The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: zp0okii on August 21, 2017, 07:03:18 PM
-
If the earth is flat, why have cartographers spent so much time devising different mark-up methods for the Earth's terrain? The reason cartographers struggle, according to them, is because it is impossible to correctly depict landmasses situated on a spherical object on a flat plane. This is why Greenland looks so huge on most maps and Africa looks so small (compared to their actual, recorded sizes). Any ideas?
-
Bump
-
If the earth is flat, why have cartographers spent so much time devising different mark-up methods for the Earth's terrain? The reason cartographers struggle, according to them, is because it is impossible to correctly depict landmasses situated on a spherical object on a flat plane. This is why Greenland looks so huge on most maps and Africa looks so small (compared to their actual, recorded sizes). Any ideas?
Some would have you believe that there is no money to do a flat earth map and they will even pretend to have never even considered what one might look like. Using simple tools it is quite easy to prove that a flat map is not possible. All you need is an accurate program like Autocad, or Sketchup on the free side, or even simpler is some graph paper and some drafting tools.
-
Bump
Please refrain from low-content posts such as merely "bumping" a thread without adding anything. If someone wants to respond to your original post, they will.
-
If the earth is flat, why have cartographers spent so much time devising different mark-up methods for the Earth's terrain? The reason cartographers struggle, according to them, is because it is impossible to correctly depict landmasses situated on a spherical object on a flat plane. This is why Greenland looks so huge on most maps and Africa looks so small (compared to their actual, recorded sizes). Any ideas?
If FET were true then all cartographers would very soon discover for themselves that measured distances don't match the Round Earth and therefore would either make the information public - or they'd have to have been recruited into The Conspiracy.
If they are in the conspiracy then they'd simply be PRETENDING that it was hard to make a round earth map that can be spread out flat.
In truth, they are well aware that the world is round - and there is no way that all of the people who do this kind of thing could be silenced.
-
If the earth is flat, why have cartographers spent so much time devising different mark-up methods for the Earth's terrain? The reason cartographers struggle, according to them, is because it is impossible to correctly depict landmasses situated on a spherical object on a flat plane. This is why Greenland looks so huge on most maps and Africa looks so small (compared to their actual, recorded sizes). Any ideas?
If FET were true then all cartographers would very soon discover for themselves that measured distances don't match the Round Earth and therefore would either make the information public - or they'd have to have been recruited into The Conspiracy.
If they are in the conspiracy then they'd simply be PRETENDING that it was hard to make a round earth map that can be spread out flat.
In truth, they are well aware that the world is round - and there is no way that all of the people who do this kind of thing could be silenced.
Is the conspiracy a widely accepted part of FET? Cartographers have been making maps since long before the founding of the US. How would a single massive global conspiracy even function? The world hasn't even agreed that pollution is universally a bad idea. When the distance between 2 cities could easily be confirmed through the routine measurements of any man or woman, wouldn't errors in Lat/Long have been easily discovered by now?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
If the earth is flat, why have cartographers spent so much time devising different mark-up methods for the Earth's terrain? The reason cartographers struggle, according to them, is because it is impossible to correctly depict landmasses situated on a spherical object on a flat plane. This is why Greenland looks so huge on most maps and Africa looks so small (compared to their actual, recorded sizes). Any ideas?
If FET were true then all cartographers would very soon discover for themselves that measured distances don't match the Round Earth and therefore would either make the information public - or they'd have to have been recruited into The Conspiracy.
If they are in the conspiracy then they'd simply be PRETENDING that it was hard to make a round earth map that can be spread out flat.
In truth, they are well aware that the world is round - and there is no way that all of the people who do this kind of thing could be silenced.
Is the conspiracy a widely accepted part of FET? Cartographers have been making maps since long before the founding of the US. How would a single massive global conspiracy even function? The world hasn't even agreed that pollution is universally a bad idea. When the distance between 2 cities could easily be confirmed through the routine measurements of any man or woman, wouldn't errors in Lat/Long have been easily discovered by now?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
It appears to be. I believe Tom Bishop's position is that there is no conspiracy, but he is the only one I've seen make that comment. Most every other post I've seen seems to imply a massive conspiracy or Satan making people think the world is round among the religious FEers. The views I've seen expressed are pretty broad. There does seem to be a lot of hate towards NASA.
-
I see this as a very compelling question for the Flat Earth Society to answer.
If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
How is it possible that we don't have an accurate flat map of a flat Earth?
Just thinking about that question casts a huge shadow over all FE arguments.
The truth is that mapping the Earth on a flat plane is impossible. That is why no one has ever been able to do it.
No flat map is a strong argument that the Earth is not flat.
-
If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.
-
If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.
Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.
-
If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.
Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.
He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?
-
If the flat earth society wants to start being taken seriously and not just considered a conspiracy, they need to decide on a model. You are not going to convince anybody if you all contradict each over. As for a map you have to find a map projection that doesnt mess with the areas of landmass' or the distance between points. There are two possibilities here; A the earth is an oblate sphereoid, the currently accepted distances and areas of places are correct and are difficult to represent on a flat surface. B the earth is flat and we cant project it on a flat surface because the currently believed distances and areas are wrong. If B is true it suprises me that no one has simply debunked all of cartography.
-
If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.
Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.
He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?
I highlighted the important part of his sentence since you seem to be having trouble with it. RE has a map/model, and it works very well.
-
If the flat earth society wants to start being taken seriously and not just considered a conspiracy, they need to decide on a model. You are not going to convince anybody if you all contradict each over. As for a map you have to find a map projection that doesnt mess with the areas of landmass' or the distance between points. There are two possibilities here; A the earth is an oblate sphereoid, the currently accepted distances and areas of places are correct and are difficult to represent on a flat surface. B the earth is flat and we cant project it on a flat surface because the currently believed distances and areas are wrong. If B is true it suprises me that no one has simply debunked all of cartography.
This is a very big if. I get the impression that they aren't all that interested in proof. I view it as a touch of cognitive dissonance.
"It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.” ― Bill Watterson
-
If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.
Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.
He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?
Actually, it is quite easy. Just look at a globe. All the land masses – Greenland, Africa, Australia, Alaska to name a few – are correctly shaped and appropriately sized. Distances between any 2 points are consistent with GPS, airline flight times, mathematical calculations using latitude and longitude.
That is why all two-dimensional maps have shortcomings. You cannot accurately plot out a three-dimensional sphere onto a two-dimensional sheet of paper.
-
If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.
Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.
He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?
Actually, it is quite easy. Just look at a globe. All the land masses – Greenland, Africa, Australia, Alaska to name a few – are correctly shaped and appropriately sized. Distances between any 2 points are consistent with GPS, airline flight times, mathematical calculations using latitude and longitude.
That is why all two-dimensional maps have shortcomings. You cannot accurately plot out a three-dimensional sphere onto a two-dimensional sheet of paper.
Looking at a globe and then assuming that the earth is a globe is your way of mapping the earth?
-
Do I really need a map? I've been to Canada and Mexico a couple times and did a round trip of the US. I have no plans to go anywhere else, why do I even need a map? Someone already designed a congested interstate and freeways, that work. Modern man has little need for a full map, ancient man had little need but for a localized map.
It's like I need to invent a spaceship to go to Mars, but Mars is just a light in the firmament.
-
If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.
Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.
He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?
Actually, it is quite easy. Just look at a globe. All the land masses – Greenland, Africa, Australia, Alaska to name a few – are correctly shaped and appropriately sized. Distances between any 2 points are consistent with GPS, airline flight times, mathematical calculations using latitude and longitude.
That is why all two-dimensional maps have shortcomings. You cannot accurately plot out a three-dimensional sphere onto a two-dimensional sheet of paper.
Looking at a globe and then assuming that the earth is a globe is your way of mapping the earth?
Not really Tom.
We look for directions to get somewhere through the air, sea or by land and using the coordinate system of Latitude/Longitude works very well for getting us to our destination. It has worked so reliably that I can do it with a map and compass or a fancy GPS and I will still get to my destination repeatably. When the distances of the lines of Latitude and Longitude are plotted on a physical piece of media, they naturally curve and bend to form a sphere. That sphere is the result of generations of empirical testing repeated with ever increasing degrees of sophistication and yet not once has it been wildly off target.
By comparison, the FE community doesn't have even the most rudimentary map that is capable of being used for navigation over long distance in any southern continent. The FE model can't explain flights in half of the known world without resorting to an explanation of magic to explain why the FE flights break the rules of physics. I thought that the Zetetic Method was all about observable testable hypothesis, but I've yet to see anyone from the FE community even remotely consider testing their hypothesis against a null. Unless the FE model is capable of physically measuring and plotting out the distances of the southern hemisphere accurately, I am forced to accept the overwhelming volume of evidence that suggests the earth is round. When the test hypothesis is that the earth is flat, the null hypothesis must be that the earth is not flat. So far there is no solid empirical evidence that the earth is flat so I must revert to the null. That is the scientific method.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.
Tom, I'll take you up on your challenge.
I'll gather some distance data and make a map.
If the Earth truly is flat, my map will be easy to make and come out flat.
If the Earth isn't flat, it will be hard to force onto a flat plane and it will come out some other shape.
Again, I repeat. A flat world would be easy to map onto a flat piece of paper. It is a wonder it hasn't been done.
-
We look for directions to get somewhere through the air, sea or by land and using the coordinate system of Latitude/Longitude works very well for getting us to our destination.
You need to verify that the distances are accurate, not that you can travel from coordinate A to coordinate B.
It has worked so reliably that I can do it with a map and compass or a fancy GPS and I will still get to my destination repeatably. When the distances of the lines of Latitude and Longitude are plotted on a physical piece of media, they naturally curve and bend to form a sphere. That sphere is the result of generations of empirical testing repeated with ever increasing degrees of sophistication and yet not once has it been wildly off target.
Please show these "generations of empirical testing"
By comparison, the FE community doesn't have even the most rudimentary map that is capable of being used for navigation over long distance in any southern continent.
Incorrect.
The FE model can't explain flights in half of the known world without resorting to an explanation of magic to explain why the FE flights break the rules of physics. I thought that the Zetetic Method was all about observable testable hypothesis, but I've yet to see anyone from the FE community even remotely consider testing their hypothesis against a null. Unless the FE model is capable of physically measuring and plotting out the distances of the southern hemisphere accurately
What are you talking about? The monopole model was phased out after the discovery of the South Pole.
So far there is no solid empirical evidence that the earth is flat so I must revert to the null. That is the scientific method.
Atually the Scientific Method involves experimentation to confirm your hypothesis. You have provided none of your own, and none of others.
-
Tom, I'll take you up on your challenge.
I'll gather some distance data and make a map.
If the Earth truly is flat, my map will be easy to make and come out flat.
If the Earth isn't flat, it will be hard to force onto a flat plane and it will come out some other shape.
Again, I repeat. A flat world would be easy to map onto a flat piece of paper. It is a wonder it hasn't been done.
You're going to gather distance data based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices to tell me that those devices show Round Earth distances?
If you ask us to accept the distance result of those Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices without question, you might as well just ask us to assume that the earth is round.
-
Tom, I'll take you up on your challenge.
I'll gather some distance data and make a map.
If the Earth truly is flat, my map will be easy to make and come out flat.
If the Earth isn't flat, it will be hard to force onto a flat plane and it will come out some other shape.
Again, I repeat. A flat world would be easy to map onto a flat piece of paper. It is a wonder it hasn't been done.
You're going to gather distance data based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices to tell me that those devices show Round Earth distances?
If you ask us to accept the distance result of those Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices without question, you might as well just ask us to assume that the earth is round.
How would you produce a map?
-
Tom, I'll take you up on your challenge.
I'll gather some distance data and make a map.
If the Earth truly is flat, my map will be easy to make and come out flat.
If the Earth isn't flat, it will be hard to force onto a flat plane and it will come out some other shape.
Again, I repeat. A flat world would be easy to map onto a flat piece of paper. It is a wonder it hasn't been done.
You're going to gather distance data based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices to tell me that those devices show Round Earth distances?
If you ask us to accept the distance result of those Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices without question, you might as well just ask us to assume that the earth is round.
How would you produce a map?
Yes Tom, how would you make a map. I've asked you twice about methods I've found, and neither time did I get a clear answer. How can we find distances you would be willing to accept, since apparently a FE mile is wildly different than a RE one. That's the only way the distances calculated could be different enough to merit problems.
-
You're going to gather distance data based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices to tell me that those devices show Round Earth distances?
If you ask us to accept the distance result of those Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices without question, you might as well just ask us to assume that the earth is round.
I will not gather distance data based on Round Earth lat/lon. I will use flight times. The time it takes from point A to point B doesn't depend on lat/lon or satellites. It just is what it is.
I will not ask you to accept my result. I am making this flat map for myself and sharing it with this community. If you want a map that you will accept, you can make it yourself.
Tom, I am not motivated to prove to you the shape of the Earth. Logic tells me that if the world really is flat, then putting it on a flat piece of paper will be an easy exercise. I'm going to try it.
-
You're going to gather distance data based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices to tell me that those devices show Round Earth distances?
If you ask us to accept the distance result of those Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices without question, you might as well just ask us to assume that the earth is round.
I will not gather distance data based on Round Earth lat/lon. I will use flight times. The time it takes from point A to point B doesn't depend on lat/lon or satellites. It just is what it is.
I will not ask you to accept my result. I am making this flat map for myself and sharing it with this community. If you want a map that you will accept, you can make it yourself.
Tom, I am not motivated to prove to you the shape of the Earth. Logic tells me that if the world really is flat, then putting it on a flat piece of paper will be an easy exercise. I'm going to try it.
What makes you think that the flight times aren't generated based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices?
-
Well, in the model I accept, aether is bent across the Earth, so there is distorted space. 2D maps assume that space is flat, but it isn't, so there is no possible completely accurate map.
-
What are you talking about? The monopole model was phased out after the discovery of the South Pole
Please update the wiki then, most of the stuff there assumes the unipolar model.
-
Well, in the model I accept, aether is bent across the Earth, so there is distorted space. 2D maps assume that space is flat, but it isn't, so there is no possible completely accurate map.
Do you have a description of this model? I suspect that no one here accepts it.
-
What makes you think that the flight times aren't generated based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices?
I'm pretty sure that flight times are based on dear old watches. And confirmed by millions of passengers every day. Are you going to dispute watches? Or time?
-
Well, in the model I accept, aether is bent across the Earth, so there is distorted space. 2D maps assume that space is flat, but it isn't, so there is no possible completely accurate map.
Do you have a description of this model? I suspect that no one here accepts it.
A source with some description: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model
Basically, aether (space-time), bends across the Earth, while clearly maintaining a flat plane due to the fact that it's able to be traversed in a straight line between two spatial coordinates, it is just that space bends rather than the straight line traveled across, so it's flat. From an external frame of reference, it appears as curved since space is curving (aka Ferrari effect). This has been confirmed experimentally and in observations.
Due to this, no accurate map can be made, because maps assume flat space, which isn't so with Earth.
-
[...] From an external frame of reference, it appears as curved since space is curving (aka Ferrari effect). This has been confirmed experimentally and in observations.[...]
So it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but it's actually a brontosaurus :p
Thank you! I'll have a look at it :)
-
Well, in the model I accept, aether is bent across the Earth, so there is distorted space. 2D maps assume that space is flat, but it isn't, so there is no possible completely accurate map.
Do you have a description of this model? I suspect that no one here accepts it.
A source with some description: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model
Basically, aether (space-time), bends across the Earth, while clearly maintaining a flat plane due to the fact that it's able to be traversed in a straight line between two spatial coordinates, it is just that space bends rather than the straight line traveled across, so it's flat. From an external frame of reference, it appears as curved since space is curving (aka Ferrari effect). This has been confirmed experimentally and in observations.
Is that link all that there is to it? Because it doesn't make any sense.
He asserts the existence of a "Ferrari effect" without explaining it.
He just "unrolls" two circular paths because so, and doesn't further elaborate... and kinda forget to mention what happens when the satellite is at the end of the path. Does it get magically teleported back at the beginning?
If this is instead supposed to be a sort of representation of space-time, considering that the path of the satellite brings it forward in space AND in time (thus not getting back where he was before) then calling the earth "flat" is just a word game. And the straight lines are entirely arbitrary. He might as well have used spiral paths in a 3d space.
Due to this, no accurate map can be made, because maps assume flat space, which isn't so with Earth.
EDIT disregard yhe following. Maybe I see what you mean...
what does this even means? Maps and the thing they are representing coexist in the same universe. If the earth is flat, than the map on my table is also flat, if the space curves both (and the table), then both are curved, and the proportional representation should match 1:1.
Or is there a magical distance beyond which space curves more? ???
-
What makes you think that the flight times aren't generated based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices?
Flight TIMES are measured using clocks - those times are verified by the millions of people who fly - and their reliability is backed by multiple watchdog groups who track the percentage of flights that arrive on time. So times are indisputable...plus or minus a few minutes.
Flight DISTANCES are doubtless measured using RET techniques - which you're entitled to be skeptical about.
Flight SPEEDS are quoted by aircraft manufacturers. You seem to disagree about how much they can be trusted.
But we know that DISTANCE = SPEED x TIME - so if we can prove the SPEED of airliners (or ships or whatever) - then we can check the RET-assumed DISTANCES to see if they are at least reasonable.
Trouble is - the difference between RET distances and FET distances varies TREMENDOUSLY between ocean and land and between northern and southern hemiplane/spheres.
How come airliner speeds are so variable?
I think this calls for a new thread...starting one now...
-
You're going to gather distance data based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices to tell me that those devices show Round Earth distances?
...
I will not gather distance data based on Round Earth lat/lon. I will use flight times. The time it takes from point A to point B doesn't depend on lat/lon or satellites. It just is what it is.
...
What makes you think that the flight times aren't generated based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices?
Using calculated distances would be as you say, "based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices".
But using logged flight times is not calculated at all. It is very simple, historical data. It isn't based on a compass or a GPS, it isn't round or flat data. It is just how long it takes to get from place to place.
I will be assuming that the airplanes fly at close to the same speed so I won't need to make any calculations.
I'll need to use the logs from each route as if flies in both directions to compensate for jetstream and I may as well average several flights.
I am planning to make card board cut-outs of the continents. Then cut wires to the length of the flight times. I will attach the wires to the cities on the continents and allow them to arrange them selves into the space of our world.
It won't be precise, but I will forgive the margin of error in my map. A little error will cause a warble in my map, but a warped flat map is an acceptable margin of error for me. Certainly, 10 minutes of error in a flight time can.t bend my flat earth into a globe.
If I get a warped flat map then the world is flat. If I get a warped globe map, then the world is a globe.
-
We look for directions to get somewhere through the air, sea or by land and using the coordinate system of Latitude/Longitude works very well for getting us to our destination.
You need to verify that the distances are accurate, not that you can travel from coordinate A to coordinate B.
It has worked so reliably that I can do it with a map and compass or a fancy GPS and I will still get to my destination repeatably. When the distances of the lines of Latitude and Longitude are plotted on a physical piece of media, they naturally curve and bend to form a sphere. That sphere is the result of generations of empirical testing repeated with ever increasing degrees of sophistication and yet not once has it been wildly off target.
Please show these "generations of empirical testing"
By comparison, the FE community doesn't have even the most rudimentary map that is capable of being used for navigation over long distance in any southern continent.
Incorrect.
The FE model can't explain flights in half of the known world without resorting to an explanation of magic to explain why the FE flights break the rules of physics. I thought that the Zetetic Method was all about observable testable hypothesis, but I've yet to see anyone from the FE community even remotely consider testing their hypothesis against a null. Unless the FE model is capable of physically measuring and plotting out the distances of the southern hemisphere accurately
What are you talking about? The monopole model was phased out after the discovery of the South Pole.
So far there is no solid empirical evidence that the earth is flat so I must revert to the null. That is the scientific method.
Atually the Scientific Method involves experimentation to confirm your hypothesis. You have provided none of your own, and none of others.
https://youtu.be/kIID5FDi2JQ
That will answer all points raised.
-
That will answer all points raised.
We know how map projections work.
Using calculated distances would be as you say, "based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices".
But using logged flight times is not calculated at all. It is very simple, historical data. It isn't based on a compass or a GPS, it isn't round or flat data. It is just how long it takes to get from place to place.
They also need to know the distance between those points in order to compute their average speed.
Airspeed-only instruments are inaccurate and not used in navigation, as it is difficult to measure the speed of fluids traveling within fluids.
-
We know how map projections work.
What is your explanation for why they exist? Why would we need projection for mapping if the earth is flat? Wouldn't we be able to just directly transcribe from one plane to another?
-
Using calculated distances would be as you say, "based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices".
But using logged flight times is not calculated at all. It is very simple, historical data. It isn't based on a compass or a GPS, it isn't round or flat data. It is just how long it takes to get from place to place.
They also need to know the distance between those points in order to compute their average speed.
Airspeed-only instruments are inaccurate and not used in navigation, as it is difficult to measure the speed of fluids traveling within fluids.
He's not using speed at all though. Miles don't enter into the equation. He's going to use the flight times as an impromptu 'unit of measure' for his wires. I would presume something like 1 inch = 1 hour. Distance is removed entirely from the equation, and since one can reasonably assume all planes of the same type fly the same speed, the proportions will all be the same.
On that note JHelzer, make sure you're pulling all flight times from the same airline, preferably doing your best to double check they are all done with the same plane model. I believe Qantas was used before as their entire intercontinental fleet is the same model of plane.
-
We look for directions to get somewhere through the air, sea or by land and using the coordinate system of Latitude/Longitude works very well for getting us to our destination.
You need to verify that the distances are accurate, not that you can travel from coordinate A to coordinate B.
It has worked so reliably that I can do it with a map and compass or a fancy GPS and I will still get to my destination repeatably. When the distances of the lines of Latitude and Longitude are plotted on a physical piece of media, they naturally curve and bend to form a sphere. That sphere is the result of generations of empirical testing repeated with ever increasing degrees of sophistication and yet not once has it been wildly off target.
Please show these "generations of empirical testing"
By comparison, the FE community doesn't have even the most rudimentary map that is capable of being used for navigation over long distance in any southern continent.
Incorrect.
The FE model can't explain flights in half of the known world without resorting to an explanation of magic to explain why the FE flights break the rules of physics. I thought that the Zetetic Method was all about observable testable hypothesis, but I've yet to see anyone from the FE community even remotely consider testing their hypothesis against a null. Unless the FE model is capable of physically measuring and plotting out the distances of the southern hemisphere accurately
What are you talking about? The monopole model was phased out after the discovery of the South Pole.
So far there is no solid empirical evidence that the earth is flat so I must revert to the null. That is the scientific method.
Atually the Scientific Method involves experimentation to confirm your hypothesis. You have provided none of your own, and none of others.
https://youtu.be/kIID5FDi2JQ
That will answer all points raised.
Point #1 & 2: Travel between coordinates using a globed earth mapping system has repeatedly worked for all of human travel since the invention of aircraft at the very least. Despite your insistence that the distances are not accurate, autopilot aircraft have successfully used those distances and vectors to arrive at their destination hundreds of times per day. Autonomous vehicles use a combination of GPS and Radar to navigate obstacle courses successfully without human interference so the coordinate system must be accurate enough. Repeat testing for several generations of human travel between 2 points by land sea and air constitute empirical evidence. If the coordinate systems of Lat/Long were dramatically wrong, planes, cars and boats would routinely end up way off course. They don't. Had they been wildly inaccurate in the southern hemiplane, a new system would by necessity have to be developed and tested. The globed earth coordinate system accurately delivers passengers to their destinations every day. The FE model doesn't.
Point #3: If such a map exists with a map legend including a distance scale, please point me to it so that I may attempt a long distance trip in the southern hemiplane using it and a metered wheel on the surface of the flat earth to test its accuracy. I would think that crossing a single southern hemiplane continent in multiple intersecting directions should be sufficient to assess accuracy. Again a margin of error of under 5% would be expected if the FE map is accurate.
Point #4: Using the bi-polar model, flights between the southern hemiplane continents are calculated to take longer lengths of time than there is physical fuel to achieve. The explanation that has been provided thus far is that somehow the effects of Aetheric Wind has made all southern hemiplane flights travel faster than Mach 2 without the accompanying sonic boom associated with breaking the sound barrier. However, the mechanism of measuring Aether has yet to be provided.
Point #5: You are mistaken about the scientific method of conducting research. When you test a hypothesis to prove yourself correct, you introduce confirmation bias. With confirmation bias, you alter data sets, ignore specific data points and draw erroneous conclusions to support your expected outcome. When the scientific method of testing is properly applied in a research setting, you collect all data with the intent to prove yourself wrong and only upon failing to do so, do you declare your hypothesis supported. Never proven, just supported. In science, only laws of above contestation because laws can be fundamentally expressed through nothing more than mathematics.
The FE community has stated the hypothesis that the FE exists, searched for data to prove itself correct and as a result has introduced confirmation bias. When data is supplied that casts doubt on your hypothesis, the confirmation bias is magnified by the unilateral dismissal of the data. This is how confirmation bias leads to erroneous conclusions based on cherrypicked data. Had you instead attempted to find data to challenge the validity of the hypothesis first, we might not be having this conversation.
By the way, has anyone from the FE community on this forum ever conducted peer reviewed published research before? Just curious about how technical I should be getting.
Thank You,
CriticalThinker
-
That will answer all points raised.
We know how map projections work.
Using calculated distances would be as you say, "based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices".
But using logged flight times is not calculated at all. It is very simple, historical data. It isn't based on a compass or a GPS, it isn't round or flat data. It is just how long it takes to get from place to place.
They also need to know the distance between those points in order to compute their average speed.
Airspeed-only instruments are inaccurate and not used in navigation, as it is difficult to measure the speed of fluids traveling within fluids.
No they don't Tom as I established in the other thread. All they need is to be able to measure the Doppler Shift Effect which doesn't rely on a known distance or any globed earth assumption. It's based on the physics of echolocation. When combined with a standard timepiece, distance can be calculated algebraically.
Thank you,
CritcalThinker
-
We know how map projections work.
What is your explanation for why they exist? Why would we need projection for mapping if the earth is flat? Wouldn't we be able to just directly transcribe from one plane to another?
Cartographers were raised to believe that the earth is a globe and experiment with different projections to display that mistaken belief.
Using calculated distances would be as you say, "based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices".
But using logged flight times is not calculated at all. It is very simple, historical data. It isn't based on a compass or a GPS, it isn't round or flat data. It is just how long it takes to get from place to place.
They also need to know the distance between those points in order to compute their average speed.
Airspeed-only instruments are inaccurate and not used in navigation, as it is difficult to measure the speed of fluids traveling within fluids.
He's not using speed at all though. Miles don't enter into the equation. He's going to use the flight times as an impromptu 'unit of measure' for his wires. I would presume something like 1 inch = 1 hour. Distance is removed entirely from the equation, and since one can reasonably assume all planes of the same type fly the same speed, the proportions will all be the same.
On that note JHelzer, make sure you're pulling all flight times from the same airline, preferably doing your best to double check they are all done with the same plane model. I believe Qantas was used before as their entire intercontinental fleet is the same model of plane.
And how do you know how fast the planes fly?
-
No they don't Tom as I established in the other thread. All they need is to be able to measure the Doppler Shift Effect which doesn't rely on a known distance or any globed earth assumption. It's based on the physics of echolocation. When combined with a standard timepiece, distance can be calculated algebraically.
Thank you,
CritcalThinker
Provide evidence for your idea of how you think plane speed is measured. Why should we assume that they get their average air-speeds via lasers or whatever rather than assuming speeds based on Round Earth distances?
-
We know how map projections work.
What is your explanation for why they exist? Why would we need projection for mapping if the earth is flat? Wouldn't we be able to just directly transcribe from one plane to another?
Cartographers were raised to believe that the earth is a globe and experiment with different projections to display that mistaken belief.
Using calculated distances would be as you say, "based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices".
But using logged flight times is not calculated at all. It is very simple, historical data. It isn't based on a compass or a GPS, it isn't round or flat data. It is just how long it takes to get from place to place.
They also need to know the distance between those points in order to compute their average speed.
Airspeed-only instruments are inaccurate and not used in navigation, as it is difficult to measure the speed of fluids traveling within fluids.
He's not using speed at all though. Miles don't enter into the equation. He's going to use the flight times as an impromptu 'unit of measure' for his wires. I would presume something like 1 inch = 1 hour. Distance is removed entirely from the equation, and since one can reasonably assume all planes of the same type fly the same speed, the proportions will all be the same.
On that note JHelzer, make sure you're pulling all flight times from the same airline, preferably doing your best to double check they are all done with the same plane model. I believe Qantas was used before as their entire intercontinental fleet is the same model of plane.
And how do you know how fast the planes fly?
>>> But you said map projections work! The quote is right up there - map projections wouldn't "work" if the earth were flat, because the projection would require no refraction!
-
Using calculated distances would be as you say, "based on Round Earth lat/lon coordinate devices".
But using logged flight times is not calculated at all. It is very simple, historical data. It isn't based on a compass or a GPS, it isn't round or flat data. It is just how long it takes to get from place to place.
They also need to know the distance between those points in order to compute their average speed.
Airspeed-only instruments are inaccurate and not used in navigation, as it is difficult to measure the speed of fluids traveling within fluids.
He's not using speed at all though. Miles don't enter into the equation. He's going to use the flight times as an impromptu 'unit of measure' for his wires. I would presume something like 1 inch = 1 hour. Distance is removed entirely from the equation, and since one can reasonably assume all planes of the same type fly the same speed, the proportions will all be the same.
On that note JHelzer, make sure you're pulling all flight times from the same airline, preferably doing your best to double check they are all done with the same plane model. I believe Qantas was used before as their entire intercontinental fleet is the same model of plane.
And how do you know how fast the planes fly?
That's the thing. It doesn't matter how fast they fly. He's not doing anything with that information. He's using the average flight times as 'distance' instead.
-
No they don't Tom as I established in the other thread. All they need is to be able to measure the Doppler Shift Effect which doesn't rely on a known distance or any globed earth assumption. It's based on the physics of echolocation. When combined with a standard timepiece, distance can be calculated algebraically.
Thank you,
CritcalThinker
Provide evidence for your idea of how you think plane speed is measured. Why should we assume that they get their average air-speeds via lasers or whatever rather than assuming speeds based on Round Earth distances?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
This is how the Doppler effect measures speed and I provided the peer reviewed research article testing the accuracy of flight speed using radar in the flight times thread. Doppler radar is calibrated using a flat metered track and stopwatch. It is also one of the multiple methods used by a single aircraft for tracking flight speed.
Thank You,
CriticalThinker
-
Cartographers were raised to believe that the earth is a globe and experiment with different projections to display that mistaken belief.
Once the round earth was understood and accepted, early cartographers initially thought the sphere was perfect. They measured it, found it to be not perfect, and accepted a change in knowledge. You imply here (and in many other posts) that once a thing is learned it can never change; that assertion is false. Perhaps for a Zetetic that assertion is true, but not for people using the scientific method.
-
No they don't Tom as I established in the other thread. All they need is to be able to measure the Doppler Shift Effect which doesn't rely on a known distance or any globed earth assumption. It's based on the physics of echolocation. When combined with a standard timepiece, distance can be calculated algebraically.
Thank you,
CritcalThinker
Provide evidence for your idea of how you think plane speed is measured. Why should we assume that they get their average air-speeds via lasers or whatever rather than assuming speeds based on Round Earth distances?
Tom,
The next time that you get a speeding ticket, please try to fight the accuracy of Doppler radar guns and let me know how it works out for you. You can't assume speed safely on the ground let alone while thousands of feet in the air. Airlines must measure speed because if the plane goes too slow it will lose lift and if it goes too fast will suffer structural failure. Because flight speed is more important to know than flight time, it is measured using multiple methods. Doppler radar fits your demands of a system that produces accurate speed data on a flat plane.
To take a page from your book. Please provide evidence that airlines assume speed based on a round earth model.
ThankYou
CriticalThinker
-
No they don't Tom as I established in the other thread. All they need is to be able to measure the Doppler Shift Effect which doesn't rely on a known distance or any globed earth assumption. It's based on the physics of echolocation. When combined with a standard timepiece, distance can be calculated algebraically.
Thank you,
CritcalThinker
Provide evidence for your idea of how you think plane speed is measured. Why should we assume that they get their average air-speeds via lasers or whatever rather than assuming speeds based on Round Earth distances?
Tom,
The next time that you get a speeding ticket, please try to fight the accuracy of Doppler radar guns and let me know how it works out for you. You can't assume speed safely on the ground let alone while thousands of feet in the air. Airlines must measure speed because if the plane goes too slow it will lose lift and if it goes too fast will suffer structural failure. Because flight speed is more important to know than flight time, it is measured using multiple methods. Doppler radar fits your demands of a system that produces accurate speed data on a flat plane.
To take a page from your book. Please provide evidence that airlines assume speed based on a round earth model.
ThankYou
CriticalThinker
GPS is based on a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system. Airplanes have GPS and other such lat/lon coordinate systems on board. Please show that airplanes are measuring their speed with their on-board doppler radar gun rather than using their navigational equipment.
-
If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.
Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.
He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?
Actually, it is quite easy. Just look at a globe. All the land masses – Greenland, Africa, Australia, Alaska to name a few – are correctly shaped and appropriately sized. Distances between any 2 points are consistent with GPS, airline flight times, mathematical calculations using latitude and longitude.
That is why all two-dimensional maps have shortcomings. You cannot accurately plot out a three-dimensional sphere onto a two-dimensional sheet of paper.
Looking at a globe and then assuming that the earth is a globe is your way of mapping the earth?
No,
1) You begin with the assumption that the Flat and Spherical Earth models are both equally correct.
2) Then, test each model equally by taking size, distance measurements from each model and comparing it to objective, third-party data.
3) Inconsistencies with the model and known data indicates a flaw in the model.
When tested, the 2-D Flat Earth maps show numerous inconsistencies with available data.
According to the Flat Earth Ice Wall Model presented on wiki:
Australia is larger than North America
South America is twice as large as North America
Africa is larger than Asia and Europe combined.
The Flat Earth Distinct Continent Model also presented on wiki:
Australia is larger than Africa.
Canada is taller than it is wide.
New Zealand is larger than Greenland.
The Spherical Earth Globe Model:
Is consistent with published data of landmass sizes and shapes.
Measured distances especially on the outer edges of both Flat Earth models differ wildly from distances measured by GPS, airline flight data and mathematically calculated with latitude and longitude coordinates. With the Spherical Earth Model there are no such inconsistencies. This point has been pointed out on numerous previous threads but has been largely ignored by the Flat Earth community.
-
If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.
Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.
Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.
He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?
Actually, it is quite easy. Just look at a globe. All the land masses – Greenland, Africa, Australia, Alaska to name a few – are correctly shaped and appropriately sized. Distances between any 2 points are consistent with GPS, airline flight times, mathematical calculations using latitude and longitude.
That is why all two-dimensional maps have shortcomings. You cannot accurately plot out a three-dimensional sphere onto a two-dimensional sheet of paper.
Looking at a globe and then assuming that the earth is a globe is your way of mapping the earth?
No,
1) You begin with the assumption that the Flat and Spherical Earth models are both equally correct.
2) Then, test each model equally by taking size, distance measurements from each model and comparing it to objective, third-party data.
3) Inconsistencies with the model and known data indicates a flaw in the model.
When tested, the 2-D Flat Earth maps show numerous inconsistencies with available data.
According to the Flat Earth Ice Wall Model presented on wiki:
Australia is larger than North America
South America is twice as large as North America
Africa is larger than Asia and Europe combined.
The Flat Earth Distinct Continent Model also presented on wiki:
Australia is larger than Africa.
Canada is taller than it is wide.
New Zealand is larger than Greenland.
The Spherical Earth Globe Model:
Is consistent with published data of landmass sizes and shapes.
Measured distances especially on the outer edges of both Flat Earth models differ wildly from distances measured by GPS, airline flight data and mathematically calculated with latitude and longitude coordinates. With the Spherical Earth Model there are no such inconsistencies. This point has been pointed out on numerous previous threads but has been largely ignored by the Flat Earth community.
It hasn't been ignore, Tom just keeps claiming that (essentially) a mile on a FE, and a mile on a RE are different enough that the published measurements are incorrect. But I haven't seen him say how different they are, how he knows they're different, and what method would be acceptable to him to check distances with. The last is more that I'm looking for a definitive "Yes, distances found using 'X' will be accurate" and haven't seen it. Hmm, thinking about it though, if we could find two maps made using triangulation that had the 'primary' segment labeled with the distance, we could use that to determine how different distances on it would be at the edges using trig that doesn't adjust for curvature.
-
No they don't Tom as I established in the other thread. All they need is to be able to measure the Doppler Shift Effect which doesn't rely on a known distance or any globed earth assumption. It's based on the physics of echolocation. When combined with a standard timepiece, distance can be calculated algebraically.
Thank you,
CritcalThinker
Provide evidence for your idea of how you think plane speed is measured. Why should we assume that they get their average air-speeds via lasers or whatever rather than assuming speeds based on Round Earth distances?
Tom,
The next time that you get a speeding ticket, please try to fight the accuracy of Doppler radar guns and let me know how it works out for you. You can't assume speed safely on the ground let alone while thousands of feet in the air. Airlines must measure speed because if the plane goes too slow it will lose lift and if it goes too fast will suffer structural failure. Because flight speed is more important to know than flight time, it is measured using multiple methods. Doppler radar fits your demands of a system that produces accurate speed data on a flat plane.
To take a page from your book. Please provide evidence that airlines assume speed based on a round earth model.
ThankYou
CriticalThinker
GPS is based on a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system. Airplanes have GPS and other such lat/lon coordinate systems on board. Please show that airplanes are measuring their speed with their on-board doppler radar gun rather than using their navigational equipment.
Tom,
Flights had to measure their speed long before GPS was invented. They use redundant systems. The presence of one that you won't accept does not negate the accuracy of another. I'm getting tired of the GPS red herring.
For your reading pleasure.
Witte, TH; Wilson, AM; (2004) Accuracy of non-differential GPS for the determination of speed over ground. JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS , 37 (12) pp. 1891-1898. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.031.
When GPS was tested for speed accuracy on a flat plane against a metered track and mechanical time measurement system it was accurate for measuring speed to within an outer bound of 0.4 ms−1 and a sample size of over 5000 repetitions. Accuracy was maintained under a variety of metered track sizes, circular and straight line paths and weather conditions. The least accurate 0.4 ms−1 was present in extremely tight turns that are too small for commercial aircraft to perform due to their physical length.
Now GPS as a methodology of tracking speed over ground has been verified within an acceptable margin of error using non-globed earth assumption testing methods. Here's a fun fact. GPS determines speed using the doppler shift effect too! It doesn't use a complex lat/long equation because calculating the Doppler shift effect is much easier and very reliable.
Now it doesn't matter whether a flight records air speed using either system, they both match metered tracks on a flat plane to within an acceptable margin of error.
I am open to rebuttal.
Thank You,
CriticalThinker
-
No they don't Tom as I established in the other thread. All they need is to be able to measure the Doppler Shift Effect which doesn't rely on a known distance or any globed earth assumption. It's based on the physics of echolocation. When combined with a standard timepiece, distance can be calculated algebraically.
Thank you,
CritcalThinker
Provide evidence for your idea of how you think plane speed is measured. Why should we assume that they get their average air-speeds via lasers or whatever rather than assuming speeds based on Round Earth distances?
Tom,
The next time that you get a speeding ticket, please try to fight the accuracy of Doppler radar guns and let me know how it works out for you. You can't assume speed safely on the ground let alone while thousands of feet in the air. Airlines must measure speed because if the plane goes too slow it will lose lift and if it goes too fast will suffer structural failure. Because flight speed is more important to know than flight time, it is measured using multiple methods. Doppler radar fits your demands of a system that produces accurate speed data on a flat plane.
To take a page from your book. Please provide evidence that airlines assume speed based on a round earth model.
ThankYou
CriticalThinker
GPS is based on a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system. Airplanes have GPS and other such lat/lon coordinate systems on board. Please show that airplanes are measuring their speed with their on-board doppler radar gun rather than using their navigational equipment.
Tom,
Flights had to measure their speed long before GPS was invented. They use redundant systems. The presence of one that you won't accept does not negate the accuracy of another. I'm getting tired of the GPS red herring.
For your reading pleasure.
Witte, TH; Wilson, AM; (2004) Accuracy of non-differential GPS for the determination of speed over ground. JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS , 37 (12) pp. 1891-1898. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.031.
When GPS was tested for speed accuracy on a flat plane against a metered track and mechanical time measurement system it was accurate for measuring speed to within an outer bound of 0.4 ms−1 and a sample size of over 5000 repetitions. Accuracy was maintained under a variety of metered track sizes, circular and straight line paths and weather conditions. The least accurate 0.4 ms−1 was present in extremely tight turns that are too small for commercial aircraft to perform due to their physical length.
Now GPS as a methodology of tracking speed over ground has been verified within an acceptable margin of error using non-globed earth assumption testing methods. Here's a fun fact. GPS determines speed using the doppler shift effect too! It doesn't use a complex lat/long equation because calculating the Doppler shift effect is much easier and very reliable.
Now it doesn't matter whether a flight records air speed using either system, they both match metered tracks on a flat plane to within an acceptable margin of error.
I am open to rebuttal.
Thank You,
CriticalThinker
This topic seems to strike the most fear in the true believer. The silly and nebulous topics of conspiracies, cosmic whirlpools, acceleration creating gravity, light bending to make sunsets, and on and on can be argued to infinity, but a topic proven with math forget it. Can't argue the math, attack the variables.
-
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
-
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
As I recall they called out the 1.9% because that is what the study author's said/claimed as the final number. This (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929004001204?via%3Dihub) appears to be the study in question in this thread however, and if that link doesn't work try navigating to it from here (http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/146583/) instead. First should be a direct link to the study, second is a landing page for it in case the first has something that prevents a direct link working.
-
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
The article in question was looking at people on a bicycle going around a track. That is not even close to the use of GPS in aviation, maritime and even cars. Straight from the horse's mouth, GPS and WAAS "gives position accuracy of better than 3 m, 95 percent of the time".
http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html
Any discussion of GPS accuracy of 3 meters not being good enough is just lazy and ridiculous. Why don't you just try and help settle this without your silly arguments?
-
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
You know what this was about, you are claiming not to understand the detail.
You agree the locational accuracy of GPS? As used by the military, surveyors etc.
-
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
Irrelevant.
GPS speed accuracy on a single human over extremely short distance while making pinpoint turns does not apply to vehicular motion. Unless you're claiming that a Boeing 747 is capable of making a 90 degree turn under 3 feet in radius. The 20% you are hanging your hat on was instantaneous very rapid acceleration after making a turn as they state in the article. Those physics simply can't apply to commercial airlines.
The ball is in your court again Tom.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
Furthermore,
The researchers didn't pick the 1.9% error of margin to report. They clearly reported all of them and stated that GPS speed monitoring wasn't yet accurate enough to calculate calorie expenditure in humans playing sports. Airlines aren't making those kinds of maneuvers.
Thank you,
CciticalThinker
-
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
Irrelevant.
GPS speed accuracy on a single human over extremely short distance while making pinpoint turns does not apply to vehicular motion. Unless you're claiming that a Boeing 747 is capable of making a 90 degree turn under 3 feet in radius. The 20% you are hanging your hat on was instantaneous very rapid acceleration after making a turn as they state in the article. Those physics simply can't apply to commercial airlines.
The ball is in your court again Tom.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
The thing about GPS is that it provides a POSITION - accurate to around 10 feet (although dual antenna units get you down to 2 feet). It's possible to "lose the signal" and wind up with insufficient satellites to get a good signal and stuff like that.
GPS doesn't give you speed (well, not directly at least). The phone or handheld GPS receiver calculates speed by calculating distance between two Lat/Long position and dividing that distance by the time between the past readings.
Clearly for athletic events over "human" distances - this is a disaster. If someone runs 100 feet in 10 seconds - and the GPS is "off" by 10 feet then the reading could say anything from 8 feet per second up to 12 feet per second...which is a horrific error.
However, if an airplane flies 2000 miles (10 million feet) and the GPS is off by 10 feet - then the error is at worst only 2 parts per million...utterly negligible.
So using data about the problems of measuring athletic event performance with GPS is laughably inapplicable to discussions about thousand mile journeys.
As usual, Mr Bishop is clutching at straws and hoping we're too stupid to notice! SORRY TOM...WE'RE NOT STUPID.
-
Ok. I have been looking around and getting ready to start the Flight Time Map project, but have run into a bump.
I was wanting to use https://openflights.org (https://openflights.org) to get flight time data, but I discovered that they just calculate the times based on distance.
In real-life this works perfectly, but I know that it will completely ruin the validity of my model in this forum.
I need times based on departures and arrivals of real passenger jets. Please point me in the right direction to be able to find acceptable data.
Many thanks.
-
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
Irrelevant.
GPS speed accuracy on a single human over extremely short distance while making pinpoint turns does not apply to vehicular motion. Unless you're claiming that a Boeing 747 is capable of making a 90 degree turn under 3 feet in radius. The 20% you are hanging your hat on was instantaneous very rapid acceleration after making a turn as they state in the article. Those physics simply can't apply to commercial airlines.
The ball is in your court again Tom.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
The thing about GPS is that it provides a POSITION - accurate to around 10 feet (although dual antenna units get you down to 2 feet). It's possible to "lose the signal" and wind up with insufficient satellites to get a good signal and stuff like that.
GPS doesn't give you speed (well, not directly at least). The phone or handheld GPS receiver calculates speed by calculating distance between two Lat/Long position and dividing that distance by the time between the past readings.
Clearly for athletic events over "human" distances - this is a disaster. If someone runs 100 feet in 10 seconds - and the GPS is "off" by 10 feet then the reading could say anything from 8 feet per second up to 12 feet per second...which is a horrific error.
However, if an airplane flies 2000 miles (10 million feet) and the GPS is off by 10 feet - then the error is at worst only 2 parts per million...utterly negligible.
So using data about the problems of measuring athletic event performance with GPS is laughably inapplicable to discussions about thousand mile journeys.
As usual, Mr Bishop is clutching at straws and hoping we're too stupid to notice! SORRY TOM...WE'RE NOT STUPID.
Interestingly enough, GPS calculates speed through the Doppler shift effect when triangulating location. A ping from 3 different locations are sent out at regular intervals and the shift in relation to those 3 points is used to calculate speed.
Unless someone wants to deny the existence of electromagnetic wave structure, then both GPS and Radar measure the same physics phenomenon and are both tested using metered tracks and stopwatches.
Triangulation, if memory serves me correctly was on the approved list of physically determining a relative point in space on a planar surface.
Thank You,
CriticalThinker
-
Ok. I have been looking around and getting ready to start the Flight Time Map project, but have run into a bump.
I was wanting to use https://openflights.org (https://openflights.org) to get flight time data, but I discovered that they just calculate the times based on distance.
In real-life this works perfectly, but I know that it will completely ruin the validity of my model in this forum.
I need times based on departures and arrivals of real passenger jets. Please point me in the right direction to be able to find acceptable data.
Many thanks.
https://flightaware.com/
-
Interestingly enough, GPS calculates speed through the Doppler shift effect when triangulating location. A ping from 3 different locations are sent out at regular intervals and the shift in relation to those 3 points is used to calculate speed.
Are you sure that cellphones and hand-held GPS's do that? I thought they just used position versus time.
I think I may know someone who can answer this comprehensively...I'll try to get the actual facts.
But it really doesn't matter. The end result is the same.
-
Interestingly enough, GPS calculates speed through the Doppler shift effect when triangulating location. A ping from 3 different locations are sent out at regular intervals and the shift in relation to those 3 points is used to calculate speed.
Are you sure that cellphones and hand-held GPS's do that? I thought they just used position versus time.
I think I may know someone who can answer this comprehensively...I'll try to get the actual facts.
But it really doesn't matter. The end result is the same.
Radar analyzes a Doppler shift from a single point source. GPS analyzes Doppler shift from 3 different point sources. Radar is more minutely accurate on short distance changes in acceleration because the waveform is a much higher frequency.
The frequency variations don't matter with straight lines or wide turn radii. That's why I made the statement about a 747 turning in the same kind of radius as a human.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Interestingly enough, GPS calculates speed through the Doppler shift effect when triangulating location. A ping from 3 different locations are sent out at regular intervals and the shift in relation to those 3 points is used to calculate speed.
Are you sure that cellphones and hand-held GPS's do that? I thought they just used position versus time.
I think I may know someone who can answer this comprehensively...I'll try to get the actual facts.
But it really doesn't matter. The end result is the same.
Radar analyzes a Doppler shift from a single point source. GPS analyzes Doppler shift from 3 different point sources. Radar is more minutely accurate on short distance changes in acceleration because the waveform is a much higher frequency.
The frequency variations don't matter with straight lines or wide turn radii. That's why I made the statement about a 747 turning in the same kind of radius as a human.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Where in the NMEA output is speed? What point sources?
-
Interestingly enough, GPS calculates speed through the Doppler shift effect when triangulating location. A ping from 3 different locations are sent out at regular intervals and the shift in relation to those 3 points is used to calculate speed.
Are you sure that cellphones and hand-held GPS's do that? I thought they just used position versus time.
I think I may know someone who can answer this comprehensively...I'll try to get the actual facts.
But it really doesn't matter. The end result is the same.
Radar analyzes a Doppler shift from a single point source. GPS analyzes Doppler shift from 3 different point sources. Radar is more minutely accurate on short distance changes in acceleration because the waveform is a much higher frequency.
The frequency variations don't matter with straight lines or wide turn radii. That's why I made the statement about a 747 turning in the same kind of radius as a human.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Where in the NMEA output is speed? What point sources?
I should have been a tad more specific. At least 3 point sources.
Example NMEA data:
$GPGGA,181908.00,3404.7041778,N,07044.3966270,
W,4 13,1.00,495.144,M,29.200,M,0.10,0000*40
13 would be the number of point sources. And it would be the delta in the 3404.70417 & 07044.3966270 that produce a Doppler shift effect for speed output. While the values are expressed in the format of lat/long. They are attained by a minimum of 3 signals for triangulation. As each point source sends and electromagnetic radio wave to the radio antenna of the unit for triangulation, the validity on a flat/round earth remains consistent. The waves come downward at an angle to the antenna instead of at ground level but the physics is the exact same as radar.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
I need times based on departures and arrivals of real passenger jets. Please point me in the right direction to be able to find acceptable data.
https://flightaware.com/
That is perfect. Thank you.
-
I guess Tom didn't know what to say :P
-
I guess Tom didn't know what to say :P
No - he's utterly boxed in on this one.
Since we can prove airliner flight speeds - then he's not got a leg to stand on anymore...and even if we can't prove that the speeds are correct - we only need to prove that any error is "systematic" (ie that it applies everywhere).
-
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
The article in question was looking at people on a bicycle going around a track. That is not even close to the use of GPS in aviation, maritime and even cars. Straight from the horse's mouth, GPS and WAAS "gives position accuracy of better than 3 m, 95 percent of the time".
http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html
Any discussion of GPS accuracy of 3 meters not being good enough is just lazy and ridiculous. Why don't you just try and help settle this without your silly arguments?
This article "Accuracy of non-differential GPS for the determination of speed over ground" is also about people going around a track. Why should we not trust that one but trust this one?
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
Irrelevant.
GPS speed accuracy on a single human over extremely short distance while making pinpoint turns does not apply to vehicular motion. Unless you're claiming that a Boeing 747 is capable of making a 90 degree turn under 3 feet in radius. The 20% you are hanging your hat on was instantaneous very rapid acceleration after making a turn as they state in the article. Those physics simply can't apply to commercial airlines.
The ball is in your court again Tom.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
This study we are talking about in this thread is about people on a track, with humans playing sports, like the other one was. Here is the link (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929004001204?via%3Dihub) again of the one mentioned on the previous page. What are you talking about. ???
-
The thing about GPS is that it provides a POSITION - accurate to around 10 feet (although dual antenna units get you down to 2 feet). It's possible to "lose the signal" and wind up with insufficient satellites to get a good signal and stuff like that.
GPS doesn't give you speed (well, not directly at least). The phone or handheld GPS receiver calculates speed by calculating distance between two Lat/Long position and dividing that distance by the time between the past readings.
Clearly for athletic events over "human" distances - this is a disaster. If someone runs 100 feet in 10 seconds - and the GPS is "off" by 10 feet then the reading could say anything from 8 feet per second up to 12 feet per second...which is a horrific error.
However, if an airplane flies 2000 miles (10 million feet) and the GPS is off by 10 feet - then the error is at worst only 2 parts per million...utterly negligible.
So using data about the problems of measuring athletic event performance with GPS is laughably inapplicable to discussions about thousand mile journeys.
As usual, Mr Bishop is clutching at straws and hoping we're too stupid to notice! SORRY TOM...WE'RE NOT STUPID.
Both studies are about people going around tracks. What are you talking about?
-
Interestingly enough, GPS calculates speed through the Doppler shift effect when triangulating location. A ping from 3 different locations are sent out at regular intervals and the shift in relation to those 3 points is used to calculate speed.
Unless someone wants to deny the existence of electromagnetic wave structure, then both GPS and Radar measure the same physics phenomenon and are both tested using metered tracks and stopwatches.
If that is how speeds are calculated, then that means that the GPS speed test is invalid in regards to this discussion about the shape of the earth since there is no Round Earth lat/lon speed test to compare it to in order to determine whether the Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system is correct.
-
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
The article in question was looking at people on a bicycle going around a track. That is not even close to the use of GPS in aviation, maritime and even cars. Straight from the horse's mouth, GPS and WAAS "gives position accuracy of better than 3 m, 95 percent of the time".
http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html
Any discussion of GPS accuracy of 3 meters not being good enough is just lazy and ridiculous. Why don't you just try and help settle this without your silly arguments?
This article "Accuracy of non-differential GPS for the determination of speed over ground" is also about people going around a track. Why should we not trust that one but trust this one?
Can you link us to the full article? The last time we had a GPS accuracy article we saw that the authors tested a variety of different GPS devices which all showed different speed results, with an error range of over 20%, and then picked out the result closest to the result they wanted and declared that GPS was incredibly accurate, only differing from the real speed by 2%.
Irrelevant.
GPS speed accuracy on a single human over extremely short distance while making pinpoint turns does not apply to vehicular motion. Unless you're claiming that a Boeing 747 is capable of making a 90 degree turn under 3 feet in radius. The 20% you are hanging your hat on was instantaneous very rapid acceleration after making a turn as they state in the article. Those physics simply can't apply to commercial airlines.
The ball is in your court again Tom.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
This study we are talking about is about people on a track, with humans playing sports, like the other one was. Here is the link (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929004001204?via%3Dihub) again of the one mentioned on the previous page. What are you talking about. ???
You said a 20% error. Here is the exact wording of the article.
The speed determined by the GPS receiver was within 0.2 ms−1 of the true speed measured for 45% of the values with a further 19% lying within 0.4 ms−1 (n=5060)
Do you know what an Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) experiment is? They take two groups and assess the differences between both groups to see if there is a statistical difference of the mean values for both groups. Group A is measured with GPS. Group B is measured with a mechanical measurement. All 5060 samples are separated by group and the 2 bell curves are compared. If 2 standard deviations from the mean fall under both overlapping bell curves, then there is not statistical difference in the two groups. This is higher level statistical analysis that most undergraduates wouldn't see so it's ok if you're not familiar with this methodology.
Please point out the 20% margin of error that you were speaking about in this experiment.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Interestingly enough, GPS calculates speed through the Doppler shift effect when triangulating location. A ping from 3 different locations are sent out at regular intervals and the shift in relation to those 3 points is used to calculate speed.
Unless someone wants to deny the existence of electromagnetic wave structure, then both GPS and Radar measure the same physics phenomenon and are both tested using metered tracks and stopwatches.
If that is how speeds are calculated, then that means that the GPS speed test is invalid in regards to this discussion about the shape of the earth since there is no Round Earth lat/lon speed test to compare it to in order to determine whether the Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system is correct.
Expressed and calculated are two very different words Tom. Relative position from triangulation via doppler effect is a valid method on a flat plane. 3 radar guns pointed at an object from 3 different angles will accomplish the same thing. Absolute position doesn't matter. Change in relative position between 2 metered times as triangulated using the bounce back of waved electromagnetic signals is consistent with the FE constraints.
And let's not forget it is calibration tested against a flat metered track and mechanical time piece.
I'm not letting you off that easy Tom. Play with the words all you like but the doppler shift can't be explained away.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
This is a huge sticking point in every single one of your arguments, but you never answer the simple question. What exactly is the difference in length between a flat Earth mile, and a round Earth mile? If the difference is less than 5% (considering in one mile there is a drop of less than an inch I would suspect so) then this entire issue is without ground to stand on. A 5% difference would result in a difference of only 100 miles over a 2,000 mile flight. That's not enough to help solve the quadrilateral problem, unless I'm sorely mistaken.
So how about you tell us the difference between a mile on a FE, and a mile on a RE. Because we know a mile on a RE, but your claim implies a FE mile is SO DIFFERENT as to make a RE distance meaningless on a FE.
-
Interestingly enough, GPS calculates speed through the Doppler shift effect when triangulating location. A ping from 3 different locations are sent out at regular intervals and the shift in relation to those 3 points is used to calculate speed.
Unless someone wants to deny the existence of electromagnetic wave structure, then both GPS and Radar measure the same physics phenomenon and are both tested using metered tracks and stopwatches.
If that is how speeds are calculated, then that means that the GPS speed test is invalid in regards to this discussion about the shape of the earth since there is no Round Earth lat/lon speed test to compare it to in order to determine whether the Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system is correct.
What evidence do you actually have to even think lat/lon is incorrect. How would you prove it, or is this another of your ways of confusing any discussion. Still waiting to hear what equipment you need to produce your map.