Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 691
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #40 on: January 15, 2022, 08:51:59 AM »

A "control flight" is in reference the they claim that pilots know how fast they are flying because sometimes they are not flying on the fastest route. They are always using winds to reach their destination, which is why there are two paths to the same destination in the previous image I provided despite significant differences from the optimal dotted line RE geographical route.

It’s important to understand that wind speed is not some unknown quantity to pilots. Wind speed can be derived from a number of sources, and many of them make no assumptions at all about the shape of the earth. Inertial navigation, technology that predates GPS, can give very good measurements of groundspeed, from which wind speed and direction can be calculated either manually or automatically from the aircraft’s airspeed data. Overland routes, or routes flying reasonably close to coastlines or islands can also derive groundspeed from DME or TACAN beacons, typically out to a range of 100nm or so. Neither of these require any presumption of a coordinate system, or earth shape, to function effectively.

The important point to hoist aboard is that, when compared with, say, GPS derived data, pilots aren’t presented with enormous differences, which would have to be the case if the known distances between points on the earth’s surface were radically different to the conventional RE model, as they must be if FET in any of its guises is true.

So trying to explain away the differences with vague terms like ‘anomalous winds’ is a deeply flawed argument, because pilots know what the wind is doing - and it never gets large enough to make the speed-distance-time calculations work for FET distances. Furthermore, all of the flight data is cross checked - distance to go, airspeed, groundspeed…and it always matches known distances.

Offline Gonzo

  • *
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #41 on: January 15, 2022, 05:45:29 PM »
For those interested, this article gives a good overview of flight planning considerations for a N. Atlantic flight.

https://ops.group/blog/nat-tracks-nil-an-experiment/

Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2022, 06:09:28 AM »
@Gonzo: although the numbers may vary, I think 'RE and FE are in broad agreement that eastbound transatlantic traffic gets a benefit from wind in terms of speed, range and fuel-burn.  Tom's contention, however, is that traffic from Europe to North America also consistently gets a benefit from easterly winds.  Any comment?

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 691
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #43 on: January 19, 2022, 03:16:44 PM »
@Gonzo: although the numbers may vary, I think 'RE and FE are in broad agreement that eastbound transatlantic traffic gets a benefit from wind in terms of speed, range and fuel-burn.  Tom's contention, however, is that traffic from Europe to North America also consistently gets a benefit from easterly winds.  Any comment?

I'd go one further - Tom's contention appears to be that pilots and airline ops teams do not know how far their aircraft are flying, or what the wind is doing in the airspace they are operating in. That is an absurd suggestion, and is demonstrably false.

Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2022, 03:48:30 PM »
I saw this today which I thought was interesting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60044065

Amazing image of the whole of the UK, taken from a satellite using radar - so not subject to clouds etc. It's a composite (remember, kids, composite != fake), the full image is something like 2Gb and you can see quite small scale features on it.

Be interested to hear a FE take on this.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14985
  • And off we go | To play telephone | Sharing what we know | But how long can we keep playing | Until the game | Undermines the status quo?
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2022, 04:10:55 PM »
I don't see what this has to do with Google Maps, but the FE "take" on electromagnetic acceleration doesn't change. You are viewing the image under the assumption that electromagnetic waves travel in straight lines, but they do not.

Of course, the composite nature of the image does weaken your case (look at you, you even felt the need to defensively twitch at how it "doesn't equal fake"!) since you can compose them any way you'd like.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2022, 04:12:30 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2022, 04:38:42 PM »
I don't see what this has to do with Google Maps
Well, it doesn't really but it's an example of how we are able to map the earth accurately with the help of orbiting satellites. I wasn't sure it deserved its own thread.

Quote
the FE "take" on electromagnetic acceleration doesn't change. You are viewing the image under the assumption that electromagnetic waves travel in straight lines, but they do not.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. This is a composite of photos claimed to come from an orbiting satellite - so it would be looking straight down. What's EA got to do with it?

Quote
Of course, the composite nature of the image does weaken your case (look at you, you even felt the need to defensively twitch at how it "doesn't equal fake"!) since you can compose them any way you'd like.
Well sure. I said the "!= fake" because it's a FE claim I've seen a lot (more outside here than on here, to be fair). It's a weak claim though, any panorama you take is a composite, that doesn't mean you're not actually looking at the object you're taking photos of.

I guess the point of this thread - and the reason I put this in here - is that we have very accurate maps of the whole earth. In part because of a lot of surveying but now because we have orbiting satellites which can take photos with impressive resolution. One such satellite is claimed to have taken the photos which make up this composite. A common FE claim is that this is all fake - although I'd suggest that faking a map of the whole of the UK to this resolution would be a very difficult thing to do. From other threads you've indicated you don't see a contradiction between FE and orbiting satellites but I'm never clear how you square (globe?!) that circle.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14985
  • And off we go | To play telephone | Sharing what we know | But how long can we keep playing | Until the game | Undermines the status quo?
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2022, 05:47:23 PM »
any panorama you take is a composite, that doesn't mean you're not actually looking at the object you're taking photos of.
That is, of course, with the important caveat that the shape of objects in panoramas is significantly distorted when compared to their "naked eye" appearance.

so it would be looking straight down. What's EA got to do with it?
Looking straight down would only capture a single point at a time, rather than meaningful 2-dimensional photographs. This would make the composition even more arbitrary, since you'd be stitching them together pixel by pixel.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2022, 05:52:26 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 691
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2022, 06:09:57 PM »
?
[mLooking straight down would only capture a single point at a time, rather than meaningful 2-dimensional photographs. This would make the composition even more arbitrary, since you'd be stitching them together pixel by pixel.

It’s a SAR image - they are built bit by bit as the satellite passes over. The movement creates the aperture - that’s the whole point. The entire thing is a composite of billions of data points - it’s not just the seven swathes. Each swathe is a composite. I don’t know whether this one fires directly down or at an angle, but the angle will be the same for each point.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3196
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2022, 06:25:36 PM »
That is, of course, with the important caveat that the shape of objects in panoramas is significantly distorted when compared to their "naked eye" appearance.

I suppose it depends on the panorama. Here's one:



I'm not seeing any visual distortion.

Offline Gonzo

  • *
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2022, 06:46:40 PM »
@Gonzo: although the numbers may vary, I think 'RE and FE are in broad agreement that eastbound transatlantic traffic gets a benefit from wind in terms of speed, range and fuel-burn.  Tom's contention, however, is that traffic from Europe to North America also consistently gets a benefit from easterly winds.  Any comment?

Winds over the N. Atlantic are generally westerly. I've never seen or heard of a consistent tailwind for a westbound transatlantic. Depending on the strength and position of the N. Atlantic jetstream, they may go to some considerable length to avoid it, running far south or north of the ideal great circle route: They're doing so to avoid a headwind, not take advantage of a tailwind.

Offline Gonzo

  • *
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2022, 07:01:09 PM »
@Gonzo: although the numbers may vary, I think 'RE and FE are in broad agreement that eastbound transatlantic traffic gets a benefit from wind in terms of speed, range and fuel-burn.  Tom's contention, however, is that traffic from Europe to North America also consistently gets a benefit from easterly winds.  Any comment?

I'd go one further - Tom's contention appears to be that pilots and airline ops teams do not know how far their aircraft are flying, or what the wind is doing in the airspace they are operating in. That is an absurd suggestion, and is demonstrably false.

Anyone invovled in aviation will know this contention is ridiculous. I am in my unit's Operations department, where we work on new procedures, equipment and liaise with airlines and other ATC organisations. I was on a call earlier today with representatives (including senior pilots) of a major global airline talking about sustainability. We were examining their fuel burn calculations from a recent flight, and how making one tweak in procedure had saved 30kgs of fuel, and another had saved 6kgs of fuel. We also looked at the readout each Captain gets of her/his environmental performance, and how efficient the flight planning and how accurate the fuel calculation prediction was for each flight plan. Differences of tens of kgs was remarked upon. Bear in mind that an A320 burns about 45kg of fuel per minute in the cruise. A Boeing 777 will burn over 100kgs of fuel per minute. If flying times were seemingly so variable and unpredictable, the margin of error on fuel calculations would be so wide such as to make long haul flying uneconomical and wildly unpredictable. Which is not the reality we experience.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14985
  • And off we go | To play telephone | Sharing what we know | But how long can we keep playing | Until the game | Undermines the status quo?
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #52 on: January 20, 2022, 09:33:56 AM »
It’s a SAR image - they are built bit by bit as the satellite passes over. The movement creates the aperture - that’s the whole point. The entire thing is a composite of billions of data points - it’s not just the seven swathes. Each swathe is a composite. I don’t know whether this one fires directly down or at an angle, but the angle will be the same for each point.
Indeed. I'm glad we agree.

I'm not seeing any visual distortion.
Sigh, of course you'd choose the narrowest angle possible. I weep for you.

But hey, let's roll with this. How have you determined whether this image appears distorted when referenced against a "naked eye" view of the scene? Pardon my cynicism, but I strongly suspect you haven't made the comparison at all.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2022, 09:45:08 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 691
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #53 on: January 20, 2022, 12:27:33 PM »
It’s a SAR image - they are built bit by bit as the satellite passes over. The movement creates the aperture - that’s the whole point. The entire thing is a composite of billions of data points - it’s not just the seven swathes. Each swathe is a composite. I don’t know whether this one fires directly down or at an angle, but the angle will be the same for each point.
Indeed. I'm glad we agree.


Turns out the NovaSar look angle is between 16 and 25 degrees - https://bhoonidhi.nrsc.gov.in/imgarchive/bhoonidhi_videos_help/NOVASAR_PRODUCT_FORMAT_DOCUMENT_V2.pdf

Leaving aside discussions around panorama photographs, I'm unclear as to what your EA-based argument is here. NovaSar, and indeed myriad other satellites, image the earth at a variety of angles and don't have any issues with light bending - if this was the case, then in the case of NovaSar then images taken at 16 degrees would generate different results from those at the other extreme, 25 degrees. But they do not do this - this is not a problem.

On a broader note, I'm fascinated to understand what FE proponents think is going on with systems like NovaSar. There is wealth of publicly available, and commercially useful, information regarding the satellite - see here, for example: https://research.csiro.au/cceo/novasar/novasar-introduction/novasar-1-user-guide/#satellite-specifications

Look at the satellite orbit information - it simply could not work in the way described on a FE. Which then raises the question, what exactly do FE proponents think is happening here? Pete - thoughts?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 14985
  • And off we go | To play telephone | Sharing what we know | But how long can we keep playing | Until the game | Undermines the status quo?
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #54 on: January 20, 2022, 12:31:10 PM »
NovaSar, and indeed myriad other satellites, image the earth at a variety of angles and don't have any issues with light bending - if this was the case, then in the case of NovaSar then images taken at 16 degrees would generate different results from those at the other extreme, 25 degrees. But they do not do this - this is not a problem.
Of course they do. They would do that if the Earth were round, too. The field of view dramatically affects the perceived shape of the Earth, either if we assume a round Earth and straight light rays, or a flat Earth and curved light rays. This is extremely basic geometry, not an "EA-based argument".
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2039
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #55 on: January 20, 2022, 01:12:21 PM »
Satellites above a flat accelerating upwards earth would not be practical.  A big supply of fuel would be necessary to keep them accelerating upwards to maintain a constant distance above the earth.  Extremely basic physics.  I would also think that all that burning fuel would distort pictures taken thru the hot exhaust gases. 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2022, 01:15:12 PM by RonJ »
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 691
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #56 on: January 20, 2022, 02:53:30 PM »
NovaSar, and indeed myriad other satellites, image the earth at a variety of angles and don't have any issues with light bending - if this was the case, then in the case of NovaSar then images taken at 16 degrees would generate different results from those at the other extreme, 25 degrees. But they do not do this - this is not a problem.
Of course they do. They would do that if the Earth were round, too. The field of view dramatically affects the perceived shape of the Earth, either if we assume a round Earth and straight light rays, or a flat Earth and curved light rays. This is extremely basic geometry, not an "EA-based argument".

So your contention is that, for all transmission angles, and all altitudes above the earth's surface, the distances and incidence angles at the surface would be identical regardless of whether the earth was round and EM waves traveled in straight lines or if, instead, the earth was flat and the rays curved according to EA?

Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #57 on: January 20, 2022, 04:19:30 PM »
Satellites above a flat accelerating upwards earth would not be practical.  A big supply of fuel would be necessary to keep them accelerating upwards to maintain a constant distance above the earth.  Extremely basic physics.  I would also think that all that burning fuel would distort pictures taken thru the hot exhaust gases.
Didn't you say this before? FET hypothesises that the earth itself shields the force which makes UA...A. That's why we don't accelerate upwards too - well, we do, but we're pushed upwards by the earth - which creates the effect which RE calls gravity.
But that shield only works up to a certain altitude which is why the earth doesn't accelerate into the stars, they are also being accelerated upwards. So if you could get a satellite into that region then it would be accelerated up along with the earth.
There are bunch of other problems, presumably you'd still need fuel to keep the satellite orbiting.
And of course there would have to be a big conspiracy amongst all the countries who launch satellites who claim that they're doing so based on all the maths to make this work on a RE. Which was kinda my point in my post which kicked this conversation off. We have a load of satellite data and photos from space. The image I posted would be extremely difficult to fake. The FE response to satellites confuses me in general. Some just shout "fake!" and run away, but this quality and quantity of data would be next to impossible to fake, and they have no actual evidence of that. Pete's response seems to be that satellites are possible on a FE but I'm not clear how that would work.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 691
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #58 on: January 20, 2022, 04:40:09 PM »
There are bunch of other problems, presumably you'd still need fuel to keep the satellite orbiting.
And of course there would have to be a big conspiracy amongst all the countries who launch satellites who claim that they're doing so based on all the maths to make this work on a RE. Which was kinda my point in my post which kicked this conversation off. We have a load of satellite data and photos from space. The image I posted would be extremely difficult to fake. The FE response to satellites confuses me in general. Some just shout "fake!" and run away, but this quality and quantity of data would be next to impossible to fake, and they have no actual evidence of that. Pete's response seems to be that satellites are possible on a FE but I'm not clear how that would work.

It's not just the question of how they stay up there -  a more pressing issue is how to explain their movement. If you look in that link I posted earlier you can see the track of NovaSar - they are very open about it, and it is central to the commercial exploitation of the asset to be able to say where and when it will be. The tracks make no sense at all if you plot them on any of the proposed FE maps - even Tom's almost entirely blank dipole map. Hence my question above, and as you too are saying: what exactly do they think is going on? You can go to a satellite firm and say 'I see your satellite will be over this area at time/date xx, I'd like some SAR imaging please' - how exactly is that working, if the satellite isn't travelling around the globe in a predictable fashion? Who is conspiring, and who is deluded?

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2039
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« Reply #59 on: January 20, 2022, 04:43:46 PM »
I believe that the flat earth beliefs involve the same thing that keeps the Sun and Moon orbiting and that is the barycenter argument.  Of course, this contention can’t be supported.  Even if it could there are all kinds of other difficulties that can’t be explained in a rational manner.  One would be the necessity for the ‘dark energy’ to provide the exact push necessary to keep all the satellites accelerating upwards and at exactly the correct rate independently of their mass and surface area.  This ‘dark energy’ would have to be extremely ‘smart’ in order to do this.  All these things have been discussed in previous posts and no answers have come out of the flat earth aficionados.  I don’t believe that there’s anything in the Wiki that could provide any detailed answers either. 
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!