[Tontogary]

Tom asserted that Lat Long is based on a global model, and he does not recognise any data, measurements or technology that is based on the global model.
He must truly be a defence lawyer as his arguments, turning words around, and attempts to shift focus are certainly indicative of what one might encounter in a lawyer.

Lat/Long is based on measurements of Sun angles, not on any model, Flat or Curved.

All places that have solar noon at the same moment will be at the same meridian, whether the Earth was disc, cylinder, bicone, sphere...
All places that will have same culmination (angular elevation of Sun for solar noon) at the same day will be at the same latitude, regardless of the Earth's shape again.

Let me repeat: Lat/Long is based on Sun measurement, not on Earth shape.
Open ENaG, Page 21, Fig. 10 and see angles on Rowbotham's map.
Compare with the angles on Gleason's map.
Actualy, compare the whole maps.

If "Tom asserted that Lat Long is based on a global model" than he insulted the intelligence of the readers.

I didn't go back to search, I just said "IF".

And these calculations are made using spherical trigonometry, along with the stars which consider the stars and bodies are on the celestial sphere.
Distances are measured as angles, and projected onto the celestial sphere, with the Earths globe being at the Center.
Spherical trig will only work on the GE, however this is also a good reason to believe in the GE.

Tom has posted that the positions used for Lat/Long are accurate, just not the way the distances between them are. However if the positions obtained from astronomical observations only work on a GE, then by accepting the positions obtained by astronav are accurate, then one also has to accept that the GE is accurate!

[Macarios]

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

In what way?
On Flat model Sun has no azimuth, elevation, solar noon, culmination, ... ?

[pinecone]

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Does mapping work for local areas?  Areas you can drive around and measure the distances?  Can you sew those maps together?  At what scale does the method fail?

Thanks.

[JohnAdams1145]

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

[Tontogary]

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

Yes good luck with that one for sure!

We sail in straight lines all the time, we call the Rhumb lines, which are straight lines on a Mercator chart.
We do occasionally sail great circles when transiting higher latitudes, and places with larger differences of longitude, but we work out the great circle, then steer rhumb lines between the points of say every 5 degrees.

More recently with ECDIS and track following ability, we do use the autopilot to follow a Great circle track, but that really has only been in the last 5 years or so.

So in summary we do sail in a series of short straight lines, which make up a great circle. It is just easier to plot on a Mercator chart is why we do it.

North south, or nearly so, are always rhumb line sailing.

[Tom Bishop]

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

The coordinate points in the latitude and longitude system which wraps around the earth are spaced out equidistantly, as if the earth were a sphere. Calculating the distance between any two points would give your the spherical coordinate distance.

It's not really that hard to see that the entire system is based on the idea of a spherical earth. Both latitude and longitude wrap around the earth in 360 degrees. It's a system that assumes a round earth. The points are mapped onto the earth as if it were round.

[Macarios]

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

The coordinate points in the latitude and longitude system which wraps around the earth are spaced out equidistantly, as if the earth were a sphere. Calculating the distance between any two points would give your the spherical coordinate distance.

It's not really that hard to see that the entire system is based on the idea of a spherical earth. Both latitude and longitude wrap around the earth in 360 degrees. It's a system that assumes a round earth. The points are mapped onto the earth as if it were round.

Pull the line from North pole through subsolar point to Ice Wall.
All places on that line will have solar noon at that same moment.
All places east of the line will have Sun more to the west and lower in the sky.
All places west of the line will have Sun more to the east and lower in the sky.

As Sun circulates above Equator (or anywhere between Tropics) the line will go with it, 15 degrees per hour.
All places on the line at its new positions will have the same situation.
Regardless of the shape of the continents.

Where is globe in that?

EDIT: That was the way in which we know this:
If two or more places have solar noon at the same moment, it means they are on the same line drawn from North pole, through subsolar point, to Ice Wall.
Such line we call "meridian".

[inquisitive]

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

The coordinate points in the latitude and longitude system which wraps around the earth are spaced out equidistantly, as if the earth were a sphere. Calculating the distance between any two points would give your the spherical coordinate distance.

It's not really that hard to see that the entire system is based on the idea of a spherical earth. Both latitude and longitude wrap around the earth in 360 degrees. It's a system that assumes a round earth. The points are mapped onto the earth as if it were round.

And works with accuracy, there is only one distance between 2 points.  Do you have an alternative?

[Tom Bishop]

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

The coordinate points in the latitude and longitude system which wraps around the earth are spaced out equidistantly, as if the earth were a sphere. Calculating the distance between any two points would give your the spherical coordinate distance.

It's not really that hard to see that the entire system is based on the idea of a spherical earth. Both latitude and longitude wrap around the earth in 360 degrees. It's a system that assumes a round earth. The points are mapped onto the earth as if it were round.

Pull the line from North pole through subsolar point to Ice Wall.
All places on that line will have solar noon at that same moment.
All places east of the line will have Sun more to the west and lower in the sky.
All places west of the line will have Sun more to the east and lower in the sky.

As Sun circulates above Equator (or anywhere between Tropics) the line will go with it, 15 degrees per hour.
All places on the line at its new positions will have the same situation.
Regardless of the shape of the continents.

Where is globe in that?

EDIT: That was the way in which we know this:
If two or more places have solar noon at the same moment, it means they are on the same line drawn from North pole, through subsolar point, to Ice Wall.
Such line we call "meridian".

All of this would perfectly work in globe theory. Unfortunately you bring no real world observations or reports to the table to say that all of this happens like clockwork, only theory.

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

The coordinate points in the latitude and longitude system which wraps around the earth are spaced out equidistantly, as if the earth were a sphere. Calculating the distance between any two points would give your the spherical coordinate distance.

It's not really that hard to see that the entire system is based on the idea of a spherical earth. Both latitude and longitude wrap around the earth in 360 degrees. It's a system that assumes a round earth. The points are mapped onto the earth as if it were round.

And works with accuracy, there is only one distance between 2 points.  Do you have an alternative?

There is no evidence that it works with accuracy.

[inquisitive]

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

The coordinate points in the latitude and longitude system which wraps around the earth are spaced out equidistantly, as if the earth were a sphere. Calculating the distance between any two points would give your the spherical coordinate distance.

It's not really that hard to see that the entire system is based on the idea of a spherical earth. Both latitude and longitude wrap around the earth in 360 degrees. It's a system that assumes a round earth. The points are mapped onto the earth as if it were round.

Pull the line from North pole through subsolar point to Ice Wall.
All places on that line will have solar noon at that same moment.
All places east of the line will have Sun more to the west and lower in the sky.
All places west of the line will have Sun more to the east and lower in the sky.

As Sun circulates above Equator (or anywhere between Tropics) the line will go with it, 15 degrees per hour.
All places on the line at its new positions will have the same situation.
Regardless of the shape of the continents.

Where is globe in that?

EDIT: That was the way in which we know this:
If two or more places have solar noon at the same moment, it means they are on the same line drawn from North pole, through subsolar point, to Ice Wall.
Such line we call "meridian".

All of this would perfectly work in globe theory. Unfortunately you bring no real world observations or reports to the table to say that all of this happens like clockwork, only theory.

The Lat/Lon system does assume that the earth is a sphere.

Nope. This is more dishonest/ignorant misdirection. Sure, latitudes and longitudes make sense in a spherical coordinate system, but latitudes and longitudes do not affect the underlying metric. If you assert that the Earth is flat and that there is a Cartesian coordinate system that can be slapped onto the Earth, then you will quickly see that the distances don't add up. Simple as that.

There is a valid counterpoint in that because FE asserts that "you can't travel in straight lines" you can't actually reliably measure the distances and all of the discrepancies could be accounted for by measurement bias... Good luck with that one.

The coordinate points in the latitude and longitude system which wraps around the earth are spaced out equidistantly, as if the earth were a sphere. Calculating the distance between any two points would give your the spherical coordinate distance.

It's not really that hard to see that the entire system is based on the idea of a spherical earth. Both latitude and longitude wrap around the earth in 360 degrees. It's a system that assumes a round earth. The points are mapped onto the earth as if it were round.

And works with accuracy, there is only one distance between 2 points.  Do you have an alternative?

There is no evidence that it works with accuracy.

Are you seriously saying the way we can measure distances is incorrect?  And you are the first and only person to say this?  Please say where the errors are in the WGS-84 model.

[Tom Bishop]

Are you seriously saying the way we can measure distances is incorrect?  And you are the first and only person to say this?  Please say where the errors are in the WGS-84 model.

We went over this already. There is no internal way for an airplane to know its speed independently of external navigation systems such as GPS or other signal type broadcasting systems that tells it where the spherical coordinates are, and with a calculation between those points to determine speed.

The airplane is traveling in fluids that are traveling within fluids. Airspeed indicators only tell the airplane how fast the air is traveling locally, and is not used in navigation.

Curious Squirrel provided a link earlier: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed

From that link: "Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed"

Ground speed navigation systems are GPS or similar external broadcasting systems. It is the only way to get the speed. There is no such thing as an odometer for an airplane.

And this is NOT saying that the planes in the Southern Hemisphere are "traveling faster than the speed of sound without knowing it." The standard monopole Flat Earth model is for visualization purposes only. There are other possible bi-polar and monopole models with an infinite number of continental configurations to be investigated.

[inquisitive]

Are you seriously saying the way we can measure distances is incorrect?  And you are the first and only person to say this?  Please say where the errors are in the WGS-84 model.

We went over this already. There is no internal way for an airplane to know its speed independently of external navigation systems such as GPS or other signal type broadcasting systems that tells it where the spherical coordinates are, and with a calculation between those points to determine speed.

The airplane is traveling in fluids that are traveling within fluids. Airspeed indicators only tell the airplane how fast the air is traveling locally, and is not used in navigation.

Curious Squirrel provided a link earlier: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Aircraft_speed

From that link: "Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed"

Ground speed navigation systems are GPS or similar external broadcasting systems. It is the only way to get the speed. There is no such thing as an odometer for an airplane.

Yes, we can measure speeds and distances accurately using GPS and the WGS-84 model.

[Tom Bishop]

Yes, we can measure speeds and distances accurately using GPS and the WGS-84 model.

You are providing words, not demonstration. Showing is more powerful than saying. You are making a positive claim that something is accurate. You are expected to provide something more than an assertion.

[inquisitive]

Yes, we can measure speeds and distances accurately using GPS and the WGS-84 model.

You are providing words, not demonstration. Showing is more powerful than saying. You are making a positive claim that something is accurate. You are expected to provide something more than an assertion.

Documentation available and used everyday.  What would you like to see and what can you provide?

https://confluence.qps.nl/qinsy/en/world-geodetic-system-1984-wgs84-29855173.html

[Tom Bishop]

Yes, we can measure speeds and distances accurately using GPS and the WGS-84 model.

You are providing words, not demonstration. Showing is more powerful than saying. You are making a positive claim that something is accurate. You are expected to provide something more than an assertion.

Documentation available and used everyday.  What would you like to see and what can you provide?

https://confluence.qps.nl/qinsy/en/world-geodetic-system-1984-wgs84-29855173.html

You need to provide evidence to demonstrate YOUR claim. If YOU are claiming that a technology or system is 100% accurate, then YOU need to demonstrate YOUR claim.

[AATW]

Yes, we can measure speeds and distances accurately using GPS and the WGS-84 model.

You are providing words, not demonstration. Showing is more powerful than saying. You are making a positive claim that something is accurate. You are expected to provide something more than an assertion.

The demonstration is that airlines get passengers from A to B reliably and (mostly) on time.
They obviously have to know how far A and B are apart and how fast their airline flies to do this.
Otherwise they wouldn't know how much fuel they needed or how to make a timetable.
The assertion that airlines don't know how fast they've travelling is ridiculous.

[inquisitive]

Yes, we can measure speeds and distances accurately using GPS and the WGS-84 model.

You are providing words, not demonstration. Showing is more powerful than saying. You are making a positive claim that something is accurate. You are expected to provide something more than an assertion.

Documentation available and used everyday.  What would you like to see and what can you provide?

https://confluence.qps.nl/qinsy/en/world-geodetic-system-1984-wgs84-29855173.html

You need to provide evidence to demonstrate YOUR claim. If YOU are claiming that a technology or system is 100% accurate, then YOU need to demonstrate YOUR claim.

Read the link. If you disagree with it please explain why as it is accepted and used.

What would you accept as evidence and how would you prove it to be correct or otherwise?

Where did I say 100%?

[Tom Bishop]

Read the link. If you disagree with it please explain why as it is accepted and used.

What would you accept as evidence and how would you prove it to be correct or otherwise?

The link didn't have any experiments or tests. You need to demonstrate the accuracy of your claim. You need to provide direct links to reports, data, or experiments. This is your claim you are making. You are claiming that this is accurate. If you want to support that idea of accuracy, then you need to demonstrate.

[Tom Bishop]

Yes, we can measure speeds and distances accurately using GPS and the WGS-84 model.

You are providing words, not demonstration. Showing is more powerful than saying. You are making a positive claim that something is accurate. You are expected to provide something more than an assertion.

The demonstration is that airlines get passengers from A to B reliably and (mostly) on time.
They obviously have to know how far A and B are apart and how fast their airline flies to do this.
Otherwise they wouldn't know how much fuel they needed or how to make a timetable.
The assertion that airlines don't know how fast they've travelling is ridiculous.

Knowledge of the time taken to get from point A to point B does not directly tell us the distance traveled. It tells us the time taken, and fuel spent. The distance is calculated as a later step, based on a spherical coordinate system of a round earth.

They know the time it takes to get from A to B, but none of it tell us anything about the shape of the earth until the data is put together to prove or disprove something. There are many continental configurations possible, with two pole and one pole models of a Flat Earth.

The distance between continents must conform somewhat to flight times, but the distances that airplanes think that they fly is all based on a spherical coordinate system, and so the distance cannot be used to make a map.

[inquisitive]

Yes, we can measure speeds and distances accurately using GPS and the WGS-84 model.

You are providing words, not demonstration. Showing is more powerful than saying. You are making a positive claim that something is accurate. You are expected to provide something more than an assertion.

The demonstration is that airlines get passengers from A to B reliably and (mostly) on time.
They obviously have to know how far A and B are apart and how fast their airline flies to do this.
Otherwise they wouldn't know how much fuel they needed or how to make a timetable.
The assertion that airlines don't know how fast they've travelling is ridiculous.

Knowledge of the time taken to get from point A to point B does not directly tell us the distance traveled. It tells us the time taken, and fuel spent. The distance is calculated as a later step, based on a spherical coordinate system of a round earth.

They know the time it takes to get from A to B, but none of it tell us anything about the shape of the earth until the data is put together to prove or disprove something. There are many continental configurations possible, with two pole and one pole models of a Flat Earth.

To repeat, we have the WGS-84 model. Why do you not comment on it?

WGS84 is based on a consistent set of constants and model parameters that describe the Earth's size, shape, and gravity and geomagnetic fields.