241

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point

« on: October 16, 2017, 03:21:41 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.

If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

Yes.

What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?

Any tiny waves or swells that breach the flat surface.

The perspective lines may be perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. In Earth Not a Globe the author points out that the sunset happens sooner than expected if the conditions of the oceans are more disturbed.

Just to be sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.

Example scenario. I am standing on the coast of California, looking west, watching the sun set. Just using rough approximations for the sake of discussion only. If the sun is at its highest point at noon, it would be at the opposite side 12 hours later, so that would mean it would about 1/4 of the way around at sunset, let's say 6 pm. Based on your unipolar map that would be around eastern Australia.

You are saying the sun is at so low of an angle above the Earth, that tiny waves and swells are what block us from seeing the sun after it sets from out perspective.

Is that correct?

242

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point

« on: October 16, 2017, 02:11:02 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.

If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

Yes.

What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?

243

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point

« on: October 16, 2017, 01:35:58 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.

If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

244

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Weightlessness in FEer UA and in REer gravity

« on: October 12, 2017, 03:02:05 PM »

The gravitational pull of the heavens accounts for the extremely small extent of non-uniformity that your tale relies on.

By raising your elevation a few thousand feet, the amount closer you are to stars and other far distant celestial objects is insignificant. Besides, which stars are you closer to? At the same time you moving closer to some, you are moving farther from others.

Do you believe that stars are hundreds or thousands of light years away? If yes, then moving a few thousand feet is not relevant.

Do you believe the stars are specks of light on a dome 3,000 miles away? If yes, then the specks don't have enough mass to have a gravitational effect.

245

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 11, 2017, 02:20:13 AM »

"If you have Option GPS Enable installed, and a GPS receiver
connected, you can view your own position, and the distance
and bearing to a remote transceiver from which you have
received a position."

(Emphasis mine)

What part of "and a GPS receiver connected" do you not understand?

246

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 10, 2017, 11:47:56 PM »

Navy asks Raytheon to operate and maintain ROTHR over-the-horizon surveillance radar

The .gov is using HF why? No Sats exist is why....

Why does the Navy have an interest in over the horizon radar? Because the Earth is round.

That doesn't answer it, if these sats are up there, 1,000's of them, command a few and have the best GPS surveillance in the world. Why even bother with HF? You can't answer that but I can, there's a dome silly and the earth is a pancake.

Let's ask this question a different way.

Why would the U.S. Navy have an interest in over the horizon radar if the Earth was flat?

247

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 10, 2017, 11:46:16 PM »

Only a mtn man who never leaves the cave doesn't understand GPS and Radar are virtually the same thing. And this company is offering an alternative to spending big bucks on Sats that don't exist. There paying for sats and getting towers, balloons, repeaters and HF.

Have to try and post quickly before you suspend me.

GPS and radar both use electromagnetic radiation, AKA radio waves. That is where their similarity ends.

BTW, here is another quote from that companie's website

To operate GPS via HF you will need

Mobile station

Codan HF transceiver NGT AR, NGT AR Voice, NGT SR fitted with Option GPS
GPS receiver with NMEA-0183 compatible output format

See, their website, which you referenced, says you still need a GPS receiver. Case closed.

248

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If there is an ice wall in Antarctica, why hasn't anyone confirmed it?

« on: October 10, 2017, 11:39:15 PM »

Yeah - indeed.  My father had occasion to fly on one of those crazy-large Russian aircraft once (I'm not sure if it was the AN-124 - I kinda thought it was an Illushin of some kind) - he was an aircraft radio/radar tech and there was some problem at an airshow at the airport he worked at.   He was able to help out with it and avoid delaying the Russian's demo flight.  Their pilot offered to take him up for a ride when they did the demo.  As you say, the inside is so insanely huge, it's hard to believe that it's in the air at all.  It actually had an elevator to get you from the cargo bay up to the flight deck.

Very cool!

Low content, kicked your ass over in GPS now you hide here. No one cares about qeek daddy. Stay on topic or its 3 days in the hole, or maybe an eternity waaay down below? Yeah thinking that. swish  I--->>>> dropped an ear, hurt much?

Hiding? I just posted two more rebuttals to the nonsense you have been putting up in the FE GPS thread. I can talk in more that one thread at a time.

You threaten to block me for three days? lol. If you can't deal with it that's fine. Have a busy weekend coming up so will probably be away from the computer for the next few days anyway.

How would that work? Would I get an email notifying me of my suspension? Would it block me from logging on entirely or just from posting? Just curious.

249

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 10, 2017, 11:30:20 PM »

Navy asks Raytheon to operate and maintain ROTHR over-the-horizon surveillance radar

The .gov is using HF why? No Sats exist is why....

Why does the Navy have an interest in over the horizon radar? Because the Earth is round.

250

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 10, 2017, 11:28:29 PM »

Go buy your fleet a system to monitor your peeps.

https://at-communication.com/en/hf_ssb_gps_internav/codan/hf_ssb_gps.html

HF GPS Tracking
Using GPS, Codan’s High Frequency (HF) technology now provides a viable and cost-effective option for managing:

The GPS system can be configured so that the base station keeps track of the current location of all of the transceivers in a network.


    As HF transmissions are free to air, the technology offers considerable price advantages over satellite communications systems, which usually charge a time-based fee.

More of the same. You really should just hang it up. I guess you did a Google search and found a page with both "GPS" and "HF" and then immediately posted it.

Posting links to articles you don't understand doesn't help your case.

Here is a quote from that page that you seemed to skip over

The Global Positioning System (GPS) consists of a network of satellite transmitters in orbit around the earth. Each of the satellites continuously broadcasts a reference signal. A ground-based GPS receiver can accurately determine its position on the earth if it receives a signal from three these GPS satellites.

Do you notice any similarities with that explanation to what I and others have posted? Does that tell you anything? It should.

Why do you use reference material that contradicts your core belief?

But the bottom line is this. The product they advertise isn't GPS. It is a product that uses HF radio to track vehicles, cargo, and other things that have GPS receivers. They are devices that take coordinates from a GPS receiver and transmit them, using HF, to a central (or base) station.

251

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 10, 2017, 11:05:24 PM »

Nice try qeek, the tech is waaaay past your puny little muscles. They can pinpoint a gnat on horses ass halfway around the globe if the horse farts a couple good times.

As usual, an impressive point-by-point technical rebuttal of my argument, just as we've come to expect from you.

This thread started not to explain GPS, but to question how FE types think it works, since we all know it does actually work. And I think we have all seen the answer. Anything that questions their FE belief must be trivialized, mis-directed, or answered with completely made up bullshit. With just a little sprinkle of evil conspiracy.

Is anything going to change the mind of the ardent FE believer, as this point I have to think not. But anyone with an actual open mind should be able to learn from this type of exchange.

252

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If there is an ice wall in Antarctica, why hasn't anyone confirmed it?

« on: October 10, 2017, 10:48:32 PM »

Yeah - indeed.  My father had occasion to fly on one of those crazy-large Russian aircraft once (I'm not sure if it was the AN-124 - I kinda thought it was an Illushin of some kind) - he was an aircraft radio/radar tech and there was some problem at an airshow at the airport he worked at.   He was able to help out with it and avoid delaying the Russian's demo flight.  Their pilot offered to take him up for a ride when they did the demo.  As you say, the inside is so insanely huge, it's hard to believe that it's in the air at all.  It actually had an elevator to get you from the cargo bay up to the flight deck.

Very cool!

253

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 10, 2017, 07:43:20 PM »

So to recap, J-man says it's either god bounces off of the dome or balloons and  Junker says to read the Wiki for GPS information where none exists.

Very informative.

Yep.  If you search the Wiki for "GPS" you get exactly one page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Space_Travel - which contains four broken links and nothing else.

If there was just one GPS system and it only worked in continental USA, then towers and balloons and such might work - but there are AT LEAST four different GPS-like systems out there (US, Russian, Chinese and European) and all four of them have world-wide coverage.  Do you see Chinese and Russian navigational towers studding the landscape in the USA?   Are there thousands of balloons from all four nations drifting languidly across our skies?

The "bouncing off of the ionosphere" approach cannot work for precision better than a few kilometers - and all four systems that we know of are accurate to within ten meters or so most of the time.

So I guess the Earth must be round.

Yes. Isn't it amazing and sad the lengths people stretch their imagination in order to fold everything into their FE belief system?

254

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If there is an ice wall in Antarctica, why hasn't anyone confirmed it?

« on: October 10, 2017, 07:40:52 PM »

I'm pretty sure one of those 6 engined Russian transports landed there too - but I couldn't find a photo.

That would be impressive. I saw an AN-124 at an airshow a long time ago. Quite a sight. It's so big that the scale messes with your head, makes you think it's closer that it actually is, which makes it look like it is barely moving. Or maybe it was magic perspective.

255

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If there is an ice wall in Antarctica, why hasn't anyone confirmed it?

« on: October 10, 2017, 04:26:28 PM »

I thought there was a rule about only allowing planes with 2 or more engines to land at the South polar research station - but I'm finding lots of single-engined plane photos...so I guess not.

One engine, two engine, three engine, four engine. Great post!

256

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If there is an ice wall in Antarctica, why hasn't anyone confirmed it?

« on: October 10, 2017, 03:07:02 PM »

Of course qeek cheats, no jet planes under 3 engines are allowed. The one he posts was a test to try to prove feasibility. They are not approved, this was a test. It also only had a few seats and plenty of room for the required survival gear.

JMan claims ice wall and Antarctic no fly zone, then proves by posting picture from Greenland and sharing a video about a company working on commercial passenger flights to Antarctica. Priceless, lol.

257

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 09, 2017, 03:00:45 AM »

Man of the mountain, me thinks you're a shill for the deceiver man on the mountain.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5210024/?reload=true

Adaptive beamforming for high-frequency over-the-horizon passive radar

Read all about it, there is tons of this tech out there, you don't need sats as I've been saying for weeks.

"GPS data measured on-board the cooperative aircraft provided accurate ground truth of the flight path, enabling target profiles in bi-static range, Doppler frequency and direction-of-arrival (azimuth/elevation) to be calculated as a function of time."

Rolling on the floor laughing. Sure, post more articles about over the horizon radar, that don't have anything to do with how GPS works.

This is rich. Did you read that article and understand it? You really shouldn't post stuff that you don't understand.

The article says they are testing the use of high frequency radio waves to detect targets over the horizon.

Over the horizon means targets that don't have line of sight to their radar emitter because of the curvature of the Earth.

When it says "GPS data measured on-board" it means that they verified the test results using GPS data on board the plane.

(Had to re-post this, had quoted the wrong post)

258

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 09, 2017, 01:37:37 AM »

Can radio frequencies be bounced off the ionosphere? Yes.

high-frequency (HF) radio was the principal means to communicate beyond the horizon.

That's a stunning argument to come back and say radio frequencies can bounce off the atmosphere after I claimed radio frequencies can bounce off the atmosphere. Maybe you didn't read the post.

Please cite your source for this claim:

Every plane today is equipped with HF for over the horizon GPS, bypassing satellites.

Planes may have HF radios, wouldn't surprise me. If they do, they are not used for GPS. Because "over the horizon GPS" isn't a thing.

259

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 08, 2017, 11:15:33 PM »

GPS works just fine within the High Frequency band. All planes are equipped with antenna for such GPS. They call it, over the horizon, in short meaning waaay long distance, towers can't reach, no such thing as satellites and we must bounce the digital packets off the ionosphere or dome. As I said you need communication to a home base receiver which its position is exact and you can find anything else.

JMan doubling down on crazy. Can radio frequencies be bounced off the ionosphere? Yes. But it is an area of the atmosphere that ranges from 60 km (37 mi) to 1,000 km (620 mi). It's not an exact point that you reflect a signal from, you know, like a dome.

GPS works using mathematical calculations depending on exact timing of the signals and the distance they travel. (They being plural since is requires multiple satellite signals).

It couldn't possibly work by bouncing signals from balloons and base stations off random layers of the atmosphere.

You're really not helping your cause by just making up nonsense and posting it.

But in retrospect, the topic of the post was "How does FE think that GPS works?", so I guess you've answered that question.

260

Flat Earth Community / Re: Impossible Daytime Moon Phases in Round Earth Theory

« on: October 08, 2017, 06:38:59 PM »

I would like to hear a FE explanation of how a completely round/full moon would ever be possible on FE. If sun & moon are both 3000 miles over flat Earth and we are looking up at both, this couldn't happen.

To see a completely round/full moon, we have to be looking at the moon with the sun's illumination behind us. I think I posted this question on another thread, without any answers. So I thought I would re-post it here.