Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - inquisitive

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 51  Next >
21
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia on flat Earth
« on: February 07, 2020, 07:54:49 PM »
A fallacy in all of this may be assuming that the Antarctica depicted in the first picture is a "globe australia." Since surveyors use plane surveying methods, that's the Flat Earth Australia.

The discussion is mostly on the nature, dimensions, and layout of the oceans, which are not mapped out with plane surveying methods (no land features on the ocean), and assume an RE.
I was asking which was the accurate correct map of Australia.  Distances measured across the earth confirm the size and shape.

22
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia on flat Earth
« on: February 07, 2020, 07:23:55 PM »
No surprise that Tom has not answered.

23
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Terminal Velocity?
« on: February 06, 2020, 07:11:04 PM »
However, I do know that it would be something less than 9.8 m/s2 (if it wasn’t the distance would never decrease).  So, let’s say the relative acceleration of the sphere is half of 9.8 m/s2. in FE…4.9 m/s2.
Drag force is not a constant, buddy. The whole point of terminal velocity is that eventually it will be equal 9.8m/s2

You've been given plenty of chances. This is your last. Behave or begone.
Depends on the local value of g.

24
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia on flat Earth
« on: February 06, 2020, 07:09:53 PM »
There is a map gallery showing slightly different versions of Australia at https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps
Which version has the correct distances?

25
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Terminal Velocity?
« on: February 06, 2020, 05:50:12 PM »
Sorry, they're not wrong. As I explained before, you're confusing yourself by choosing a FoR you don't find intuitive. Solve it relative to the Earth and it becomes quite simple.
Agree?

Terminal velocity is the maximum velocity attainable by an object as it falls through a fluid (air is the most common example). It occurs when the sum of the drag force (Fd) and the buoyancy is equal to the downward force of gravity (FG) acting on the object. Since the net force on the object is zero, the object has zero acceleration.

26
Flat Earth Community / Re: Media Resistance
« on: February 04, 2020, 03:29:57 PM »
AATW stated that very thing in his post.
He very much stated FET belief = dangerous.
I literally said the opposite. You just cut that part of the sentence out when you quoted me...
And I have made it clear in more than one post now what I think of as dangerous.
But if you would, humor me...

Please type the following, just to be clear:

FET Belief poses no danger to myself and others.

FET Belief poses no danger to myself and others.


BUT, it is a belief which comes from a certain mindset. Other beliefs which come from that mindset can be a danger to people.
I appreciate the statement you have written for its clarity and its decided unambiguous nature.

Which now calls for discussion about the actual topic presented here.

Could we discuss the amount of RE adherents here and what they actually bring to the discussion of flat earth?

I believe that would be in keeping with the OP.
The earth has only one shape so any discussion can only be about what it is.

27
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Terminal Velocity?
« on: February 03, 2020, 08:27:24 AM »
In order to reach a "maximum speed", something has to be moving.  In the FE model, things aren't moving as the earth is accelerating up to meet an object.  There is no wind resistance.
Well, yes, if you want to look at it from that frame of reference, the skydiver isn't moving until the air pushes him up ever so gently. As that air becomes denser, the force of the air pushing the skydiver becomes greater. The difference between the upward acceleration of the Earth and the upward acceleration of the skydiver will therefore diminish, and eventually reach zero.

However, you are being willingly obtuse by not picking a FoR you would find more intuitive. Simply taking a non-inertial FoR in which the Earth is stationary and the skydiver is falling will eliminate your confusion.
Do you have measurements of air density as it varies for a skydiver.  I suggest it does not significantly vary.

28
Flat Earth Community / Re: Media Resistance
« on: February 02, 2020, 07:30:24 PM »
To answer the first person. Well I am a light aircraft pilot and as you fly along, once a stable altitude is achieved, were the earth round you would have to adjust the yoke down every few minutes to stop the aircraft from climbing in altitude. As a pilot I can say clearly you do not have to do this.

When aircraft fly at a constant speed and altitude, then the aircraft will follow the geodesics around the surface of the Earth which is the notion of a straight line, however the actual flight path is a large circular arc. The moon follows a geodesic path around the Earth, and so do the planets around the sun.

See thats not so... regarding aircraft. Simple physics dictate it cannot be so. An airplane rides on a cushion of air created by airpressure from the velocity of the wing through the air.  Although to some extent the barrometric pressure affects flight, at 10,000 feet to 11,000 feet very little presure change takes place.

No way a plane would follow the arc of land... its not reasonable. Sorry. Nor is it based in flight physics. Flight is linear. I have read the argument of which you speak. But, it has serious flaws.
How do you know what is a level, ie straight in all directions, flight.  How do you maintain a constant height?

29
Flat Earth Community / Re: Media Resistance
« on: February 02, 2020, 10:13:14 AM »
I can agree with the OP. If FE was blatantly false or easily dismissable no one would bother to talk about it, just as they aren't talking about the people who believe in leprechauns. The fact that there is a mass effort to combat it shows that there is no obvious proof for their own stance and an argument is needed.
No effort to combat, just establishing the shape of the earth, whatever it is.

You have not responded to previous requests to explain how you would determine the size and shape of the earth.  Maybe now is the time.

30
Flat Earth Community / Re: Media Resistance
« on: February 01, 2020, 05:41:15 PM »
To answer the first person. Well I am a light aircraft pilot and as you fly along, once a stable altitude is achieved, were the earth round you would have to adjust the yoke down every few minutes to stop the aircraft from climbing in altitude. As a pilot I can say clearly you do not have to do this.

Also at an altitude of 10,000 feet you can see hundres of miles in any direction on a clear day... no curvature is visible.

I am not sure how these can be true if the earth is round.

To answer the second question of the next person,

I'm 40 years old and common real life experience teaches that lies cause little to no reaction, but the truth angers easily.

Your refrence to a movie, a slapstick comedy, is not reality, but art. I am talking about real life, not movies.

Furthermore the nature of man is to be a sheep, following whoever screams the loudest. Flat Earth people have a tinsy voice and the establishment has a megaphone.

I think the matter begs more research. Just on common, everyday experience a globe earth has visible flaws.

Strange how this Flat Earth site is invaded with establishment Nazis who want to make anyone look stupid who might challenge an established theory.

Why are folks not allowed to explore their ideas without demonization? If the truth is so clear then why fear flat earth?
Been discussed before, level flight is actually very very slightly down.  And you are not high enough to see curvature.

31
Flat Earth Community / Re: Media Resistance
« on: February 01, 2020, 08:51:42 AM »
What are the good and simple proofs that you have for the shape of the earth that the vast scientific community has missed?

32
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.
« on: January 30, 2020, 05:35:59 PM »
Thank you, but which one is correct with confirmed distances?
I don't see how that's relevant. If you want to discuss the inconsistencies in distance caused by trying to fit a globe onto a flat plane, I'm sure there are threads about that. Stay on-topic.
It's a bit important to know so we can understand the times of sun rise and set at different places.

33
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.
« on: January 30, 2020, 05:18:26 PM »
To help understand the diagram better please provide the map of the earth to go with it.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps
Thank you, but which one is correct with confirmed distances?

34
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.
« on: January 30, 2020, 03:39:27 PM »
As the sun sets, the shadows goes up the mountain face. Simple geometry says that the shadow can't go up the mountain face unless the sun is sinking behind something. The "cloud lit from underside" theory doesn't accomplish anything here. We aren't talking about light sneaking in somewhere unexpected; we are talking about a shadow, the absence of light.

What's creating the shadow? What is blocking the sun's light that so regularly crawls up the mountainside, finally leaving it in shadow? If it is already dusk, why can I fly up in a plane and see the sun again? I haven't found an explanation in Flat Earth theory that explains this. Not saying there isn't one: if there is, I'd like to hear it.
I think that all of your questions would be adequately answered if you just read the wiki page on EA: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration.
To help understand the diagram better please provide the map of the earth to go with it.

35
So you verified that they were satellites because "the documentation confirms it"? Meaning, that you didn't really verify it at all and just read it somewhere?
How would you propose we should determine the operation of GPNSS systems?  Verified by NMEA data from receivers and published documentation.

We know they work and there is no indication that they use ground based transmitters because of receiving in valleys, centre of oceans etc.  In a similar subject can you explain how satellite tv works, you have been asked many times?

You are the person who relies on reading a book written many years ago!

36
{starting again to reduce length}

At times you be may only be in range of one cellphone base station.  For a location and altitude system you need to be in range of at least 4 transmitters.

I have poor cellphone coverage but receive from 20 GPNSS transmitters from 4 systems.  How do you explain that?

Please tell us how many transmitters your GPS receiver typically shows when you are outdoors.

37
Quote
What personal evidence do you have that GPS works in the middle of oceans?
Ships use gps.
So you have captained a ship using GPS in the middle of an ocean?

Could you please write more about it?
I haven't personally captained a ship (though I have a smaller boat of my own) but it's not important that I haven't. Just like how it's not important you haven't gone to Antarctica to see the 'ice wall' for yourself to believe it's a thing that exists. It's quite common knowledge I think. Here's the first article about it from a google search.

https://www.gps.gov/applications/marine/

You can also find information about gps coverage if you look hard enough.
So the extent of your personal experience with GPS is reading about the subject?

Nothing in the middle of the ocean?

Any personal use on land then?
Have you had personal experience of being incapable of using gps in the middle of an ocean as the captain of a ship? If you're asking have I been on a boat and been able to use gps then yes I have, but only around English channel and once off the coast from Western Sahara, but I have only been 'captain' of some of those in the English channel, all private boats. GPS is still used by larger ships though, ask any captain of some of those larger ships that go a bit further out to sea. I'll eat my own hat if there is some kind of conspiracy about gps. It works. Lives depend on it.
I have wrote about the the extent of my personal experience using GPS in this thread.

I didn't bring up the words "middle of the ocean."

inquisitive offered that tidbit.

I replied directly to him.

You chose to reply to me.

No one here can offer any personal experience about using GPS in the "middle of the ocean."

The entire context and purpose of using the words," middle of the ocean," is to paint a picture that GPS encompasses the mythical globe and can operate even in the most remote areas of the mythical globe.

One issue with this is the laughable idea that ships are operating willy-nilly across the Seven Seas.

Reality is, they are not.

Ships are traveling the same time worn routes they have taken for hundreds of years, with few exceptions.

My experience is this: My GPS connectivity on strictly GPS devices and my cell phone is lost when I also lose cell phone signal and access to the internet.

No one can dispute that.

It is highly likely that GPS is more related to signal transmitters on the flat earth plane than anything in the aether above our heads.
Whatever you think and claim to experience is totally different to the millions that use GPS systems.  If you are so sure it uses ground based transmitters then how do you explain receivers showing the location of transmitters in orbit?  Please provide details of some transmitter locations, including Chinese and Russian ones in the USA.

I have used a GPS receiver while flying over an ocean, again showing about 20 transmitters.

38
Just for clarity, in case anyone has doubt, I find it highly suspicious that both Google Maps (the system I utilize on my smartphone, which I use pretty much exclusively now) and the Garmin system (plus I used TomTom briefly) have conclusively demonstrated (at least to me in various commutes) to lose signal access to these supposed GPS satellites in the same general areas where I have no cell phone signal.

For me anyway, I think it demonstrates the idea of GPS "satellites" is total hoakum.
Is this indoors?  You may think that, but there is no doubt about how the various GPS systems work.  Do you have details of how you think it works, in detail.  Note that GPS works in the middle of oceans.

39
There is no doubt how GPS works
TL is suggesting the opposite.
Not clear if he saying he just loses internet access.  GPS receiver will show satellites being received from, he needs to check that.  Not just NASA claiming number of satellites, other systems used.

Have you verified that they are satellites?
Yes, the documentation confirms this.  For the US, Russian, Chinese, European and Japanese systems.  The raw data from receivers (NMEA) gives details. 

For example:
The GSV message string identifies the number of SVs in view, the PRN numbers, elevations, azimuths, and SNR values.

Unrelated, but the position of TV broadcast satellites above the equator is as documented and proved by dish alignment.

40
There is no doubt how GPS works
TL is suggesting the opposite.
Not clear if he saying he just loses internet access.  GPS receiver will show satellites being received from, he needs to check that.  Not just NASA claiming number of satellites, other systems used.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 51  Next >