Show Posts

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


Messages - TomInAustin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19  Next >
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?
« on: October 10, 2017, 03:33:52 PM »
Here's a great one, shows HF being bounced off dome.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2016/04/long-range-surveillance-radar.html

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

I'm really not sure what more there is to prove. Raytheon just showed you the dome God and I speak of and we all know GPS with line of sight is a no brainer with towers, balloons, repeaters and base stations. Why do you tangle with one of Gods ass kickin cowboys?

Good grief, this is like explaining it to a child!

GPS works by measuring the time delay between three or more radio sources that are widely separated.  By seeing how much delay you get from each one, and by knowing the speed of light - you can calculate your distance from all three sources...and then you know where you are.

BUT if you were using a signal bounced off of the ionosphere - you'd only know the distance from the source to the ionosphere plus the distance from the ionosphere to you.   Trouble with that is that you don't know how high the ionosphere is...at least not to within a couple of feet.

So a system such as you describe might be enough to keep an airplane within a few kilometers of it's route - but it's not going to be anywhere close to enough to allow Google Maps to tell which lane of traffic you're in...or even which road you're on.

So for 100% sure, GPS cannot be faked by bouncing a signal off of the ionosphere.

Some others have claimed it could be done with radio transmitters on top of tall towers - but that could only possibly work if you have at least three towers within line-of-sight of where you are.

GPS was designed to be used to launch things like cruise missiles and ICBM's into enemy territory - do you think that the Iraquis and Afghanis were helpfully building towers every few miles across their entire countries to help us to do that?

What's VERY interesting about your claims though is that they talk about all of these systems for over-the-horizon transmissions...but I was under the impression that you believe that the Earth is Flat?   So why would any of that be needed in the first place?

Sorry - but you're WRONG - and you're trying to use RET to prove that you're right - which is pretty silly.


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.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?
« on: October 07, 2017, 04:56:05 PM »
I would suggest reading the wiki and FAQ.

A search of the Wiki returns no GPS information.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 06, 2017, 02:42:41 PM »
Like Ga_x2 says in here, a 40% error is nothing compared to what the Flat Earth Society is claiming on their currently accepted maps.

I just printed sized a southern hemisphere globe projection to the same proportion of the tfes.org example flat-earth map and printed them.
The distance from the Southern tip of South America to the Southern tip of Africa is 3.4cm on the globe map and 10.0cm on the FE map.
The distance from the Southern tip of South America to the Southern tip of Australia is 4.4cm on the globe map and 14cm on the FE map.
When I printed the Northern Hemisphere of the globe map in the same proportion, the distance from India to Panama was 8.1 on both maps.

That is a difference of 294% for SA - Africa and a 318% for SA - Australia.

Remember that this passes as the most accepted map of the flat earth.

This is why there will never be a flat map.  There is no possible way you can draw a map with actual distances, flight times etc where it works.   This is the Achilles Heel of FE and why Tom fights so hard with his derailing attempts.  He knows that once he agreed to any sane way to draw a map he would lose instantly.





4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 04, 2017, 03:34:00 PM »
Setting cable lengths and our abilities to search the internet aside....

Does anyone have anything else to add to the flight time map discussion?

  • We have established that care needs to be taken when comparing short flights to long flights because a larger percentage of the flight is take up in ascending and descending from cruising altitude and speed.
  • We have established that the purpose of the project is not to calculate distances, but to layout the general size and relative location of continents
  • We have established that the margin of error is not great enough to change a flat earth into a globe or to change a globe into a flat earth.

I think its a good idea.   Use major cities as points.   It should give us a rough shape.   

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 04, 2017, 02:31:23 PM »
The required amount of cable was of course calculated using Round Earth data - probably with a small margin for error - but the actual miles of the stuff that were manufactured must have been measured out in the factory.

What we KNOW is how much they manufactured.

Really? How do you KNOW that?

Quote
That's how much they MANUFACTURED - they may have needed less than that - but for 100% sure, they didn't have on yard more than that.  Hence the distance is the MAXIMUM that it could have been.

Do you have a source on that? Do you own the manufacturing company?

Quote
Whatever they did, a cable of no more than that length ended up stretching from one side of the atlantic to the other.

I was reading about transatlantic cables in conjunction with a project I was doing...I *think* it was described in "Wiring the World: The Social and Cultural Creation of Global Telegraph Networks" (Columbia Studies in International and Global History) by Simone M. Müller ... but it might have been "A Thread Across the Ocean" - sorry, don't have that one on my bookshelf anymore.

I think both books are on Amazon if you want to get into it further.  Wikipedia probably has something to back this up with the usual small mountain of references.

Please provide a source that shows that the cable perfectly matched the Round Earth distance, and not any more and not any less. You seem so forgetful in citing your sources when you make your numerous claims.

OMG, you take the word of a known con man from 150 years ago and discount the records of a company laying cable.   Very odd man.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 04, 2017, 02:00:28 AM »
Please tell us the distance between New York and Paris without using a method that assumes the earth is round.

Oh good grief Tom...you really think you can kill the debate with such a ridiculous challenge?   Remember, we're smarter than you are.

In 1878, a 2,242 nautical mile cable was manufactured in England by Siemens Brothers.  The cable was laid in June 1879 between Brest (France) and the island of Saint-Pierre (Newfoundland) by the cable ship "Faraday".

They didn't run out of cable along the way - but history does not recall whether they had any left over.

So we can be quite certain that Brest to Saint-Pierre is definitely no more than 2,242 nautical miles - which is 2,580 statute miles.

They then added another 827 nautical mile cable to reach Cape Code - so another 951 statute miles...AT MOST.

The distance from Cape Cod to New York has been measured (I'm quite sure) by MANY car odometers along Hwy 95 and comes out to 253 miles - and similarly, Paris to Brest is 364 miles and I'm sure that's been confirmed by large numbers of old-school mechanical odometers too.

So we KNOW that the furthest it could possibly be between NY and Paris is 2,580+951+253+364 = 4,148 miles.  This is clearly not the shortest route, so the true number must be less than this.   Saint-Pierre is about 100 miles North of the ideal Great circle route - so we know that at least 100 miles of cable was wasted in that detour.

But this number does avoid any reliance on any new-fangled technology that scares the bejeezus out of Tom...and it's hard to see how he could argue that it's wrong.

The scary, new technology distance is shorter (no real surprise there) and comes out to be 3,631.16 miles...so the modern approach cannot possibly be inaccurate by more than 517 miles...and allowing for the Saint-Pierre detour, the modern measure agrees to within about 10%.

Since we can be sure that the route the cable took via Newfoundland was not optimal - and the vagiaries of the wiggly roads between Paris/Brest and CapeCod/NewYork  must add considerably to the distance - the precision of the modern measurement is clearly MUCH better than 10%...but that's hard to prove.

How do we know that they were not using a Round Earth Coordinate system for measuring those miles out when traveling on their ship?

How do we know that they only brought along the exact amount of cable needed rather than giant spools of it?

How do we know that they did not encounter any issues along the way in early ventures that caused them to revisit their cable laying strategies?

Had you read the post you would have known the answers to all three questions.   You are really just getting silly now.  Why are you so afraid of a map?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Korabl-Sputnik I aka "Sputnik IV"
« on: October 03, 2017, 04:43:15 PM »
Understood, I do ignore him most of the time since his posts are devoid of anything useful. But once in a while, I can't resist.

Agree, what this place is missing is a block button, unless it has one.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 03, 2017, 04:42:30 PM »
Once again, no distance is being used here, nor is any being calculated. Just the 'raw' data of flight time.

Please explain how we can know the distance between LA and New York by looking at the arrival times of airplanes without knowing anything about their speed.
We don't care about the distance.
We don't care about the speed of the plane.
All we care about is the average (or perhaps mean depending) time it takes to get from LA to NY by plane.
This can be used as a distance 'replacement' or analogue so long as we simply use the actual times taken.

Are we talking round earth hours?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 03, 2017, 03:09:12 PM »
I noticed you dodged this before so I'll tell you again, The burden of proof is on you to show where a flat earth mile is not the same as a round earth mile.  Otherwise, stop trying to derail a productive thread.  What are you so afraid of?

Since you claim that GPS is accurate, the burden of proof for that is on you. That is a positive claim. The burden of proof is on he with the positive claim.

My claim that GPS may not be accurate and match up with the established definition for a mile is a position of skepticism. This is a negative claim, and does not need to be proven. To question the positive claims of other is a fundamental starting point. If you cannot justify your claims of accuracy in any way, then we should not "just assume" that it is completely accurate. Surely, if it were accurate, someone would have provided evidence to show that it is. It is your responsibility to find that data, and until you can do so, we cannot assume your position to be true without evidence.


Nice try.   No one said anything about GPS, dodge noted.    That said, we can make you a map.  Why does that scare you so badly?

Replace GPS in response with "the distance between Round Earth latitude lines" if you prefer. If you are making a positive claim, the burden is on you.

So your idea of deflecting my question is to put words in my mouth and then ask me to defend them?  Nice try, dodge noted,  again.


10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 03, 2017, 02:56:32 PM »
I noticed you dodged this before so I'll tell you again, The burden of proof is on you to show where a flat earth mile is not the same as a round earth mile.  Otherwise, stop trying to derail a productive thread.  What are you so afraid of?

Since you claim that GPS is accurate, the burden of proof for that is on you. That is a positive claim. The burden of proof is on he with the positive claim.

My claim that GPS may not be accurate and match up with the established definition for a mile is a position of skepticism. This is a negative claim, and does not need to be proven. To question the positive claims of other is a fundamental starting point. If you cannot justify your claims of accuracy in any way, then we should not "just assume" that it is completely accurate. Surely, if it were accurate, someone would have provided evidence to show that it is. It is your responsibility to find that data, and until you can do so, we cannot assume your position to be true without evidence.


Nice try.   No one said anything about GPS, dodge noted.    That said, we can make you a map.  Why does that scare you so badly?


11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: October 02, 2017, 05:25:42 PM »


Hi, everyone.
I didn't want to start a new thread so I posted here.
I am new here.I have found an interesting video about horizon and curvature.
This is a Turning Torso building (190m tall).
Building works as a scale.The video shows building from different distances ranges (25-50 km).
It shows when you zoom, some parts of the building are not visible due to the curvature of the earth.

View-over-water experiments are difficult because you have perspective and earth curvature (or not, depending on which side of the debate you're on) - and close to the water, you get mirages and such which confuse where the precise horizon line is.  It's very difficult to do this accurately - so the results are unconvincing.

Agree.   The distance and lack of map is the conclusive proof.   There is zero ambiguity in that argument.

12
* Infinite disk + UA has the "infinite energy" problem - but it's what most TFES.org people are saying.
Why must you insist on misrepresenting our position? No one is falling for it.

Becuase you don't have a collective position,  a huge reason why no one is falling for it.   But since you said that, how about you tell us what your thoughts are on the OP?  "Why is the Earth accelerating at 9.8 metres per second?"

13
a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).
All of which are addressed in the wiki/FAQ and in various threads on these very fora. You may disagree, or they may be flawed and you may want to debate them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. This thread initially started in Q&A. I know it is hard for round earth logicians to read forum descriptions, but what this thread quickly changed into is not appropriate for Q&A. It is for FE questions and answers, not for RE to point out something they disagree with. Instead of locking the thread, I moved it here (which was apparently a mistake). I suppose I can just be more strict about enforcing rules, but then many of you will complain about that, too.


b) Even if it was, then there would need to be an infinite energy source to power it
False.

Please expand on your answer.  It seems to be that in infinite power source would have to be present or we risk the energy running out and the acceleration ends.

What is the source of this energy in your opinion?

Think about it though - Energy is force times distance through which it's applied.   Force is mass times acceleration.

So we know the acceleration - and we can calculate the distance (assuming the force has been applied at about the same rate at least throughout recorded history).

The other thing is the mass.   What is the mass of the Flat Earth?   Mass is volume times density.  We know the area of the Flat Earth is infinite (Yes, I read the Wiki) and the thickness is greater than zero - and the mass is greater than zero...and therefore the force required is infinite and if the Earth moves by even one millimeter then the energy required to move it is also infinite.

Too many infinities.

Good catch, it would have to be an infinite source of power.
Not quite. UA FE doesn't have a infinite plane (from my understanding) infinite plane FE uses normal gravity. UA only applies to FE's with finite dimension, though what those are are of course unknown.

Sigh, it's very hard to keep all the delusions separated.   But I have yet to see an answer to the OP, "Why is the Earth accelerating at 9.8 metres per second?"


14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 02, 2017, 02:31:19 PM »
Do you actually know this or are you making stuff up? Over long distances there is little variation in aircraft type and cruise speed.

Incorrect.

Quote
And I really don't know how you come up with the idea that planes should change speed by much during flights.

In another thread we were looking at a live map of international flights and we saw the speeds of each aircraft fluctuating by large amounts on a minute by minute basis.

Quote
Anyway, he's averaging the results to compensate. We'll see how the error bars are when he's finished.

Averaging a groundspeed that is based on Round Earth coordinates will give you an average derived from Round Earth coordinates. Such an effort will  be invalid for determining whether the Round Earth coordinate system is correct.

I noticed you dodged this before so I'll tell you again, The burden of proof is on you to show where a flat earth mile is not the same as a round earth mile.  Otherwise, stop trying to derail a productive thread.  What are you so afraid of?



15
a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).
All of which are addressed in the wiki/FAQ and in various threads on these very fora. You may disagree, or they may be flawed and you may want to debate them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. This thread initially started in Q&A. I know it is hard for round earth logicians to read forum descriptions, but what this thread quickly changed into is not appropriate for Q&A. It is for FE questions and answers, not for RE to point out something they disagree with. Instead of locking the thread, I moved it here (which was apparently a mistake). I suppose I can just be more strict about enforcing rules, but then many of you will complain about that, too.


b) Even if it was, then there would need to be an infinite energy source to power it
False.

Please expand on your answer.  It seems to be that in infinite power source would have to be present or we risk the energy running out and the acceleration ends.

What is the source of this energy in your opinion?

Think about it though - Energy is force times distance through which it's applied.   Force is mass times acceleration.

So we know the acceleration - and we can calculate the distance (assuming the force has been applied at about the same rate at least throughout recorded history).

The other thing is the mass.   What is the mass of the Flat Earth?   Mass is volume times density.  We know the area of the Flat Earth is infinite (Yes, I read the Wiki) and the thickness is greater than zero - and the mass is greater than zero...and therefore the force required is infinite and if the Earth moves by even one millimeter then the energy required to move it is also infinite.

Too many infinities.

Good catch, it would have to be an infinite source of power.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: September 29, 2017, 05:37:14 PM »
I have started my Flight-time Flat Earth Map Project and will be starting a topic soon to share with ya'll.  Before I do, I want to test out the premise of my map project here on a debate thread.  Here it is...

If the surface of the Earth is flat and the surface of a piece of paper is flat, then it should be easy to make an accurate map.

Also, if the Earth is flat but the paper is curved, it should be problematic to make an accurate map.
Likewise, if the Earth is curved but the paper is flat, it should be problematic to make an accurate map.
Finally, if the Earth is curved and the paper is curved, it should be smooth sailing to make an accurate map.

When I begin my Map Project topic, I don't want it be a debate thread.  So I thought I'd start here.  Please join me in refining my premise here, before I begin the project.

I attempted a similar project using Sketchup, a quite accurate free program that handles 3d geometry that's good enough that I've used it to draw plans for 2 small construction projects.

It didn't take long to see the errors pop up

See this post

Next stop... 

Using the last example, I added a new point. Johannesburg.  This is placed a the intersection of D and E.

Rio   Moscow   7103   A
Moscow   Sydney   8960   B
Sydney   Rio   8520   C
Rio    Johannesburg   4447   D
Moscow   Johannesburg   5625   E


The model starts showing the errors here. It shows Johannesburg to Sydney at 4366 miles where the true distance is 6904.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: September 29, 2017, 05:30:52 PM »
1. In order to derive distance from time you would need to know how fast the plane is flying. The flight speed of a plane varies quite a bit throughout a flight. It's flying in mediums moving within mediums, not anything like vehicles on the ground.

2. The secondary concern is that an aircraft's groundspeed indicators may be made using Round Earth coordinates as plot points to calculate speed. Airspeed instruments are not really accurate and are not used in navigation.

3. It has been brought up that we should use a plane's listed cruising speed for this; but those are just averages, as it relates to point one, and the speeds actually vary throughout the flight. The average cruising speed may also have been computed with groundspeed, which may be in error if they are computed with RE coordinates, as mentioned in point two.

The good news Tom, we don't have to rely on aircraft's groundspeed indicators, GPS, or airspeed.   We can see live ground speed in publicly available ATC live radar data.

I assume you are ready to prove that a round earth mile is not equivalent to a flat earth mile.  Based on comments in the burden of proof thread, it's on you.

As junker has stated, the burden of proof is on the claimant. When you come to this forum and start making claims, we expect that you work to demonstrate your claims.




18
a) It's not doing that (because: tides, Cavendish, equatorial-vs-poles, mountain-tops, etc).
All of which are addressed in the wiki/FAQ and in various threads on these very fora. You may disagree, or they may be flawed and you may want to debate them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist. This thread initially started in Q&A. I know it is hard for round earth logicians to read forum descriptions, but what this thread quickly changed into is not appropriate for Q&A. It is for FE questions and answers, not for RE to point out something they disagree with. Instead of locking the thread, I moved it here (which was apparently a mistake). I suppose I can just be more strict about enforcing rules, but then many of you will complain about that, too.


b) Even if it was, then there would need to be an infinite energy source to power it
False.

Please expand on your answer.  It seems to be that in infinite power source would have to be present or we risk the energy running out and the acceleration ends.

What is the source of this energy in your opinion?


19
I have read the Wiki and FAQ; (UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2)

But am struggling to find either a reason why or proof that the earth IS accelerating at 9.8 metres per second:

Wiki states: "The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct."

I was hoping that a FE could explain why this theory exists without this reasoning and evidence? Why does it make sense to you and how did this exact speed come about? As for the several explanations for UA; what are they please as I could not see them listed anywhere?

many thanks

Has there been an answer to the OP?   Why is the Earth accelerating at 9.8 metres per second? 

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Russia and China to the moon and beyond.
« on: September 28, 2017, 01:04:47 PM »
LOL, go read the comments on the YouTube page. Someone was just taking some pictures at an airport when the approach used by the planes lined up with the moon. After some derogatory comments about this not proving anything, the video's poster said "Are you saying that Flat Earth are using my video to advance their theories?"

OMG that's funny
Quote
neal Brewer
2 months ago
Oh!  Sorry.  Flat Earthers sent me here, saying the moon is a hologram or some bullshit.   I assumed you were one of them, but after reading your description, you have none of that nonsense.   I apologize!
REPLY



cliff481
2 months ago (edited)
Oh! I get it. I was confused for a second. Are you saying that Flat Earth are using my video to advance their theories?  Would you mind sending me the link that directed you to my link?  I would appreciate it. Thanks!



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19  Next >