believe they have in flight guidance control of some kind. There is a gap between stages firing, the stages have different power and weight. It is not physics 101 textbook parabola. They are MIRVed and different warheads land different places.

The North Korea missiles went almost straight up. To know how far they can go if aimed more horizontally, one must know the shape of the earth.

Why do REs here go down the rabbit hole of arguing exact equations etc when there is a simple principle that will determine the point being debated? Complexity obscures, and RE should be looking for clarity and simplicity. Sometimes I think this is not about RE or FE but who has the most detailed scientific knowledge and math ability.

My point was that missiles that go a thousand miles or more will land in very different places on FE or RE. The people who test them have spent huge amounts of money tracking and instrumenting to know exactly where they are landing. Multiple countries have done this. There are 3 possibilities.

1. They know earth is round.
2. They know earth is flat.
3. All such systems have failed and none of the countries that desperately want to have their missiles hit a target have succeeded.

I do not care what the equation is. I care whether there is a giant worldwide conspiracy, required for case 2 or 3. Case 1 is ICBMs work and RE is true. Case 2 is ICBMs work and everyone involved with knows the earth is flat. Case 3 is everyone is an idiot and desperately trying to look like a genius, in which case it puzzles me that they could be so incompetent at aiming and so brilliant at faking it.

Do you think that no one knows where ICBMs will land? Because if someone knows, they know the shape of the earth. Multiple ranges and organizations in the US and more in other countries. Tracked by radar and gps and landing area instrumented with hydrophones.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 30, 2021, 02:58:58 AM »

Do ICBMs exist?

Do they hit what they aim at?

What map do they use to aim them, FE map (????) or RE globe coordinates?

My point was that an ICBM test is a test of FE/RE. If you fire an ICBM and carefully track where it hits, that track will match either FE or RE. If they know how to accurately aim, they know the actual shape of the earth.

If the earth is flat, and they know how to aim, they have a FE map. Either they know the true shape of the earth, or they don't know how to target, whether FE or RE.


I don't think you want to understand the geometry, perhaps you are not an abstract thinker and can't understand the geometry, so let's go back to a simpler question.

Where is the southern cross when it appears directly south in both Capetown and Sydney at the same time?

Are you going to claim that the southern cross is not visible directlly to the south anywhere with clear sky in the southern hemisphere? We can never know because we can't go together? Would that even work? You could say I hypnotized you or projected a hologram, or, like the bishops with Galileo, just refuse to see.

None of that avoidance or denial impresses me, what would impress me is a coherent explanation of where the southern cross is on FE. RET has such an explanation, FET does not. You may come up with a string of words about not testable, but for the sane, non-cult real world, your attempts to win by refusing to believe something so well known and confirmed is not clever, it is pathetic.

The southern cross is visible directly south everywhere in the southern hemisphere. FE has no plausible explanation. You can say "bla bla bla

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 27, 2021, 05:47:35 PM »

I believe what you call "HIGHLY RELIABLE propagandists" because they are HIGHLY RELIABLE.

I got on an airplane in Sydney AUS and flew to LA USA. The trip time, airliner speed and travel time matched the schedule, my phone gps matched lat/long, google maps distance matches, distance on globe with piece of string, everything matches. It is all HIGHLY RELIABLE. An ocean of things is reliable.

You never answered any of my questions. On FE, if I fly a plane from Tierra Del Fuego and keep the southern cross at 90 degrees from one side, where do I go?

On RE, you would make a circle around the south pole, gps, gyrocompass would all match, it is HIGHLY RELIABLE. You would track the latitude line you were on. Without going there, I can diagram and explain it, and that is all I am asking for from you. Even if it doesn't exist, the geometry still is consistent with itself.

Please lay out on a FE map what happens when a plane takes off from Tierra Del Fuego and keeps the southern cross 90 degrees off one side for 8000 miles. Do you have a HIGHLY RELIABLE map on which you can plot a HIGHLY RELIABLE course?

Please no picking nits on the question or denial because no personal experience. I am asking you for a consistent model of how it could be, not to prove it in person. The question is clear and simple, either you have the geometry or you don't, but somehow, I expect your answer will not be either "here is a diagram" or "I have no idea, no reasonable answer". Answer, please, don't waste time with evasion techniques.

I said 50,000 feet to allow enough to angle see the stars, which would be right on the horizon at ground level. I should have said 40,000 feet, because on FE, no problem with the horizon. Does it give you a sense of triumph to have avoided the question of the simple geometry.

The question is, what happens to magnetic compass, gyrocompass, gps, and sighting north star and southern cross at 90 degrees from each side of the plane.

If you keep the north star at 90 degrees, what happens to the southern cross? Does it remain at 90 degrees, and how can this be on the FE map? How can the southern cross appear directly south of two planes traveling opposite directions?

Really, there is no good answer to how a gyroscope works on FE or where is the southern cross, is there? Just another one of those things FE can't explain yet, it would seem. I got no answer.

Try this one:

In the early evening Capetown SA, one can see the southern cross directly south. At the same moment it is predawn morning in Melbourne AUS and the southern cross is visible directly south. How can that be? What happens to a plane that takes off from Capetown and keeps the southern cross at 90 degrees to its left? WHich southern cross does it circle, or does the apparent position of the southern cross travel along the dome?

Are FEs aware when they answer these questions their mental process is to try to think up any possible explanation that allows FE and not to consider the plausibility of their answer? Seems to be all defense strategy, no consideration, and FEs always say we should be skeptical, except for FE.

Where on the FE map is the southern cross? How can it appear on different places on the dome at the same time?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 27, 2021, 12:37:04 AM »
Everyone, this is hilarious, you gotta read this quote from a link Tom Bishop posted saying that Kepler still used epicycles:

"Kepler accounted for the second class of deviation by his perspicuous laws of planetary motion. It is this fact that has generally been credited with the destruction of epicycles as a mechanical device."

I was going to repost the link, but too much trouble and it was a conventional science article from I think 1940 and waste of your time to read it unless you want a intro to astronomy circa 1940.  Tom Bishop likes his science quotes old.

Tom Bishop, it is true there are still deviations from a perfect ellipse, but these are not epicycles, they are the calculable gravitational impact of planet's moons, nearby planets, wobble, decelleration, probably more, see a real astronomer for an accurate list. Epicycles had no known physical phenomena, just a fudge factor that made the apparent motion calculable at least pretty close, the error appraoches 0 as the number of epicycles approaches infinty, I would think. 

RE the original questions do ICBMs exist and are they aimed RE or FE? I think I know the answer. A person can look at the web of facts and experts and analyze the plausibility using consistency with knwon facts and proof by contradiction to rule out wrong answers. Or one can ignore contradictions, misunderstand science, start with your conclusion and form a group willing to accept any ridiculous explanation for their treasured narrative.

Occam's razor: the simple explanation for the facts I know is that ICBMs exist and the people who aim and test them know the true shape of the earth.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE and artillery
« on: May 25, 2021, 08:48:20 PM »
What he is calling "punch" would be referred to as F (force) in physics class. If you know F, M (mass) and the angle of the barrel, and the force of gravity, the resulting trajectory will be a parabola described by a quadratic equation. And yes, that is the basic equation of a range finder. Let's agree to ignore the aerodynamics of the projectile (with cannon ball or artillery shell affect is minor), wind (calm day), corriolis (tiny effect), the point stands without the minor differences these would make.

Whatever the shape of the trajectory, that is not the issue. The issue is where is the target:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / different kinds of conspiracies
« on: May 25, 2021, 08:24:29 PM »
Uncontroversial conspiracies are historical, documented, court proven, consensus believed conspiracies. Examples are a coup, tobacco companies hiding the harm of smoking, organized crime, etc, many conspiracies have occured and been revealed. These Have a clear motivation, are plausible, consistent with all other known facts, and public evidence with consensus belief. The generals  really did take over, court case, crimes did occur, etc. Perhaps there are differences over who is the good guy or was it legal, but it did occur.

Controversial conspiracies have some evidence, but not enough to achieve consensus. Examples are Kennedy assassination not lone gunman or Trump conspired with Putin.

Absurd conspiracies have no evidence and make no sense, example Tom Hanks is a eats babies and sells them for sex.

But the kind of conspiracy that is most useful is the explanatory conspiracy. It makes no sense and there is no evidence, except for the thing being explained. Example is NASA promoting/enforcing RE belief and suppressing the FE truth. There is no plausible reason, no evidence other than that they say RE, so if the earth is flat, they must be liars, and it explains why everyone thinks it's round. No evidence, no motive, but plenty of FExplanation.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 25, 2021, 07:10:07 PM »
RE both epicycles still being used and celestial navigation based on precopernican, straw man, Tom Bishop is misrepresenting RET. Seems like the REs should get to say what RE is. Also seems like a person should know what he is arguing against. We are here arguing with a man who says that celestial navigation is precopernican, astronomers are still using epicycles, and no one knows the distance between major cities, meaning gps doesn't work. I have a feeling FEs rely on gos for their own daily use, but disclaim it for figuring out the shape of the earth.

And yet our expectation of reasonablness and competent mental process leads us to expect to be able to explain and convince him. That a person functioning and accepted in regular life, able to read and write and do arithmetic, remember things, hold a job, have friends, in short function apparently competently in everyday life. could repeatedly reject, dismiss, delude, distort, etc in order to hold on to a belief that makes no sense is alarming and scary. It threatens our collective self image as an intelligent competent species.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE and artillery
« on: May 25, 2021, 06:46:40 PM »
That is not the question. The questions is, given identical conditions, will the curve of the earth play a part in long range artillery aiming. Multiple countries have researched artillery aiming. My point is that artillery aimers think they need to consider the earth's curvature at long range. They go to great effort to test artillery accuracy and get the aim right. The people testing long range artillery know the shape of the earth as confirmed by real world testing.

Flat Earth Theory / What happens when I fly west on the wiki map?
« on: May 25, 2021, 06:37:01 PM »
Suppose you are in an airplane flying at 50,000 feet at the equator on a clear night. The plane has a compass, a gyrocompass, gps, inertial navigation, and a device on each side for determining the direction of a star. You line up carefully so my direction is 270, the compass and gyrocompass say you are going west, and you sight on the north star out one side window and the southern cross from the other side at 90 degrees from your direction of travel (they will be visible just above the horizon). After 15 hours at 500 mph, 7500 mi west of your starting point.

Where will I be if:

I keep the southern cross at 90 degrees and ignore everything else?
I keep the north star at 90 degrees and ignore everything else?
If the southern cross and north star and southern cross are both kept at 90 degrees?

We know the north star is directly over the north pole. Where is the southern cross? Is it directly south of my starting point?

Now let;s try 2 planes flying opposite directions, one at 90 (directly east), the other at 270 (directly west). Both planes will be able to keep the north star at 90 degrees, but what happens to the southern cross? can they both keep it at 90 degrees as they travel? At 15,000 miles distance between the planes, what will be the angles of the north star and southern cross?

A diagram of where the two planes are and where the southern cross is would be nice.

RET predicts that both planes can keep north star and southern cross at 90 degrees, compass, gyro, inertial, and gps will all match up. What does FET predict?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 25, 2021, 05:49:28 PM »
A globe is a map on the surface of a sphere. Whether the earth is round or flat, mathematically only one can have accurate distances, per Gauss's Remarkable Theorem.  You can't represent a scaled version of a curved surface on a flat plane and preserve distance, and vice versa. If the earth is round, you can't make a flat map with constant scale and accurate distance. If the earth is flat, no globe could have accurate distances. Math fact, seen it proved, as have millions (billions?) in math classes all around the world.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 25, 2021, 05:41:43 PM »
Tom Bishop, do I correctly understand your position?

"Celestial navigation is allegedly based on the theory that the Round Earth is the center of the universe and that everything is revolving around it."

Where did you get that? Completely wrong. Please take a course in elementary astronomy. You don't have to believe it, but we have to talk about the astronomy taught in school, in textbooks, all over the net, not your straw man version based on quotes from pre 20th century obscure scientists. We are RE, we get to say what RE is today, and that model is consistent all over the place, schools, textbooks, internet, astronomers, gps engineers, celestial navigation.

Epicycles, from the wiki page:

Epicycles worked very well and were highly accurate, because, as Fourier analysis later showed, any smooth curve can be approximated to arbitrary accuracy with a sufficient number of epicycles. However, they fell out of favour with the discovery that planetary motions were largely elliptical from a heliocentric frame of reference, which led to the discovery that gravity obeying a simple inverse square law could better explain all planetary motions.

I searched looking for contemporary astronomy using epicycles, but after many pages, I could find only Ptolemy, Copernicus, Aristotle, all history telling the story of how Kepler came up with a better explanation. Zero contemporary references to epicycles. Explained here:

As I asked earlier, do you understand RET? Apparently not, the first step is to agree on what RE is, and since you are not RE, yu don't get to say what it is. It is what textbooks and science teachers and diagrams all over the internet say it is today, not some obscure 19th century scientist.

Tom Bishop gets to say what FE, or more precisely, the Tom Bishop version of FE (there are many, and they conflict). So what can you say? So far, I got no map, "anomolous winds", "unknown forces". To make your idea work, you must insist that no one knows the distances between places and apparently never can.

Tom Bishop, does gps work? Does it accurately tell you and billions of others where they are all the time? Even if there are no satellites because the earth is flat and gps is faked by NASA, it still produces accurate location data (or do you think gps fails constantly?) World maps with locations of ships over all oceans shows their locations as reported by gps. This is all wrong and no one notices?

How can ships and planes have gps and not know their locations and therefor distance, even over ocean? If the distances are as advertised, why can't you make a flat map? If the distances are not as advertised, how can ships and planes arrive where they intended and when they intended?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 25, 2021, 12:23:15 AM »
When icbms are tested, they are tracked by multiple radar sites. Each site knows the bearing and distance to the rocket. The coverage overlaps. Matching up the data from the overlapping parts of the data will locate the stations in 3 space in relation to one another. In fact, two radar stations a few hundred miles apart tracking the same object forms a triangle with two known angles and two known side lengths, so the distance between the radars can be calculated.

Yet another way to know distances, and one that would be critical to missile testing.

Tom Bishop, did you decide the earth is flat and on every challenge make up an explanation, or did you carefully consider all the evidence and decide? Do you understand RET? I think RET explains day/night, seasons 24 hour days at the poles, tides, the apparent motion of stars and planets, gyrocompass, sextant, eclipse, etc.

Does it explain all those things, even if the earth is flat, does RE geometry "work"? Would a person on the surface of a 8000 mi diameter sphere spinning 1 rpm, 93 M mi away from a really bright light see the sun come over the horizon, take 12 hrs to cross the sky, and then appear to sink beneath the opposite horizon only to rise again 12 hrs later? If tilted slightly, would there be areas near the poles that at some times of the year got 24 hour sun and other times 24 hour night, the border of which would be the exact angle of the tilt?

Does RET "work"?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE and artillery
« on: May 24, 2021, 10:16:13 PM »
He dry-labbed the correction factor instead of calculating it, but if the earth was flat, the gun would have been on target without the correction.

He also says the 16" guns did have the curvature calculation built in to the computer (actually a system of gears and cams, a mechanical analog computer.

The accuracy of artillery is well known, Aberdeen Proving Grounds had been doing this since forever, and testing weapons is a world-wide popular thing to do. Every major country tests artillery.

Coriolis was discussed in my web search someone said it was in the software, someone else said it was a tiny error, but I believe it causes a bearing error, and earth curve causes range error.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs
« on: May 24, 2021, 10:09:53 PM »
Something I agree with Tom Bishop!

Werner Von Braun was morally reprehensible. We could talk about ethics and history, but it happened, and all I was doing was saying what happened.

The OP question was when and what is the discrepancy between what the govt says we have in missiles and what we actually have. When did they find out FE and the conspiracy begin? Does the aiming process use FE, has it been tested, or is it all a lie that multiple countries engage in because they want us to think they can nuke anyone?

Many engineers participating in the program would have realized that gravity was not as their calculations expect and the earth is flat, and the range would be way different. They did test shots from Vandenberg to south Pacific. I worked in the dp center at the Air Force Flight Test Center, believe me, they know every little detail, telemetry, radar, inertial guidance and gps. Must be quite a few engineers in the space program that know.

They would trace the shot from start to end and study it in great detail. Using radar, gps, inertial guidance telemetry (all checked to verify that they match), A plot in 3 space, displayed in a graphics program.

The FExplanation possibilities are:

1. The entire ICBM program is phony,

2. The engineers are monumentally incompetent.

3. You take a job offer out of college to work on the ICBM program, and day 1 a NASA thug takes you in a room and threatens to kill your family if you reveal FE, you leave this meeting and act the same, carrying on as normal, never getting drunk and telling someone, never acting odd, going to work in FE and home to RE for years. You help your kids with their astronomy homework and never let on in any way, because you know a NASA thug will kill them.

4. The engineers have been manipulated by false data from the conspiracy. There is a web of people collecting and processing this data, and multiple teams doing that in other countries. The data has to correlate, there is a lot of it, the process is complicated, multiple copies of data processed different ways. The complexity and effort level to do this is unimaginable.

Anyone got an explanation that is plausible to a person who doesn't care about FE? Anything without giant insanely complicated yet super secret conspiracy? Maybe everything appears as RE says, but advanced math and science reveals that light and radio waves bend exactly as they must to make a flat earth look round? Any proofs, experiments, equations for those forces?

In 2001, my company was a sponsor of the Whitbread race (then Volvo, now just the Ocean Race). We provided a computer for Quokka Sports to run a game where people could have their own virtual boat to race against the real boats and we provided the internet infrastructure for each port they stopped in. They sailed from Capetown to Melbourne on one leg, yacht races like the southern ocean because the winds are hihest there, so it is basically a race around Antarctica.

Several people in my department went to each port before they got there to set up, operate, when they left, tear down and ship to next port. They sent me pics at the dock and in the boats.

Sailboats have a hull speed, they can only go so fast (I tried to get a sailboat to go faster than hull speed, it dug the nose in and turned, indeed impossible). The computer game showed their location continuously. The sailboat speed, published distance, and time the trip took all matched perfectly. On any FE map I have seen, the distance is thousands of miles longer and the sailboats would have to go 90 mph to make it.

I conclude that RE distance is accurate, FE is impossible. FEs, where is my mistake?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >