The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TomInAustin on August 21, 2017, 02:28:11 PM
-
Let's start this here. I hope we get some reality in this one.
What we know.
1. GPS is a proven technology that in some cases, is accurate to centimeters and at worst 10 to 15 meters
2. Flight times between destinations are recorded daily
3. Aircraft cruise speeds are known and are filed with flight plans
Here is my first question. Using the following airline data, how could a flat map possibly allow these numbers?
Origin Dest Miles
Sydney Santiago 7125
Santiago Johannesburg 5724
Johannesburg Sydney 6909
-
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:
- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system
If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.
-
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:
- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system
If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.
We've demonstrated these in the other thread and you've demanded more proof. How about you answer two simple questions:
1) What way to measure distance would you accept?
2) Are there any distances you would actually consider correct? Or (since the argument could be made ALL readily available distances are based on RE) do you not have any idea how far you've traveled ever?
We can then go from there with our proofs and evidence.
-
We've demonstrated these in the other thread
No, you have not. If you believe that you have, then kindly copy and paste.
and you've demanded more proof. How about you answer two simple questions:
1) What way to measure distance would you accept?
2) Are there any distances you would actually consider correct? Or (since the argument could be made ALL readily available distances are based on RE) do you not have any idea how far you've traveled ever?
We can then go from there with our proofs and evidence.
1) We would accept a method which does not involve using a Round Earth coordinate system or Round Earth assumptions.
2) I am sure there are distances which have been measured independent to Round Earth assumptions (ie., measured with a wheeled device). I do not have a list, however.
-
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:
- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system
If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.
We've demonstrated these in the other thread and you've demanded more proof. How about you answer two simple questions:
1) What way to measure distance would you accept?
2) Are there any distances you would actually consider correct? Or (since the argument could be made ALL readily available distances are based on RE) do you not have any idea how far you've traveled ever?
We can then go from there with our proofs and evidence.
I am hoping someone besides Tom shows up. He has proven he is either a troll or totally delusional. Textbook delusional.
de·lu·sion·al
dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/Submit
adjective
characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
-
We've demonstrated these in the other thread
No, you have not. If you believe that you have, then kindly copy and paste.
and you've demanded more proof. How about you answer two simple questions:
1) What way to measure distance would you accept?
2) Are there any distances you would actually consider correct? Or (since the argument could be made ALL readily available distances are based on RE) do you not have any idea how far you've traveled ever?
We can then go from there with our proofs and evidence.
1) We would accept a method which does not involve using a Round Earth coordinate system or Round Earth assumptions.
2) I am sure there are distances which have been measured independent to Round Earth assumptions (ie., measured with a wheeled device). I do not have a list, however.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to? You seem to be alone in your delusional arguments that were totally rejected and disproved. Remember your attempt at math? LOL.
-
We've demonstrated these in the other thread
No, you have not. If you believe that you have, then kindly copy and paste.
and you've demanded more proof. How about you answer two simple questions:
1) What way to measure distance would you accept?
2) Are there any distances you would actually consider correct? Or (since the argument could be made ALL readily available distances are based on RE) do you not have any idea how far you've traveled ever?
We can then go from there with our proofs and evidence.
1) We would accept a method which does not involve using a Round Earth coordinate system or Round Earth assumptions.
2) I am sure there are distances which have been measured independent to Round Earth assumptions (ie., measured with a wheeled device). I do not have a list, however.
1) So if we could find a map created using trilateration and/or traversing as defined here (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) would that suffice?
2) I'll see if I can find a somewhat straight race. To my knowledge those are measured in that manner, or at least some of them are.
Somewhat related: The eclipse has me thinking. Couldn't we get a measurement of the moon from this? If we could get the distance nailed down in some manner and use it to figure out the distance between two cities in the path of totality, then figure out the time it took to get between those two cities we would have it's speed. From there we could figure out it's diameter based on how long totality lasts for the city that has it for the longest. Shouldn't be too hard presuming we can find that first number in an agreeable manner.
-
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:
- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system
If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.
We've demonstrated these in the other thread and you've demanded more proof. How about you answer two simple questions:
1) What way to measure distance would you accept?
2) Are there any distances you would actually consider correct? Or (since the argument could be made ALL readily available distances are based on RE) do you not have any idea how far you've traveled ever?
We can then go from there with our proofs and evidence.
I am hoping someone besides Tom shows up. He has proven he is either a troll or totally delusional. Textbook delusional.
de·lu·sion·al
dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/Submit
adjective
characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
Lay off the personal attacks in the upper fora. Warned.
-
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:
- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system
If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.
You are incorrect. It is up to you to prove GPS is not accurate, that Boeing does not know how fast the planes they make fly, and that Lat Lon is not an accurate measurement of the earth. These are nuisance claims that are designed to avoid actually talking about the topic. The topic is "distances" and how to map them. I provided a perfect example, please show a map that makes them possible.
Please stay on topic and avoid low content posts.
-
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:
- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system
If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.
You are incorrect. It is up to you to prove GPS is not accurate, that Boeing does not know how fast the planes they make fly, and that Lat Lon is not an accurate measurement of the earth. These are nuisance claims that are designed to avoid actually talking about the topic. The topic is "distances" and how to map them. I provided a perfect example, please show a map that makes them possible.
Please stay on topic and avoid low content posts.
I appreciate your effort here, but seeing that you are not a moderator, please refrain from acting like one. You can certainly point out if someone is straying from the topic, but it is clear you don't know what constitutes a low-content post. If you believe a post is violating the rules, please use the report function.
-
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:
- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system
If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.
You are incorrect. It is up to you to prove GPS is not accurate, that Boeing does not know how fast the planes they make fly, and that Lat Lon is not an accurate measurement of the earth. These are nuisance claims that are designed to avoid actually talking about the topic. The topic is "distances" and how to map them. I provided a perfect example, please show a map that makes them possible.
Please stay on topic and avoid low content posts.
I appreciate your effort here, but seeing that you are not a moderator, please refrain from acting like one. You can certainly point out if someone is straying from the topic, but it is clear you don't know what constitutes a low-content post. If you believe a post is violating the rules, please use the report function.
What would be great is if you weighed in on this.
-
What would be great is if you weighed in on this.
What is there to "weigh in" on? I've seen the replies to Tom and the subsequent dismissal of his concerns relative to the OP. His points have been avoided instead of addressed, so I don't see any reason to engage in the topic.
-
What would be great is if you weighed in on this.
What is there to "weigh in" on? I've seen the replies to Tom and the subsequent dismissal of his concerns relative to the OP. His points have been avoided instead of addressed, so I don't see any reason to engage in the topic.
So you agree with him that airplane manufacturers don't know how fast their planes fly?
Yes No
That GPS is not accurate?
Yes No
That the Lat Lon system is not accurate?
Yes No
-
What would be great is if you weighed in on this.
What is there to "weigh in" on? I've seen the replies to Tom and the subsequent dismissal of his concerns relative to the OP. His points have been avoided instead of addressed, so I don't see any reason to engage in the topic.
Since he hasn't weighed in as of yet, would you agree with distances/maps determined via trilateration or traversing? Or would you need it to be measured out with a wheel or similar device? Do you know the distances between any two points that you could simply offer as a resource to use?
-
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:
- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system
If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.
And herein lies the problem. Tom won't accept any evidence as valid. Period. We use GPS all day every day to get where we are going be it aircraft, shipping, or cars, but that isn't good enough. He wants things measured in a way that does not rely on RE coordinates. He knows that that is highly unlikely since the Earth is round and all coordinate systems reflect that. FE doesn't even have a workable map and yet the RE crowd is supposed to screw with their measurement systems? He even acknowledges the existence of GPS which is satellite based, but still clings to a dead theory.
Tom, if you are claiming the Earth is flat, the burden is on YOU. Prove that it is flat. I would love to see that.
-
As expected, no one wants to have an honest debate.
-
As expected, no one wants to have an honest debate.
The issue I'm currently seeing is neither of the two who have replied so far want to nail down an accepted way to measure distance. Without that of course they can just keep saying we don't know any distances. I'm down to dig up the information I've presented, but if it won't be accepted why bother? Once again, Tom, Junker, or any other FE believer who wants to chime in.
If we could find a map created using trilateration and/or traversing as defined here (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) would that suffice?
-
Guys, I just found something for distance in their own wiki. Check Sun's Distance - Zetetic Cosmogony (http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun) in that location. From the equator to 45 degrees North or South is 3000 miles. Surely we can use this and do some comparisons and calculations?
-
As expected, no one wants to have an honest debate.
The issue I'm currently seeing is neither of the two who have replied so far want to nail down an accepted way to measure distance. Without that of course they can just keep saying we don't know any distances. I'm down to dig up the information I've presented, but if it won't be accepted why bother? Once again, Tom, Junker, or any other FE believer who wants to chime in.
If we could find a map created using trilateration and/or traversing as defined here (http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html) would that suffice?
In my opinion, Junker just plays word games and makes snarky comments and Tom has shown that he is only interested in derailing the threads. Where the other faithful are, is anyone's guess. I agree it is pointless to debate if no one shows up. There is some value in keeping the threads bumped so new people read them, but from what I can tell, FE'ers can overlook any and all evidence that disproves what they hold dear.
-
Amazingly enough, Tom has refused to answer the only question posed in the OP
Here is my first question. Using the following airline data, how could a flat map possibly allow these numbers?
Origin Dest Miles
Sydney Santiago 7125
Santiago Johannesburg 5724
Johannesburg Sydney 6909
He made a claim that aircraft speeds are determined using round earth coordinates. Since the speeds are determined by radar then we know these are not round earth concepts.
-
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:
- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system
If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.
The evidence for TomInAustin's 1st claim is a logical argument. If GPS predicted distances are not accurate, then how can it be that GPS-based navigational systems work for millions of people on a daily basis? Are you asserting that they don't work? Or that they do work, but are somehow still not accurate? I really don't know what you're getting at with this. His first claim is definitely valid.
Actually, his second claim has nothing to do with what you are asking us to prove. It is true that aircraft flight times are recorded daily. You can check them out online - just google it. We can assume they are true because, even disregarding the fact that here, too, millions of people experience those flight times daily, how could airlines not know how long their flights take? They have schedules, and if the times were actually inaccurate, there would be delays on literally every flight. Are you going to assert that this is the case? Or are you claiming that even if airlines don't know their own flight times, they somehow still manage to plan everything and be on time in most cases? His second claim, too, is absolutely correct.
And then there's the thing with the cruise speeds. See, you've had 3DGeek, who happens to be a professional and an expert on the topic, explain to you exactly how it is measured and why it is measured as it is in the other thread. I'm sure you remember it - unless you decided to ignore it and walk away from the thread as soon as you started losing, just like you did on my last thread about the magnetic field - TWICE, I might say.
As a matter of fact, 3DGeek also stated why even if cruise speeds are extremely far off, it doesn't matter at all. I'm just going to quote him:
So his ONLY remaining straw to clutch at - his lifeline - is that the speeds that are claimed for these aircraft are wildly incorrect.
BUT - the coup-de-grace is this: If the speed for the 747 is wildly different than the manufacturers (pilots, control towers, airlines) claim - then IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! If all of the 747's are 50% faster - then all of the distances we have are incorrect by the same ratio. AND THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE INTERNAL ANGLES OF THE QUADRILATERALS DON'T ADD UP.
Which brings us to the conclusion that the first claim ("1. GPS is a proven technology that in some cases, is accurate to centimeters and at worst 10 to 15 meters") is true, the second claim ("2. Flight times between destinations are recorded daily [and are accurate enough]") is also true, and the third claim ("3. Aircraft cruise speeds are known and are filed with flight plans") doesn't even need to be true in order for TomInAustin's question being a valid one. See, there's no point in having a designated week for discussing a specific topic if all you're going to do is deny stuff a schoolboy can prove within ten minutes.
Now, would you please be kind enough as to answer the question this whole thread is about, instead of dodging it like a coward who has no arguments left except for "boo hoo we don't know the distance from NY to Paris, and what's more, you'll NEVER EVER EVER be able to find out heheh!!!!!"
Here is my first question. Using the following airline data, how could a flat map possibly allow these numbers?
Origin Dest Miles
Sydney Santiago 7125
Santiago Johannesburg 5724
Johannesburg Sydney 6909
-
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:
- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system
If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.
The evidence for TomInAustin's 1st claim is a logical argument. If GPS predicted distances are not accurate, then how can it be that GPS-based navigational systems work for millions of people on a daily basis? Are you asserting that they don't work? Or that they do work, but are somehow still not accurate? I really don't know what you're getting at with this. His first claim is definitely valid.
Actually, his second claim has nothing to do with what you are asking us to prove. It is true that aircraft flight times are recorded daily. You can check them out online - just google it. We can assume they are true because, even disregarding the fact that here, too, millions of people experience those flight times daily, how could airlines not know how long their flights take? They have schedules, and if the times were actually inaccurate, there would be delays on literally every flight. Are you going to assert that this is the case? Or are you claiming that even if airlines don't know their own flight times, they somehow still manage to plan everything and be on time in most cases? His second claim, too, is absolutely correct.
And then there's the thing with the cruise speeds. See, you've had 3DGeek, who happens to be a professional and an expert on the topic, explain to you exactly how it is measured and why it is measured as it is in the other thread. I'm sure you remember it - unless you decided to ignore it and walk away from the thread as soon as you started losing, just like you did on my last thread about the magnetic field - TWICE, I might say.
As a matter of fact, 3DGeek also stated why even if cruise speeds are extremely far off, it doesn't matter at all. I'm just going to quote him:
So his ONLY remaining straw to clutch at - his lifeline - is that the speeds that are claimed for these aircraft are wildly incorrect.
BUT - the coup-de-grace is this: If the speed for the 747 is wildly different than the manufacturers (pilots, control towers, airlines) claim - then IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! If all of the 747's are 50% faster - then all of the distances we have are incorrect by the same ratio. AND THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE INTERNAL ANGLES OF THE QUADRILATERALS DON'T ADD UP.
Which brings us to the conclusion that the first claim ("1. GPS is a proven technology that in some cases, is accurate to centimeters and at worst 10 to 15 meters") is true, the second claim ("2. Flight times between destinations are recorded daily [and are accurate enough]") is also true, and the third claim ("3. Aircraft cruise speeds are known and are filed with flight plans") doesn't even need to be true in order for TomInAustin's question being a valid one. See, there's no point in having a designated week for discussing a specific topic if all you're going to do is deny stuff a schoolboy can prove within ten minutes.
Now, would you please be kind enough as to answer the question this whole thread is about, instead of dodging it like a coward who has no arguments left except for "boo hoo we don't know the distance from NY to Paris, and what's more, you'll NEVER EVER EVER be able to find out heheh!!!!!"
Here is my first question. Using the following airline data, how could a flat map possibly allow these numbers?
Origin Dest Miles
Sydney Santiago 7125
Santiago Johannesburg 5724
Johannesburg Sydney 6909
Very well stated.
I can assure you he thinks his ace in the hole is an article about GPS distances being off for runners. He gave it away when he mentioned a wheel as the measuring device. It is one of the first google hits on GPS distance accuracy.
Distances, particularly in the southern hemisphere, seem to be kryptonite for all flat earthers. If a flat map was possible it could be done on graph paper by a high school geometry student using flight data to fill in major cities. For laughs, I tried just that using routes between Austrailia, New Zealand, Africa, and South America. Obviously, it's not possible. This completely explains why they are so afraid of this debate.
-
I think it is very telling that this was the very first debate topic and there has been zero debate. Tom cries about the measurement methods being used, offers nothing of value, and then disappears. (Which seems to be a pattern)
-
Someone correct me if my logic is bad here but…
Assuming a flat map. If I take 3 points, location unknown but I know the distances.
Dallas to Austin 149 miles
Austin To Houston 158 Miles
Houston To Dallas 224 miles
Figure 1
I draw a circle of with a radius of 149 with Dallas being the center point. Circle A
I pick a random point (Austin) on that circle and draw another circle with a radius of 158. Circle B
I draw a circle from point Dallas with a radius of 224. Circle C
The intersection of Circle A and C should be point Houston, right?
If this is true it should work with any 3 points on a flat map.
-
Dallas to Austin 149 miles
Speaking as a fellow Austinite - I have to say that on i35 it *seems* a lot longer! :-)
(That's a joke FE'ers...it really is that far...I used to drive it twice a week).
-- 3dGeekInAustin.
-
Dallas to Austin 149 miles
Speaking as a fellow Austinite - I have to say that on i35 it *seems* a lot longer! :-)
(That's a joke FE'ers...it really is that far...I used to drive it twice a week).
-- 3dGeekInAustin.
What, don't you like perpetual construction through Salado and Temple? I don't know why they didn't say "We are going to need 5 lanes all the way at some point, let's just build them now".
On the topic of this post. I am expanding out my triangles to get a flat map made. More later
-
As you can see the shape of the Austin, Dallas and Houston triangle is pretty close to the round map over such a short distance.
Expanding out to New York, Paris and Mexico City we begin to see distortion.
New York Paris 3677 A
Paris Mexico City 5728 B
Mexico City New York 2080 C
Next stop will be adding some southern hemisphere locations. To make it work there must be an intersection of circles b and c.
Tom approved this methodology when he agreed that radar is accurate. We know aircraft speeds are set using radar. So we can trust the distances in the flight distance database.
The purpose of this exercise is to set locations in 2d space and come up with a rough draft of a flat map. Pretty simple. At this point, compass headings are ignored.
-
One more.
Rio Moscow 7103 A
Moscow Sydney 8960 B
Sydney Rio 8520 C
Does this look about right?
-
Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:
- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system
If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.
You are incorrect. It is up to you to prove GPS is not accurate, that Boeing does not know how fast the planes they make fly, and that Lat Lon is not an accurate measurement of the earth.
Actually, both of you have a burden of proof. You claim those three statements are true, and Tom claims they are false. The only way to dodge the burden is to remain unconvinced of either conclusion, i.e., you have to not believe the statements are true and not believe they are false. (Obviously, it would make more sense that Boeing knows the specs of their planes, and the fact that Tom won't answer is evidence that he knows he's being overly pedantic. I should know, I'm pedantic about nearly everything.)
That said, I have hard time understanding why the FakeEarthers (FE proponents) are so worried about the city distances in the OP. They are so defensive and ready to stick with their flat Earth presupposition than none even bothered to produce a simple flat map showing those distances. Your circle method seems like the most straightforward way.
Here's a link (https://www.desmos.com/calculator/tiubu7i4fz) to an interactive model.
-
Next stop...
Using the last example, I added a new point. Johannesburg. This is placed a the intersection of D and E.
Rio Moscow 7103 A
Moscow Sydney 8960 B
Sydney Rio 8520 C
Rio Johannesburg 4447 D
Moscow Johannesburg 5625 E
The model starts showing the errors here. It shows Johannesburg to Sydney at 4366 miles where the true distance is 6904.
-
Dallas to Austin 149 miles
Speaking as a fellow Austinite - I have to say that on i35 it *seems* a lot longer! :-)
(That's a joke FE'ers...it really is that far...I used to drive it twice a week).
-- 3dGeekInAustin.
What, don't you like perpetual construction through Salado and Temple? I don't know why they didn't say "We are going to need 5 lanes all the way at some point, let's just build them now".
Hmmm - perhaps Salado/Temple is one of those places where an extra bit of FE map had to be stuck into to make compasses work? There has to be some reason there's always construction work there! Have you seen any NASA trucks parked near there?
-
Dallas to Austin 149 miles
Speaking as a fellow Austinite - I have to say that on i35 it *seems* a lot longer! :-)
(That's a joke FE'ers...it really is that far...I used to drive it twice a week).
-- 3dGeekInAustin.
What, don't you like perpetual construction through Salado and Temple? I don't know why they didn't say "We are going to need 5 lanes all the way at some point, let's just build them now".
Hmmm - perhaps Salado/Temple is one of those places where an extra bit of FE map had to be stuck into to make compasses work? There has to be some reason there's always construction work there! Have you seen any NASA trucks parked near there?
There were a bunch of Walmart trucks but I bet they were holograms to hide the real ones with cloaking devices.
-
Agreed. We pretty much have one guy here that is merely focusing on mistakes in one's grammar, or picks out one word mistakes. Also, where is the scientific method backing up all the pretty claims made by the Flat Earth Society? Here's proof GPS works. (down below) Ensure you read the whole thing. Next. Scott Kelley, who went into space, has proved that he came home 25 milliseconds younger than his twin brother. ALong with this evidence, the scientific community has largely accepted the fact that space-time exists, and matter creates the effect of gravity, meaning matter coalesces into spheres, naturally, and the Earth cannot be flat. Oh, and we have the Davis relativity model. Where are the experiments at CERN that prove this exists? Where is the scientific community with millions of members, who have agreed upon the fact that the Earth is "flat"?
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a network of about 30 satellites orbiting the Earth at an altitude of 20,000 km. The system was originally developed by the US government for military navigation but now anyone with a GPS device, be it a SatNav, mobile phone or handheld GPS unit, can receive the radio signals that the satellites broadcast.
Wherever you are on the planet, at least four GPS satellites are ‘visible’ at any time. Each one transmits information about its position and the current time at regular intervals. These signals, travelling at the speed of light, are intercepted by your GPS receiver, which calculates how far away each satellite is based on how long it took for the messages to arrive.
Once it has information on how far away at least three satellites are, your GPS receiver can pinpoint your location using a process called trilateration.
Trilateration
Imagine you are standing somewhere on Earth with three satellites in the sky above you. If you know how far away you are from satellite A, then you know you must be located somewhere on the red circle. If you do the same for satellites B and C, you can work out your location by seeing where the three circles intersect. This is just what your GPS receiver does, although it uses overlapping spheres rather than circles.
The more satellites there are above the horizon the more accurately your GPS unit can determine where you are.
GPS and Relativity
GPS satellites have atomic clocks on board to keep accurate time. General and Special Relativity however predict that differences will appear between these clocks and an identical clock on Earth.
General Relativity predicts that time will appear to run slower under stronger gravitational pull – the clocks on board the satellites will therefore seem to run faster than a clock on Earth.
Furthermore, Special Relativity predicts that because the satellites’ clocks are moving relative to a clock on Earth, they will appear to run slower.
The whole GPS network has to make allowances for these effects – proof that Relativity has a real impact.
-
Hey FE'ers
Can anyone provide me with the distance between the following cities, according to the proposed FE map:
1. Johannesburg to Perth
2. Johannesburg to Frankfurt
Thank you and much appreciated!!!
-
Hey FE'ers
Can anyone provide me with the distance between the following cities, according to the proposed FE map:
1. Johannesburg to Perth
2. Johannesburg to Frankfurt
Thank you and much appreciated!!!
There is only one distance between 2 places.
-
Well we have our first bout in the “Tom concentrates” series, and as a completely unbiased observer the contest goes to the sanity crew (Mock, 3D, TA, Pongy, Franky and the inquisitive Nut-muncher) by a knock out.
Tom was flabby and woefully unprepared, relying on his usual rope-a-dope tactics of, of “God’s teeth! If it’s not measured by tape measure and written down by quill in ink, Damn it, I won’t except it man”. But it was clear he was flagging early in the first round. The Ref’ stepped in to shield him from the blows and to call foul on some clearly legal punches, but by the time the first bell went the old fella had had enough.
The second round, the crew were fired up and looking lean, but Tom stayed on the ropes and never attempted to defend, hoping for a chink that never came or the ref’ to award it to him on a technicality, which was a shame.
If these bouts are to continue, Tom will have to up both his training and his support staff, the FE tactic of insisting on scrupulously verifiable evidence from REer’s, but only putting forward vague and shifting speculation is disingenuous and embarrassingly predictable.
To the crew, sterling work. You should put some of it in the RE repository ( http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5225.0), and I am not suggesting you stop here, but take a breather, stretch, electrolytes and stuff
-
Hey FE'ers
Can anyone provide me with the distance between the following cities, according to the proposed FE map:
1. Johannesburg to Perth
2. Johannesburg to Frankfurt
Thank you and much appreciated!!!
This will be difficult to get a consensus on from this forum. According to other threads that I've read through Tom states that no detailed map of the flat earth including distances exists, Junker claims that a map does exist but doesn't specifically state if it has a distance scale.
Thank you,
CriticalThikner
-
On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.
Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.
This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.
I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring
-
Hey FE'ers
Can anyone provide me with the distance between the following cities, according to the proposed FE map:
1. Johannesburg to Perth
2. Johannesburg to Frankfurt
Thank you and much appreciated!!!
Merged this with another recent thread on the exact same topic.
-
On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.
Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.
This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.
I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring
This was largely what I was attempting to call for in the poll thread. Debates are a structured thing (or they can be) and we should treat it as such for these topics. There are plenty of templates out there to use for scoring and structure. I really think, if we can get together another one of these for another poll result as was originally suggested, we should pick one and adhere to it. If nothing else it should help provide structure and prevent people from getting too off track (from what I recall most scoring rubrics deduct points for digressions).
-
On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.
Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.
This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.
I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring
This was largely what I was attempting to call for in the poll thread. Debates are a structured thing (or they can be) and we should treat it as such for these topics. There are plenty of templates out there to use for scoring and structure. I really think, if we can get together another one of these for another poll result as was originally suggested, we should pick one and adhere to it. If nothing else it should help provide structure and prevent people from getting too off track (from what I recall most scoring rubrics deduct points for digressions).
I'd be happy to take up this challenge. A one-on-one debate would keep the clutter down to a reasonable degree and reduce the workload on Tom for answering questions in a timely manner.
-
On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.
Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.
This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.
I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring
This was largely what I was attempting to call for in the poll thread. Debates are a structured thing (or they can be) and we should treat it as such for these topics. There are plenty of templates out there to use for scoring and structure. I really think, if we can get together another one of these for another poll result as was originally suggested, we should pick one and adhere to it. If nothing else it should help provide structure and prevent people from getting too off track (from what I recall most scoring rubrics deduct points for digressions).
I'd be happy to take up this challenge. A one-on-one debate would keep the clutter down to a reasonable degree and reduce the workload on Tom for answering questions in a timely manner.
I only wish we could get more FE people on board to help score this. Otherwise it's a great idea.
-
On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.
Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.
This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.
I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring
I'd be fine with helping with this. It is tough to keep roundies at bay though. They just love to make sure people notice them.
-
On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.
Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.
This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.
I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring
I'd be fine with helping with this. It is tough to keep roundies at bay though. They just love to make sure people notice them.
An angry rant thread for the spectators should fix that.
-
On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.
Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.
This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.
I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring
I'd be fine with helping with this. It is tough to keep roundies at bay though. They just love to make sure people notice them.
An angry rant thread for the spectators should fix that.
It would need some serious discipline to keep the main thread from getting invaded...but if Junker is willing to police it, we could make it work.
-
As TA says, a "Tom/3D naughty step" thread, Post the rules at the start with a promise of medievil retribution for infringers by Junker, links to PM's for the two combatants and off we go.
-
I've got basic structure (https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-world-schools-debate/) for a debate, along with grading rubric (http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm) for the judge along with judging criteria (https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tesolbostondebatepowerpoint-100330190334-phpapp01/95/doable-debate-in-the-eslefl-classroom-5-728.jpg?cb=1269976302) to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.
-
I've got basic structure (https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-world-schools-debate/) for a debate, along with grading rubric (http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm) for the judge along with judging criteria (https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tesolbostondebatepowerpoint-100330190334-phpapp01/95/doable-debate-in-the-eslefl-classroom-5-728.jpg?cb=1269976302) to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.
Has anyone discussed with Tom whether he's up for this? I didn't see anything from him yet? Maybe these few posts should be moved to a separate topic so they are more clearly visible to all concerned?
-
I've got basic structure (https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-world-schools-debate/) for a debate, along with grading rubric (http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm) for the judge along with judging criteria (https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tesolbostondebatepowerpoint-100330190334-phpapp01/95/doable-debate-in-the-eslefl-classroom-5-728.jpg?cb=1269976302) to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.
I nominate you for the RE judge
-
On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.
Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.
This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.
I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring
I'd be fine with helping with this. It is tough to keep roundies at bay though. They just love to make sure people notice them.
Could you please move all of the posts in this thread from #42 onwards into a new thread and ask Tom if he's up for debating in this way?
He's clearly not seeing (or choosing not to respond to) this initiative.
-
I'm fine with this.
-
I'm fine with this.
OK - so both sides are on board - we have administrator approval.
The final step...how do we choose a topic?
I'm OK with more or less any topic - the one I'd prefer not to get into is the "view over the horizon" stuff - not because I have a hard time of it - but simply that the evidence is too fuzzy on both sides of the debate to be meaningful.
Since we've gone into some depth recently about a number of areas of "doubt" - how about we pick one that hasn't be delved into too much?
I'd suggest: "How do tides work?" - and I'd be happy to grant Tom the honor of "First Post" - unless he'd prefer that I kick it off.
-
I'm fine with this.
OK - so both sides are on board - we have administrator approval.
The final step...how do we choose a topic?
I'm OK with more or less any topic - the one I'd prefer not to get into is the "view over the horizon" stuff - not because I have a hard time of it - but simply that the evidence is too fuzzy on both sides of the debate to be meaningful.
Since we've gone into some depth recently about a number of areas of "doubt" - how about we pick one that hasn't be delved into too much?
I'd suggest: "How do tides work?" - and I'd be happy to grant Tom the honor of "First Post" - unless he'd prefer that I kick it off.
I still like using satellites. You prove satellites exist, you completely blow up FET. Maybe not the most original, but the overwhelming amount of everyday tech that uses sats make it easy to prove. Just my humble $.02.
-
I'm fine with this.
OK - so both sides are on board - we have administrator approval.
The final step...how do we choose a topic?
I'm OK with more or less any topic - the one I'd prefer not to get into is the "view over the horizon" stuff - not because I have a hard time of it - but simply that the evidence is too fuzzy on both sides of the debate to be meaningful.
Since we've gone into some depth recently about a number of areas of "doubt" - how about we pick one that hasn't be delved into too much?
I'd suggest: "How do tides work?" - and I'd be happy to grant Tom the honor of "First Post" - unless he'd prefer that I kick it off.
I still like using satellites. You prove satellites exist, you completely blow up FET. Maybe not the most original, but the overwhelming amount of everyday tech that uses sats make it easy to prove. Just my humble $.02.
Well, some FE'ers are OK with satellites - claiming they move in various loops across the Earth just like the sun and moon do. After all, the Moon is a "satellite" - if it works then why not others. Others do completely deny them...I'm not sure where Tom sits on that point. But even if denying them were a 'given' - the willingness to call "conspiracy" at every turn is going to make for a really tedious debate.
The Wiki page: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_ISS_and_Visible_Satellites and ALL of the other pages under: https://wiki.tfes.org/Space_Travel ...have no text in them. It's hard to argue with nothingness.
-
I'll take your offer of "first post". I'll let you guys decide on what subject to discuss. Nothing is off the table.
-
I'll take your offer of "first post". I'll let you guys decide on what subject to discuss. Nothing is off the table.
Distances is good. Nothing like measurements to define the shape of an object.
-
As 3D was first to take up the mantle, let him go with the Tides, If C Squirrel is happy to be the RE judge we need to know the FE one (Parsifal?), I think finding someone who is neutral will be difficult so a long-standing participant who has some respect here (rules me out), I would trust Junker to know who is a good fence sitter and be able to approach them.
For future debates, each side take it in turns to forward a subject and champion.
-
As 3D was first to take up the mantle, let him go with the Tides, If C Squirrel is happy to be the RE judge we need to know the FE one (Parsifal?), I think finding someone who is neutral will be difficult so a long-standing participant who has some respect here (rules me out), I would trust Junker to know who is a good fence sitter and be able to approach them.
For future debates, each side take it in turns to forward a subject and champion.
I would be more than up for taking on being the RE judge for this one. Hopefully Tom/Junker can assist in putting forth a FE judge and as close to a neutral judge as we can get. Perhaps the neutral judge could even be a newcomer if we find one willing? That's the closest I can come up with for neutral in my mind, as it should leave them without too many preconceived notions about the people involved at the minimum, which is a good start. Alternatively Jura's idea of someone with at least some respect from both sides could fill that role to a degree, with the hope they have expressed at least a somewhat neutral stance before. When we've got that ready I would suggest Junker or one of the judges should create the post with the rules laid out in that first post. The the first reply can be 3D's opening statement(s).
-
What are we judging?
-
What are we judging?
The debate is what we are judging.
I've got basic structure (https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-world-schools-debate/) for a debate, along with grading rubric (http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm) for the judge along with judging criteria (https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tesolbostondebatepowerpoint-100330190334-phpapp01/95/doable-debate-in-the-eslefl-classroom-5-728.jpg?cb=1269976302) to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.
-
What are we judging?
The debate is what we are judging.
I've got basic structure (https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-world-schools-debate/) for a debate, along with grading rubric (http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm) for the judge along with judging criteria (https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tesolbostondebatepowerpoint-100330190334-phpapp01/95/doable-debate-in-the-eslefl-classroom-5-728.jpg?cb=1269976302) to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.
And what about the debate is being judged?
-
What are we judging?
The debate is what we are judging.
I've got basic structure (https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-world-schools-debate/) for a debate, along with grading rubric (http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm) for the judge along with judging criteria (https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tesolbostondebatepowerpoint-100330190334-phpapp01/95/doable-debate-in-the-eslefl-classroom-5-728.jpg?cb=1269976302) to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.
And what about the debate is being judged?
The idea was for it to be a formal debate. Rules, scoring, judges. An informal debate will never work here, because neither side is likely to change their view on things. But a formal debate isn't about changing the mind of the other side, it's about cohesively presenting your point and your side, while countering the points of the other side and showing why they are incorrect. The format is Side A presents a starting argument, usually laying out the points they will be discussing. Side B follows suit. Side A presents first arguments citing sources and information. Side B does the same. Side A then has a chance to rebut side B's points, and provide counter examples that either throw doubt upon Side B's points, or disprove evidence presented in some manner. Side B then does the same. This can be done more than once, but in a 'standard' debate structure it is just done this one time. Side A then presents closing arguments, wrapping up the arguments they presented before, showing how everything ties together, etc. This is usually more about their arguments, than refuting their opponent, but some of the latter can be done. Side B then does the same thing. Each section of the debate is scored based on a rubric of some kind, potentially like the one I posted. The winner is the one who scored the most points, or had the highest average among the judges scores. Usually there's only a single judge for these kinds of things, but to attempt to reduce the effect of personal bias, I suggested we use three. One for each 'position' although a neutral judge is of course the most difficult to find. Obviously ideally each judge should be as impartial as possible and stick to the rubric, but personal biases will affect how one feels about the validity or strength of arguments. Hence the suggestion/request for more than one.
-
What are we judging?
The debate is what we are judging.
I've got basic structure (https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-world-schools-debate/) for a debate, along with grading rubric (http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm) for the judge along with judging criteria (https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tesolbostondebatepowerpoint-100330190334-phpapp01/95/doable-debate-in-the-eslefl-classroom-5-728.jpg?cb=1269976302) to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.
Quality or proven factual accuracy?
-
As 3D was first to take up the mantle, let him go with the Tides, If C Squirrel is happy to be the RE judge we need to know the FE one (Parsifal?), I think finding someone who is neutral will be difficult so a long-standing participant who has some respect here (rules me out), I would trust Junker to know who is a good fence sitter and be able to approach them.
For future debates, each side take it in turns to forward a subject and champion.
I can ask Secret User to judge if this actually comes to fruition. She is a seasoned debater herself and has acted as a judge for several debates, including one held at Stanford University, so I would say she is more than qualified.
-
As 3D was first to take up the mantle, let him go with the Tides, If C Squirrel is happy to be the RE judge we need to know the FE one (Parsifal?), I think finding someone who is neutral will be difficult so a long-standing participant who has some respect here (rules me out), I would trust Junker to know who is a good fence sitter and be able to approach them.
For future debates, each side take it in turns to forward a subject and champion.
I can ask Secret User to judge if this actually comes to fruition. She is a seasoned debater herself and has acted as a judge for several debates, including one held at Stanford University, so I would say she is more than qualified.
So the formal subject should be something like: "How does the Flat Earth hypothesis explain the pattern of ocean tides?" - and Tom gets first shot at it.
I suggest we start TWO threads - one to which only Tom and I will post - and another for the "audience" to comment on.
I guess we'll bounce questions and answers back and forth until it's clear that either a conclusion or an impasse has been reached and neither side has more to add to the debate. We should probably play that one by ear until we've done more rounds of this.