9281

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 28, 2014, 09:28:31 PM »

GPS satellites orbit the round earth.

What if those three satellite gps beacons were high altitude dirigibles, or antennas installed at military bases? Would GPS work then?

9282

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 28, 2014, 09:22:09 PM »

GPS transmitters are not on the land so the 69.5 number means nothing.

Perhaps you should tell us how GPS works to determine coordinate information, then.

It's all in the published spec.  gps.gov

I've read all about GPS specs. GPS receivers have clocks that set themselves, the distance from the beacon is determined via time stamp differences, the receiver's coordinates are determined via addition based on the beacon's preprogrammed coordinates, multiple beacons required to get direction information, etc.

Perhaps you can tell us how they really work.

How does a clock in a GPS receiver set itself?  Link to details please.

It takes the timestamps from multiple gps signals around it and gauges its own inaccuracy. While less effective, this is a work-around solution to installing expansive atomic clocks in each gps receiver.

Hence GPS works at any location on earth as long as it can 'see' 3 satellites.  Very handy for measuring travelled distances...

I'm sorry, what's your point?

9283

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 28, 2014, 09:09:52 PM »

GPS transmitters are not on the land so the 69.5 number means nothing.

Perhaps you should tell us how GPS works to determine coordinate information, then.

It's all in the published spec.  gps.gov

I've read all about GPS specs. GPS receivers have clocks that set themselves, the distance from the beacon is determined via time stamp differences, the receiver's coordinates are determined via addition based on the beacon's preprogrammed coordinates, multiple beacons required to get direction information, etc.

Perhaps you can tell us how they really work.

9284

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 28, 2014, 09:04:46 PM »

GPS transmitters are not on the land so the 69.5 number means nothing.

Perhaps you should tell us how GPS works to determine coordinate information, then.

9285

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 28, 2014, 08:54:03 PM »

That is not how GPS works.

The receiver determines its coordinates from its distance from the broadcasting beacon. Technically multiple beacons are required to get the direction information, but that is basically how GPS works.

GPS needs to receive from more than 1 satellite.  The spec is online.

Knowing the location from one transmitter does not help, how do you think it measures the distance?

You just quoted me as saying that multiple beacons are required to get direction information.

The distance is determined via timestamps. A broadcasting beacon announces its time and the receiving beacon receives it and compares its own time with the broadcasting time, using the speed of light to get a distance to the broadcasting beacon.

You do not set the time in a GPS receiver. How does it know its direction or angle from the satellite?

The clock of a gps device sets itself by looking at time stamps of incoming signals from multiple gps signals and gauging its own inaccuracy.

In use, a single beacon will be able to tell you how far you are from it just fine. The other beacons are mainly required to get direction information. The receiver doesn't know precisely what direction the signal came from and needs others to triangulate. It uses the other signals to figure out the direction the first signal came from and places itself on a coordinate map.

9286

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 28, 2014, 08:48:58 PM »

That is not how GPS works.

The receiver determines its coordinates from its distance from the broadcasting beacon. Technically multiple beacons are required to get the direction information, but that is basically how GPS works.

GPS needs to receive from more than 1 satellite.  The spec is online.

Knowing the location from one transmitter does not help, how do you think it measures the distance?

Actually, you just quoted me as saying that multiple beacons are required to get direction information.

The distance is determined via timestamps. A broadcasting beacon announces its time and the receiving beacon receives it and compares its own time with the broadcasting time, using the speed of light to get a distance to the broadcasting beacon.

9287

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 28, 2014, 08:43:59 PM »

That is not how GPS works.

The receiver determines its coordinates from its distance from the broadcasting beacon. Technically multiple beacons are required to get the direction information, but that is basically how GPS works.

9288

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 28, 2014, 08:13:24 PM »

I completely disagree. If my goal was to transverse the South Pole exactly I would be extremely careful to make sure I had done so. This is of course granting the idea that there are signs saying "South Pole that way".

But the explorers your referencing do not have the benefit of being you. They had no question in their mind that the earth was a globe. That's what they were taught. They followed the signs, they followed the path others before them have taken from one coastal antarctic port to the other. Compasses don't work there. Without a question that the earth is a globe and that they are truly circumnavigating Antarctica, and not a peninsula, they would have no need to be "extremely careful" to make sure that they had circumnavigated Antarctica to prove it was a continent.

There are a lot of assertions in here and zero support. Unless you are going to start citing sources for this it should just be ignored as biased editorializing.

Have you ever met someone who calls themselves an "explorer"? They are universally brainless thrill seekers with too much money on their hands. Scientists are not explorers. Scientists are poor, and need to work for a living. The only reason a scientist goes to explore a far off exotic location like Antarctica is if a government is funding it, and the governments of the world lost interest in exploring Antarctica pretty much after they sent the first explorers in the late 1800's/early 1900's. Today some government institutions merely send people down there to study wildlife in a single spot, then return. Thorough, investigative and fundamental inquiry of the Antarctic continent is not conducted.

Every single time someone goes down to Antarctica in a challenge to cross it they merely trace steps of the early explorers, overly prepared with warm luxuries and survival safeguards of a millionaire on vacation, with books and stories in their bags about Antarctica and the people who died there. These people are merely doing it to say that they crossed Antarctica.

I don't see anyone crossing Antarctica horizontally to those few vertical paths. A true explorer wouldn't pride himself on taking a path others have taken.

Where do compasses not work?  Today we have GPS to know our location.

Compasses do not work where the magnetic field lines are vertical, which is a good chunk of the entire Antarctic circle.

GPS works by telling the receiver how far it is from the broadcasting device. The receiver knows that, under theory, every 69.5 is one degree. So, if a receiver is 347.5 miles from the receiver, the display takes the coordinates of the broadcasting device given to it in the stream and adds 347.5 miles to it to output a degree coordinate for the receiver's location. It is possible to use this method of navigation to avoid getting lost and assign coordinate values to all of the locations near that broadcasting device.

The same devices could be used on a plane perfectly well. The xy coordinates would simply be artificial constructs used to assign location names to the surface to navigate. In order to take those xy degree coordinates, which are designed assuming 360 degrees on a globe, and use it to say that the earth is a globe, which it is not, further investigation would be required beyond the simple act of navigating from point A to point B.

9289

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 28, 2014, 07:01:00 PM »

I completely disagree. If my goal was to transverse the South Pole exactly I would be extremely careful to make sure I had done so. This is of course granting the idea that there are signs saying "South Pole that way".

But the explorers you are referencing do not have the benefit of being you. They had no question in their mind that the earth was a globe. That's what they were taught. They followed the signs, they followed the path others before them have taken from one coastal antarctic port to the other. Compasses don't work there. Without a question that the earth is a globe and that they are truly circumnavigating Antarctica, and not a peninsula, they would have no need to be "extremely careful" to make sure that they had circumnavigated Antarctica to prove it was a continent.

9290

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 27, 2014, 03:43:26 PM »

They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.

Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.

For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.

Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.

No I mean cherry picking GR, the effects described are accepted, but one of the things it shows is that a large shape that is being held together by whatever you want to call the effect of gravity will form a sphere, a flat disc goes counter to the model that the math of GR predicts for celestial bodies. Even galaxy's are extremely slowly rotating secretion discs much like the model for an early solar system. what mater doesn't fall into the central object (the super massive black hole) clumps together and slowly forms bodies. In the galaxies case, round stars, in the solar systems case, round planets.

I know that if you keep extending the the realm of belief you can make UA work, but to say that the entire cosmos, from the stars and planets to the galaxies to the universal filament is all rotating the tiny ass speck of the earths flat disc, with all of that mass for no reason at all accelerating in one direction at nearly the speed of light just to try and come up with a counter theory to 'all mass attracts other mass' really flies in the face of Occam's Razor; by several orders of magnitude.

It's not traveling at the speed of light. Speed is relative! The speed it is traveling is dependant on the observer. There are stars in RET which appear to be traveling at nearly light speed. If you were in orbit around such a  star moving at that speed you would believe that you were stationary.

Also, Occams Razor favors a Flat Earth on this matter. What is the simplest explanation, that when I step off the edge of a chair and see the earth rise upwards to meet my feet, that invisible undiscovered bends in space fabric/undiscovered subatomic puller particles have pulled me to the earth, or that the earth has simply risen upwards exactly as I've observed?

Whatever physical process is pushing the earth beneath it in FET can be a mechanism within known physics. Lots of things can push. The mystery needed for gravity pulling is undiscovered and needs an entirely new branch of physics to occur.

9291

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 27, 2014, 03:33:31 PM »

The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.

So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?

Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.

No extra solar planets have been discovered. Astronomers assume a lot about the slight wobbles and brightness/color variations in the stars.

Tom, we've explained this to you repeatedly. It's not just the distant stars' color variations, but rather their spectral shifts. See, again: “Cosmos,” episode 8, “Sisters of the Sun,”

Color change is a shift in spectrum.

9292

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 26, 2014, 11:47:57 PM »

The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.

So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?

Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.

No extra solar planets have been discovered. Astronomers assume a lot about the slight wobbles and brightness/color variations in the stars.

9293

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 24, 2014, 03:58:44 PM »

They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.

Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.

For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.

Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.

9294

Flat Earth Theory / Re: g is not homogeneous

« on: December 24, 2014, 03:52:36 PM »

Actually, the digital scale used is measuring the weight of the gnome, not the mass.

  Umm...  Isn't weight defined as mass times gravity (universal acceleration)?  Therefore, if one knows the mass of an object (control) and then one measures the weight of that object at a particular location, then one can calculate the value of gravity (universal acceleration) at that location, correct?

They send the gnome around the word with a scale, and the scale reads out different values wherever it is. Ignoring the uncontrolled nature of this incredibly sensitive experiment which is conducted by the pubic in inside and outside conditions, under who knows what kinds of pressure, wind, and static forces, we see that those locations are also at different altitudes.

Since gravitation is caused by the stars, it is to be expected that different locations, at different altitudes, have slightly different levels of g.

You're wrong. The paper presents a hypothesis and shows that it fits the experimental data. How could you possibly miss that?

Tell me what did you think of how the third-order residuals were handled. I thought the author handled and explained those very well.

A hypothesis on how the data can be interpreted is meaningless if there is no experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis. That is the heart of the Scientific Method. They even teach it to children in gradeschool.

The paper documents its experiment exceptionally well. What is your problem? The author even provides the model number of the computer used in the experiment. What more could you possibly want from him?

An ancient computer generated plot graph from a time when excel-type graphics and visualizations were notable enough to mention is hardly an experiment. It does not test the hypothesis. We expect more from you.

9295

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work

« on: December 24, 2014, 03:28:20 PM »

So you haven't directly observed the shadow object.  Got it.

Since the phases of the moon always follow the general direction of the sun, the Shadow Object would be in a straight line path between the Sun and the Moon. A lot of the logic used for the Shadow Object in FET is the same logic used in RET.

- The Shadow Object is an object in space
- The shadow originates from a body between the sun and moon, not the moon and observer
- The Shadow Object is a planet which revolves around the sun
- The plane of rotation is probably not perfectly aligned with the moon, as the eclipses are not daily
- The Lunar Eclipse occur periodically when the Sun, Shadow Object and Moon perfectly align

The main difference between FET and RET is that RET theorists believe that the Shadow Object is the Earth.

9296

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 24, 2014, 03:17:58 PM »

Gravitational Lensing has been observed.

Okay, that's a start.

That some square root attraction math can be made and slapped with a label of "bending of space" is irrelevant and not proof.

First of all, GR is hardly "some square root attraction math".  Secondly, GR predicted gravitational lensing before it was observed.  If by "square root math" you're referring to Newton's gravity formula, then, to the best of my knowledge, no such prediction has ever been made using Newtonian's gravity formulas.

The label can also be "Graviton puller particles" or "Subatomic pusher fairies" and be equally valid.

True.  No one ever said that warped space-time was the only explanation for gravitational lensing, but it has been shown to be a very good and reliable one.

Right. There are a lot of labels can be slapped over that math.

You assume that it is going to marry GR and QM

What do you think the Grand Unified Theory is trying to unify?

The existence for gravity is also self-apparent.

Gravity is a word which historically refers to the theory. Gravitation is the physical action of attracting bodies.

But there is no evidence of magnetic photons. The mechanism of magnetism is a mystery as well.

You still have no understanding of what the magnetic photon is.  It is like you read the title of an article and assumed everything else.  It also seems like you might not grasp electro-magnetism. 

Electricity and magnetism are the same force, they do not require a separate gauge boson.  The magnetic photon was postulated as a requirement for a hypothetical magnetic phenomenon, magnetic monopoles.  The magnetic monopole has never been observed, and if it is, they will look for the magnetic photon.  Really it is irrelevant to the mechanism of a magnetic field.  You should let it go now, it has been too long.

There are plenty of references indicating that the hypothetical mechanism of Magnitism is via special photons. The main thing to take away from this page and others is that they don't really know what causes it.

9297

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work

« on: December 24, 2014, 02:21:11 AM »

The Shadow Object is a body which intersects the light between the sun and the moon, and is invisible because it is a satellite of the sun and is always on the day side of the earth. Read through my post again.

It is supported by direct observation. During a Lunar Eclipse it is observed that a shadow of a body is being cast upon the moon. The theory that the body is coming between the observer and the moon is disproven by high resolution and high contrast images showing the unbroken outline of the moon, and unbroken background stars, all throughout the Lunar Eclipse event. Therefore, the shadow is coming from a body between the sun and the moon, not between the observer and the moon. The matter has been investigated to some depth on the .org site to support the sun-as-a-light-source model.

You are claiming to have directly observed the shadow object even though it is invisible?  Choose your answer carefully because I am liable to throw it in your face in the Earth's Rotation thread.

I was speaking in reference to the theory the Op brought up that the shadow object (or Anti-Moon) intersects the path of light between the observer and the moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. There is observational evidence which says otherwise. There are pictures and video which suggest that it is a shadow cast upon the moon from another source.

9298

Flat Earth Community / Re: Earth's rotation

« on: December 24, 2014, 01:59:51 AM »

So then why are you making assumptions about what such a theory would predict?

I said nothing of the GUT except that it does not exist.

Did you know a virtual photon has never been directly observed either?  We have never directly observed the force carrier that the theory requires.  Is this as big a problem for you as it is for GR?

Yes, there is no evidence for that stuff, either.

So you reject the existence of electro-magnetism naturally.

The existence of electo-magnetism is self apparent. But there is no evidence of magnetic photons. The mechanism of magnetism is a mystery as well.

I'm sorry, I moved the goalposts without responding to you.

You asked for experiments that demonstrate that space time bends, I showed them. You are now moving the goalposts by asking for things that prove that space time bends, which we have said multiple times is not the point of science. Make observations, experiment and conclude, always open for further testing.

There are no scientific proofs.

Sure there are. Proof is an exercise in logic. It is arriving at a logical conclusion based on available evidence.

Unfortunately, in this case, the available evidence presented shows that something is attracting things to bodies, not that space is bending.

Also, please show me where an experiment has shown that space is bending. As far as I know, there is not a device which can detect such a thing.

Tom, are you saying that gravitational lensing has not been observed or that it is not consistent with warped space-time?

Gravitational Lensing has been observed. That some square root attraction math can be made and slapped with a label of "bending of space" is irrelevant and not proof. The label can also be "Graviton puller particles" or "Subatomic pusher fairies" and be equally valid.

9299

Flat Earth Theory / Re: g is not homogeneous

« on: December 24, 2014, 01:30:39 AM »

Its to conclude something, to say, this is the best possible explanation for what we observe, but its impossible to prove something. I mean we can get into semantics and all, but the reason I posted this was because in another thread he took a very hard line definition of what science was meant to do. Prove something is impossible, but to say this is the best explanation for what we observe is quite possible, and leaves science open to do what it does best, be tested time and again.

I found it rather amusing that in another thread he then posts a graphic that clearly omits proving anything, but only concluding and reporting.

The word proof is not absolute. Look at how "proof" is used in all of scientific history. Aristotle's "three proofs," etc. It is a conclusion based on evidence.

The gnome is at different altitudes when it travels the world. Not everywhere is at sea level. The level of the earth rises and falls. The altitude of Huston and the altitude of, say, Denver, has a difference of over 5100 feet.

And yet the mass of the gnome remains the same, regardless of the altitude or location.  This is why the gnome is the control that makes this a controlled experiment.

Actually, the digital scale used is measuring the weight of the gnome, not the mass.

9300

Flat Earth Theory / Re: g is not homogeneous

« on: December 24, 2014, 01:13:19 AM »

You're wrong. The paper presents a hypothesis and shows that it fits the experimental data. How could you possibly miss that?

Tell me what did you think of how the third-order residuals were handled. I thought the author handled and explained those very well.

A hypothesis on how the data can be interpreted is meaningless if there is no experiment to demonstrate that hypothesis. That is the heart of the Scientific Method. They even teach it to children in gradeschool.