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 - Tumeni

Pages: < Back  1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 135  Next >
2541
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?
« on: March 16, 2018, 11:56:43 PM »
What reports? Are you claiming that the captain of the cable ship handed you his reports?

As he pointed out above, there wouldn't be any way to complete the exercise without some form of paper trail with regards to how much cable was supplied to the ship, how much they used, how much was paid for, etc.

With this paper trail, someone, somewhere knew how much cable had been laid.  Agreed, these records may have disappeared, or at least be difficult to find, but ....

http://amhistory.si.edu/archives/AC0073.html#ref67

(Only took five minutes to find) - engineer's reports, cash books, ledgers. There may well be details in there of how much cable was used, etc.

Unfortunately, I'm on the wrong continent to go visit and peruse these ledgers for myself; would you like to do the empirical research, if you're in the vicinity?

2542
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Communication with the ISS by amateurs.
« on: March 16, 2018, 11:50:44 PM »
And how much do you think NASA invested in the SpaceX Falcon Heavy vs this Ham Radio demonstration?

Well, since SpaceX launched and landed their rockets from and on NASA property, I would have guessed that SpaceX were paying NASA a fee for the privilege...

Do you have any empirical data regarding who paid whom ...?

2543
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites
« on: March 16, 2018, 11:35:56 PM »
They posted a pic of supposedly the next 10 (https://twitter.com/IridiumComm/status/974744947780935686). I think they are just using the same pic over and over.

Why would you expect to be able to differentiate between them?

Is it any different from looking at cars coming off a production line? Without seeing the chassis number, options list, etc, how would you tell one from the other (assuming the same paint colour)

2544
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET and Global Positioning System
« on: March 16, 2018, 09:12:43 PM »
What about my Garmin GPS watch? I can see ....
Presumably. Your experience contradicts that of my own and virtually everyone I've spoken to about the subject. It also contradicts the technical specification of GPS.

Which aspect of the Garmin's operation contradicts which part of the 'technical specification' of GPS, in your mind?

That said, even a quick Google search reveals that your Garmin watch almost certainly does not just use GPS ...

What would it take to make you absolutely certain, not just 'almost' ... ?

2545
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites
« on: March 16, 2018, 02:05:18 PM »
Looking at the probability of encountering other satellites, if you could wander around up there at random ....

Radius of Earth = 6378km,  Orbital height of ISS = 408km, Total radius of a sphere at this height = 6786km (R)

Surface area of a sphere at ISS height = 4*pi*R squared = 578,385,438 sq km

No of operational & defunct satellites = approx 3700

Therefore;

Average area for each satellite (assuming all at ISS height) = 156,320 square km, or a square of almost 400km side length, IF they were all at this height.

But they're not. Height differences between orbits can be hundreds of km. The SpaceX Falcon Heavy Tesla went out to around 6,950km before leaving Earth orbit

Even if we assume them all at the same height with an average size of 5 metres on each side, then each is a target of 0.025 sq km within that 156,320 square km ...... or 0.000016% of the available space. Not surprisingly, they are easy to miss.
 
Space is big. Really big.

2546
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET and Global Positioning System
« on: March 16, 2018, 12:16:13 PM »
As someone who's been using actual GPS for geotagging my photographs ....

With which device(s) ... ?

2547
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET and Global Positioning System
« on: March 16, 2018, 08:44:01 AM »
There are numerous complaints online that GPS gives inaccurate distances. Look at this link: https://pmags.com/gps-mileage-discrepancies

Multiple examples are given ...

... but they're merely multiple examples of the same thing. A GPS-based calculation on a consumer-grade device of an "as the crow flies" distance between two points differs from that recorded by someone taking a path, on foot, between them. Big whoop.

Or that these consumer-grade devices, showing latitude and longitude to one or two decimal places don't show the user's exact position. Again, big whoop. You need more decimals to do that.


USATF Certified tracks are measured with wheeled devices, and this distance differs when compared to GPS.


.... but doesn't the GPS system merely indicate one position, at one time?  If you want to take two positions, and calculate distance between them, that is done by some software on the device in use?

For further reading;
https://geodesy.noaa.gov/CORS/Articles/Accuracy.pdf

https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/#speed

2548
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites
« on: March 16, 2018, 08:26:38 AM »
Actually found this recent video where they faked it again. It's horrible to watch. I mean fast forward to 1:25:41, you can see they have placed a string of satellites in 'space'. So funny!

So ... do you think Iridium (and SpaceX's other named customers, such as Orbcomm, Thaicomm, the US Military, NASA, etc.) are;

1 Being fooled by SpaceX?
2 In on the fakery, too?
3 Other

???

2549
When a terrible RET experiment is denied due to being terrible, you handwave it away, because "it's just FE'ers denying RET experiments again". When the same people push against terrible FET experiments or proposals, you miraculously don't notice.

Most often, I see FE'ers doing the hand-waving.

One FE'er points a P900 at something they insist should be "behind the curve", and in that moment hand-waves away the hundreds of orbital craft which have gone around and are still going around the globe, the hundreds of humans, just like them, who have personally orbited the same globe, the 21 who have journeyed to the Moon and back, seeing the Earth from 240k miles out, the imagery from the multiple weather satellites which give a different view of the globe every few minutes or so, the work by folks such as the Space Geodesy Facility, the International Laser Ranging Service, who monitor those orbital satellites, those who formulated the WGS84 standard, etc etc

That's a lot to hand-wave away on the premise that their £400, point-and-shoot consumer-grade camera tells no lies.... 

2550
... We care only about what is true, and what can be empirically measured and observed.

In that case, would you either; specify those things which you have personally measured and observed, or cite references to measurement or observation by others which come under this heading?

Doesn't have to be a long list, just your two or three which best illustrate your case.

2551
Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon
« on: March 16, 2018, 07:39:51 AM »
You're flipping it side to side, or horizontally, not vertically.
This is no different from the horizontal green arrow ploy Tom tried at the outset.

Nice try, though.

Rotate it 90 degrees clockwise to place his 'equator' horizontally (it's there on the diagram already), and it works fine. Or, how about this?


2552
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another Debate Thread
« on: March 15, 2018, 04:41:54 PM »
You said you voice your opinion in newspapers. I take this to mean print editions.
That's pretty silly of you. I guess there was that one El País Semanal article that didn't make it to the online publication, but generally speaking it's a terrible assumption to make in 2018.

Maybe I'm naive, but I was sorta expecting that you might state something along the lines of "I was on the letters page of The Guardian in Feb 2007, and had an article in The Times in Dec 2012 ...."

But it seems that you can't cite more than one instance where your work has been published.


Where are these newspapers printed and published?
You should probably ask the individual outlets. They'll be able to provide you with more details.

Again, I was expecting that you would be able to tell me in which publications you had been published.


You said you voice your opinions on radio. Which radio stations/shows? Where are they broadcast?
You really struggle with Google, don't you?

Again, I expected something along the lines of "I was on The Jeremy Vine Show in Dec 2014, and on the Jimmy Young show earlier that year", but evidently you can't recall when you were on the radio


Why can't you give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question?  I ask when and where you were on the radio or in a newspaper, and you just reply with when and where?


2553
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another Debate Thread
« on: March 15, 2018, 11:04:59 AM »
Of course not - that would be a nonsensical question in the 21st century.

You said you voice your opinion in newspapers. I take this to mean print editions. Where are these newspapers printed and published?

You said you voice your opinions on radio. Which radio stations/shows? Where are they broadcast?

2554
Flat Earth Community / Re: SpaceX BFR
« on: March 14, 2018, 05:28:32 PM »

I agree. I made a few videos, including an analysis of the first hour of coverage, comparing the shots from the roadster with those from a Japanese weather satellite.

)VIDEO goes here)

This was awesome work.

Thank You. I should be uploading a similar video for the second hour soon.

2555
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another Debate Thread
« on: March 14, 2018, 05:25:58 PM »
Pete: funny how you never voice an opinion of your own.
I do, fairly frequently, usually on radio or in newspapers.

Geographically, can I ask where these might be found?6

2556
Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon
« on: March 14, 2018, 01:04:35 AM »
I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.

Is/are your contributions to this thread a "thought experiment"?

2557
Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon
« on: March 13, 2018, 11:05:52 PM »
This is perfectly explainable. Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

Are you asserting the Moon is somewhere "between" the two observers who took the photos in the OP?

In your example, the Moon has to remain above and between the two, but that doesn't happen in real life. The Moon rises from behind/beyond the horizon, and sets behind/beyond it too, after a few hours.

2558
The most common reply I see from FEers is a dollar bill sign. The implication being that NASA take the money, don't spend it all, and squirrel the remainder away; but it's never clear who gains from the transfer of funds from one govt agency to another....

2559
it was actually in flight, in space
For a very selective definition of "space", possibly.

I didn't think I had 'defined' it. Are you saying you have a different/less selective definition from .... science? NASA? SpaceX?

2560
Of course not. It's just another testament to the fact that sustained spaceflight is a myth.

So that's a tacit admission that it was actually in flight, in space, but it just didn't 'sustain' this flight to meet your criteria?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 135  Next >