Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
FE and ICBMs
« on: May 23, 2021, 10:09:09 PM »
Do ICBMs exist? Who aims them? Do they know the distance to the target? What map do they use? FE or RE$, gonna hit in a very different place.

V-2s in WW2 certainly existed, works fine on FE, not precision guided and short range, so earth curve doesn't matter. Starting in 1946, Werner Von Braun at White Sands and the USSR started improving the V-2, gradually improving the range and guidance until precise over thousands of miles. Tested and pr'd, from Vandenburg to south Pacific test range. I see no reason why ICBMs would not work on FE, but the aiming equation would be very different.

I found a diagram of ICBM trajectory that I can't manage to link to, but if you extend the line from the launch site straight as in FE, the range error has got to be hundreds, maybe thousands of miles.

Do ICBMs exist?
Have they been tested for accuracy?
Does the equation use FE or RE math?

The details of this story on RE are well known. Can someone fill in the FE details? Programmers secretly know FE, but are under threat to keep it secret? ICBMs do not have accuracy? What's up?

Perhaps USSR, UK, USA, China, etc all know FE, all agreed to keep it secret, and all want to have ICBM credibility when no such thing exists?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8923
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2021, 03:48:52 PM »
Quote
V-2s in WW2 certainly existed, works fine on FE, not precision guided and short range, so earth curve doesn't matter. Starting in 1946, Werner Von Braun at White Sands and the USSR started improving the V-2

Yes, lets all trust a Nazi war criminal who was protected from prosecution by the military to boast claims for its own military space weapons that everyone desperately wanted at the time for national security. Wonderful source there.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1606
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2021, 04:58:59 PM »
Do ICBMs exist? Who aims them? Do they know the distance to the target? What map do they use? FE or RE$, gonna hit in a very different place.

V-2s in WW2 certainly existed, works fine on FE, not precision guided and short range, so earth curve doesn't matter. Starting in 1946, Werner Von Braun at White Sands and the USSR started improving the V-2, gradually improving the range and guidance until precise over thousands of miles. Tested and pr'd, from Vandenburg to south Pacific test range. I see no reason why ICBMs would not work on FE, but the aiming equation would be very different.
A ICBM wouldn't really work well on a FE with UA.  The equations in use depend upon a decreasing gravitational attraction as the rocket gets more distant from the center of the earth.  Under UA that wouldn't make a difference and the altitude VS propulsion strength would be different and the rocket's range would be shorter.  Perhaps North Korea's rocket man thinks the earth is flat.  That would be a good thing because his aim would be wrong.  North Korea does have rockets because one of them were seen going over the ship I was on while we were transiting between Korea and Japan several years ago.  Things were a bit tense a few weeks prior to that while we were in Honolulu loading cargo because of some threats from rocket man.   


You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8923
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2021, 07:00:40 PM »
On NASA Marshall Space Flight Center director Wernher von Braun -

A survivor's account from Wernher von Braun, the SS, and Concentration Camp Labor: Questions of Moral, Political, and Criminal Responsibility:

Quote
Like the good Nazi he was, he immediately started shouting that it was sabotage, when just at that point VON BRAUN arrived accompanied by his usual group of people. Without even listening to my explanations, he ordered the Meister to have me given 25 strokes in his presence by an SS [man] who was there. Then judging the strokes weren't sufficiently hard, he ordered that I be flogged more vigorously, and this order was then diligently carried out, which caused much hilarity in the group, and following this flogging, VON BRAUN made me translate that I deserved much more, that in fact I deserved to be hanged, which certainly would be
the fate of the "Mensch" (good-for nothing) I was.

A quote from an article called The Rocket Man’s Dark Side, published by TIME:

Quote
Indeed, some 20,000 died at Dora, from illness, beatings, hangings and intolerable working conditions. Workers, scantily clad, were forced to stand at attention in the biting cold during roll calls that went on for hours. Average survival time in the unventilated paint shop was one month. One prisoner told of being bitten on his legs by guard dogs. Presumably to test the effectiveness of a new medication, one of his legs was treated, the other allowed to fester and deteriorate.

For reasons best known to von Braun, who held the rank of colonel in the dreaded Nazi SS, the prisoners were ordered to turn their backs whenever he came into view. Those caught stealing glances at him were hung. One survivor recalled that von Braun, after inspecting a rocket component, charged, "That is clear sabotage." His unquestioned judgment resulted in eleven men being hanged on the spot. Says Gehrels, "von Braun was directly involved in hangings."

Hangings were commonplace, and Dora inmates remember von Braun arriving in the morning with an unidentified woman, having to step between bodies of dead prisoners and under others still hanging from a crane. These were not ordinary hangings, Gehrels says, "not hanging that breaks the neck of the prisoner, but they were slowly choked to death with a kind of baling wire around their neck."
« Last Edit: May 30, 2021, 12:06:34 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #4 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Test_Project

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?


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8923
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2021, 10:34:11 PM »
It wasn't only Von Braun, Operation Paperclip involved many Nazis:

https://www.aish.com/ci/s/Operation-Paperclip-The-Truth-about-Bringing-Nazi-Scientists-to-America.html

Quote
On July 6, 1945, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a top-secret memorandum that was so explosive it was never even shown to President Truman. Titled “Exploitation of German Specialists in Science and Technology in the United States”, it outlined a program for “procurement, utilization and control of specialists” – in other words, a plan to recruit Nazi weapons scientists and bring them to the United States. The Military Intelligence of the War Department, a unit known as G-2, was given control of the program.

It was a plan conducted in secret, that not even the President knew about.

Another Nazi, Arthur Rudolph:

Quote
When he was granted entry to the US under Operation Paperclip, Rudolph was described by American officials in Germany as an “ardent Nazi”. He’d personally overseen slave labor and been present when prisoners were executed. West German and American officials classified him as a war criminal. Yet these accusations were quietly erased from his official file, and Rudolph worked for NASA.

In the 1960s, Rudolph became a key engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, managing teams of scientists working on the Saturn 5 rocket that in 1969 launched the Apollo rocket in the first manned flight to the moon.

So it's not only the director; in the above we see that we have a Nazi managing teams that worked on the Saturn V.

Clearly, when you are trying to get knowledge from captured enemy Nazis you should put them in direct management of your critical rocket programs rather than a consulting role.

Many were brought to the US:

Quote
In total, about 1,600 Nazi scientists were brought to the US under Operation Paperclip, as well as their families. They evaded justice and in many cases were able to erase all mention of their Nazi pasts in their official biographies. For most of these scientists, justice never caught up and many died in America, seemingly innocent workers whose neighbors and friends and coworkers never knew the gruesome secrets in their pasts.

Maybe America isn't such an upstanding country after all:

Quote
For years, Nazis “were indeed knowingly granted entry” to the United States the OSI concluded. “America, which prided itself on being a safe haven for the persecuted, became – in some small measure – a safe haven for persecutors as well.”

I guess we have to trust literal Nazis and the War Department on this one. Think what you will, but I have a hard time trusting the Nazis and the War Department on anything.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2021, 11:09:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #6 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"?


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8923
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2021, 12:58:20 AM »
I am of the belief that RE geometry does not truly work. The Wiki explores that. My best evidence is that the RE scientists admit that various parts of RE don't work or that the data suggests something else; and they are not misquoted. When you put it all together RE doesn't work. All the Wiki does is put it together and cite with minimal commentary, to say the things they can't.

FE has mysteries, contradicting models, and much to be explored, certainly, but there is a zero dollar research budget there and relies on research that can be found online, which is quite limited when you are trying to find some specific things.

ICBMs are more of an unknowable quantity that we just have to trust the Nazis and War Department on. If you want to trust them, fine with me. I will opt to explore the possibility that they are nefarious.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2021, 01:52:10 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1606
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2021, 01:45:35 AM »
I am of the belief that RE geometry does not truly work. The Wiki explores that. My best evidence is that the RE scientists admit that various parts of RE don't work or that the data suggests something else; and they are not misquoted. When you put it all together RE doesn't work. All the wiki does is putt it together and cite with minimal commentary, to say the things they can't.
Ship's navigators believe that RE geometry really does work.  Celestial navigation has been proven to work, countless times.  GPS is just an automated form of celestial navigation and has been proven to be accurate each and every day while at sea.  Gyroscopes indicate that the earth is a sphere.  This fact can be demonstrated in the Zetetic fashion every time it's tried.  It doesn't matter how many books you read or how many 'scientists' you give reference to, those who make their living traveling internationally have to believe in a spherical earth.  It isn't 'brain washing' it's the practical application of the theories taught.  When theories are taught and you can't make them work when everything is on the line, then even the most adamant RE'er would get suspicious.  In 20+ years of traveling around the globe this has never happened to me.  What have I missed?  Where does RE geometry go wrong?  It's important that navigators know this kind of thing when we have to depend upon what we are taught to make a safe arrival at the next port.     
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8923
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2021, 02:07:35 AM »
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.

But I'm not sure if even that model exists. We have tables of the Moon based on historical data, not a mathematical revolving model; at least one that doesn't use epicycles.

The great RE mathematician Isaac Newton used epicycles in his math of the Moon going around the Earth:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#Newton.27s_Epicycles

Quote
Newton's Epicycles

Historian of Science William Whewell (bio) informs us that Newton used epicycles for the Moon:

History of the Inductive Sciences (1846)

  “ 3.— The Epicyclical Hypothesis was found capable of accommodating itself to such new discoveries. These new inequalities could be represented by new combinations of eccentrics and epicycles: all the realand imaginary discoveries by astronomers, up to Copernicus, were actually embodied in these hypotheses; Copernicus, as we have said, did not reject such hypotheses; the lunar inequalities which Tycho etected might have boen similarly exhibited; and even Newton36 represents the motion of the moon’s apogee by means of an epicycle. As a mode of expressing the law of the irregularity, and of calculating its results in particular cases, the epicyclical theory was capable of continuing to render great service to astronomy, however extensive the progress of the science might be. It was, in fact, as we have already said, the modern process of representing the motion by means of a series of circular functions. ”

Take a look at this model of the Moon in this paper.

See the illustration on page 600 and the caption in the image, and note that the basic model was "adopted ever since."

Quote
V. THE MANY MOTIONS OF THE MOON

A. The traditional model of the Moon

A plane through the center of the Earth is determined at an inclination g of about 5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic. The Moon moves around the Earth in that plane on an ellipse with fixed semi-major axis a and eccentricity « of about 1/18. The Greek model was quite similar, except that the ellipse was replaced by an eccentric circle.

The plane itself rotates once every 18 years in the backward direction, i.e., against the prevailing motion in the solar system, while keeping its inclination constant. The perigee of the Moon, its point of closest approach to the Earth, makes a complete turn in the forward direction in about nine years.

The following picture (see Fig. 1) emerges: first we fix the direction of the spring equinox or some fixed star near it as the universal reference Q in the ecliptic: counting always from west to east, we determine the angle h from Q to the ascending node, i.e., the line of intersection for the Moon’s orbit with the ecliptic where the Moon enters the upper side of the ecliptic; from there we move by an angle g in the Moon’s orbital plane until we meet the perigee of the Moon; and finally we get to the Moon by moving through the true anomaly f. All these three angles have a double time dependence: linear (increasing for f and g, while decreasing for h) plus various periodic terms that average to 0.



~

D. The evection—Greek science versus Babylonian astrology

The Babylonians knew that the full moons could be as much as 10 hours early or 10 hours late; this is due to the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit. But the Greeks wanted to know whether the Moon displays the same kind of speedups and delays in the half moons, either waxing or waning. The answer is found with the help of a simple instrument that measures the angle between the Moon and the Sun as seen from the Earth. The half moons can be as much as 15 hours early or late. With the Moon moving at an average speed of slightly more than 308 per hour (its own apparent diameter!), it may be as much as 5° ahead or behind in the new/full moons; but in the half moons, it may be as much as 7°308 ahead or behind its average motion. This new feature is known as evection.

Ptolemy found a mechanical analog for this peculiar complication, called the crank model. It describes the angular coupling between Sun and Moon correctly, but it has the absurd consequence of causing the distance of the Moon from the Earth to vary by almost a factor of 2. In the thirteenth century Hulagu Khan, a grandson of Genghis Khan, asked his vizier, the Persian all-round genius Nasir ed-din al Tusi, to build a magnificent observatory in Meragha, Persia, and write up what was known in astronomy at that time. Ptolemy’s explanation of the evection was revised in the process. In the fourteenth century Levi ben Gerson of Avignon in southern France seems to have been the first astronomer to measure the apparent diameter of the Moon (see Goldstein, 1972, 1997). Shortly thereafter Ibn al-Shatir of Damascus in Syria proposed a model for the Moon’s motion that coincides with the theory of Copernicus two centuries later. The crank model was replaced by two additional epicycles, yielding a more elaborate Fourier expansion in our modern terminology (see Swerdlow and Neugebauer, 1984).

With the improvements of the Persian, Jewish, and Arab astronomers, as well as Copernicus, the changes in the Moon’s apparent diameter are still too large with +/- 10%. As in Kepler’s second law, the Fourier expansion (12) has to include epicycles both in the backward and in the forward direction, in the ratio 3:1.

"The crank model was replaced by two additional epicycles, yielding a more elaborate Fourier expansion in our modern terminology."

"With the improvements of the Persian, Jewish, and Arab astronomers, as well as Copernicus, the changes in the Moon’s apparent diameter are still too large with +/- 10%. As in Kepler’s second law, the Fourier expansion (12) has to include epicycles both in the backward and in the forward direction, in the ratio 3:1."

That epicycle Moon model was used in antiquity before gravity, and was used by Newton with his gravity model, and appears to be still used, judging by the quotes on the Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns page in our Wiki. So I'm not entirely sure that the revolving model you think exists actually ever did exist. It appears as if they couldn't really get it to work cleanly even before gravity theory.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2021, 04:28:17 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1606
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2021, 02:57:46 AM »
Celestial navigation is allegedly based on the theory that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything is revolving around it.
I can see that you are really confused.  At least you used the term 'allegedly'.  The old Polynesian navigators did look up at the heavenly bodies and learned how to use them as 'trail signs' to navigate across the Southern oceans thousands of years ago. The pattern of ocean waves was also used as another very useful indicator. These days the art of celestial navigation has advanced a bit.  Just get a copy of Dutton's Navigation and Piloting for a more up to date version of how celestial navigation works today.  You will see that it's now assumed that the earth circles the sun and so on.  All the bunk about 'historical data' , 'epicycles', and the 'three body problem' are just diversions and/or trolling and used when necessary when you can't effectively refute the real world experience of today's navigators.  We can all understand why this must be done but it doesn't keep you from looking a bit shady & disingenuous.  The bottom line is if you get on a ship with a current ephemeris and a good sextant and use your celestial navigational skills based upon spherical trigonometry you can keep pretty good track of where you are anywhere in the world.  I don't need to look up 'references' for this statement, it's in my inventory of personal experiences.  It is true that this is a obsolete art as my iPhone has a very accurate GPS receiver that matches up perfectly with the ones on any ship that I was working on.  No, GPS does NOT depend upon any land based systems.  My phone works perfectly in the middle of the Pacific, Atlantic, or Indian Oceans where there's no land within 1000 miles.  It does take a couple of minutes for the GPS receiver to come up with a good position and that time is some shorter when you can get a signal from a land based tower.  That's the only function of a land based station when using GPS is to shorten the time necessary to get a usable position.         

You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 484
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2021, 05:46:35 AM »
Celestial navigation is allegedly based on the theory that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything is revolving around it.
I can see that you are really confused.  At least you used the term 'allegedly'.  The old Polynesian navigators did look up at the heavenly bodies and learned how to use them as 'trail signs' to navigate across the Southern oceans thousands of years ago. The pattern of ocean waves was also used as another very useful indicator. These days the art of celestial navigation has advanced a bit.  Just get a copy of Dutton's Navigation and Piloting for a more up to date version of how celestial navigation works today.  You will see that it's now assumed that the earth circles the sun and so on.  All the bunk about 'historical data' , 'epicycles', and the 'three body problem' are just diversions and/or trolling and used when necessary when you can't effectively refute the real world experience of today's navigators.  We can all understand why this must be done but it doesn't keep you from looking a bit shady & disingenuous.  The bottom line is if you get on a ship with a current ephemeris and a good sextant and use your celestial navigational skills based upon spherical trigonometry you can keep pretty good track of where you are anywhere in the world.  I don't need to look up 'references' for this statement, it's in my inventory of personal experiences.  It is true that this is a obsolete art as my iPhone has a very accurate GPS receiver that matches up perfectly with the ones on any ship that I was working on.  No, GPS does NOT depend upon any land based systems.  My phone works perfectly in the middle of the Pacific, Atlantic, or Indian Oceans where there's no land within 1000 miles.  It does take a couple of minutes for the GPS receiver to come up with a good position and that time is some shorter when you can get a signal from a land based tower.  That's the only function of a land based station when using GPS is to shorten the time necessary to get a usable position.         

Interestingly, there is now an increasing interest in automated celestial navigation, as the filtering and sensor technology gets smaller and more usable. Not quite as easy to use as GPS, and doesn't see through cloud, but can't be jammed and potentially very accurate.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a36078957/celestial-navigation/


Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 945
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2021, 10:15:27 AM »
All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2021, 10:20:09 AM »
All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.


Source?  Or is this on your own experience. 

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2021, 11:48:32 AM »
All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.
ICMBs could certainly work on a flat earth but you'd need to know the distance between places, which you don't.
And the trajectory would be significantly different. So all the people who do the calculations and write the software which make it all work are presumably in on it or lying or being fooled or something?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 484
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2021, 12:48:17 PM »
All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.

So if I give you the lat/long of two places some distance apart, one being our ICBM launcher and the other our target, how would you go about calculating the distance between them, in order to feed the necessary range into your simple equation?

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 630
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2021, 12:58:32 PM »
@TomBishop

There's a really simple way to end all of this nonsense.  Simply produce an accurate Flat Earth map.  That's all you need to do and this all ends.  It truly is just that simple.

We'll wait.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2021, 01:00:08 PM by WTF_Seriously »
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2021, 01:20:09 PM »
@TomBishop

There's a really simple way to end all of this nonsense.  Simply produce an accurate Flat Earth map.  That's all you need to do and this all ends.  It truly is just that simple.

We'll wait.
Something something, no research budget, something something... (at a guess).
But the point is you don't need a research budget. There are web sites where you can track ships or planes in real time. All you need is to be near a port or an airport to verify that the planes or ships arrive when those sites say they have. I can go to Heathrow if it helps and he can go to his local international airport and we can verify when places leave from there and arrive at Heathrow, or the other way around, see if it matches what these web sites say. And sure, we can't verify whether the plane is where the sites say it is in between times but if we verify that it is at the start and the end of the journey then it seems reasonable to be confident that these sites know where these things are at all times.

It's bizarre that Tom thinks that RE geometry working is a "belief". There are global airline and shipping industries which rely on it working. We all use GPS routinely these days and can verify from personal experience that it works. It doesn't get much more Zetetic and empirical than that. I just had a look at my phone and I am where it says I am. Are we supposed to believe that this doesn't work at sea? RonJ has provided his personal experiences of how it does work and he'd be in trouble if it didn't. I'm sure many of us have been on flights and used the "Time to Destination" feature where you get a map, it shows you exactly where you are, how fast you're going, how far it is to your destination and how long it'll take to get there. Is the suggestion that all this is faked and doesn't really work?

It's all too silly. You can trivially prove that no FE map is possible given known distances, so the only way of maintaining FE belief is to claim that those distances aren't really known. But that's a difficult claim to justify given the above.

"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 630
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2021, 01:52:41 PM »

It's bizarre that Tom thinks that RE geometry working is a "belief". There are global airline and shipping industries which rely on it working. We all use GPS routinely these days and can verify from personal experience that it works. It doesn't get much more Zetetic and empirical than that.


To Zetetic or not to Zetetic.  That is the question.

The thought kinda came to me after I posted the above.  Time and time again, simple observations of everyday things point to RE yet rather than embracing what is witnessed thousands of time daily all over the world, FE 'Zetetics' choose to make absurd excuses and theories to try to explain them away while not being able to produce simple things like a FE map that fits the observed view.
Distance from Sydney to Perth - We don't know.
There's a mirror floating in the sky - Yup.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 945
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2021, 03:27:06 PM »
All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.


Source?  Or is this on your own experience.
Why do I need a source for a patently true statement?

V2 rockets work.

Rocket attacks happen in the Middle East all the time.

What we have not seen as of yet is the use of a supposed intercontinental booster with a functioning warhead.

Regardless, with such a weapon, precise accuracy isn't necessary. The people using such things could ultimately care less for anyone else's life but their own. Collateral damage? Not a concern.

Like I wrote, all you need is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation.

End of story.