221

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)

« on: March 14, 2019, 08:30:54 PM »

So do I understand that you are creating a rigorous formalism for a world you know can't exist to explain why everything appears RE but if put through a math transform can actually be FE without specifying the composition and shape of how this transformation is physically implemented?

How would this be helping to lay a foundation for FE if the careful and valid formalism is based on a map that can't be right?

Is this an attempt to subtly mock FE? Or just pointless smarty pants showing off? Not that there's anything wrong with that, just curious.

222

Flat Earth Theory / Re: how does gps work on FE?

« on: March 14, 2019, 05:30:02 PM »

I wish some FE would explain how we have gps without having satellites where they are published as being.

I have heard one explanation. It required thousands of flying transmitters, high above the atmosphere each with many time delay spoofing transmitters and ultra sharp cutoff antennas, etc, many impossible things with any known technology.

223

Flat Earth Theory / how does gps work on FE?

« on: March 13, 2019, 09:08:45 PM »

GPS satellites have 4 atomic clocks and sends a very accurate time in its broadcast and gps receivers have a less good but adequate clock. The timestamp in broadcast is subtracted from receiver clock time and divided by the speed of light. The distance from 4 satellites intersects at only one place, your ocation, so some geometry math and you have your location.

There are open source gps receiver programs at sourceforge.net, so if you know c++, you can examine (or fix or dream up your own!) the calculations it makes and compile is yourself. We can truth check that that is the signal and that is how it works.

gps signals are at 12,500 miles, as you can confirm in the receiver code. You can also see how the satellites move and where they are with tracker software. It all matches.

If you don't have the transmitters where they say they are, the geometry will not work right. You can step through the code with a debugger and see the calculations yourself.

How does this work on FE?

224

Flat Earth Theory / Re: how does Australia in the flat earth theory?

« on: March 13, 2019, 08:42:14 PM »

The most amazing thing to me is there unawareness of their impact on others. I find it very hard to take when they essentially say my youth and my family was fake and they were all stupid or liars.

They are calling all REs stupid or liars. Everybody who believed their science teacher when they explained day/night, seasons, 24 sun at pole, etc.

225

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is your goal here?

« on: March 13, 2019, 08:34:31 PM »

FE, where efforts are redoubled when results are dismal.

226

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mount Everest?

« on: March 13, 2019, 05:19:00 PM »

"leaving a clear trail of breadcrumbs is essential to the scientific community to take this seriously."

When you say scientific community, do you mean professors from Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, etc., or do you mean D Marble and Jeranism?

Assuming you mean the conventional scientific community, I thought that publishing a paper was what the scientific community takes seriously. Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Special Theory of Relativity, etc.

Looking forward to Tom Bishop's submission and publication. If he's got a tight theory, why not? What would stop him?

Or do you mean the scientific community of FE web sites?

227

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is your goal here?

« on: March 12, 2019, 08:04:26 PM »

What if I had a proposed shape of the earth that I could give strong evidence was true?

My journey through FE started with, "okay, maybe the earth is flat" and I looked for evidence. The FE videos had problems with their understanding of RE geometry and physics, many were downright silly. Logic errors, some had evidence of RE in clear view. Don't consider Bible as way to determine RE.  Ring laser gyroscope netflix. D Marble and Jeranism are just not good. The evidence was dismal. Considering there was already an explanation that had been demonstrated to me, I call "truth" for RE.

Do you know how sextant and equatorial mount works on RE? I find the workings to be fascinating and awesome, that all the stars and planets could be flying around and spinning and orbiting, yet we figured out how to know your latitude with a simple gadget aimed at something 93M mi away. I find understanding why pointing a telescope at the moon on a stationary mount would result in the moon moving across your field of view, yet mounting that telescope on an axis parallel to the earth's axis and turning it at one rev a day makes things stay in view at all angles.

I wish I could get an FE to stay with me through understanding how these things work on RE and why they do not work on FE. I would let them explain where I was wrong. It is not impossible they would convince me.

228

Flat Earth Community / What is your goal here?

« on: March 12, 2019, 05:28:01 PM »

Is your goal to find the true shape of the earth?

Is your goal to make the case for flat earth?

My goal is to improve the quality of thinking in those I share the earth with. By quality of thinking, I mean finding the objective truth, not making myself feel good.

It does not matter to me whether the earth is flat. It matters to me that the methods to find out are effective and people understand them.

There is a long long list of things to explain if the earth is flat that make perfect sense on RE. Why think about FE until you have explained morth star/latitude/sextant?
 

229

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mount Everest?

« on: March 12, 2019, 05:14:47 PM »

If light rays travel almost straight (yes, they do refract in the atmosphere, there will be small errors due to refraction):

The sun on the most common FE model circles above the earth (3100 mi?) between the tropic of cancer and the tropic of capricorn. At no point will anyone see it as "behind" any mountain.

If there is some major light bending in the atmoplane:

Until the bending is defined by equations and confirmed by experimental observation, we do not know exactly how the light is bending. Until that is nailed down, we don't know where anything is.

Thoise are the 2 FE choices. Impossible and don't know.

230

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)

« on: March 12, 2019, 04:58:32 PM »

Quote from QED:

================================================================================

And pointing out things that you think are wrong with it is not the same as “showing the proposal can’t possibly be correct.”

================================================================================

I pointed out the things you have to explain and the difficulties. If your theory is correct, it is more strongly proven after explaining these things. If it can't explain these things, we can't call it correct until it does. If there is a long list of such things, the probability they all have explanations is lower. If the probability of your explanation is low, why spend time?

Are you doing this as an exercise knowing the earth is round, but just a thought experiment, or do you think hundreds of years of science since Newton is wrong and the use of this science for gps and space flight, etc, is wrong and you and FEs have truth?

231

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can FE make a map?

« on: March 12, 2019, 04:43:41 PM »

I want to see the FE map where I can't sail into the edge. The polar projection/ice wall explanation is not available to a flat rectangular map. Any flat rectangular map has to explain what is up with the edges. The earth, to a sailor, has no edge. If flat map, must explain edge.

Do you have explanation for edges?

232

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The effect FE has on me

« on: March 12, 2019, 04:24:51 PM »

What do we know about airliner speed? Nothing?

Do we know it is about 470 on all schedules?

Can you find me a schedule that does not divide distance by time and get around 470? 

I am going to treat airliner speed = 470 as truth. I have many schedules, Boeing docs, and my personal experience as confirmatioon.

Do you have a reason to believe I am wrong that is stronger than my reasons to believe 470 mph?

233

Flat Earth Theory / Re: night time sky

« on: March 12, 2019, 04:20:33 PM »

I did not say FE was true or false because I like it, it doesn't matter whether I like it. The question is not which do you feel is right, I could feel that anything is right.

On RE, when you point a sextant at the north star, the angle is equal to your lattitude. At the equator, the north star is on the horizon, which means if FE, it is on the surface of the earth. If you put the north star at the top of a 3100 mi high dome, you should get an angle of 26 degrees. You don't. On FE, the angle is never right, unless you decide the light was bent in just the right way to make it appear to be round. No explanation or experimentation is offered to justify this, only that it must be because the earth is flat. Assuming the conclusion is not allowed in logic.

RE explains and is consistent with observations. FE has no explanation for these. Same is true of 24 hour darkness at south pole, satellites/gps/DirecTV, equatorial mount, etc etc etc. All explained by RE, all requiring conspiracy or explanation without observation and experiment.

234

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can FE make a map?

« on: March 12, 2019, 06:26:35 AM »

What happens when I sail east from New York on your map? Many people have sailed west from New Yrok and not run into the edge. Is your map a cylinder? If it is, we only have to tuck the ends in and we have a ball. If it is not, why can people sail east from NY and get to Europe?

235

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The effect FE has on me

« on: March 12, 2019, 06:18:28 AM »

I flew from TX to CA, and I have driven from TX to CA. The distance on my odometer was very close to the distance published on the airline schedule. The time was also very close to published. The speed of the airliner worked out to 470 mph, matches time, matches distance, plane matches car matches gps matches google maps.

How would it not be obvious to many immediately if the time speed distance was wrong? Pilot, passengers, etc are zombies? Millions of people, thousands of pilots. All too dumb to realize something doesn't add up?

236

Flat Earth Theory / Re: night time sky

« on: March 12, 2019, 03:22:16 AM »

How folks get fooled, just curious. Are folks fooled about F=MA, the periodic chart, atoms and molecules, dna, cells, etc? Or is it just the stuff that has to do with the shape of the earth?

The reason to accept RE is that it explains all that and more and FE has to twist itself into explanations of explanations of explanations to explain stuff like this.

I find RE way more interesting than FE. FE just sits there. RE has this beautiful circular dance where things interact without touching and make patterns within patterns. The tilt of the earth, the rotation makes such an interesting pattern of day/night at the poles, seasons, FE has no way to explain short of a massive kludge.

237

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)

« on: March 12, 2019, 03:07:22 AM »

Why don't you use my method for finding the height of the north star? Having that as a reference would make locating everything in its proper place would be helpful, no? On FE, the math is simple, You know the north star is directly above the north pole, so with the flat earth, you have a right triangle. All you have to do is know the elevation of the north star above the horizon, and you know two angles and the length of one side. Use a triangle calculator and find the length of the side that is vertical up from the pole. Then you know the north star is "x" miles directly above the north pole.

Isn't this true? Doesn't this tell you where the north star is? Simple geometry right?

238

Flat Earth Theory / Re: how does Australia in the flat earth theory?

« on: March 12, 2019, 02:56:24 AM »

In 2004, Hewlett Packard sent me to Taipei, Hong Kong, and Sydney to do a new product 3 day seminar. Had to be 3 stops, because Taiwan vs Taipei obvious reasons and the trip to Australia is surprisingly long, impractical for 30 people to travel. Because we couldn't span a weekend (travel costs for attendees over weekend), I had to be in each place for a week. HP had a policy that you could turn your business class ticket in for two economy, so I paid for tickets for my kids and they stayed in the room the company provided. 7 days in Hong Kong and 10 days in Sydney. Did the outback, blue mountains, saw a concert in the famous opera hall, went to the top of Sydney harbor bridge, saw a spider at least a foot across (not in a zoo, just in some bush), petted a kangaroo, ate kangaroo, and it was spectacular.

The geology, flora and fauna, are very different, if you are not in Australia, you are in some weird place. They call it Oz with good reason. The people are great. Easy going, warm, they volunteer, good co-workers. They are more like Californians than some Americans, so easy for me. I worked with people from the Australian division of HP for 2 decades. I only went there once.

When I came back, I flew Qantas from Sydney to LA. On the FE map, that distance is longer than any known airliner range. On RE, the speed of airliner matches the time matches the distance.

Any Aussies reading this, good on you and your country. Bob's your uncle!

239

Flat Earth Theory / How to know how high the dome is

« on: March 12, 2019, 02:33:42 AM »

Make an inclinometer:



Get the altitude of the north star as shown.

Now find out your distance from the north pole by going to bing, right click to stick a pushpin directly above your location close to the top edge, right click again and click on measure distance. Drag the line down and read the miles.

We know that the north star is directly above the north pole in all models, right? So that forms a right triangle on FE with one side equal your distance from north pole, a 90 degree angle, and whatever your inclinometer indicated for elevation of north star.

Use a triangle calculator and you know the altitude of the north star, right?

240

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can FE make a map?

« on: March 12, 2019, 01:42:21 AM »

Let me make this perfectly clear. What I mean by accurate is all distances everywhere. Any difference in any distance is distorted, and yes, you can project a spherical surface onto a plane, but you can not preserve all distances accurately. Gauss's theorem, mathematically provable. That is why the scale on the map changes with latitude.

You can't do it. There will never be a flat map of earth that has the same scale everywhere and accurate distances everywhere. That can only be done on a globe.

Please show me the map with the same scale everywhere that is flat and has accurate distances everywhere. I will admit that I was wrong, and I am a stupid idiot, and tell everyone that you are a genius.