1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How GPS Works and what about 64 satellites claimed by NASA

« on: February 13, 2020, 05:15:56 PM »

It looks like your information is false still.

Again, GPS wasn't commercially available until 1999.

Well, I provided one (maybe not the best) of many references, confirming the information I posted is correct, while you simply keep repeating your claim.
Humor me ... where do you get your information from and how can we confirm its validity.

Regardless, I never claimed that GPS was commercially available at the time, just that it was in place and working.

GPS has been in place and working long before cell towers were able to provide adequate positioning services for end users.

That's true, you didn't write that.

The point I wanted to make is that GPS was working well before cell phone location detection through cell towers was.
"The Gulf War from 1990 to 1991 was the first conflict in which the military widely used GPS." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Timeline_and_modernization

Cell phone location detection was introduced in 1996.

1991 is before 1996 => The correlation you suspect between GPS and cellular network signals cannot not exist; at least not in the sense, that GPS somehow requires cell phone location detection.

Side note: How would Cell phone location detection work for US troops in the Gulf War?

iC

Well, I haven't had the pleasure of knowing many soldiers who served in the Gulf War.

So I couldn't say.

I never wrote that GPS devices like Garmin, TomTom, or Magellan, require cell phone location devices to operate.

I surmise that signal broadcasting positions are in much the same locations as cell phone towers.

Should be easy enough for you to find details of signal broadcasting positions.

2

Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Earth on UK Morning TV

« on: February 12, 2020, 07:37:47 PM »

Should have asked about measured distances, what would he have said?

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How GPS Works and what about 64 satellites claimed by NASA

« on: February 12, 2020, 06:35:20 PM »

Not quite correct, but otherwise spot on.  If you buy a UK OS MAP it gives you a code to download the map to your phone or tablet.  The app shows your position on that map without an internet connection.

We should talk about GNSS, GPS is just the US system.  Galileo is the European one, China's BeiDou, GLONASS in Russia.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: February 11, 2020, 06:13:48 PM »

Many of the links refer to comments by Tom Bishop who is unable to back up his comments with facts or explanations on eg. how GPS works, how to make a map etc.

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How GPS Works and what about 64 satellites claimed by NASA

« on: February 10, 2020, 04:58:35 PM »

My commutes take place on county roads, city streets, state and US highways and Interstates.

My commutes requiring the use of Google Maps and Garmin and TomTom involve an automobile.

What personal evidence do you have that GPS works in the middle of oceans?

These days it's sometimes difficult to differentiate between different "methods", in this case "GPS" and "mobile data".
Modern devices, esp. smartphones, will draw on any available data for positioning.
As you don't go into any detail of your setup, this doesn't prove/disprove anything.

Why would your commute require "Google Maps and Garmin and TomTom", if that's what you meant?
Either one should - if used correctly - be sufficient.

My personal experience with several devices (some of them pure GPS devices) is, that they work globally - even with no data service.

iC

Let me clarify.

I have used each of the services and devices at varying times.

I have had a cell phone (of one type or another) since 1999.

What I have found is the GPS and the cell phone lost signal at roughly the same time.

While correlation =/= causation, I find it highly suspect and tend to side with the idea it is indeed more likely that GPS tracking and cellular service is occurring at roughly the same altitude (i.e., the height of the average cell phone tower).

How do you explain that a GPNSS receiver typically shows reception from up to 20 transmitters from US, Russia, Europe and China?

Your theory means that when the US sends a missile to another country it relies on their mobile phone network working.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia on flat Earth

« on: February 08, 2020, 09:42:41 AM »

Yes, it says that the flat earth maps have an ellipsoid datum.

UTM NAD83 is a projected coordinate system that represents physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system. The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum

It's used to connect and align to systems which have a 3D spherical coordinate system.

Flat earth maps, as in a map on a flat surface that is a projection of part of the spherical shape of the earth, as you know.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia on flat Earth

« on: February 07, 2020, 09:23:57 PM »

It says that Flat Earth assumptions can become inaccurate at long distances.

Such statements are only based on "theory," however. If you think that the earth is a sphere, that would be true. Yet the widely used WGS84 system uses flat maps.

http://www.boshamlife.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/PrimeMeridian.pdf

By 1911, the Greenwich meridian had been accepted as the prime meridian for the whole world. However, relating the maps of an individual country or region to a standard system of latitude and longitude is not only difficult, it is nearly impossible. The earth is approximately spherical, but maps are flat. They are fitted as closely as possible to the surface of the earth in one region, but when fitting them to a standard system of latitude and longitude, there are bound to be slight discrepancies. The differences between the coordinate systems used by different maps really didn’t matter until recently. When the GPS system was introduced in the 1980s, it was realised that having dozens of ‘local’ systems of latitude and longitude for different countries wasn’t going to work. A single coordinate system had to be devised, which would give the best results for every part of the world. It is known as WGS 84 (World Geodetic System 1984).

The WGS84 does not use flat maps.  It defines the size and shape of the earth in 3 dimensions. You should understand projections.

I assume you do not really believe the earth is not a sphere, but just enjoy being here.  The explanation of how satellite TV works is awaited.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia on flat Earth

« on: February 07, 2020, 08:45:29 PM »

The correct Australia is probably the one which was mapped with the standard method of plane surveying.

http://www.vermessungsseiten.de/englisch/vermtech/plane.htm

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science
Geodetic and Geoinformation Science Section
GS/CE400.01 Introduction to Surveying
GS601 Introduction to Mapping and Photogrammetry
Friday, 21st September, 2001.

The Flat Earth Society Strikes Again!

Plane surveying, which assumes that the Earth is flat, is the most commonly practised form of surveying. It consists primarily of locating the positions of features on the ground (or fairly close to it). This is achieved, in the first instance, by a combination of angular and linear measurement. Linear measurement is therefore at the foundation of surveying, which is at the foundation of the geomatics and geodetic science disciplines. It is this process of measuring things on the ground which is fundamental to later, fancier measurement systems. All of photogrammetry comes to nothing unless we can ascertain its results with respect to what is really on the ground. GPS is worthless if the base stations' locations are not known and receivers can't be tested against ground values. Mapping and GIS require the ability to check data in the database against what's on the ground.

And the next paragraph says?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia on flat Earth

« on: February 07, 2020, 07:54:49 PM »

A fallacy in all of this may be assuming that the Antarctica depicted in the first picture is a "globe australia." Since surveyors use plane surveying methods, that's the Flat Earth Australia.

The discussion is mostly on the nature, dimensions, and layout of the oceans, which are not mapped out with plane surveying methods (no land features on the ocean), and assume an RE.

I was asking which was the accurate correct map of Australia.  Distances measured across the earth confirm the size and shape.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia on flat Earth

« on: February 07, 2020, 07:23:55 PM »

No surprise that Tom has not answered.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Terminal Velocity?

« on: February 06, 2020, 07:11:04 PM »

However, I do know that it would be something less than 9.8 m/s2 (if it wasn’t the distance would never decrease).  So, let’s say the relative acceleration of the sphere is half of 9.8 m/s2. in FE…4.9 m/s2.

Drag force is not a constant, buddy. The whole point of terminal velocity is that eventually it will be equal 9.8m/s²

You've been given plenty of chances. This is your last. Behave or begone.

Depends on the local value of g.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia on flat Earth

« on: February 06, 2020, 07:09:53 PM »

There is a map gallery showing slightly different versions of Australia at https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps

Which version has the correct distances?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Terminal Velocity?

« on: February 06, 2020, 05:50:12 PM »

Sorry, they're not wrong. As I explained before, you're confusing yourself by choosing a FoR you don't find intuitive. Solve it relative to the Earth and it becomes quite simple.

Agree?

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

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: Media Resistance

« on: February 04, 2020, 03:29:57 PM »

AATW stated that very thing in his post.
He very much stated FET belief = dangerous.

I literally said the opposite. You just cut that part of the sentence out when you quoted me...
And I have made it clear in more than one post now what I think of as dangerous.

But if you would, humor me...

Please type the following, just to be clear:

FET Belief poses no danger to myself and others.

FET Belief poses no danger to myself and others.


BUT, it is a belief which comes from a certain mindset. Other beliefs which come from that mindset can be a danger to people.

I appreciate the statement you have written for its clarity and its decided unambiguous nature.

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

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

I believe that would be in keeping with the OP.

The earth has only one shape so any discussion can only be about what it is.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Terminal Velocity?

« on: February 03, 2020, 08:27:24 AM »

In order to reach a "maximum speed", something has to be moving.  In the FE model, things aren't moving as the earth is accelerating up to meet an object.  There is no wind resistance.

Well, yes, if you want to look at it from that frame of reference, the skydiver isn't moving until the air pushes him up ever so gently. As that air becomes denser, the force of the air pushing the skydiver becomes greater. The difference between the upward acceleration of the Earth and the upward acceleration of the skydiver will therefore diminish, and eventually reach zero.

However, you are being willingly obtuse by not picking a FoR you would find more intuitive. Simply taking a non-inertial FoR in which the Earth is stationary and the skydiver is falling will eliminate your confusion.

Do you have measurements of air density as it varies for a skydiver.  I suggest it does not significantly vary.

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: Media Resistance

« on: February 02, 2020, 07:30:24 PM »

To answer the first person. Well I am a light aircraft pilot and as you fly along, once a stable altitude is achieved, were the earth round you would have to adjust the yoke down every few minutes to stop the aircraft from climbing in altitude. As a pilot I can say clearly you do not have to do this.

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

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

No way a plane would follow the arc of land... its not reasonable. Sorry. Nor is it based in flight physics. Flight is linear. I have read the argument of which you speak. But, it has serious flaws.

How do you know what is a level, ie straight in all directions, flight.  How do you maintain a constant height?

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: Media Resistance

« on: February 02, 2020, 10:13:14 AM »

I can agree with the OP. If FE was blatantly false or easily dismissable no one would bother to talk about it, just as they aren't talking about the people who believe in leprechauns. The fact that there is a mass effort to combat it shows that there is no obvious proof for their own stance and an argument is needed.

No effort to combat, just establishing the shape of the earth, whatever it is.

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

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: Media Resistance

« on: February 01, 2020, 05:41:15 PM »

To answer the first person. Well I am a light aircraft pilot and as you fly along, once a stable altitude is achieved, were the earth round you would have to adjust the yoke down every few minutes to stop the aircraft from climbing in altitude. As a pilot I can say clearly you do not have to do this.

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

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

To answer the second question of the next person,

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

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

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

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

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

Why are folks not allowed to explore their ideas without demonization? If the truth is so clear then why fear flat earth?

Been discussed before, level flight is actually very very slightly down.  And you are not high enough to see curvature.

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: Media Resistance

« on: February 01, 2020, 08:51:42 AM »

What are the good and simple proofs that you have for the shape of the earth that the vast scientific community has missed?

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.

« on: January 30, 2020, 05:35:59 PM »

Thank you, but which one is correct with confirmed distances?

I don't see how that's relevant. If you want to discuss the inconsistencies in distance caused by trying to fit a globe onto a flat plane, I'm sure there are threads about that. Stay on-topic.

It's a bit important to know so we can understand the times of sun rise and set at different places.