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 - inquisitive

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 51  Next >
21
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?

22
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.

23
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.

24
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?

25
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.

26
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.
« on: January 30, 2020, 05:18:26 PM »
To help understand the diagram better please provide the map of the earth to go with it.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps
Thank you, but which one is correct with confirmed distances?

27
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.
« on: January 30, 2020, 03:39:27 PM »
As the sun sets, the shadows goes up the mountain face. Simple geometry says that the shadow can't go up the mountain face unless the sun is sinking behind something. The "cloud lit from underside" theory doesn't accomplish anything here. We aren't talking about light sneaking in somewhere unexpected; we are talking about a shadow, the absence of light.

What's creating the shadow? What is blocking the sun's light that so regularly crawls up the mountainside, finally leaving it in shadow? If it is already dusk, why can I fly up in a plane and see the sun again? I haven't found an explanation in Flat Earth theory that explains this. Not saying there isn't one: if there is, I'd like to hear it.
I think that all of your questions would be adequately answered if you just read the wiki page on EA: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration.
To help understand the diagram better please provide the map of the earth to go with it.

28
So you verified that they were satellites because "the documentation confirms it"? Meaning, that you didn't really verify it at all and just read it somewhere?
How would you propose we should determine the operation of GPNSS systems?  Verified by NMEA data from receivers and published documentation.

We know they work and there is no indication that they use ground based transmitters because of receiving in valleys, centre of oceans etc.  In a similar subject can you explain how satellite tv works, you have been asked many times?

You are the person who relies on reading a book written many years ago!

29
{starting again to reduce length}

At times you be may only be in range of one cellphone base station.  For a location and altitude system you need to be in range of at least 4 transmitters.

I have poor cellphone coverage but receive from 20 GPNSS transmitters from 4 systems.  How do you explain that?

Please tell us how many transmitters your GPS receiver typically shows when you are outdoors.

30
Quote
What personal evidence do you have that GPS works in the middle of oceans?
Ships use gps.
So you have captained a ship using GPS in the middle of an ocean?

Could you please write more about it?
I haven't personally captained a ship (though I have a smaller boat of my own) but it's not important that I haven't. Just like how it's not important you haven't gone to Antarctica to see the 'ice wall' for yourself to believe it's a thing that exists. It's quite common knowledge I think. Here's the first article about it from a google search.

https://www.gps.gov/applications/marine/

You can also find information about gps coverage if you look hard enough.
So the extent of your personal experience with GPS is reading about the subject?

Nothing in the middle of the ocean?

Any personal use on land then?
Have you had personal experience of being incapable of using gps in the middle of an ocean as the captain of a ship? If you're asking have I been on a boat and been able to use gps then yes I have, but only around English channel and once off the coast from Western Sahara, but I have only been 'captain' of some of those in the English channel, all private boats. GPS is still used by larger ships though, ask any captain of some of those larger ships that go a bit further out to sea. I'll eat my own hat if there is some kind of conspiracy about gps. It works. Lives depend on it.
I have wrote about the the extent of my personal experience using GPS in this thread.

I didn't bring up the words "middle of the ocean."

inquisitive offered that tidbit.

I replied directly to him.

You chose to reply to me.

No one here can offer any personal experience about using GPS in the "middle of the ocean."

The entire context and purpose of using the words," middle of the ocean," is to paint a picture that GPS encompasses the mythical globe and can operate even in the most remote areas of the mythical globe.

One issue with this is the laughable idea that ships are operating willy-nilly across the Seven Seas.

Reality is, they are not.

Ships are traveling the same time worn routes they have taken for hundreds of years, with few exceptions.

My experience is this: My GPS connectivity on strictly GPS devices and my cell phone is lost when I also lose cell phone signal and access to the internet.

No one can dispute that.

It is highly likely that GPS is more related to signal transmitters on the flat earth plane than anything in the aether above our heads.
Whatever you think and claim to experience is totally different to the millions that use GPS systems.  If you are so sure it uses ground based transmitters then how do you explain receivers showing the location of transmitters in orbit?  Please provide details of some transmitter locations, including Chinese and Russian ones in the USA.

I have used a GPS receiver while flying over an ocean, again showing about 20 transmitters.

31
Just for clarity, in case anyone has doubt, I find it highly suspicious that both Google Maps (the system I utilize on my smartphone, which I use pretty much exclusively now) and the Garmin system (plus I used TomTom briefly) have conclusively demonstrated (at least to me in various commutes) to lose signal access to these supposed GPS satellites in the same general areas where I have no cell phone signal.

For me anyway, I think it demonstrates the idea of GPS "satellites" is total hoakum.
Is this indoors?  You may think that, but there is no doubt about how the various GPS systems work.  Do you have details of how you think it works, in detail.  Note that GPS works in the middle of oceans.

32
There is no doubt how GPS works
TL is suggesting the opposite.
Not clear if he saying he just loses internet access.  GPS receiver will show satellites being received from, he needs to check that.  Not just NASA claiming number of satellites, other systems used.

Have you verified that they are satellites?
Yes, the documentation confirms this.  For the US, Russian, Chinese, European and Japanese systems.  The raw data from receivers (NMEA) gives details. 

For example:
The GSV message string identifies the number of SVs in view, the PRN numbers, elevations, azimuths, and SNR values.

Unrelated, but the position of TV broadcast satellites above the equator is as documented and proved by dish alignment.

33
There is no doubt how GPS works
TL is suggesting the opposite.
Not clear if he saying he just loses internet access.  GPS receiver will show satellites being received from, he needs to check that.  Not just NASA claiming number of satellites, other systems used.

34
Google Maps uses data connectivity over your cellphone connection.  Unconnected with GPS which receives from  about 20 satellites from US, Europe and China systems.
You are mistaken about this. While it's true that it can and does use supplementary sources of information to improve its accuracy, it "normally" uses GPS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps_Navigation
The maps themselves are downloaded from the internet, the current position shown will be from a GPS receiver.  Correct?

There is no doubt how GPS works, currently receiving from 20 satellites from 4 systems and occasionally from the Japan system.  Reception totally unrelated to cell phone coverage.

35
@totallackey Yes I do use GPS while driving.
At times, I find my Google maps on my smartphone (and when I used it, my Garmin) would mysteriously lose signal.

It seems the signal loss would occur in the exact same areas I would lose cell phone connectivity.

Strange, don't you think OP?
Google Maps uses data connectivity over your cellphone connection.  Unconnected with GPS which receives from  about 20 satellites from US, Europe and China systems.

36
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A simple question about sunsets.
« on: January 26, 2020, 08:26:35 PM »
Empty "plain", not empty "plane".
You are mistaken about this.

I have a simple question that should be easy to answer: Why at sunset do I see the shadow line slowly crawl up a mountainside facing the sun? In the flat earth models I've seen, this doesn't make sense.
It's just a different example of the same phenomenon as the "cloud lit from underside" section of https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
Slight problem is when multiple observations are made of the angle of the sun from different places at the same time and then repeated though the day.

37
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 26, 2020, 10:57:59 AM »
Well, it makes it meaningful, but it also makes it immediately false (and I had warned you this would be the case, so I guess you just wanted to be wrong).

You already know that the satellites are not geostationary, and that therefore this velocity cannot be constant - the figure you provided is likely an average or estimate. You should have been able to put 2 and 2 together there, really.

Funnily enough, the document you quoted (but forgot to read) confirms this. The first FAQ in supplementary information reads as follows (emphasis mine):

Q - At different positions in its orbit, a GPS satellite will have differing speeds relative to different GPS receivers. Given this, do we need to adjust the speed used in the equation for time dilation to account for this variation?

A - In principle, we do need to use a different value for v in Equation 1 depending on the precise speed of a given satellite relative to a particular receiver. However, the speed of the satellites (3874 m/s) is much larger than the speed of a GPS receiver as it moves with Earth’s rotation (465 m/s at the equator). Differences in the values of the relative speed between a satellite and a receiver result in variations in the amount of time dilation of just 1% at most and so are insignificant for the current accuracy of the GPS.

You also know that, in RET, they orbit the Earth, and are thus subject to acceleration. You'll really struggle to find one without the other...

Your claim that they do not accelerate is amazingly nonsensical, and you'd do well to fix it. The answer above might provide you with a less terrible claim to make. I would strongly suggest reading it before citing it again - it actually has some good ammunition for your position once you've understood it. Plus, it's generally good practice not to quote-mine papers for something you think agrees with you without reading them and checking that it actually does.

Finally, I missed this gem earlier:

It does not depend on your assumptions or anyone else's.
Of course. After all, it's not like these would look differently in different inertial and non-inertial FoR. We can just ignore that. Oh, wait...

BillO, remember my usual advice: if you didn't understand what someone has said, simply ask them to clarify. No need to go on a tirade about how right you think you are.
What is the value of the acceleration?

38
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Satellites
« on: January 24, 2020, 02:57:21 PM »
The multiple relativistic effects experienced by GPS are (primarily) due to relative velocity and a difference in gravitational potential. Your argument might hold some water if the satellites were geostationary, but they're not.
I'm genuinely fascinated by what you think GPS satellites are and how they work. As you say, they're not geostationary, they are said to be satellites orbiting the globe earth. Obviously you can't believe that, so what do you think they are and how do they work?
Worth adding that GPNSS receivers give details of each satellites location and there are 4 separate systems in use.

39
Hi I am wajeeh, and I believe earth is flat as I havent seen any of the evidence found regarding round shaped earth but I stuck at satellites and how GPS works thing. can any flat earther explain if there is no satellite how GPS works?
Do you use a smartphone?

Yes I am using smartphone.
How many satellites is it receiving GPNSS from and from what countries - US, China, Russia, Europe?

40
Flat Earth Community / Re: Sorry were not going to Mars now....Really?
« on: January 21, 2020, 02:02:50 PM »
Can we just agree that I cannot prove that any of these people have been on an ISS which is orbiting the globe and you can't prove they haven't?
We can't, not for as long as you present these as philosophically equivalent. You can't prove a bombastic claim you've made. I can't prove something that's unprovable, and which you're unfairly suggesting I should prove.

It has everything to do with burden of proof. You made a claim you can't prove, and your best defence is that I can't prove you wrong.

I can see the future, but the moment I speak about it or act on it in any way, the future changes. I can't prove it, but you can't prove it's not true!

I am friends with an ethereal kangaroo that only I can see. I can't prove it, but you can't prove it's not true!

I have personally flown to space and confirmed that the Earth is flat by flapping my arms very fast. I couldn't take photos because I was flapping my arms very fast. I survived the trip, although I'm not sure how. Can't prove it, you can't prove me wrong.

It's one of those "heads I win, tails you lose" types of reasoning, you see. ;)

Maybe I wasn't clear but I meant someone with credibility. [...] what are their credentials to do so? Do they have any credibility?
If "credentials" are your way of assessing someone's credibility, be prepared to get scammed multiple times in your life.

Are they ex-NASA whistleblowers?
At least one of them is, and hasn't died in an unfortunate accident just yet. Then again, after a prolonged disappearance he came back with seemingly worsened mental health. Crazy how that happens.

Do they have the relevant skills in analysing images or video?
In my assessment, yes, many of them do. Mind you, that doesn't make them right. That's why "credentials" are a shit determinant.

Or are they just confirmation-biased fuelled conspiracy nuts?
It must be so blissful to be able to dismiss people you don't like with a bunch of insults, and to just carry on with your life without thinking about it.
There is no reason to doubt the existence of the ISS, there is enough information from reputable sources.  Similarly clearly satellites exist and either orbit the earth like GPNSS ones or stay in the same position relative to us to give us satellite TV.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 51  Next >