2301

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: May 01, 2018, 01:42:15 PM »

The coordinate system absolutely rests upon the idea that the earth is a globe.

Latitude and Longitude lines are vertical and horizontal circles, usually illustrated as laying upon a spherical surface. The points are equidistant, and must represent spherical geometry. Arguing that the Lat/Lon system has nothing to do with a sphere is clearly incorrect.

I don't think anyone suggested that. Who are you responding to?

Any warping of them on a surface of another shape (except maybe a concave hollow earth theory) would create distortions.

I don't think anyone suggested that either.

I think the previous poster is suggesting that if you were standing on some place on Earth, and the Earth was magically whipped away into another dimension, leaving you in place, you can still determine where you are without reference to an Earth-based co-ordinates system.

You would still be at the same point in space, regardless of whether or not you had a globe under you to apply lat/long to.

You might have to refer to your position as "3 microseconds, X metres from GPS Sat A, 5 microseconds, Y metres from Sat B, and 7 microseconds, Z metres from Sat C, though.....

2302

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: May 01, 2018, 01:33:03 PM »

There are 1000 of you to 1 of us.

I urge you to ponder why.

2303

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourists

« on: May 01, 2018, 10:37:11 AM »

What orbital path would they have followed on your FE (or anyone else's)?

They wouldn't have.

Where do you think they went, then, such that they believe they were in orbit, but you don't?

2304

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourists

« on: May 01, 2018, 09:52:30 AM »

... our flattering imitation troll has chosen to misrepresent the FE position. It is perfectly possible that a handful of individuals made it to something remotely resembling an "orbit". While questionable ...

What is "questionable" about it?


... it does not inherently collide with FET.

What orbital path would they have followed on your FE (or anyone else's)?


... and SpaceX will deliver BFR despite the fact that it's a logistical nightmare for reasons which have nothing to do with space travel.

Well, they're doing pretty well in delivering regular, re-usable first stages, by successfully landing them, either on land or on barges. They managed to deliver a successful Falcon Heavy test flight, albeit with a hitch on the offshore landing, yielding two out of three successful first stage returns.

What are these "reasons" you mention?

2305

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observation of the ISS

« on: May 01, 2018, 09:20:30 AM »

What speed have you tracked it as moving?

Personally, not I have.

Schoolchildren as projects it have done.

HOWEVER - I've seen it twice in one night, on more than one occasion. It reappeared 90 mins after the first pass. I'm sure I could work out the speed on the basis of its published orbital height, and this time, but you'd most likely quibble with whether or not the height was correct, wouldn't you?

2306

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 30, 2018, 02:31:38 PM »

It strikes me that the more interconnected tubes there are, the more chances that an unfriendly Team Hoaxer will assert;

"The water's flowing too slowly"
"The tubes are restricting the water flow"

and such ...  so;

Take a clear plastic lid or tray, such as this one, turned other way up;



place on a reasonably flat surface, and fill with coloured water. The water will find its own level, and give a long edge to sight along. No issues/concerns over water flow.

Alternatively, take a clear plastic bag, part-fill with coloured water, and place on absolutely anything. The water, again, will find its own level, and a sighting can be taken along the top of the water's surface.

2307

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space travel conspiracy

« on: April 30, 2018, 01:08:15 PM »

It's maybe not so much that FE don't accept is, but an explanation has to be seen, observed to be accepted as truth.

How many FEers here have actually seen and observed the experiments they quote from ENaG?

Since we cannot see a rocket from earth,

Disagree on that

or see earth from space,

Disagree on that, too

Always accept the possibility that might be mistaken though.

Don't see much evidence of that when citing ENaG as gospel, though...

2308

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 30, 2018, 08:54:48 AM »

We can't assume a static sun that is casting light in one direction on a spinning ball.

Why not?


In the scenario the earth is spinning at 24 hours per day and it is also going around the sun. The lit area isn't static on the earth over the year. This is another variable and messes up the assumption in that response.

No, this is taken into account in the difference between sidereal day and solar day. See that Wiki that was referred to in the early pages again.

The scenario doesn't work if we think of the lit portion of the earth is spinning at once per day. It doesn't line up with the sun on the diagram at the end.

Again - difference between calendar year and tropical year

2309

Flat Earth Media / Re: Best Flat Earth Video's

« on: April 29, 2018, 11:33:04 PM »

Those were just a few foreign researchers in Singapore. Imagine what millions in government funding can do.

Imagine what would happen if you had the evidence to back up your imagination.

2310

Flat Earth Media / Re: Best Flat Earth Video's

« on: April 29, 2018, 11:13:04 PM »

https://soumyabratadev.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/tencon16-radar.pdf

ABSTRACT  In this paper, we have presented a feasibility study of weather RADAR in detecting (not imaging) the cloud occurrence level. Weather RADAR is generally used for locating precipitation. However in our study, we have successfully used RADAR data to study the clouds and its related properties (but not image them). Our study shows that cloud height can be accurately detected (not imaged) using RADAR data with indication of the type of cloud (low, mid or high level). We validate our study with images captured from ground-based sky cameras. Our technique shows better  performance in terms of spatial and temporal resolutions, as compared to other cloud detecting models that uses radiosonde
data .

All italic parenthesis is mine.

Feasibility study. Not routine operation, but a try out to see if it worked.

2311

Flat Earth Media / Re: Best Flat Earth Video's

« on: April 29, 2018, 10:57:12 PM »

doppler weather radar is traditionally used to detect water and ice droplets in the sky – otherwise known as clouds and precipitation

Detect.

Not produce photographic imagery of. I don't see anything on that page that is even slightly similar to the output from either SpaceX or JAXA.

2312

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 29, 2018, 10:50:08 PM »

Just look at his experiments.

but elsewhere ...

If you are claiming something about lasers bounced off of satellites, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that it lines up with what you believe a satellite to be. You need to show your work. A lot of it.
Show. Not tell. Not assume.
Your claim. Your burden.

"Just look at his experiments." doesn't cut it, Tom.

You need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data .... You need to show your work. A lot of it. Show. Not tell. Not assume. Your claim. Your burden.

2313

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 29, 2018, 10:22:56 PM »

In the Theodolite chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm) Rowotham speaks about the Wallace-Hampden Wager experiment and points out the flaw, and further asserts that his experiments were designed so that the flaw did not matter.

Were you there to verify this, though?

(For you assert in another thread that anyone claiming SpaceX's footage to be genuine should provide witnesses below the flight path to witness the cloud patterns....)

2314

Flat Earth Media / Re: Best Flat Earth Video's

« on: April 29, 2018, 10:20:30 PM »

JAXA works with NASA on its satellites and SpaceX is NASA funded. This is basically asking NASA if NASA is legitimate.

Were you there to see the supposed collusion, co-operation or exchange of data between the parties, or is your case going to rest on loose suggestion and implication again?

SpaceX is a private company. Do you assert they are wholly funded by NASA? If so, what do you offer to support this assertion? Have you audited their books? Seen the bank transfers?

2315

Flat Earth Media / Re: Best Flat Earth Video's

« on: April 29, 2018, 10:06:32 PM »

Were you at any of the locations on the earth in the SpaceX video to verify that the cloud looked exactly like the one in the video?

Were you at any of the locations of Rowbotham's experiments, to verify that he saw what he said he saw?

The verification of the clouds in the SpaceX video is the fact that they match the output from an independent source. One is/was a set of cameras on an orbital craft at a max 6900km altitude, the other a geostationary craft at six times this distance. One operated by a private American company, one by the Japanese space agency or meteorological office. 

2316

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 29, 2018, 09:44:37 PM »

You came here claiming that "here is a technology/something that proves you wrong. Look into it." These are your claim. You are making assumptions about what the data shows, what it suggests, and if it was done in the manner you assume it was done. Show that. Your claim. Your burden. Stop wasting this website's precious bandwidth.

No, I posted the pointers to Astronomy Live, Plane Wave Media, and SGF as a specific rebuttal to your assertion/claim that everybody in the whole wide world is getting their feed from NASA, or is affiliated to NASA.

You made your claim first, you should prove yours first.

Your assertion was in reply #24;

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

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

2317

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 29, 2018, 09:41:10 PM »

If you are claiming something about lasers bounced off of satellites, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that it lines up with what you believe a satellite to be. You need to show your work. A lot of it.

If you are claiming that experiments were carried out as claimed in ENaG, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that lines up with it. You need to show your work. etc etc

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you say I have to show my work, you have to do the same for ENaG.

I say the SGF have bounced lasers off satellites. There are papers linked to from their home page, forums where they and other laser ranging experts discuss techniques and methods. I've already looked at these at great length, and I could spend days linking you to this, but it's on their website and linked sites. I shouldn't have to type it all out again longhand. The people who are doing this are alive. You can talk to them about their work if you want.

You say that ENaG contains experiments, but all we have is line drawings and commentary from Rowbotham. No data, beyond his commentary. And you expect everyone to accept this as your proof? 

2318

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 29, 2018, 09:34:30 PM »

"Why don't you...."

Not good enough. Your claim. You brought it up, claiming it as something legitimate. Your burden to demonstrate so.

You're the one who said it wasn't a good business model. I'm rebutting that. They are clearly doing good business, as the Companies House records in the UK show them in business since 2009.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06921189/filing-history

2319

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 29, 2018, 09:32:30 PM »

Telling us to "go research this" is not good enough. You need to do the research for your claim. You need to show, not tell.

Nobody has said that to you, at least not in this thread. Don't misquote people.

I HAVE researched this. I show you examples, and you're back in 2 mins with a glib one-liner, having clearly made no effort at all to look at them in any depth whatsoever. 

2320

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 29, 2018, 09:30:23 PM »

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

When tracking software, clearly based on a global star chart, can predict its path to the extent that it can control a telescope to track it, what else would you suggest it could be? Please don't suggest balloons again .....

When the SGF tracks these satellites by reflecting lasers off them, and knows where to point their lasers by predicting the motion of the craft around a globe, then what else could they be? Please don't suggest balloons again ....