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.
Where is this explained, can't find it?Distances above/inside the equator are shorter, below/outside they are longer. Please explain.No.
Please read the FAQs.
Distances above/inside the equator are shorter, below/outside they are longer. Please explain.Not sure you answered my question. If you look at a current flat earth map the quickest route between those points flies over the arctic. But that distance appears to be approximately 18 to 20 k miles. The flight takes 16 hours x 500 mph= 9,000. Not sure what you mean by ''route you'd normanly take''
It was a snarky joke because you posted your question in the wrong forum. Forgive me.
To answer your question, any discrepancy in distance and time it takes to travel to one location on the Flat Earth map is due to government/conspiracy involvement. Pilots are paid by the government to fly around longer than they should, thus making it seem like the "correct" distance has been achieved under a Round Earth model. Trips that would theoretically take several hours to complete in a plane actually take much less time than you are led to believe. This is because the pilots circle around the same location several times before taking you to your actual destination.
I hope this answered your question. if I missed the point please rephrase.
How do you think they stay in space?for that part about how the satellites keep running well have you ever done the thing where you swing a bucket fall of water around and the water stays in the bucket instead of falling out, well its sort of like that concept but replicated with space. oh and you should all play kerbal space program gives you a great idea on how round earth theory works
Are you seriously trying to claim that centrifugal force keeps satellites in space? I feel dumber now.
It is not 'round earth thinking'. It is the normal method of science and discovery.Or perhaps not, because how would you really know? This is the fallacy of round earth thinking. "Surely someone else has figured this out by now." Round Earth thought is lazy intellectualism.For a map, look at the UN logo. It's a simple approximation.Surely, easy enough to find out with technology.
The edge is either at the ice wall - known as Antarctica- beyond it, such as in The Book
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17001.0#.UzLvorsRegE
Or perhaps it's infinite. Simple answer is that we don't know.
Sorry, but it is. See pictures, use of satellites, sunrise and sunset around the world, measured distances.Sorry to interject, but was Rowbotham wrong when he said that if the earth is a globe 25,000 miles in circumference, a person should be able to see curvature with the naked eye at ground level?No, it's just that the Earth isn't a globe.
I have not measured these distances, so I can not say for sure if you are correct. Have you?So what have you done, other than to quote a 130 year old book, which may be fiction and not fact?
For a map, look at the UN logo. It's a simple approximation.Surely, easy enough to find out with technology.
The edge is either at the ice wall - known as Antarctica- beyond it, such as in The Book
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17001.0#.UzLvorsRegE
Or perhaps it's infinite. Simple answer is that we don't know.
I give up. There's no point in trying to teach you proper debate if you're not willing to even try. Off to the ignore list you go.There is not a lot to debate, nobody has explained an alternative.
I suggest you refer to documents published by members of respected professional institutions and other organisations. You could also contact the many companies in the industry to understand their products.The existance of satellutes is not an idea, it is fact.Then it should be very easy to prove, and I encourage you to do so.How does your satellite tv service work?Not much can be said about that, given that my satellite TV service doesn't exist.
So what would back up the claim or facts from millions who understand how they work, plus those who design and build them, are they wrong?Do you really doubt that satellites exist? What do dishes point at, measure the angles to find the source. Talk to people in the industry.Why, why, why are you so reluctant to just back your claim up? Two can play that game, you know.
*ahem*
The Earth is hollow and we've known that for ages. Just look at satellite dishes, measure where they point. Talk to people in tinfoil hats. Also, your claims about satellites are untrue because of simple maths and set theory. Simple physics tells us that you must be wrong. Please explain how satellites have enough fuel to keep flying around the Earth.
This is what your posts look like. They include empty claims with no substantiation at all, pretend to refer to "basic" and "simple" stuff (but never in any specific way), and claim that others said what they didn't say. Do you understand how worthless that is in a discussion?
Do you really doubt that satellites exist? What do dishes point at, measure the angles to find the source. Talk to people in the industry.I've done a pretty good job when it comes to quoting the claims while making requests. In fact, the very post you've quoted features two of those. I made them bold and pink for your convenience.What claims have I made that need substantiating?Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.You have yet to substantiate that.Why is it that RE'ers are obligated to show why FET doesn't work but FE'ers aren't obligated show why FET does work? Seriously, how can Inquisitive properly refute Thork's ionospheric skip proposal when Thork did not provide a workable proposal to refute?He can't, and I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that he substantiates his own claims. Thork at least made a sloppy attempt.
Which tests? Are you asking me to prove that non-existent tests prove something?Measure the dish angles for a particular satellite. Look at how live tv is transmitted from war zones.
So, you are claiming that signals you are told come from space proves that these signals have come from space?All the tests prove it, unless you can show otherwise.
There are many channels on TV that are not claimed to come from outer space. Also, your position can be calculated without flying trashcans telling you where you are.So? What about those that do come from space. As discussed before other options does not exclude a solution.
This is your standard answer to everything. Nice try. Where does anyone say 'cannot'?Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.Funny that is what I was accusing you of!Yes, good thing I called you out on it. Anyway, please stop derailing this thread. Feel free to continue trying to trip me up via PM if you so desire.
Communication cannot occur unless satellites are real? Didn't people communicate via radio waves long before these supposed satellites were invented?
I just explained, you'd know the distance by which wave you picked up. You could tell by the shape of the wave.GPS uses 1.5G, not from ionosphere, but satellites. Has to be direct to know path distance.
GPS signals are returned. The proof is that you receive them.