Offline pedant

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #240 on: August 25, 2017, 10:37:12 PM »
If the earth were a globe (convex) we should expect to see more than 180 degrees when the interior angles are added between any three connecting flight routes which create a triangle.
...
Therefore the earth is flat.

Tom, do you believe spherical objects exist on earth?  Like basketballs, for example?  If so, then take a fully inflated basketball (standard circumference 75 cm) and measure the distance from a point on top to its "equator."  Should be 18.75 cm.
Next, measure 1/4 away around along the ball's "equator."  Again should be 18.75 cm.
Finally, measure back up to the "pole" where you started.  Same thing: 18.75 cm.

Now, take those measurements and plug them into the SSS triangle calculator you mentioned earlier.

A: _____
B: _____
C: _____

What angles do you get, and do they add up to 180º?  More?  Less?  Therefore the basketball is flat?

Lastly, measure the angles on the line you traced out on the basketball.  Do they equal the angles quoted from that website?  Are they each ~90º?  Does 3 * 90 = 180?

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 #241 on: August 26, 2017, 05:56:45 AM »
What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.

On a Flat Earth a mile is 5280 feet as it has always been defined. However, GPS will be in error when attempting to measure out exactly 5280 feet, because GPS is not accurate. We have already seen that multiple devices gave out wildly different values for the runners on a small track.

Modern commercial GPS units are limited (deliberately, in fact) to about 10' of precision.   On something as small as a running track, an error of 10 feet is a hell of a lot.  On something like a long haul airline flight, an error of 10 feet is  negligible.

So (as usual) your complete inability to work out even the most basic concepts and research the background to the things you say leads you astray.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #242 on: August 26, 2017, 06:03:02 AM »
What is silly is that you enter these "debates" with no real information. You have no map, you don't know distances, you have no idea how long a mile is, why even debate distance??? It is ridiculous.

On a Flat Earth a mile is 5280 feet as it has always been defined. However, GPS will be in error when attempting to measure out exactly 5280 feet, because GPS is not accurate. We have already seen that multiple devices gave out wildly different values for the runners on a small track.

Modern commercial GPS units are limited (deliberately, in fact) to about 10' of precision.   On something as small as a running track, an error of 10 feet is a hell of a lot.  On something like a long haul airline flight, an error of 10 feet is  negligible.

So (as usual) your complete inability to work out even the most basic concepts and research the background to the things you say leads you astray.

You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

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 #243 on: August 26, 2017, 08:08:51 AM »
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

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 #244 on: August 26, 2017, 08:21:21 AM »
If the earth were a globe (convex) we should expect to see more than 180 degrees when the interior angles are added between any three connecting flight routes which create a triangle.
...
Therefore the earth is flat.
...
Now, take those measurements and plug them into the SSS triangle calculator you mentioned earlier

Tom is confused (or highly disingenuous) - ANY three distances that form a connected triangle can have angles that add to 180 degrees on a flat surface or to some other values on a curved surface...DUH!   So you can't prove anything using distances and triangles.  Tom (presumably) knows this - and hopes we're not smart enough to realize it.

The point I'm making in this thread is to use QUADRILATERALS.

You can form any four distances into a quadrilateral too - BUT when you can't do it if you measure the two diagonals.   Given six distances between four points you can tell for 100% sure whether the quadrilteral is flat or not.   So by taking distances between four suitably distant points we can PROVE that they cannot possibly lie on a plane.   Hence the world is not flat.

So Tom can't rely on his hokey geometry ideas to allow his flat earth to exist.

His only resort is to dispute the distances we've looked up from airline websites.

When I point out that those distances are a perfect fit for the flight times and airplane cruise speeds, he disputes both.

When I point out that millions of passengers would complain if their "13 hour" flight took 28 hours every single time...we can deduce that the airline flight times are pretty good.

So his only remaining straw is to dispute the published cruise speeds of airplanes.

Since he doesn't actually know how those are calculated, he naively presumes that the airplane manufacturers use  test pilot and a stop watch...or GPS.   Neither of these things are true...but that was his last straw...so now we know he's wrong.

(And then he accused my daughter of being an "untrustworthy murderer"...so...we may judge how desperate he's becoming).

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #245 on: August 26, 2017, 02:23:55 PM »
This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #246 on: August 26, 2017, 03:03:10 PM »
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.

Hasn't been my experience. Maybe the people who wrote those documents are trying to sell you something?

This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.

You people are obsessed
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #247 on: August 26, 2017, 03:33:11 PM »


You people are obsessed



Not really.  What this place provides is a landscape full of thought exercises.   It lets people dust off skills that in many cases are long unused, geometry is an example of that in my case.   It also keeps you thinking about ways to get around the silly roadblocks that are thrown up. 

The distance threads are the best, most easily proven (math does not lie) and why most FE'ers have stayed away.  The really silly NASA conspiracies, bible quotes, ships and the horizon, etc. are barely worth reading but are much easier for the FE'ers to argue.

Bottom line is no one is going to change anybody's mind here but in my opinion, fanatical minds are a fascinating study.

I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #248 on: August 26, 2017, 03:41:08 PM »


You people are obsessed



Not really.  What this place provides is a landscape full of thought exercises.   It lets people dust off skills that in many cases are long unused, geometry is an example of that in my case.   It also keeps you thinking about ways to get around the silly roadblocks that are thrown up. 

The distance threads are the best, most easily proven (math does not lie) and why most FE'ers have stayed away.  The really silly NASA conspiracies, bible quotes, ships and the horizon, etc. are barely worth reading but are much easier for the FE'ers to argue.

Bottom line is no one is going to change anybody's mind here but in my opinion, fanatical minds are a fascinating study.

When you've been here longer, you'll start to realize that every question has been asked before. It's very uncommon for someone to start a thread in the upper fora that we can't at least predict the first couple pages of. You learn to pick your battles. I try to avoid conspiracy threads- I find them tedious. I'd imagine Tom feels similarly about geometry threads (and I can't blame him).

As for no one changing anyone's mind, it's not like we were all raised as FE'ers. People get converted sometimes. I was converted. It's what we live for on these fora.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #249 on: August 26, 2017, 03:48:09 PM »
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.

Hasn't been my experience. Maybe the people who wrote those documents are trying to sell you something?

This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.

You people are obsessed

I am obsessed with following the rules of the scientific method and adhering to polite standards of logical debate, thank you for noticing.

I believe that we keep bringing back up the point of geometry because it proves that the surface of the earth can't be planar through mathematics.  Tom has attempted to steer the attention away from this by using GPS accuracy as a red herring and so far refuses to debate on the rest of the proofs provided.

To briefly summarize my first post.

I established that:

1. That airline flight times are measured accurately with standardized timepieces that do not assume a globed or flat earth.
2. That flight speed can be measured accurately relative to ground speed using Doppler shift radar which also does not assume a globed or flat earth.
3. That speed is defined as Distance/Time and therefore using flight times and speeds we could algebraically solve for distance in under a 5% margin of error without assuming a flat or globed earth.
4. That the distances between the 4 cities used in the initial geometry proof are valid as aircraft speeds are tracked by both GPS and Radar which fits the initial stipulation that all data points had to be valid without the assumption of latitude and longitude accuracy.

Doppler shift radar is accurate within 1% margin of error in measuring flight speed over both short and long distance.

At this point, unless there is a way to disprove the existence of time, distance or speed then we have met all of Tom Bishop's demands and would like him to address it fully.  It is geometrically impossible for the earth to be flat.  It must be either concave or convex and based on my casual observance, it's not concave.

GPS accuracy, quite frankly, doesn't matter in this proof.  It doesn't invalidate the other device used to track flight speed.

Tom, Tsunami and any other flat earth believers are welcomed and encouraged to engage me in any portion of my hypothesis and research other than GPS accuracy.  I have politely and faithfully met all of the other demands placed upon this proof.  It is mathematically impossible for the earth to be flat.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #250 on: August 26, 2017, 04:06:51 PM »
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.

Hasn't been my experience. Maybe the people who wrote those documents are trying to sell you something?

This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.

You people are obsessed

I am obsessed with following the rules of the scientific method and adhering to polite standards of logical debate, thank you for noticing.

I believe that we keep bringing back up the point of geometry because it proves that the surface of the earth can't be planar through mathematics.  Tom has attempted to steer the attention away from this by using GPS accuracy as a red herring and so far refuses to debate on the rest of the proofs provided.

To briefly summarize my first post.

I established that:

1. That airline flight times are measured accurately with standardized timepieces that do not assume a globed or flat earth.
2. That flight speed can be measured accurately relative to ground speed using Doppler shift radar which also does not assume a globed or flat earth.
3. That speed is defined as Distance/Time and therefore using flight times and speeds we could algebraically solve for distance in under a 5% margin of error without assuming a flat or globed earth.
4. That the distances between the 4 cities used in the initial geometry proof are valid as aircraft speeds are tracked by both GPS and Radar which fits the initial stipulation that all data points had to be valid without the assumption of latitude and longitude accuracy.

Doppler shift radar is accurate within 1% margin of error in measuring flight speed over both short and long distance.

At this point, unless there is a way to disprove the existence of time, distance or speed then we have met all of Tom Bishop's demands and would like him to address it fully.  It is geometrically impossible for the earth to be flat.  It must be either concave or convex and based on my casual observance, it's not concave.

GPS accuracy, quite frankly, doesn't matter in this proof.  It doesn't invalidate the other device used to track flight speed.

Tom, Tsunami and any other flat earth believers are welcomed and encouraged to engage me in any portion of my hypothesis and research other than GPS accuracy.  I have politely and faithfully met all of the other demands placed upon this proof.  It is mathematically impossible for the earth to be flat.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Dear CriticalThinker,

Thank you for your kind response. I'd be happy to address your initial points if you'd like.

Imagine, if you will, a great whirlpool. This whirlpool has a diameter the same as, or perhaps even larger than, that of the our Plane. Within this whirlpool float the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Planets (alongside other cosmic phenomena). Now, such a large whirlpool does not work as simply as the one in your sink. You can think of it more like the storms and layers of Jupiter. At various places along its width, it can be faster or slower and even change direction. All of this stems from the unique properties of aether and the fact that the Earth is spinning relative to the whirlwind.

Now, imagine (for the sake of analogy) that you are a scuba diver deep beneath Charybdis. You would feel the pulling and pushing of the monstrous whirlpool above you, no matter how deep you went, correct? Similarly, on Earth we feel a shadow of the aethric whirlpool. In effect this works similarly to the theorized jet stream of RET, except that depending on one's position it can provide acceleration in either direction. This is what you fail to account for in your calculations.

Sincerely,
Tau
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #251 on: August 26, 2017, 04:18:16 PM »


You people are obsessed



Not really.  What this place provides is a landscape full of thought exercises.   It lets people dust off skills that in many cases are long unused, geometry is an example of that in my case.   It also keeps you thinking about ways to get around the silly roadblocks that are thrown up. 

The distance threads are the best, most easily proven (math does not lie) and why most FE'ers have stayed away.  The really silly NASA conspiracies, bible quotes, ships and the horizon, etc. are barely worth reading but are much easier for the FE'ers to argue.

Bottom line is no one is going to change anybody's mind here but in my opinion, fanatical minds are a fascinating study.

When you've been here longer, you'll start to realize that every question has been asked before. It's very uncommon for someone to start a thread in the upper fora that we can't at least predict the first couple pages of. You learn to pick your battles. I try to avoid conspiracy threads- I find them tedious. I'd imagine Tom feels similarly about geometry threads (and I can't blame him).

As for no one changing anyone's mind, it's not like we were all raised as FE'ers. People get converted sometimes. I was converted. It's what we live for on these fora.

I agree the same questions have been asked over and over.  But there are questions that are indeed asked many times but never answered.   For example, I have never seen a credible answer to the problem with southern hemisphere flight times and distances.  A few weak stabs like jet streams, people don't know distances, the speeds are not valid, fake and canceled flights,  etc.   But bottom line is that it's a huge problem if you believe the world is flat.

You seem like a reasonable person.  Why is there no official map?   A rough draft could be sketched out using known distances.   Do you wonder what it would look like?
I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #252 on: August 26, 2017, 04:22:15 PM »
You sure about that? The GPS in my car likes to tell me I'm 400 feet from where I am and going in the opposite direction

http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/

They actually say that "the government commits to broadcasting the GPS signal in space with a global average user range error (URE) of ≤7.8 m (25.6 ft.), with 95% probability. Actual performance exceeds the specification. On May 11, 2016, the global average URE was ≤0.715 m (2.3 ft.), 95% of the time."

And..."GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky (VIEW SOURCE AT ION.ORG). However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees."

So if you happen to be under heavy tree coverage (especially if it's been raining) - or inside a parking garage - then your position can be quite a bit off.   But when driving around in "normal" situations (and especially in an airplane) - these large errors should be brief.

As for the "facing the wrong direction" thing...here there is a misunderstanding.   GPS DOESN'T tell you which way your facing.   Navigation systems that use GPS do one of two things:

* Modern ones include a digital compass.
* Older ones rely on deducing your direction when you start moving - so they take positions every second or two and presume that you're facing in the direction you're moving.

Cellphone digital compasses have a hard time when you turn the phone upside down or sideways - and may need to be "recalibrated" once in a while (I know mine does)...but the digital compasses in cars generally don't get that kind of abuse.

So I'm not surprised you're seeing direction errors - that's not GPS.

But a 400' error is a hell of a lot.  I doubt you're seeing that when driving along an open road someplace.

Check out that second link I sent you - read the bit about "Why does GPS sometimes show me in the wrong place?"

You should get around 10' precision most of the time.

Hasn't been my experience. Maybe the people who wrote those documents are trying to sell you something?

This triangle etc. thing has beed discussed before with no response from TB.

You people are obsessed

I am obsessed with following the rules of the scientific method and adhering to polite standards of logical debate, thank you for noticing.

I believe that we keep bringing back up the point of geometry because it proves that the surface of the earth can't be planar through mathematics.  Tom has attempted to steer the attention away from this by using GPS accuracy as a red herring and so far refuses to debate on the rest of the proofs provided.

To briefly summarize my first post.

I established that:

1. That airline flight times are measured accurately with standardized timepieces that do not assume a globed or flat earth.
2. That flight speed can be measured accurately relative to ground speed using Doppler shift radar which also does not assume a globed or flat earth.
3. That speed is defined as Distance/Time and therefore using flight times and speeds we could algebraically solve for distance in under a 5% margin of error without assuming a flat or globed earth.
4. That the distances between the 4 cities used in the initial geometry proof are valid as aircraft speeds are tracked by both GPS and Radar which fits the initial stipulation that all data points had to be valid without the assumption of latitude and longitude accuracy.

Doppler shift radar is accurate within 1% margin of error in measuring flight speed over both short and long distance.

At this point, unless there is a way to disprove the existence of time, distance or speed then we have met all of Tom Bishop's demands and would like him to address it fully.  It is geometrically impossible for the earth to be flat.  It must be either concave or convex and based on my casual observance, it's not concave.

GPS accuracy, quite frankly, doesn't matter in this proof.  It doesn't invalidate the other device used to track flight speed.

Tom, Tsunami and any other flat earth believers are welcomed and encouraged to engage me in any portion of my hypothesis and research other than GPS accuracy.  I have politely and faithfully met all of the other demands placed upon this proof.  It is mathematically impossible for the earth to be flat.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Dear CriticalThinker,

Thank you for your kind response. I'd be happy to address your initial points if you'd like.

Imagine, if you will, a great whirlpool. This whirlpool has a diameter the same as, or perhaps even larger than, that of the our Plane. Within this whirlpool float the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Planets (alongside other cosmic phenomena). Now, such a large whirlpool does not work as simply as the one in your sink. You can think of it more like the storms and layers of Jupiter. At various places along its width, it can be faster or slower and even change direction. All of this stems from the unique properties of aether and the fact that the Earth is spinning relative to the whirlwind.

Now, imagine (for the sake of analogy) that you are a scuba diver deep beneath Charybdis. You would feel the pulling and pushing of the monstrous whirlpool above you, no matter how deep you went, correct? Similarly, on Earth we feel a shadow of the aethric whirlpool. In effect this works similarly to the theorized jet stream of RET, except that depending on one's position it can provide acceleration in either direction. This is what you fail to account for in your calculations.

Sincerely,
Tau

Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #253 on: August 26, 2017, 04:31:35 PM »
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #254 on: August 26, 2017, 04:39:33 PM »
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #255 on: August 26, 2017, 04:43:17 PM »
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.

I am saying that it is not simply to calculate distance based on flight times, because actual speeds are dramatically altered by the Shadow of the Aethric Wind
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #256 on: August 26, 2017, 04:49:42 PM »


Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Am I to understand then that no such instrument currently exists to prove the existence or effect of Aether on the physical world?  If so, I find that highly convenient to you and it leaves me at a distinct disadvantage.  I was required to prove the existence of devices that accurately measured the variables in question.  You're claiming the existence of another variable that I haven't taken into consideration, however, if it can't be measured, how can you provide evidence of its existence?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?

I am sorry for any confusion or miscommunication.  I will separate my question into smaller more well defined questions.
1. Is the Aether a constant or variable force?  (Like gravity vs wind)
2. Does Aether uniformly affect the world like your whirlpool example would affect my whole body and everything else in at the same time?
3. Using your whirlpool example as a size analogy, would there be a significant difference on the effects of aether between two very close points relative to the whole pool?  (If my body is representative of a flat earth, would the water in the whirlpool have a significantly different impact on two different fingers on the same hand?)

Thank you,

CriticalThinker


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #257 on: August 26, 2017, 05:09:22 PM »
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.

I am saying that it is not simply to calculate distance based on flight times, because actual speeds are dramatically altered by the Shadow of the Aethric Wind
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #258 on: August 26, 2017, 05:15:41 PM »
Tau,

Furthermore, would the effects of Aether be mathematically reducible to 0 in the event that fight times and speeds were repeatable on different dates within the aforementioned margins of error?  As an example, if Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- acceleration due to Aether (A) we could postulate that the distance is a known value within a confidence interval provided that speeds and times were repeated. 

On shorter distance flights within a single continent, distance is a known value measured by physical measuring devices that do not rely on a globed earth assumption so we could take 2 different non stop flights between cities within say Australia on different dates and solve for the variable Aether as such: +/- A = (Speed*Time)/Distance.  This would create both an upper and lower bound for margin of error due to the variable Aetherial Wind.

Would this be an acceptable methodology of accounting for the missing variable in my first series of equations?

Thank You

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #259 on: August 26, 2017, 05:26:24 PM »
Quote
Tau,

Thank you for at least responding, I thought that perhaps I was being ignored by Tom other flat earth believers.

Please provide a standardized instrument capable of measuring Aether within a 5% margin of error so that I can account for it in my calculations. Based on the repeatability standards of the scientific method, I will accept any split half or repeated experiment published within the outer bounds of my own provided proofs which would be 1967.  I constrained myself to only studies after the establishment of a reliable methodology of measurement.

Certainly. In order to do so, I will need several millions dollars of funding and 4-8 years of engineering school. Should I start a GoFundMe?

Quote
Based on your description, am I to assume that Aether is a constant, much like gravity or variable like casual wind?  If this whirlpool of Aether is so massive as to contain all of the stars, planets, moons etc, please explain how a short distance like that between Paris and New York can be dramatically impacted by it.  Imagine if you will, your underwater example.  If everything in the great whirlpool is impacted by it, would there be a statistically significant difference in the effects of the Aether on my right middle finger and right pinky finger?  The relative distances are similar to the ones that you are contesting in my calculations.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The speed of travel between Paris and New York would be affected by the Whirlpool similarly to how it is affected by the Jet Stream. Unless you mean latitudinally?
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it appears you are putting forth the Aether as an answer to the effects described in RE that would be due to the motion of the Earth? Or is that not quite right? Because if it is, then I don't believe it needs to be accounted for in any special way as the average time for a trip does not account for the infrequent possibility a plane can use the jet stream.

I am saying that it is not simply to calculate distance based on flight times, because actual speeds are dramatically altered by the Shadow of the Aethric Wind
But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ