Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #120 on: April 05, 2021, 10:45:26 AM »
To again try to get this back on track  ;D

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0
Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9313
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #121 on: April 05, 2021, 11:23:04 AM »
Physicists don’t disagree with him, not even the ones you quote. Is another one of your own sources qualified enough for you?

The guy who said “There is no a-priori reason why the quantity that determines the magnitude of the gravitational force on the particle should equal the quantity that determines the particle’s resistance to an an applied force in general”, also said, in the very same book you quote

“These observations led Einstein to make a profound proposal that simultaneously provides for a relativistic description of gravity and incorporates in a natural way the equivalence principle and consequently the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. Einstein’s proposal was that gravity should no longer be regarded as a force in the conventional sense but rather as a manifestation of the curvature of the spacetime”

Do you need to discredit him also now?

Incorrect. That author does not say that the equivalency is not a coincidence. What you quoted merely says that Einstein proposed the equivalency.

Ryan Martin says that it is a coincidence:

  “ As you recall, the weight of an object is given by the mass of the object multiplied by the strength of the gravitational field, g. There is no reason that the mass that is used to calculate weight, Fg = mg, has to be the same quantity as the mass that is used to calculate inertia F = ma. Thus, people will sometimes make the distinction between “gravitational mass” (the mass that you use to calculate weight and the force of gravity) and “inertial mass” as described above. Very precise experiments have been carried out to determine if the gravitational and inertial masses are equal. So far, experiments have been unable to detect any difference between the two quantities. As we will see, both Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity and Einstein Theory of General Relativity assume that the two are indeed equal. In fact, it is a key requirement for Einstein’s Theory that the two be equal (the assumption that they are equal is called the “Equivalence Principle”). You should however keep in mind that there is no physical reason that the two are the same, and that as far as we know, it is a coincidence!

Quote
The book you quote by Ryan Martin is about Classical Physics so it is no surprise that he would describe the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass as a coincidence.  In classical physics, it is.


Wrong. It clearly says that he is referring to both Newton and Einstein in the above quote.

Quote
If you read Einstein’s quote that Nigel Calder references, you’ll find that Einstein goes on to explain the “astonishing fact” of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational force.

It is astonishing that it should be that way, yes.

Quote
You obviously didn’t even read the whole context of anything you quoted. Just cherry picked quotes you thought would support your point and not a single one of them does.

Anyone can see that you are the one trying to cherry pick quotes that don't even say what you want them to say.

Quote
If John Norton is so unreliable why did you quote him?  You obviously had no idea who he is or what his credentials are, but he sounded good and that’s good enough for you.

As previously stated, a historian can be quoted on a point about physics, but if a physicist disagrees with him, that opinion is of little value. A historian isn't as credible as a physicist, sorry.

Quote
Since you can’t be bothered with actually doing your own research, I’ll explain to you exactly why GR solves the great mystery.

You aren't a physicist, either. Your opinion is also of little value in comparison.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 04:51:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #122 on: April 05, 2021, 11:36:55 AM »
Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.

Well, not WW2 but one interesting example of warfare south of the equator is the Falklands conflict of 1982. The argentine Air Force’s strike aircraft were based on their mainland’s east coast bases, roughly 400nm from the contested islands. This put them at the very limit of their range, meaning they had very little spare fuel for combat when they reached their targets.

Look at the area on the monopole FE map - the distortion is considerable. Hard to measure exactly, but turn the U.K. on its side and, according to that map, you could fit at least two of them in between the middle of the Falklands and, say, San Julian. The U.K. is roughly 500nm north-south so, unless you are seriously challenging the size of the U.K., you are suggesting that a journey of such significance for so many young Argentine pilots is in fact far further than any of them realised. That’s a pretty ridiculous assertion.

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #123 on: April 05, 2021, 03:21:13 PM »
To again try to get this back on track  ;D

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0
Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.


Just off the cuff, how about the Battle of the Coral Sea, May 1942. 

And further to Bob's; the Battle of the Falkland Islands during World War 1, in December 1914.  A British fleet was hunting a German Naval squadron in the South Atlantic.  In the era before radar, satellites and radio aids, the British fleet not only had to find the Germans based on reports from merchant vessels, but when using high speed the capital ships typically needed to bunker (take on coal) every 3 days.  To do this, they had to rendezvous at sea with coal-carrying auxiliaries.  They could obviously only do this if they knew where they were. 

And yes, the plotting boards were flat.  Almost as flat as a computer screen. 


Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #124 on: April 05, 2021, 06:12:14 PM »
Quote
Wrong. It clearly says that he is referring to both Newton and Einstein in the above quote.


Of course, GR assumes the equivalence of the gravitational and inertial mass.  That principle is the foundation of the whole theory.  But saying that GR assumes that is not the same thing as saying that GR doesn’t justify that assumption.  And since the whole book is about classical mechanics, there would be no reason for the author to explain that. 

Quote
Incorrect. That author does not say that the equivalency is not a coincidence. What you quoted merely says that Einstein proposed the equivalency.

What do you think “incorporates in a natural way” means?  By proposing that gravity should no longer be regarded as  “force”, removes the distinction between gravitational and inertial mass. It’s called drawing a logical conclusion.   But you know what they say...there are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can draw a logical conclusion.

Quote
It is astonishing that it should be that way, yes.

And solving that astonishing fact was Einstein’s motivation (at least one of them) to develop GR.  Which he did.  The fact that you don’t realize that only exposes how superficial your understanding of the theory is.

Quote
You aren't a physicist, either. Your opinion is also of little value in comparison.

It isn’t  my opinion that a non-force can’t effect the motion of mass, it’s pretty much the foundational principle of all known physics.  Are you suggesting that a non-force can effect the motion of mass or are you suggesting that gravity is a force?

My explanation as to why GR solves the mystery  is of course very simplified.  If you want a further understanding you might try reading “The Evolution of Physics”, and get the full explanation directly from the person who developed the explanation, Einstein himself. (Only of course, if you consider him a reliable authority on his own theory.).

The whole book is basically an explanation as to why the equality of gravitational and inertial mass is not a coincidence in GR.   It is very reader friendly and targeted to the general public. 

Quote
In our world it happens that they are equal, but we can well imagine that this should not have been the case at all. Another question arises immediately: is this identity of the two kinds of mass purely accidental, or does it have a deeper significance? The answer, from the point of view o f classical physics, is: the identity of the two masses is accidental and no deeper significance should be attached to it. The answer of modern physics is just the opposite: the identity of the two masses is fundamental and forms a new and essential clue leading to a more profound understanding.  This was, in fact, one of the most important clues from which the so-called general theory of relativity was developed.

 A mystery story seems inferior if it explains strange events as accidents. It is certainly more satisfying to
have the story follow a rational pattern. In exactly the same way a theory which offers an explanation for the identity of gravitational and inertial mass is superior to one which interprets their identity as accidental, provided, of course, that the two theories are equally consistent with observed facts. p.36

Quote
The theory attacks the problem o f gravitation and formulates new structure laws for the gravitational field. It forces us to analyse the role played by geometry in the description o f the physical world. It regards the fact that gravitational and inertial mass are equal, as essential and not merely accidental, as in classical mechanics. (p.260)

Or try “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”.  Also, written for the general public, it is the closest thing Einstein wrote to a textbook on GR.

 
Quote
Guided by this example, we see that our extension of the principle of relativity implies the necessity of the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Thus we have obtained a physical interpretation of this law.p. 80

Quote
The theory of gravitation derived in this way from the general postulate of relativity excels not only in its beauty; nor in removing the defect attaching to classical mechanics which was brought to light in Section XXI; nor in interpreting the empirical law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass; but it has also already explained a result of observation in astronomy, against which classical mechanics is powerless. p. 121

Quote
We then have the following law: The gravitational mass of a body is equal to its inertial mass. It is true that this important law had hitherto been recorded in mechanics, but it had not been interpreted. A satisfactory interpretation can be obtained only if we recognise the following fact: The same quality of a body manifests itself according to circumstances as “inertia” or as “weight” (lit. “heaviness”).  In the following section we shall show to what extent this is actually the case, and how this question is connected with the general postulate of relativity. p. 77

This guy, I think states it most succinctly.

Quote
In classical physics, it’s not clear why (passive) gravitational and inertial mass should be the same. In Einstein’s theory of gravity, general relativity, the situation is different. There, the reaction of small bodies to gravitational attraction is purely geometrical: Massive bodies will distort space and time, and moving bodies follow the straightest paths possible in such a distorted spacetime. The artificial distinction connected with the concept of a force – inertial mass on the one hand, gravitational mass on the other – is replaced by a law that has the equality of all bodies built-in at the lowest level: That, in a given situation, all bodies experience the same gravitational acceleration is due to the fact that their motion is directly governed by the properties of their spacetime environment; the object’s intrinsic properties play no role at all.

https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/inertial-and-gravitational-mass/

Frankly I don’t understand your resistance to the concept.  It fits right into UA.  In UA, there is no distinction between gravitational and inertial mass either.

Quote
As previously stated, a historian can be quoted on a point about physics, but if a physicist disagrees with him, that opinion is of little value. A historian isn't as credible as a physicist, sorry.


That doesn’t answer the question.  If you were of the opinion that physicists disagreed with him (which you should have been if you read and understood the paper) why did you quote him? Or did you quote him knowing that he fundamentally disagreed with your premise? To be clear, your choices here are "I didn't realize he disagreed" or "I realized he disagreed and cited him anyway".

EDIT: There is of course a third choice. "Physicists agree with him."

If you think his opinion is garbage, then you should remove the citation.  It leaves the impression that he agrees with your premise, which he doesn’t. And we all know you don’t want to be deceptive.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 07:37:34 PM by fisherman »
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #125 on: April 05, 2021, 07:35:36 PM »
To again try to get this back on track  ;D

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0
Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.

I think this comment and my reply probably belong on that other thread....(I only linked it to suggest it can be added to the OP list of this thread).  But I'll reply here anyway:

The plotting boards being flat doesn't disprove my WW2 argument any more than an azimuthal projection of the globe disproves that the earth is a globe.

What matters for the plotting boards is that they had to have highly accurate measurements for the distances of longitude south of the Equator. If their measurements were off by as much as the monopole FE map suggests, then virtually none of the WW2 pilots who fought in carrier battles south of the Equator would have survived - they all would have failed to return to their carriers and been lost at sea. (EDIT: WW2 carrier planes had ranges in the hundreds of miles and fought over spaces far far beyond sight of any land or their carrier groups - which is why failing to navigate properly literally was a life or death proposition for them).

As I wrote in that post, 60% (3 of the 5) major carrier battles of the war occurred south of the Equator - Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz. These three battles involved tens of thousands of pilots from Japan and the US. Without accurate distances between lines of longitude on their plotting boards these men would have all died. But they didn't. (EDIT: the two battles of the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz were both part of Guadalcanal, a six month campaign that involved more sorties of naval planes than the entire rest of the war put together. In other words, the overwhelming majority of carrier fighter combat in WW2 occurred south of the Equator!

We can conclude that the plotting boards had accurate distances between the lines of longitude between each given segment of the lines of latitude. And those plotting boards were based on RE.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 07:43:30 PM by existoid »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #126 on: April 06, 2021, 10:39:12 AM »
To again try to get this back on track  ;D

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0
Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.

I think this comment and my reply probably belong on that other thread....(I only linked it to suggest it can be added to the OP list of this thread).  But I'll reply here anyway:

The plotting boards being flat doesn't disprove my WW2 argument any more than an azimuthal projection of the globe disproves that the earth is a globe.

What matters for the plotting boards is that they had to have highly accurate measurements for the distances of longitude south of the Equator. If their measurements were off by as much as the monopole FE map suggests, then virtually none of the WW2 pilots who fought in carrier battles south of the Equator would have survived - they all would have failed to return to their carriers and been lost at sea. (EDIT: WW2 carrier planes had ranges in the hundreds of miles and fought over spaces far far beyond sight of any land or their carrier groups - which is why failing to navigate properly literally was a life or death proposition for them).

As I wrote in that post, 60% (3 of the 5) major carrier battles of the war occurred south of the Equator - Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz. These three battles involved tens of thousands of pilots from Japan and the US. Without accurate distances between lines of longitude on their plotting boards these men would have all died. But they didn't. (EDIT: the two battles of the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz were both part of Guadalcanal, a six month campaign that involved more sorties of naval planes than the entire rest of the war put together. In other words, the overwhelming majority of carrier fighter combat in WW2 occurred south of the Equator!

We can conclude that the plotting boards had accurate distances between the lines of longitude between each given segment of the lines of latitude. And those plotting boards were based on RE.
The plotting boards did not need to have highly accurate measurements, any more than your travel atlas.

Get me within 10 or 20or even 50 miles and it will be just fine.

So. to sum it up the carrier battles took place within the 10th parallel.

Wow.

Kind of lays waste to your observation.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #127 on: April 06, 2021, 10:57:41 AM »
Quote from: Action80 link=topic=17884.msg236096#msg236096 date=.

So. to sum it up the carrier battles took place within the 10th parallel.

Wow.

Kind of lays waste to your observation.

And the Falklands? Your thoughts on that conflict please. Is it in fact a lot more than 400nm from the east coast of Argentina to the islands, for example?

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #128 on: April 06, 2021, 02:22:20 PM »
The plotting boards did not need to have highly accurate measurements, any more than your travel atlas.

Get me within 10 or 20or even 50 miles and it will be just fine.

If you got back to within 10 miles of your carrier group you stand a chance of spotting them and landing back aboard. But at 20 or even 50 miles ;D you stand an excellent chance of missing them altogether at a 200+knot airspeed. They’re not going to talk you in either, strict radio silence is the order of the day lest others are listening too. Unless visibility is perfect and you have a peregrine falcon’s eyesight you’re due a long swim.

The ocean is a vast place, accurate navigation was essential and still is. FE maps are as useful as a jelly sandwich.
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #129 on: April 06, 2021, 03:30:56 PM »
Quote from: Action80 link=topic=17884.msg236096#msg236096 date=.

So. to sum it up the carrier battles took place within the 10th parallel.

Wow.

Kind of lays waste to your observation.

And the Falklands? Your thoughts on that conflict please. Is it in fact a lot more than 400nm from the east coast of Argentina to the islands, for example?
What about the Falklands?

It does not matter where your point of reference lies.

If you are familiar with the lay of the territory and have markers placed in the ocean, you are going to know where you are at, regardless.

This whole RET stuff is for the birds.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #130 on: April 06, 2021, 03:33:19 PM »
The plotting boards did not need to have highly accurate measurements, any more than your travel atlas.

Get me within 10 or 20or even 50 miles and it will be just fine.

If you got back to within 10 miles of your carrier group you stand a chance of spotting them and landing back aboard. But at 20 or even 50 miles ;D you stand an excellent chance of missing them altogether at a 200+knot airspeed. They’re not going to talk you in either, strict radio silence is the order of the day lest others are listening too. Unless visibility is perfect and you have a peregrine falcon’s eyesight you’re due a long swim.

The ocean is a vast place, accurate navigation was essential and still is. FE maps are as useful as a jelly sandwich.
Considering all the maps on a ship are flat, it seems your point is moot.

Marker buoys are utilized frequently.

And they are not based on a globe.

They are based on the celestial sphere.

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 880
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #131 on: April 06, 2021, 04:10:25 PM »

Marker buoys are utilized frequently.


Are you actually proposing that in WW2 in the south pacific there were marker buoys and that naval pilots used them in order to safely return to their carriers?  I would love to see your citation for this.


And they are not based on a globe.

They are based on the celestial sphere.

Again, would love to see a citation for how marker buoys utilize the celestial sphere in order to work.
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #132 on: April 06, 2021, 07:17:56 PM »

What about the Falklands?

It does not matter where your point of reference lies.

If you are familiar with the lay of the territory and have markers placed in the ocean, you are going to know where you are at, regardless.

This whole RET stuff is for the birds.

Ok, since it doesn't seem to have sunk in, let's try this again, with pictures.

Here's Argentina and the Falkland islands, as shown on Google Earth, which I'm taking to be accurate.



Here's a zoomed in view, showing the distance from a representative spot on the east coast of the mainland, where the Argentine strike bases were located:



For comparison, here's the UK:



So the UK is quite a bit bigger, north-south, than the distance from the mainland of Argentina to the Falklands.

Here's the monopole FE map, showing the same area, with the UK (shown in the red box), taken from the same map at the same scale, transposed to the same location and rotated so you can compare the distances:



So according to the monopole FE map, the Falkland islands are quite a bit further from the Argentinian mainland - quite a bit further than the north-south size of the UK, in fact. Hard to say exactly from the map, but I'd say about twice the length if we measure to the 60 degree west line of longitude - around 1000nm.

So, it's not so much the pilots getting lost I'm talking about - I'm sure it's pretty to easy to find the islands and then head west to get home again. However, if the range is wrong, you'd simply run out of fuel. So...how far is it from the Falklands to the east coast of Argentina around where I've drawn the arrow? Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm? You don't think they might, for example, have a pretty good understanding of speed - distance - time calculations, and their aircraft's performance figures? 

And that of course is just one example. We could talk about the Black Buck raids, flown from Ascension Island all the way to the Falklands and back - a masterpiece of air to air refuelling planning. All done based on round earth ranges and bearings. Or we could just talk about the obvious massive width distortion of Argentina - is it really so much wider than people who live there think it is?

 

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14013
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #133 on: April 06, 2021, 07:19:30 PM »
Google Earth, which I'm taking to be accurate.
Why?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #134 on: April 06, 2021, 07:40:43 PM »
Google Earth, which I'm taking to be accurate.
Why?

Why not?

I'm sure it's not inch-perfect (indeed there are papers written by surveyors challenging its detailed precision), but its a good enough representation of the globe. I've driven and flown aircraft the length and breadth of the UK, so the size indicated by Google Earth seems reasonable compared to the journey distances and durations I've experienced. Moreover, a gross-error check simply by observing that the UK sits between the 50th and 59 northings, and therefore must be around 9 x 60 = 540nm long (my map measurement was a bit shorter than this, but then I started a bit further up the south coast).

Helpfully, the monopole FET map in the wiki still retains the lat/long grids, albeit clearly hugely distorted, particularly in the southern hemisphere, and we can see that the lat/long relationships of the key features of both the UK and Argentina / Falklands have been retained. The Falklands, for example, are still at around 52S 60W.

So yes, the figures from Google Earth look reasonable, whereas the ranges shown on the southern half of the monopole FET map appear to be completely at odds with the consensus. 

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #135 on: April 06, 2021, 08:05:15 PM »

The plotting boards did not need to have highly accurate measurements, any more than your travel atlas.

Get me within 10 or 20or even 50 miles and it will be just fine.

So. to sum it up the carrier battles took place within the 10th parallel.

Wow.

Kind of lays waste to your observation.

Not at all.

Firstly, the lines of longitude are going to be off by a lot more than 20 miles, even 50 miles. Sadly, we can't really measure that because the wiki proposes zero maps with actual scale for the expanding distance between each line of latitude the further south you go beyond the equator. But we should be able to dispense with the notion that we're talking a small difference.

The massive six month Guadalcanal campaign, which comprised the two biggest carrier battles of the war - Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz - was fought in this area over tens of thousands of square miles (yes, tens of thousands of square miles) in the area of the Solomon Islands and other archipelagos nearby.

Google tells us that the Solomon Islands are 666 miles south of the Equator. So, yes, a huge number of carrier fighters were flying around on the open ocean in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 (or more) lines of latitude south. At that point, according to the FE monopole map as displayed in the wiki, it's pretty clear the lines are quite divergent. If each line of longitude began (at the equator) at about 69 miles apart (something I assume no one disagrees with, FE or RE), then by the time those lines reach the Solomon Islands they're quite a bit off. The error is not going to be a few dozen miles apart, but over a hundred. This means death to the pilots. And that didn't happen.

Furthermore, even if the discrepancy were only, say, 10 miles off, there's the fact that these planes sometimes failed to find their carriers and survive (a minority overall, to be sure), but this means that even with accurate plotting boards mistakes can happen. The visibility of the scouting planes were only about 25 miles out on a clear day. Fighters, whose cockpit had different designs (for different needs) could see even less than that. A deviation of 10 miles, against a ship that is also moving (carriers didn't sit still during any battles, but always moved), often meant the fighters had to circle around looking for their ships even with highly accurate plotting boards. An error of 10 miles likely translates into mistakes of dozens of miles off, which would have resulted in far more sea deaths than recorded. These planes had ranges in the hundreds of miles, but they had to go to the enemy, fight, then return, and didn't usually have the luxury of being able to spending another hour looking for their carrier group. They had to find it fast.

And finally, what about all the other battles in other places further or closer to the equator? There is no record or indication that planes were fitted with different plotting boards for each battle. In fact, carriers and their fighter pilots often didn't know where/when they would be fighting. The plotting boards had to work for any part of the ocean. So, are you arguing that the plotting boards were off by 10 in some places, 20 in others, and 50 in even others? If the pilots didn't even know the margin of error that sounds like a recipe for sea landing disasters almost universally.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14013
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #136 on: April 06, 2021, 08:53:35 PM »
Why not?
Because if you presuppose that RET is correct before debating whether RET is correct, the latter debate becomes rather useless.

If you're here to assert that you preferred model is correct through circular reasoning, you should quite bluntly stop being here.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #137 on: April 06, 2021, 09:07:34 PM »
Why not?
Because if you presuppose that RET is correct before debating whether RET is correct, the latter debate becomes rather useless.

If you're here to assert that you preferred model is correct through circular reasoning, you should quite bluntly stop being here.

I didn't do that though, did I? I gave you some good reasons why I've assumed GE to be correct. Moreover, if you read my post carefully, you'll see I don't actually need the GE distances to be correct in isolation. The point is that I've removed distances from the equation and introduced a new 'ruler' - the distance from end to end of the UK from north-south. The RE consensus, Google included, would suggest that the distance flown by the Argentinian pilots in 1982 was around 50% of that distance, each way. The FET monopole map suggests a much, much larger distance. They can't both be right. If the UK is much shorter than we think it is, then every long car journey in the UK must be wrong. That cannot be the case - I've driven from the south of England all the way to Inverness, and the distance on my odo was entirely consistent with Google, and my car's sat nav, and indeed one of the old-school distance tables in a road atlas. Unless anybody is seriously challenging the size of the UK, can we move on from this one?

So if the UK is correctly measured, that leaves one or two other options. For the monopole FE map to be correct, the Argentine pilots must have been flying far, far faster than they realised - impressive in, for example, a subsonic A4. You'd think they might notice if it suddenly became possible to fly way in excess of Mach 1 in a subsonic aircraft. Or maybe they flew at subsonic speeds and just didn't notice that their missions took way longer than they'd planned, and miraculously didn't need any more fuel? Don't you think this is perhaps just a little ridiculous?

Could we entertain the possibility that maybe the monopole FET map isn't correct?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2774
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #138 on: April 06, 2021, 09:14:22 PM »
Why not?
Because if you presuppose that RET is correct before debating whether RET is correct, the latter debate becomes rather useless.

One could state;

"If we assume FE is correct, then ..." (then proposition and argument follows based on that stated assumption)

OR

"If we assume RE is correct, then ..." (proposition and argument follows based on stated assumption)

Each is equally valid as a starting point. Not necessarily presumption that one or the other is correct, but the basis on which further argument and discussion is based. Each is equally valid, surely?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14013
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #139 on: April 06, 2021, 09:43:43 PM »
Each is equally valid as a starting point.
Indeed - both are equally worthless.

However, this is not what happened here - what happened here is even less useful. Rather than saying "If we assume RET/FET, then [...]", we've gone straight for "[RET assumptions] are reality, therefore [...]"
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice