[Action80]

All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.

ICMBs could certainly work on a flat earth but you'd need to know the distance between places, which you don't.
And the trajectory would be significantly different. So all the people who do the calculations and write the software which make it all work are presumably in on it or lying or being fooled or something?

You do not even know if ICBM's work on a round earth.

You've never seen one in action.

So stick your nonsensical thinking back under your hat.

[RonJ]

All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.

Source?  Or is this on your own experience.

Why do I need a source for a patently true statement?

V2 rockets work.

Santa Clause came down the chimney last Christmas and put a nice present under the tree for me.  The fact that a present was there is patently true.  Why would I ever need a source to believe it was Santa who delivered it?  Santa Clause delivers, and so does the Tooth Fairy. 


Anyone see a problem with the logical progression of this?  There is NO simple quadratic equation that will describe the targeting of an ICBM.  If that were so then that same mathematician would also be able to write an equation to solve the 3 body problem!

[AATW]

You do not even know if ICBM's work on a round earth.

You've never seen one in action.

Well I know that rockets are a thing. I've seen plenty of launches on TV and I've seen a shuttle launch in person.
So I'm pretty confident that the technology to create an ICBM exists.
From what I understand an ICBM has never been fired in anger, but with anything I haven't personally witnessed I use my model of reality to assess how credible it is. I've never been to Australia but I know people from there, I know people from here who have visited and I have seen plenty of photos and video of the place. I don't have to have seen it with my own eyes to believe it exists.
If ICBMs were said to teleport to their destination then I would be highly sceptical, I don't believe that technology exists. But I know that rockets exist so it seems perfectly credible that ICBMs are possible with current technology. Either multiple countries are lying about having them and no other countries are calling them out on it, or they're a thing. The latter seems far more likely. And as I said and you agree, they'd work on a FE. But you'd need a working map to aim them correctly and we both know why you don't have one.

[WTF_Seriously]

You do not even know if ICBM's work on a round earth.

You've never seen one in action.

So stick your nonsensical thinking back under your hat.

I'm going to plagiarize Pete here for a sec.

If you're going to resort to this tired and worn out tact, please do the intellectually honest thing and choose not to respond.

[SteelyBob]

All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.

ICMBs could certainly work on a flat earth but you'd need to know the distance between places, which you don't.
And the trajectory would be significantly different. So all the people who do the calculations and write the software which make it all work are presumably in on it or lying or being fooled or something?

You do not even know if ICBM's work on a round earth.

You've never seen one in action.

So stick your nonsensical thinking back under your hat.

Well let's expand my previous, and as-yet-unanswered question a little then. You're right, nobody has used proper ICBMs in anger yet, but plenty of shorter range ballistic missiles have been fired. Take the Scuds used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war and the later Gulf War(s). Typical range of shots was in the region of up to 500 miles or so, with a max altitude just shy of 100 miles. So if you were an Iraqi, aiming your Scud at Tehran (35.7N 51.3E) from somewhere near the border in northern Iraq at, say, 35.5N 45.7E, would you use the round earth great circle distance of 314 miles, or some other number from your 'simple' but as-yet-unrevealed FE map? From my previous post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13948.msg237441#msg237441) the 'SteelyBob ratio', or the correction factor needed to convert from the RE map to the monopole FE map shown in the wiki, is 1.17 at 35 degrees north, meaning those two places would be an 368 miles apart on your monopole FE map.

So which one would you use? Or do you have some other distance in mind?

We can talk about corrections for earth rotation, reductions in g with altitude and another minor irritations later...

[Action80]

All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.

Source?  Or is this on your own experience.

Why do I need a source for a patently true statement?

V2 rockets work.

Santa Clause came down the chimney last Christmas and put a nice present under the tree for me.  The fact that a present was there is patently true.  Why would I ever need a source to believe it was Santa who delivered it?  Santa Clause delivers, and so does the Tooth Fairy. 


Anyone see a problem with the logical progression of this?  There is NO simple quadratic equation that will describe the targeting of an ICBM.  If that were so then that same mathematician would also be able to write an equation to solve the 3 body problem!

Simply and absolutely ridiculous.

All missile equations having to do with trajectory are quadratic in nature.

You have no business even commenting in the thread as it is quite clear the subject matter is well over your head.

[Action80]

You do not even know if ICBM's work on a round earth.

You've never seen one in action.

Well I know that rockets are a thing. I've seen plenty of launches on TV and I've seen a shuttle launch in person.
So I'm pretty confident that the technology to create an ICBM exists.
From what I understand an ICBM has never been fired in anger, but with anything I haven't personally witnessed I use my model of reality to assess how credible it is. I've never been to Australia but I know people from there, I know people from here who have visited and I have seen plenty of photos and video of the place. I don't have to have seen it with my own eyes to believe it exists.
If ICBMs were said to teleport to their destination then I would be highly sceptical, I don't believe that technology exists. But I know that rockets exist so it seems perfectly credible that ICBMs are possible with current technology. Either multiple countries are lying about having them and no other countries are calling them out on it, or they're a thing. The latter seems far more likely. And as I said and you agree, they'd work on a FE. But you'd need a working map to aim them correctly and we both know why you don't have one.

We also both know the ICBM's have never been used, so like I wrote.

The entire thread is pointless.

Just more BS from RE supporters.

They would work on an FE because of the reasons I stated.

First, pinpoint accuracy is not necessary as anyone using such a thing could care less who dies as long as it is not them.

Second, a quadratic equation is exactly what is used in determining missile trajectory.

End of story.

[Action80]

All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.

ICMBs could certainly work on a flat earth but you'd need to know the distance between places, which you don't.
And the trajectory would be significantly different. So all the people who do the calculations and write the software which make it all work are presumably in on it or lying or being fooled or something?

You do not even know if ICBM's work on a round earth.

You've never seen one in action.

So stick your nonsensical thinking back under your hat.

Well let's expand my previous, and as-yet-unanswered question a little then. You're right, nobody has used proper ICBMs in anger yet, but plenty of shorter range ballistic missiles have been fired. Take the Scuds used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war and the later Gulf War(s). Typical range of shots was in the region of up to 500 miles or so, with a max altitude just shy of 100 miles. So if you were an Iraqi, aiming your Scud at Tehran (35.7N 51.3E) from somewhere near the border in northern Iraq at, say, 35.5N 45.7E, would you use the round earth great circle distance of 314 miles, or some other number from your 'simple' but as-yet-unrevealed FE map? From my previous post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13948.msg237441#msg237441) the 'SteelyBob ratio', or the correction factor needed to convert from the RE map to the monopole FE map shown in the wiki, is 1.17 at 35 degrees north, meaning those two places would be an 368 miles apart on your monopole FE map.

So which one would you use? Or do you have some other distance in mind?

We can talk about corrections for earth rotation, reductions in g with altitude and another minor irritations later...

There is no "round earth great circle distance."

That is a bunch of ridiculous crap inserted into the discussion.

If I was to have a bird's eye view at Yankee Stadium on any particular Sunday, I could see both the Yankee's pitcher and the opposition pitcher launching curve balls toward home plate in a "great circle," fashion over a distance of 60 feet 6 inches from the pitching rubber to home plate.

Flat and level surface.

Same thing with the missile use in the all of the Middle East wars. If I drove from Beirut to Tel Aviv or from Damascus to Tel Aviv, I could use that distance to fly the missile very accurately toward its intended target.

NO RE necessary.

Just stop with all these meaningless objections.

[SteelyBob]

So how far is it, then?

[Action80]

@TomBishop

There's a really simple way to end all of this nonsense.  Simply produce an accurate Flat Earth map.  That's all you need to do and this all ends.  It truly is just that simple.

We'll wait.

In turn, we will wait for you to produce an accurate RE map.

[Action80]

So how far is it, then?

I do not know.

I have had no reason to drive from Damascus or Beirut to Tel Aviv.

[SteelyBob]

So how far is it, then?

I do not know.

I have had no reason to drive from Damascus or Beirut to Tel Aviv.

I've given you two lat/long coordinates for an example launch site and target. It should be a simple case of plugging them into your equation, right?

So, how far is it?

[WTF_Seriously]

@TomBishop

There's a really simple way to end all of this nonsense.  Simply produce an accurate Flat Earth map.  That's all you need to do and this all ends.  It truly is just that simple.

We'll wait.

In turn, we will wait for you to produce an accurate RE map.

Take your pick. 

https://www.ultimateglobes.com/

Of course accuracy will improve with the size of any map so this would be more accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eartha#:~:text=Eartha%20is%20the%20world's%20largest,41%20feet%20(12.5%20m).

[RonJ]

@TomBishop

There's a really simple way to end all of this nonsense.  Simply produce an accurate Flat Earth map.  That's all you need to do and this all ends.  It truly is just that simple.

We'll wait.

In turn, we will wait for you to produce an accurate RE map.

I like any WGS-84 chart.  We used them at sea every day.  They were always accurate and always based upon a spherical earth.  If you can find an inaccuracy in one of them then PLEASE tell us.  We need to know to enhance the safety of the ship's & crews out there every day that depend upon them.  Thank You!

[Action80]

So how far is it, then?

I do not know.

I have had no reason to drive from Damascus or Beirut to Tel Aviv.

I've given you two lat/long coordinates for an example launch site and target. It should be a simple case of plugging them into your equation, right?

So, how far is it?

And as I stated, I have not driven that route and have no reason to drive it.

I am sure the people that were firing the rockets over there had plenty of opportunity to drive it plenty of times and I am sure they had distances that were accurate enough, given just how "deadly," those Scud missile attacks were. Might as well been the North Koreans firing the missiles, LOL!

[Action80]

@TomBishop

There's a really simple way to end all of this nonsense.  Simply produce an accurate Flat Earth map.  That's all you need to do and this all ends.  It truly is just that simple.

We'll wait.

In turn, we will wait for you to produce an accurate RE map.

I like any WGS-84 chart.  We used them at sea every day.  They were always accurate and always based upon a spherical earth.  If you can find an inaccuracy in one of them then PLEASE tell us.  We need to know to enhance the safety of the ship's & crews out there every day that depend upon them.  Thank You!

You have no clue whether the WGS - 84 chart was based on a spherical earth or not.

ZERO clue.

"Somebody told me they were," is a more accurate statement.

And for the final freaking time, as has been demonstrated in previous threads, long distance navigation of any sort is broken down into easier to manage short trips, with frequent stops to check systems and position.

Nothing, and I mean, NOTHING, has fundamentally changed concerning which routes are taken over long distances, either by sea or air, for over 100 years. That is fact. And none of it, I mean of NONE OF IT, requires RE to work.

[SteelyBob]

And as I stated, I have not driven that route and have no reason to drive it.

I am sure the people that were firing the rockets over there had plenty of opportunity to drive it plenty of times and I am sure they had distances that were accurate enough, given just how "deadly," those Scud missile attacks were. Might as well been the North Koreans firing the missiles, LOL!

So those two points were a random place in the desert in northern Iraq and Tehran - a typical Scud firing from the Iran-Iraq war.

Why would you need to have driven a journey to know the distance when you have the 'x-y' coordinates you keep telling us are so simple?

Why can't you just calculate the distance? Should be pretty easy, right?

Unless...you can't?

[Action80]

@TomBishop

There's a really simple way to end all of this nonsense.  Simply produce an accurate Flat Earth map.  That's all you need to do and this all ends.  It truly is just that simple.

We'll wait.

In turn, we will wait for you to produce an accurate RE map.

Take your pick. 

https://www.ultimateglobes.com/

Of course accuracy will improve with the size of any map so this would be more accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eartha#:~:text=Eartha%20is%20the%20world's%20largest,41%20feet%20(12.5%20m).

When you are able to tell the difference between a globe and map, let us know will you?

[jimster]

Tom Bishop, do I correctly understand your position?

"Celestial navigation is allegedly based on the theory that the Round Earth is the center of the universe and that everything is revolving around it."

Where did you get that? Completely wrong. Please take a course in elementary astronomy. You don't have to believe it, but we have to talk about the astronomy taught in school, in textbooks, all over the net, not your straw man version based on quotes from pre 20th century obscure scientists. We are RE, we get to say what RE is today, and that model is consistent all over the place, schools, textbooks, internet, astronomers, gps engineers, celestial navigation.

Epicycles, from the wiki page:

Epicycles worked very well and were highly accurate, because, as Fourier analysis later showed, any smooth curve can be approximated to arbitrary accuracy with a sufficient number of epicycles. However, they fell out of favour with the discovery that planetary motions were largely elliptical from a heliocentric frame of reference, which led to the discovery that gravity obeying a simple inverse square law could better explain all planetary motions.

I searched looking for contemporary astronomy using epicycles, but after many pages, I could find only Ptolemy, Copernicus, Aristotle, all history telling the story of how Kepler came up with a better explanation. Zero contemporary references to epicycles. Explained here:

https://www.spitzinc.com/blog/epicycles-and-discovering-bad-theories/

As I asked earlier, do you understand RET? Apparently not, the first step is to agree on what RE is, and since you are not RE, yu don't get to say what it is. It is what textbooks and science teachers and diagrams all over the internet say it is today, not some obscure 19th century scientist.

Tom Bishop gets to say what FE, or more precisely, the Tom Bishop version of FE (there are many, and they conflict). So what can you say? So far, I got no map, "anomolous winds", "unknown forces". To make your idea work, you must insist that no one knows the distances between places and apparently never can.

Tom Bishop, does gps work? Does it accurately tell you and billions of others where they are all the time? Even if there are no satellites because the earth is flat and gps is faked by NASA, it still produces accurate location data (or do you think gps fails constantly?) World maps with locations of ships over all oceans shows their locations as reported by gps. This is all wrong and no one notices?

How can ships and planes have gps and not know their locations and therefor distance, even over ocean? If the distances are as advertised, why can't you make a flat map? If the distances are not as advertised, how can ships and planes arrive where they intended and when they intended?

[Action80]

And as I stated, I have not driven that route and have no reason to drive it.

I am sure the people that were firing the rockets over there had plenty of opportunity to drive it plenty of times and I am sure they had distances that were accurate enough, given just how "deadly," those Scud missile attacks were. Might as well been the North Koreans firing the missiles, LOL!

So those two points were a random place in the desert in northern Iraq and Tehran - a typical Scud firing from the Iran-Iraq war.

Why would you need to have driven a journey to know the distance when you have the 'x-y' coordinates you keep telling us are so simple?

Why can't you just calculate the distance? Should be pretty easy, right?

Unless...you can't?

I could calculate the distance given those coordinates on a flat chart.

So could you, I'm sure.