[Tontogary]

Rowbotham spends a lot of time talking about great circle sailing and navigation and such in Earth Not a Globe.

As for great circle sailing, he spends a lot of the chapter waxing lyrical about people seeking answers wherever they may be and clutching at theories, but all that is by the by.

His prof, or explanation is below

“If the reader will draw a series of Rhumb-lines on a map of "the globe," he will at once see that the course is circuitous. But if he draws lines at a slight angle north in the northern, and south in the southern region, to the above-named Rhumb-lines, he will readily notice that the ship's course is more direct, and therefore the mariner adopting the so-called "great circle'' method, must of necessity save both time and distance, but only in comparison with the Rhumb-line path. It is not absolutely the shortest route; as the earth is a plane, the degrees of longitude in the south must diverge or expand, and spread out as the latitude increases; and the parallels or lines of latitude must be circles concentric with the northern centre. Hence there is in reality a still shorter path than either the Rhumb-line or the great circle course.”

As you can see bye the above his proof requires the world to be flat, and uses the argument that the earth is flat to prove his point, thereby having a circular argument.
Ie the earth is flat, so great circle sailing is not the shortest route, and the fact that i have proved on “a flat earth” that the great circle route is not the shortest, proves the world is flat!

Anyone who understands navigation and sailing would also understand he has made basic errors in describing Rhumb line sailing, Parrallel sailing and plain sailing, so he clearly does not understand the concept, therefore his conclusions are hogwash.

Better try again Tom. AnaG DOES NOT deal with GC sailing, or circumnavigation.

I suggest you try understanding the basics of your subject before discussing it with someone who knows, or rely upon an out of date text written by someone without knowledge of the subject for your proofs.

[AATW]

They aren't "hiding a Flat Earth". They are perpetuating the idea that Space Travel is possible, which they had to do to win the Cold War. They are simply mistaken on the earth's shape.

It goes a bit beyond that though, "they" are somehow faking things like GPS and Satellite TV and the ISS.
The airline industry are using great circles as part of their flight path planning.

"They" are pretending a lot more than just that space travel is possible.

And wouldn't it have been easier of the US to call Russia out on Gagarin and Sputnik if they were faking it too? And why are all the other space agencies now faking it?
It's just all too ridiculous to be plausible. Do you think the conversation went:

Sky TV: "Hi, is that the European space agency?"
ESA: "Yep, how can I help?"
Sky: "I hear you can put things into space?"
ESA: "Certainly can. Piece of cake, mate".
Sky: "Cool! 'Cos we've got this idea to have a satellite in orbit to beam TV into people's homes. You can do that, right?"
ESA: "Er..."
Sky: "We'll pay you!"
ESA: "Er...sure, we can do that."

And then what, a panicked conversation took place in the ESA about how they're going to fake it so millions of people can think they're getting TV signals from a satellite. As I've said before, the dishes in Sri Lanka when I went there with work were pointing up noticeably more than they do here which tallies with a geostationary satellite above the equator. What are they pointing at?!

[Bobby Shafto]

And then what, a panicked conversation took place in the ESA about how they're going to fake it so millions of people can think they're getting TV signals from a satellite. As I've said before, the dishes in Sri Lanka when I went there with work were pointing up noticeably more than they do here which tallies with a geostationary satellite above the equator. What are they pointing at?!

And TV dishes near Fairbanks, AK are pointed at the horizon.

[AATW]

There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.

http://www.dishpointer.com/

Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.

[Tom Bishop]

There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.

http://www.dishpointer.com/

Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.

What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?

Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?

[Bobby Shafto]

What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?

Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?

Occam's razor.

[jcks]

There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.

http://www.dishpointer.com/

Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.

What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?

Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?

What are they telling them to point to, if not satellites? I think that's the bigger question here.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.

http://www.dishpointer.com/

Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.

What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?

Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?

Because it asserts that there is a satellite there that could be seen with a telescope.

[inquisitive]

There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.

http://www.dishpointer.com/

Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.

What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?

Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?

What has NASA got to do with eg. european satellites?  And it works, check it.

[Tom Bishop]

There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.

http://www.dishpointer.com/

Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.

What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?

Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?

Because it asserts that there is a satellite there that could be seen with a telescope.

You will have to show that all of the communication satellites can be seen with a telescope. Most images of such online are only of the ISS, maybe a few other large bodies, and when iridium flares occur. As far as I'm aware, the smaller ones are not seen. And if they were seen, it does not follow that a small prick of light is a "satellite" in an orbit around a globe earth.

[Tumeni]

You will have to show that all of the communication satellites can be seen with a telescope.

There's a good few hundred of them. Would you settle for a subset, for the sake of brevity?

As far as I'm aware,

Your unawareness is no proof of anything


the smaller ones are not seen.

Wrong. See below


And if they were seen, it does not follow that a small prick of light is a "satellite" in an orbit around a globe earth.

Yet everyone who tracks them does so on the basis that they are in orbit.

Here, these guys make telescopes with automatic tracking software.



They're different from these guys, who use laser ranging to track satellite trajectories

http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/

And they're different from this guy, who tracked the SpaceX Falcon Heavy/Tesla mission



And dishpointer is a UK company who make their money from software development

http://www.dishpointer.com/#contact
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06921189

[inquisitive]

There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.

http://www.dishpointer.com/

Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.

What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?

Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?

Because it asserts that there is a satellite there that could be seen with a telescope.

You will have to show that all of the communication satellites can be seen with a telescope. Most images of such online are only of the ISS, maybe a few other large bodies, and when iridium flares occur. As far as I'm aware, the smaller ones are not seen. And if they were seen, it does not follow that a small prick of light is a "satellite" in an orbit around a globe earth.

Tom - please answer 'What has NASA got to do with eg. european satellites?  And it works, check it.'

[Tom Bishop]

Yet everyone who tracks them does so on the basis that they are in orbit.

Here, these guys make telescopes with automatic tracking software.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ

That is not a demonstration that all of the satellites can be seen. Clearly some of them like the ISS and the MIR can be seen. We have no idea how big those satellites are or what time of the day it is in that video.

The ISS can only be seen a small amount of time around dawn or dusk, because the earth's shadow gets in the way (according to RET). The reasoning is the same for other LEO satellite bodies. It is not true that you can just point your telescope up into the sky and see the ISS or any satellite when they are overhead.

This video is insufficient as evidence that they can all be seen at all times of the night when they are in the sky. It's a promotional video from the company, in attempt to sell a very expensive telescope. Clearly they are selecting carefully selected targets. Look at NASA's website for how long the ISS appears in the sky: a very short amount of time near the edges of night.

And again: A small prick of light does not lead to the direct conclusion that it is in orbit around a globe earth.

They're different from these guys, who use laser ranging to track satellite trajectories

http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/

And what are the results of such experiments?

And they're different from this guy, who tracked the SpaceX Falcon Heavy/Tesla mission

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQdSGQajj0

He tracked the rocket stages as they ejected? Super. No one said the rockets were fake.

And dishpointer is a UK company who make their money from software development

http://www.dishpointer.com/#contact
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06921189

They developed the satellite finding software and gave it away for free? Doesn't sound like good business to me.

[inquisitive]

Yet everyone who tracks them does so on the basis that they are in orbit.

Here, these guys make telescopes with automatic tracking software.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ

That is not a demonstration that all of the satellites can be seen. Clearly some of them like the ISS and the MIR can be seen. We have no idea how big those satellites are or what time of the day it is in that video.

The ISS can only be seen a small amount of time around dawn or dusk, because the earth's shadow gets in the way (according to RET). The reasoning is the same for other LEO satellite bodies. It is not true that you can just point your telescope up into the sky and see the ISS or any satellite when they are overhead.

This video is insufficient as evidence that they can all be seen at all times of the night when they are in the sky. It's a promotional video from the company, in order to sell a very expensive telescope. Clearly they are selecting carefully selected targets. Look at NASA's website for how long the ISS appears in the sky: a very short amount of time near the edges of night.

And again: A small prick of light does not lead to the direct conclusion that it is in orbit around a globe earth.

They're different from these guys, who use laser ranging to track satellite trajectories

http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/

And what are the results of such experiments?

And they're different from this guy, who tracked the SpaceX Falcon Heavy/Tesla mission

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQdSGQajj0

He tracked the rocket stages as they ejected? Super. No one said the rockets were fake.

And dishpointer is a UK company who make their money from software development

http://www.dishpointer.com/#contact
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06921189

They developed the satellite finding software and gave it away for free? Doesn't sound like good business to me.

See what else the company does. The pro version costs.

Meanwhile you agree that satellites are used for broadcasting and navigation.

[Tom Bishop]

I fee like a lot of my time is being wasted. Why don't you guys come up with something that truly cannot be refuted and post a thread about it, instead of trying to engage me with a hundred different subjects and fallacious appeals.

[inquisitive]

I fee like a lot of my time is being wasted. Why don't you guys come up with something that truly cannot be refuted and post a thread about it, instead of trying to engage me with a hundred different subjects and fallacious appeals.

How convenient for someone with no proof of his beliefs.

[Tumeni]

That is not a demonstration that all of the satellites can be seen.

Nobody claimed it was. It's a demonstration of their telescope tracking (some) orbital satellites, and of the telescope switching between satellites.


We have no idea how big those satellites are or what time of the day it is in that video.

So what?

It is not true that you can just point your telescope up into the sky and see the ISS or any satellite when they are overhead.

It is true. Plane Wave Media are demonstrating it in their video. That's not their only video, look at the rest on their channel

This video is insufficient as evidence that they can all be seen at all times of the night when they are in the sky.

Nobody claimed that, anyway

Clearly they are selecting carefully selected targets.

So what?


Look at NASA's website for how long the ISS appears in the sky: a very short amount of time near the edges of night.

So what? They're not tracking the ISS


A small prick of light does not lead to the direct conclusion that it is in orbit around a globe earth.

The video shows the output from the telescope - the orbital satellite being tracked, with stars rapidly flashing across the background, whilst the tracked satellite remains in centre frame. It shows the telescope in motion as it tracks and switches targets. There's a star field, which shows which constellation it is pointed at, and there's a data window pertaining to the satellite being tracked, along with other data.


What possible motive would there be to fake this? What could the tracked object be, other than a satellite? 

They're different from these guys, who use laser ranging to track satellite trajectories

http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/

And what are the results of such experiments?

Look deeper at their website. Take more than the few minutes since I posted here. There's a LOT of data to find there. Take your time. Read. Think.

And they're different from this guy, who tracked the SpaceX Falcon Heavy/Tesla mission

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVQdSGQajj0

He tracked the rocket stages as they ejected? Super. No one said the rockets were fake.

So you accept that he tracked the stage 2 rocket as claimed, out beyond the Moon?

And dishpointer is a UK company who make their money from software development

http://www.dishpointer.com/#contact
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06921189

They developed the satellite finding software and gave it away for free? Doesn't sound like good business to me.

Yes, they're a software house based in the UK. Not affiliated to NASA. That was my point, not the range of their products.

Your assertion was that they're all connected to NASA, so I'm showing you a range of folks who are not.

[Tumeni]

I fee like a lot of my time is being wasted.

Boo Hoo ....

Why don't you guys come up with something that truly cannot be refuted and post a thread about it, instead of trying to engage me with a hundred different subjects and fallacious appeals.

All anyone has done is respond to your baseless assertions after you wandered into the thread.

[Tumeni]

What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?

Do you have any evidence that they are NOT 'different people'?

Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?

Furthermore, do you have any evidence of such an interface actually being used?

Given that most of the satellites already in orbit, and those upcoming this year, are NOT NASA craft, why's it still all about NASA?

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

The ISS can only be seen a small amount of time around dawn or dusk, because the earth's shadow gets in the way (according to RET). The reasoning is the same for other LEO satellite bodies. It is not true that you can just point your telescope up into the sky and see the ISS or any satellite when they are overhead.

A satellite in a geostationary orbit would not be in shadow except on an equinox.

And again: A small prick of light does not lead to the direct conclusion that it is in orbit around a globe earth

No, but a small prick of light that consistently shows up at the exact place and time that Kepler's equations predict makes the alternative unlikely.

They developed the satellite finding software and gave it away for free? Doesn't sound like good business to me.

Lots of software is free.