Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #200 on: August 17, 2017, 05:46:36 PM »
How about if I can find a map that uses only trilateration or traversing? Hopefully not too difficult. Neither method mentions the curvature of the Earth (although I would note this is why I mentioned comparing to older maps, as if the Earth was flat and surveying was used maps would not come out the same every time. As such older maps should show likely significant discrepancies as they didn't have the same 'base' locations as todays maps would.)

Second option. Give us a set of points and distances between them you know are accurate. If we can present a map that can match those distances, we can build outward from there.
I'd take an answer to this too if you please.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #201 on: August 23, 2017, 11:16:01 AM »
At this point, the ONLY 'exit strategy' for FET is to deny that the distances posted by the airlines is incorrect.

We know that the flight TIMES are correct - there are many, MANY organizations that track the reliability of flight times - and billions of people have flown the routes and know that airlines are overwhelmingly close to their posted "on time" times.   There is a MOUNTAIN of undeniable evidence to show that airlines keep quite closely to their stated times.

I was also able to show that for long-distance routes the claimed DISTANCES are a good match for the TIME - given the published CRUISE SPEEDS of the airplanes on those routes.

So for the DISTANCES to be incorrect, the published data on the SPEEDS of modern airliners must be severely incorrect.

If FET is true - then the published cruise speeds of airliners must be severely incorrect.


This is undeniable...if we accept the flight times then if the flight distances are wildly wrong - then the cruise speed of airliners must be badly wrong.

SO...The FET argument depends on doubt about airliner cruise speeds.

HOWEVER:

If the cruise speeds are wrong - then they must surely be equally wrong on all routes.  Nobody flies airliners at significantly other than cruise speeds - it's horribly inefficient to do so.

If that's true then all of the distances must be "off" by the same percentage...they can't be selectively wrong for some routes and not for others.

If you follow through the math at the top of this thread, you can double all of the distances - or halve all of the distances - and the quadrilateral calculations STILL don't add up.

CONSEQUENTLY:

It doesn't matter how incorrect airliner speeds are - the earth STILL cannot be flat.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 11:33:53 AM by 3DGeek »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #202 on: August 25, 2017, 02:00:26 PM »
I will apologize in advance for the length of this post.

When a friend of mine told me about the flat earth society, I was curious and I came across this forum earlier today.  As I have a solid foundation in both science and mathematics, this particular thread piqued my interest enough to register and create a login.

As this is a logic model statement, I will have to state all of my assumptions before coming to my conclusion and I will support each part of my argument.  I will do my best to meet the demands of Tom Bishop and others on this forum.  In cases where the methodology of measurement assumes a globe map, I will corroborate that system of measurement’s accuracy with an alternative measurement system that does not rely on a globed earth assumption.

If there is not a significant difference in margin of error between the two systems of measurement, then we can confidently state that the methodology that assumes a globed earth is still valid for the measurements provided due to the fact that they can be corroborated using an alternative methodology.  Based on the standards and practices of physical sciences, for the purposes of this discussion, an acceptable margin of error in any two given measurements is 5%.  This stays in line with the scientific method as it applies to Chemistry, Biology and Physics which have formed the basis of peer reviewed scientific literature.

Assumption 1: time exists and is measurable.  The 24 hour daily clock is standardized by the breakdown of the cesium 133 atom as defined in 1967.  This has been the accepted standardization of time ever since.  All modern timepieces are standardized based on this assumption and it is not dependent upon a globed earth assumption.

Assumption 2: Distance exists and is measurable.  Both Imperial and Metric systems have been standardized for the purposes of measuring distance since prior to 1967 so that is still our outer bound for both of these units of measurement in peer reviewed literature.

Assumption 3: Speed is defined as Distance/time: Velocity = Meters/second for metric and Velocity = Feet/second for Imperial.

Without violating any of the rules for algebraic logic if V=M/s then M=V*s & if V=F/s then F=V*s.  As the three variables are inextricably linked, we only need only to prove the observable existence of 2 of the 3 variables and then solve for the 3rd.  In our case, we will use time and speed to solve for distance.

As time is defined by the observable physical phenomenon that does not rely upon a globed earth and corroborated by the life experiences of each person involved in this discussion, we can safely say that all commonly accepted methods of measuring time in studies are valid for the purposes of solving for distance.

This then leaves a requirement to identify a non-globed earth method for measuring speed or velocity relative to the ground that corroborates a globed earth methodology within the acceptable margin of error.

To that end:  I provide support that speed of flight can be measured relative to ground speed through the use of Doppler shift radar meets the criteria of a non-globed earth system of measuring speed.

 EVANS, T. R. AND DRICKAMER, L. C. (1994). Flight speeds of birds determined using Doppler radar. Wilson Bull. 206, 155–156

During the above referenced article, the accuracy and validity of using Doppler shift radar gun technology to measure the ground speed of birds in flight was established.  Radar units determine straight line speed of a target by measuring the Doppler shift of each successive set of the electromagnetic waves sent out from the device towards the target.  These units are calibrated for frequency using a tuning fork and calibrated for speed accuracy by using a measured track and stopwatch before being placed into service.  The researchers verified their individual units by performing the internal circuitry test and using a tuning fork to verify correct EM wave frequency.  The reported margin of error between the Doppler shift calculations of the device and the physical measurements used to calibrate them must be less than 1% for manufacturer release.  This meets our criteria for a standardized measurement of flight speed that does not rely upon an assumption of a globed earth model.

Next I provide peer reviewed literature that corroborates GPS speed measurement accuracy using radar for comparison.

Rampinini E, Alberti G, Fiorenza M, Riggio M, Sassi R, Borges TO, Coutts AJ. Accuracy of GPS devices for measuring high-intensity running in field-based team sports. Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: 49-53

During the above mentioned article researchers specifically tested the accuracy and validity of using GPS based equipment to measure ground speed of athletes.  The standard for comparison was a Doppler shift radar gun.  The straight line speed differences between the 2 systems of measurement did not exceed our established margin of error.  The margin of error between the 2 systems was 1.9%.

This means that within a series of a few steps, I was able to corroborate speed as measured with GPS technology to speed measured using a physically measured track and stopwatch, as well as a Doppler shift radar gun.  A measured straight line track and stopwatch are both mechanical measurements of distance and time respectively that do not assume a globed earth.  The Doppler shift radar gun does not assume a globed earth and both corroborate the speeds as measured by GPS.  There was a maximum margin of error of 2.9% (summation of maximum margins of error of both systems) which does not meet the criteria for dismissal of GPS as a speed measurement device.

Now I have provided supporting evidence that both the GPS and Radar speed measurements employed by airlines are within an acceptable margin of error to physical measurements of speed that do not rely on any globed earth assumptions.  This means that the calculated distances based on time and speed of non-stop flights between airports can be used to calculate distance using Distance = Speed * Time as stated earlier.

Conclusions:
1: Speed as measured by GPS devices falls within an acceptable margin of error to speed as measured by systems that do not rely upon a globed earth assumption (1.9%).
2: Speed as measured by Doppler shift radar instruments which does not assume a globed earth model is a viable method of determining flight speed relative to ground speed.
3: Modern aircraft employ both technologies for measuring speed and, as such, reported speeds of flights are accurate for both a globed and planar earth models.
4: Ground speed can be determined using flight speed as reported by aircraft speed measuring devices within an acceptable margin of error to actual ground speed (< 1%).
5: Airline flight times are recorded using a measurement system that remains congruent with both globed earth and flat earth models.  These flight times are corroborated independently by all passengers equipped with standardized timepieces.
6: Using the distances derived from data produced by speed measurement systems that remain consistent with or without the assumption of a globed earth, we can calculate a distance D between 2 cities using the measured flight speed S and time T in a D=S*T equation without violating any of the imposed stipulations as both S and T can be produced without globed earth assumptions.
7: The stated distances between cities for nonstop flights used in the examples provided by both 3dGeek and Inquisitive can be accepted as true distance +/- 2.9% margin of error (largest summation value of the aforementioned margin of error rates) based on corroborating evidence as obtained from flat earth congruent speed measurement systems and algebra.
8: Due to the establishment of speed, time and distance in methodologies that do not rely upon a globed earth model for accuracy, the following example remains valid:

New York, Paris, Cape Town & Buenos Aries
NY - PA 8834
NY - BA 3346
NY - CT 7803
CT - PA 12844
CT - BA 6865
BA - PA 11043

NY angles are 123.6° or 100.9 + 61.5 = 162.4°

Even when accounting for a 2.9% margin of error, (the maximum summation of the 2 peer reviewed pieces of literature that I presented) a flat plane is still mathematically impossible.

Summary: Unless you desire to argue the validity of the existence of either time, distance or speed then I have met your demands specifically.  Time can be measured without assuming a globed earth model and Speed can be measured without assuming a globed earth model which allows us to solve for distance without assuming a globed earth model.  While the geometry proof provided by 3dGeek and Inquisitive does not have the ability to prove whether the earth is a convex or concave surface, the congruence of speed measurement systems that do not require a globed earth assumption and the ones that do, provide strong evidence that the earth is convex rather than concave.

Thank you.

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #203 on: August 25, 2017, 03:18:11 PM »
I will apologize in advance for the length of this post.

When a friend of mine told me about the flat earth society, I was curious and I came across this forum earlier today.  As I have a solid foundation in both science and mathematics, this particular thread piqued my interest enough to register and create a login.

As this is a logic model statement, I will have to state all of my assumptions before coming to my conclusion and I will support each part of my argument.  I will do my best to meet the demands of Tom Bishop and others on this forum.  In cases where the methodology of measurement assumes a globe map, I will corroborate that system of measurement’s accuracy with an alternative measurement system that does not rely on a globed earth assumption.

If there is not a significant difference in margin of error between the two systems of measurement, then we can confidently state that the methodology that assumes a globed earth is still valid for the measurements provided due to the fact that they can be corroborated using an alternative methodology.  Based on the standards and practices of physical sciences, for the purposes of this discussion, an acceptable margin of error in any two given measurements is 5%.  This stays in line with the scientific method as it applies to Chemistry, Biology and Physics which have formed the basis of peer reviewed scientific literature.

Assumption 1: time exists and is measurable.  The 24 hour daily clock is standardized by the breakdown of the cesium 133 atom as defined in 1967.  This has been the accepted standardization of time ever since.  All modern timepieces are standardized based on this assumption and it is not dependent upon a globed earth assumption.

Assumption 2: Distance exists and is measurable.  Both Imperial and Metric systems have been standardized for the purposes of measuring distance since prior to 1967 so that is still our outer bound for both of these units of measurement in peer reviewed literature.

Assumption 3: Speed is defined as Distance/time: Velocity = Meters/second for metric and Velocity = Feet/second for Imperial.

Without violating any of the rules for algebraic logic if V=M/s then M=V*s & if V=F/s then F=V*s.  As the three variables are inextricably linked, we only need only to prove the observable existence of 2 of the 3 variables and then solve for the 3rd.  In our case, we will use time and speed to solve for distance.

As time is defined by the observable physical phenomenon that does not rely upon a globed earth and corroborated by the life experiences of each person involved in this discussion, we can safely say that all commonly accepted methods of measuring time in studies are valid for the purposes of solving for distance.

This then leaves a requirement to identify a non-globed earth method for measuring speed or velocity relative to the ground that corroborates a globed earth methodology within the acceptable margin of error.

To that end:  I provide support that speed of flight can be measured relative to ground speed through the use of Doppler shift radar meets the criteria of a non-globed earth system of measuring speed.

 EVANS, T. R. AND DRICKAMER, L. C. (1994). Flight speeds of birds determined using Doppler radar. Wilson Bull. 206, 155–156

During the above referenced article, the accuracy and validity of using Doppler shift radar gun technology to measure the ground speed of birds in flight was established.  Radar units determine straight line speed of a target by measuring the Doppler shift of each successive set of the electromagnetic waves sent out from the device towards the target.  These units are calibrated for frequency using a tuning fork and calibrated for speed accuracy by using a measured track and stopwatch before being placed into service.  The researchers verified their individual units by performing the internal circuitry test and using a tuning fork to verify correct EM wave frequency.  The reported margin of error between the Doppler shift calculations of the device and the physical measurements used to calibrate them must be less than 1% for manufacturer release.  This meets our criteria for a standardized measurement of flight speed that does not rely upon an assumption of a globed earth model.

Next I provide peer reviewed literature that corroborates GPS speed measurement accuracy using radar for comparison.

Rampinini E, Alberti G, Fiorenza M, Riggio M, Sassi R, Borges TO, Coutts AJ. Accuracy of GPS devices for measuring high-intensity running in field-based team sports. Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: 49-53

During the above mentioned article researchers specifically tested the accuracy and validity of using GPS based equipment to measure ground speed of athletes.  The standard for comparison was a Doppler shift radar gun.  The straight line speed differences between the 2 systems of measurement did not exceed our established margin of error.  The margin of error between the 2 systems was 1.9%.

This means that within a series of a few steps, I was able to corroborate speed as measured with GPS technology to speed measured using a physically measured track and stopwatch, as well as a Doppler shift radar gun.  A measured straight line track and stopwatch are both mechanical measurements of distance and time respectively that do not assume a globed earth.  The Doppler shift radar gun does not assume a globed earth and both corroborate the speeds as measured by GPS.  There was a maximum margin of error of 2.9% (summation of maximum margins of error of both systems) which does not meet the criteria for dismissal of GPS as a speed measurement device.

Now I have provided supporting evidence that both the GPS and Radar speed measurements employed by airlines are within an acceptable margin of error to physical measurements of speed that do not rely on any globed earth assumptions.  This means that the calculated distances based on time and speed of non-stop flights between airports can be used to calculate distance using Distance = Speed * Time as stated earlier.

Conclusions:
1: Speed as measured by GPS devices falls within an acceptable margin of error to speed as measured by systems that do not rely upon a globed earth assumption (1.9%).
2: Speed as measured by Doppler shift radar instruments which does not assume a globed earth model is a viable method of determining flight speed relative to ground speed.
3: Modern aircraft employ both technologies for measuring speed and, as such, reported speeds of flights are accurate for both a globed and planar earth models.
4: Ground speed can be determined using flight speed as reported by aircraft speed measuring devices within an acceptable margin of error to actual ground speed (< 1%).
5: Airline flight times are recorded using a measurement system that remains congruent with both globed earth and flat earth models.  These flight times are corroborated independently by all passengers equipped with standardized timepieces.
6: Using the distances derived from data produced by speed measurement systems that remain consistent with or without the assumption of a globed earth, we can calculate a distance D between 2 cities using the measured flight speed S and time T in a D=S*T equation without violating any of the imposed stipulations as both S and T can be produced without globed earth assumptions.
7: The stated distances between cities for nonstop flights used in the examples provided by both 3dGeek and Inquisitive can be accepted as true distance +/- 2.9% margin of error (largest summation value of the aforementioned margin of error rates) based on corroborating evidence as obtained from flat earth congruent speed measurement systems and algebra.
8: Due to the establishment of speed, time and distance in methodologies that do not rely upon a globed earth model for accuracy, the following example remains valid:

New York, Paris, Cape Town & Buenos Aries
NY - PA 8834
NY - BA 3346
NY - CT 7803
CT - PA 12844
CT - BA 6865
BA - PA 11043

NY angles are 123.6° or 100.9 + 61.5 = 162.4°

Even when accounting for a 2.9% margin of error, (the maximum summation of the 2 peer reviewed pieces of literature that I presented) a flat plane is still mathematically impossible.

Summary: Unless you desire to argue the validity of the existence of either time, distance or speed then I have met your demands specifically.  Time can be measured without assuming a globed earth model and Speed can be measured without assuming a globed earth model which allows us to solve for distance without assuming a globed earth model.  While the geometry proof provided by 3dGeek and Inquisitive does not have the ability to prove whether the earth is a convex or concave surface, the congruence of speed measurement systems that do not require a globed earth assumption and the ones that do, provide strong evidence that the earth is convex rather than concave.

Thank you.

CriticalThinker


Best post ever.  My prediction is Tom Bishop will invalidate your argument (in his head) based on 1 sentence or will just not show up. 

Otherwise this post shoud be pinned and added to the Wiki.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #204 on: August 25, 2017, 04:06:35 PM »
Fully agree with TomInAustin, a great post! Well laid out thank you. Although since we haven't seen a word from Tom in about 10 days, and I don't know that I've ever seen Junker respond in a strongly constructive manner, I'm doubtful of too much happening. CriticalThinker, would you mind if I posted this to the old(?) site and linked to this thread? There appear to be much more FE believers over there. Or perhaps you would be up for reposting it over there as a new thread. The site is here by the way. I've heard it referred to as the old site by Junker I believe, but it appears to have a bit larger population than this one from what I've been seeing perusing it recently.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #205 on: August 25, 2017, 05:01:02 PM »
Here is the problem: According to the Radar Vs. GPS study mentioned there was a wide range of error, between 1.9% and 23.2% difference between the various types of GPS equipment compared to the Radar Test.



If the Radar Test value is True, and we have various Round Earth GPS systems giving different values, then how do we know which GPS system is accurate?

If the earth is flat and a Radar Test was done on it against the runners, how do we compare that to these Round Earth coordinate devices spitting out different values? If one of the results from this wide range happens to land close to this Flat Earth Radar Test value, what does it prove or tell us?

Here is a hint: Nothing.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #206 on: August 25, 2017, 05:11:08 PM »
Here is the problem: According to the Radar Vs. GPS study mentioned there was a wide range of error, between 1.9% and 23.2% difference between the various types of GPS equipment compared to the Radar Test.



If the Radar Test value is True, and we have various Round Earth GPS systems giving different values, then how do we know which GPS system is accurate?

If the earth is flat and a Radar Test was done on it against the runners, how do we compare that to these Round Earth coordinate devices spitting out different values? If one of the results from this wide range happens to land close to this Flat Earth Radar Test value, what does it prove or tell us?

Here is a hint: Nothing.


Since we are talking time and duration for a known speed, your points are irrelevant as usual.   The poster gave you valid indisputable evidence that does not involve GPS.


Why don't you actually try and help instead of making silly points?  What are you so afraid of?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #207 on: August 25, 2017, 05:40:24 PM »
Since we are talking time and duration for a known speed, your points are irrelevant as usual.   The poster gave you valid indisputable evidence that does not involve GPS.


Why don't you actually try and help instead of making silly points?  What are you so afraid of?

It's not "indisputable evidence" and the points I made are not irrelevant. Part of his evidence relies on GPS being accurate, and he provided a GPS Vs. Radar study to demonstrate that it is accurate. I showed directly why his step of confirming that GPS was accurate was invalid, and you have not addressed those points.

If the earth is flat and the radar test was performed against the runners, and there are a variety of GPS devices and modes spitting out different Round Earth values with a wide range of error from each other, what does that tell us? You can't just pick out the closest GPS device that matches the Flat Earth radar value and say that it proves that GPS is accurate in its Round Earth assumptions.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #208 on: August 25, 2017, 05:43:57 PM »
Since we are talking time and duration for a known speed, your points are irrelevant as usual.   The poster gave you valid indisputable evidence that does not involve GPS.


Why don't you actually try and help instead of making silly points?  What are you so afraid of?

It's not "indisputable evidence" and the points I made are not irrelevant. Part of his evidence relies on GPS being accurate, and he provided a GPS Vs. Radar study to demonstrate that it is accurate. I showed directly why his step of confirming that GPS was accurate was invalid, and you have not addressed those points.

If the earth is flat and the radar test was performed against the runners, and there are a variety of GPS devices and modes spitting out different Round Earth values with a wide range of error from each other, what does that tell us? You can't just pick out the closest GPS device that matches the Flat Earth radar value and say that it proves that GPS is accurate in its Round Earth assumptions.
The accuracy of a GPS receiver is known, how an application uses that data is another issue.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #209 on: August 25, 2017, 06:07:56 PM »
Since we are talking time and duration for a known speed, your points are irrelevant as usual.   The poster gave you valid indisputable evidence that does not involve GPS.


Why don't you actually try and help instead of making silly points?  What are you so afraid of?

It's not "indisputable evidence" and the points I made are not irrelevant. Part of his evidence relies on GPS being accurate, and he provided a GPS Vs. Radar study to demonstrate that it is accurate. I showed directly why his step of confirming that GPS was accurate was invalid, and you have not addressed those points.

If the earth is flat and the radar test was performed against the runners, and there are a variety of GPS devices and modes spitting out different Round Earth values with a wide range of error from each other, what does that tell us? You can't just pick out the closest GPS device that matches the Flat Earth radar value and say that it proves that GPS is accurate in its Round Earth assumptions.

Again irrelevant, this thread is about flight distances and times.  The mention of GPS is not a valid argument as it is known that aircraft speeds are tested using radar.   Aircraft flew known routes long before GPS was around. 

So get back to the topic.  Help us make a flat map using known cruise speeds and distances.  What are you so afraid of?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #210 on: August 25, 2017, 06:11:49 PM »
Here is the problem: According to the Radar Vs. GPS study mentioned there was a wide range of error, between 1.9% and 23.2% difference between the various types of GPS equipment compared to the Radar Test.



If the Radar Test value is True, and we have various Round Earth GPS systems giving different values, then how do we know which GPS system is accurate?

If the earth is flat and a Radar Test was done on it against the runners, how do we compare that to these Round Earth coordinate devices spitting out different values? If one of the results from this wide range happens to land close to this Flat Earth Radar Test value, what does it prove or tell us?

Here is a hint: Nothing.
We are looking at the distance results here Tom, and what we are looking for beyond that is ensuring we have chosen a proper refresh rate for the distances being covered. Do you see how the error halves itself from 5 Hz to 10 Hz when looking at the VHSR line? That's the refresh rate coming into effect. 10 Hz refreshes twice as often as 5 Hz, and is thus twice as accurate as speed increases. This graph reflects exactly what's described here actually. These are consumer grade devices, and as such have a somewhat limited refresh rate option. As shown in the paper I just linked, higher speed vehicles (such as aircraft and missiles) use a higher Hz for their GPS. These range to 200+ Hz for vehicles that are traveling at or over the speed of sound. 20 times the best refresh rate we have in the table. But the table still accurately reflects the information shown in that document, that as you go faster the higher refresh rates are needed to achieve proper accuracy. The TD line and even the HSR line are within our margin of error for the higher refresh rate device, as expected. I wasn't able to quite dig up the full study at present (I bet I'm just glossing over the link somehow) but I would guess these devices are ending up in line with what is required of them by their intended end users. The study was claimed to show GPS capable of tracking distances within an acceptable margin of error. It shows that.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #211 on: August 25, 2017, 06:20:57 PM »
We are looking at the distance results here Tom, and what we are looking for beyond that is ensuring we have chosen a proper refresh rate for the distances being covered. Do you see how the error halves itself from 5 Hz to 10 Hz when looking at the VHSR line? That's the refresh rate coming into effect. 10 Hz refreshes twice as often as 5 Hz, and is thus twice as accurate as speed increases.

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?

Quote
This graph reflects exactly what's described here actually. These are consumer grade devices, and as such have a somewhat limited refresh rate option. As shown in the paper I just linked, higher speed vehicles (such as aircraft and missiles) use a higher Hz for their GPS. These range to 200+ Hz for vehicles that are traveling at or over the speed of sound. 20 times the best refresh rate we have in the table. But the table still accurately reflects the information shown in that document, that as you go faster the higher refresh rates are needed to achieve proper accuracy. The TD line and even the HSR line are within our margin of error for the higher refresh rate device, as expected. I wasn't able to quite dig up the full study at present (I bet I'm just glossing over the link somehow) but I would guess these devices are ending up in line with what is required of them by their intended end users. The study was claimed to show GPS capable of tracking distances within an acceptable margin of error. It shows that.

We still don't know which Round Earth coordinate device is the most accurate (or even how accurate) if we are comparing it to a Radar Value which may have taken place on a Flat Earth.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #212 on: August 25, 2017, 06:25:02 PM »
Here is the problem: According to the Radar Vs. GPS study mentioned there was a wide range of error, between 1.9% and 23.2% difference between the various types of GPS equipment compared to the Radar Test.



If the Radar Test value is True, and we have various Round Earth GPS systems giving different values, then how do we know which GPS system is accurate?

If the earth is flat and a Radar Test was done on it against the runners, how do we compare that to these Round Earth coordinate devices spitting out different values? If one of the results from this wide range happens to land close to this Flat Earth Radar Test value, what does it prove or tell us?

Here is a hint: Nothing.
We are looking at the distance results here Tom, and what we are looking for beyond that is ensuring we have chosen a proper refresh rate for the distances being covered. Do you see how the error halves itself from 5 Hz to 10 Hz when looking at the VHSR line? That's the refresh rate coming into effect. 10 Hz refreshes twice as often as 5 Hz, and is thus twice as accurate as speed increases. This graph reflects exactly what's described here actually. These are consumer grade devices, and as such have a somewhat limited refresh rate option. As shown in the paper I just linked, higher speed vehicles (such as aircraft and missiles) use a higher Hz for their GPS. These range to 200+ Hz for vehicles that are traveling at or over the speed of sound. 20 times the best refresh rate we have in the table. But the table still accurately reflects the information shown in that document, that as you go faster the higher refresh rates are needed to achieve proper accuracy. The TD line and even the HSR line are within our margin of error for the higher refresh rate device, as expected. I wasn't able to quite dig up the full study at present (I bet I'm just glossing over the link somehow) but I would guess these devices are ending up in line with what is required of them by their intended end users. The study was claimed to show GPS capable of tracking distances within an acceptable margin of error. It shows that.

Don't even bother with GPS data.  Flight speeds and flight duration have been used for decades before GPS.  Tom thinks he can derail this discussion with his BS about GPS but we all know it's not relevant.  Stick to known durations, distances, and speeds. 

Let me head him off with this.  Yes, airlines know how far it is to Paris from New York and yes, they know how fast the planes they fly are, and how long it takes to get there.    Any dispute of that is juvenile and just ridiculous.  What are the FE'ers so afraid of?





If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #213 on: August 25, 2017, 06:26:15 PM »

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?



So you at least admit radar values are accurate? 
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #214 on: August 25, 2017, 06:47:43 PM »
Don't even bother with GPS data.  Flight speeds and flight duration have been used for decades before GPS.  Tom thinks he can derail this discussion with his BS about GPS but we all know it's not relevant.  Stick to known durations, distances, and speeds.

If you read the methods of the poster he is using GPS to determine speeds. What do you mean that GPS has nothing to do with this?'

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?

So you at least admit radar values are accurate?

I am assuming that the radar value is accurate, yes.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 07:44:37 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #215 on: August 25, 2017, 06:48:23 PM »
Here is the problem: According to the Radar Vs. GPS study mentioned there was a wide range of error, between 1.9% and 23.2% difference between the various types of GPS equipment compared to the Radar Test.



If the Radar Test value is True, and we have various Round Earth GPS systems giving different values, then how do we know which GPS system is accurate?

If the earth is flat and a Radar Test was done on it against the runners, how do we compare that to these Round Earth coordinate devices spitting out different values? If one of the results from this wide range happens to land close to this Flat Earth Radar Test value, what does it prove or tell us?

Here is a hint: Nothing.
This refers to measurements over very short distances, not relevant to the discussion.  With longer distances the accuracy of the locations becomes insignificant.  As you know.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 07:02:29 PM by inquisitive »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #216 on: August 25, 2017, 06:53:57 PM »
Don't even bother with GPS data.  Flight speeds and flight duration have been used for decades before GPS.  Tom thinks he can derail this discussion with his BS about GPS but we all know it's not relevant.  Stick to known durations, distances, and speeds.

If you read the methods of the poster he is using GPS to determine speeds. What do you mean that GPS has nothing to do with this?'

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?

So you at least admit radar values are accurate?

A am assuming that the radar value is accurate, yes.

Then we can also assume that Boeing knows how fast their planes fly in MPH and if that's true how far they fly in miles in a given time.  And we know that the mile is not round earth based.

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #217 on: August 25, 2017, 07:34:58 PM »
We are looking at the distance results here Tom, and what we are looking for beyond that is ensuring we have chosen a proper refresh rate for the distances being covered. Do you see how the error halves itself from 5 Hz to 10 Hz when looking at the VHSR line? That's the refresh rate coming into effect. 10 Hz refreshes twice as often as 5 Hz, and is thus twice as accurate as speed increases.

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?

Quote
This graph reflects exactly what's described here actually. These are consumer grade devices, and as such have a somewhat limited refresh rate option. As shown in the paper I just linked, higher speed vehicles (such as aircraft and missiles) use a higher Hz for their GPS. These range to 200+ Hz for vehicles that are traveling at or over the speed of sound. 20 times the best refresh rate we have in the table. But the table still accurately reflects the information shown in that document, that as you go faster the higher refresh rates are needed to achieve proper accuracy. The TD line and even the HSR line are within our margin of error for the higher refresh rate device, as expected. I wasn't able to quite dig up the full study at present (I bet I'm just glossing over the link somehow) but I would guess these devices are ending up in line with what is required of them by their intended end users. The study was claimed to show GPS capable of tracking distances within an acceptable margin of error. It shows that.

We still don't know which Round Earth coordinate device is the most accurate (or even how accurate) if we are comparing it to a Radar Value which may have taken place on a Flat Earth.
.....what? Is a mile different on a FE? When did this happen? What does it matter? The radar says they went X distance. The GPS says they went X+/-2% distance. Unless a flat Earth mile is more than a 4% difference, the distances will be within the deviation.

Once again Tom. Give us a known distance, or an acceptable way to measure a distance. Don't just sit there and go "RE distances are different because of coordinates, so there." If a RE mile and a FE mile are within an acceptable margin of error, then there's not enough difference to matter over any length.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #218 on: August 25, 2017, 07:44:09 PM »
We are looking at the distance results here Tom, and what we are looking for beyond that is ensuring we have chosen a proper refresh rate for the distances being covered. Do you see how the error halves itself from 5 Hz to 10 Hz when looking at the VHSR line? That's the refresh rate coming into effect. 10 Hz refreshes twice as often as 5 Hz, and is thus twice as accurate as speed increases.

Accurate as compared to what? The potential Flat Earth Radar Value?

Quote
This graph reflects exactly what's described here actually. These are consumer grade devices, and as such have a somewhat limited refresh rate option. As shown in the paper I just linked, higher speed vehicles (such as aircraft and missiles) use a higher Hz for their GPS. These range to 200+ Hz for vehicles that are traveling at or over the speed of sound. 20 times the best refresh rate we have in the table. But the table still accurately reflects the information shown in that document, that as you go faster the higher refresh rates are needed to achieve proper accuracy. The TD line and even the HSR line are within our margin of error for the higher refresh rate device, as expected. I wasn't able to quite dig up the full study at present (I bet I'm just glossing over the link somehow) but I would guess these devices are ending up in line with what is required of them by their intended end users. The study was claimed to show GPS capable of tracking distances within an acceptable margin of error. It shows that.

We still don't know which Round Earth coordinate device is the most accurate (or even how accurate) if we are comparing it to a Radar Value which may have taken place on a Flat Earth.
.....what? Is a mile different on a FE? When did this happen? What does it matter? The radar says they went X distance. The GPS says they went X+/-2% distance. Unless a flat Earth mile is more than a 4% difference, the distances will be within the deviation.

Once again Tom. Give us a known distance, or an acceptable way to measure a distance. Don't just sit there and go "RE distances are different because of coordinates, so there." If a RE mile and a FE mile are within an acceptable margin of error, then there's not enough difference to matter over any length.

We have made progress.  Tom agrees radar is accurate and that means we can set speed in MPH. From speed and duration, we get the distance.  It is now possible(given that miles, radar, and time are not round earth) to set distance between cities in a measurement we all agree is valid.  Should this move back to the agreed upon poll thread?   Junker?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #219 on: August 25, 2017, 07:58:21 PM »
Tom,

I supplied the Radar to GPS comparison primarily to show consistency between a flat earth compatible speed measurement system and globed earth speed measurement system.  As I am in healthcare, I would be happy to cover why the researchers in the sports medicine article saw varying degrees of accuracy.  They specifically discuss it within the article as it becomes a significant limitation with respect to what physiological data points they were trying to interpolate.  GPS monitoring devices for fitness have difficulty in accurately tracking speed outside of straight line measurements due to low refresh rates.  As most team sports require rapid changes in direction during the course of play, the speed data wasn't collected at a frequent enough interval to account for the physical exertion required by players.  It resulted in lower calculated cardiovascular efforts than were applicable.  This phenomenon can easily be witnessed in sports like football, soccer and all hockey variations where players have to stop, pivot and resume travel in a new direction frequently.  In long distance strait line travel, the refresh rate does not make a high statistical impact as was specifically quoted by researchers in the article itself.  You may find reference to it in the analysis section of the article.  Straight line travel margins of error were reported specifically as 1.9% and it was a direct quote from the researchers.  In their conclusion, the stated that GPS monitoring devices were not yet accurate enough to use for calculating metabolic demands on athletes due to the rapid changes in direction experienced during the course of normal play.

As flight speeds are measured with Radar in addition to GPS, statistically significant differences in speed data would have to be reported to FAA administrators and hardware vendors because the planes would not be allowed to fly.  Radar speed measurements do not require any assumption of a globed earth, so my analysis and conclusions still stand.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur