How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?And sometimes telephone communications via satellites. But more importantly, mobile satellite phones, i.e. at places without landlines and cellular network reception (like uninhabited islands, high in the mountains, etc.).
How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?It doesn't!
It doesn't!And how then?
The FAQ has this:QuoteIt doesn't!And how then?
To deny that satellites exist very hard. If there were no satellites for the Internet, then you could say anything, but so ... What does the classical theory of flat land say about this?
What About the ISS and Satellites?And they try to claim that GPS and satellite TV and phone services is all provided via ground stations, such as cell-phone towers, or "balloons".
While one can see satellites in the sky at night, it is generally agreed upon that they are not actual satellites but pseudolites or stratolites put there to fool us.
The FAQ has this:The ISS stratolite would need to fly in about 90 minutes one “circle” above the flat earth. This is about twice the equator size in 90 minutes; about 27’000 km/h. Constant course corrections would be required to maintain its equator centered sinus curve course relative to flat earth’s surface. Therefore, lots of fuel/energy consumption.QuoteWhat About the ISS and Satellites?
While one can see satellites in the sky at night, it is generally agreed upon that they are not actual satellites but pseudolites or stratolites put there to fool us.
And they try to claim that GPS and satellite TV and phone services is all provided via ground stations, such as cell-phone towers, or "balloons".Per TV satellite/balloon all dishes are aligned to the same point in space 36‘000 km above the earth. Currently, a satellite dish’s alignment must be accurate to less than 1 degree. With balloons at 50 km altitude in the stratolayer, this would require about 1 balloon every kilometer; therefore, several hundreds of thousand or even millions of ballons per country per TV “satellite”. If they are nearer than 50 km, more balloons are required.
Sorry, I do not speak English. Because it is actually difficult for me to deal with such a huge number of topics and information in them. That is why I asked this question.Well, I'm glad you've got it all worked out.
Due to the fact that satellites exist, I'm 100% sure. As well as the fact that there are satellite TV and the Internet.
Only here is how they fly? Do they tell us the whole truth? As well as about why in the space can not see the stars?
Having studied this question from different points of view. I began to understand how the presence of satellites over our flat land is explained. It turns out that this is not a problem at all. As many people think. And they do not need a lot of fuel.
Satellites do not fly above us in fact, they hang in one place. They absolutely hang at those points where they were hung. Flying in a low orbit is only one single mock-up of the ISS. And this is a piece of ordinary iron without people.
You do not believe that the Bible talks about quantum mechanics. And you know what Merkaba is. Read the ancient scriptures. That should understand what I'm talking about. And why do the satellitesstill weigh and do not fall to the ground, and a piece of iron under the name of the ISS flies.
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
Satellites do not fly above us in fact, they hang in one place. They absolutely hang at those points where they were hung.That would only work for geostationary satellites.
You do not believe that the Bible talks about quantum mechanics.No I don't, as it doesn't.
And why do the satellitesstill weigh and do not fall to the ground, and a piece of iron under the name of the ISS flies.They orbit a round Earth. They are "falling" it is just that while they "fall", they move so far sideways, the curvature of Earth means they are still at the same altitude.
Satellite T.V, Satellite phones, and many other services such as GPS. Can work by using space wave technology. We can bounce waves off atmosphere above usExcept space waves are those which do not get bounced by the atmosphere and thus allow transmission to space, so the exact opposite of what you need.
The service is quite laggy and patchy. So Lets debate this some more.Yes, the service typically will be quite laggy. This is due to how the packets have to travel.
And those who believe in the ball - sorry - you do not believe that our world was created by God, because I will not explain here the whole nature of the physical laws that allow satellites to behave this way.And just what gives you the divine authority to make a judgement like that?
Creation Ministries International (CMI) exists to support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.The whole purpose of that site is to defend the "young earth creation". You have completely ignored this:
Creation Ministries International (CMI) (https://creation.com)
Maybe you could read more of what others think: The Creation.com (http://Creation.com) site is dedicated to "young earth creationism" but has a lot of anti-flat earth material, mainly on historical evidence, see
The flat earth myth. (http://creation.com/flat-earth-myth)
Creation Ministries, The flat-earth myth and creationism (http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism)
A flat earth, and other nonsense, Dealing with ideas that would not exist were it not for the Internet (http://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth)
and
Flat Earth Myth - More Bogus History, Creating Bogus History, What is the Myth About the Flat Earth ? (http://www.defendingthebride.com/code/flat.html)
Moreover, we are deceived both with the form of the earth and with the trajectory of the satellites. They do fly, but not as they tell us. And still you will not believe in it and will again assert that our earth is a ball.Yes, I will "will again assert that our earth is a" Globe as have people far more knowledgeable than I at what the Scriptures teach.
We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.And look at the introduction to John Calvin's Commentary on Genesis - Volume 1.
<< from: The flat earth myth. (http://creation.com/flat-earth-myth) >>
Page 25,26:It would appear that John Calvin certainly believed the earth to be a Globe, as did most people of his day.
We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center.
Page 55:
In the meantime, however, the benediction of God so prevails that the earth everywhere lies open that it may have its inhabitants, and that an immense multitude of men may find, in some part of the globe, their home.
Page 73:
From this difficulty, some would free themselves by saying, that the surface of the globe may have been changed by the deluge;
All from: Commentary on Genesis - Volume 1, Author: Calvin, John (1509-1564) (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.pdf)
Who Invented the Flat Earth?About the author: Adapted by Ian Taylor for Creation Science Association of Ontario, Feature No. 30, from the book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians (ISBN 027595904X), by history professor Jeffrey Burton Russell. Summarized by Paula McKerlie. Further modified March 2004.
Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn’t teach it.
<< Read the rest in: Answers in Genesis, Who Invented the Flat Earth? (https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/who-invented-the-flat-earth/) >>
rabinoz - Do you understand that I can not use the extensive materials in English?I'm sorry but there's little that I can do to help there.
I communicate with difficulty, not speaking to study theology in English ...
For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe;
Are you all sure how our world works?We don't need to know every single detail to know if Earth is round, or various other things.
Who among you knows that in the gardens, without singing birds, the trees cease to bear fruit?No one.
And now I will ask those who believe in the ball - are you ready to answer before God for misleading others?Your god would have to answer to me for why it allows such evil to occur.
All that we see around can equally be explained as the fact that we live both on the plane and on the ball.Only if you manipulate the plane to act like a ball.
All those who believe in the ball do not want to admit that some laws of physics simply will not work for the ball.Such as?
Just satellites and can not fly around the ball! Since this contradicts what we know from physics.Satellites orbit around Earth (a round Earth) under the known laws of physics. They do not contradict physics for a RE at all.
Although this is the strongest argument that the earth is not a ball.Except I am yet to find an explanation for how they work for a FE, the pictures from many of them clearly show Earth is round, and the angles don't match for a FE.
With this accuracy, the course of the atomic clock must be so stable that the theory (special theory of relativity) and (general theory of relativity) do not work.You are confusing stable for the satellite with stable for the universe. There stability doesn't mean relativity is wrong.
The rest of the work of the GPS decided experimentally.No, it is based upon the satellites position when they send the signal and how long the signal takes to reach the receiver.
Therefore algorithms for GPS use in their calculations the earth only as flat and motionless.
When using ground rotation, GPS does not work as a positional one.No, it works just fine, as the satellite positions used in the calculation are relative to Earth.
And you yourself will understand why satellites fly only over flat land.Or you could explain how, rather than having us try to look through everything for it.
And those who believe in the ball - sorry - you do not believe that our world was created by GodPlenty of people accept Earth is round and still believe in a god.
I will not explain here the whole nature of the physical laws that allow satellites to behave this way.Then don't suggest they work for a FE.
I have an explanation of how they hangThen provide it.
As well as they fly at an altitude above 200 kilometers.
The angle of lifting all the antennas we have in Ukraine does not meet the ball, and corresponds to the fact that the satellites are above the flat ground. They have an angle of direction higher than it is necessary according to official sources.Do you have any evidence for that?
Maybe I'm wrong but that's what's on on the roofs.It could be a satellite dish, but you can't tell what way it is pointing from that photo.
(http://picua.org/img/2018-06/30/1xrlx89m8a138o1iqso5ek9f6.jpg)I was just analyzing the area myself via Google Maps:
I photographed it myself.
I'm not referring to the direction. That's it that all the antennas are very high raised.I was using the direction as an example of it being hard to tell where it is pointed.
That satellites fly in the proportion of magnetic lines.How?
We have a more complex world structure. It is described in detail in the scriptures.You mean a lot is baselessly asserted in scripture.
Satellites just fly by the principle described in them.There are no principles describing how satellites work in any scripture I know of.
And the earth's core can not generate a magnetic field - since heated above 800 degrees - read the physics.Good advice, read up on physics.
We have external magnetic fields. The earth is inside them.Except mapping of Earth's magnetic field clearly shows that it is from inside Earth.
*** Instead it is produced as a dynamo...A spinning ball of molten metal produces magnetic fields.
Gentlemen, are you serious?
Well, you made me laugh -what law does this work for physics?
*** Instead it is produced as a dynamo...So, because you cannot understand the Dynamo theory, you ridicule it and refuse to believe it? Sound a normal flat earth " ;D proof ;D".
Gentlemen, are you serious?
Well, you made me laugh -what law does this work for physics?
The antennas are slightly higher than this according to what they tell us.Are you sure it is actually there? Or are you just seeing what you want to?
only up to 7 degrees higher - it's almost imperceptible
This antenna also receives satellites.And it is quite difficult to see where it is pointing as it is clearly an offset dish antenna.
In conclusion, I will say one thing.I can't see from the photo, but that could be an offset feed antenna aimed at quite an appreciable angle.
I am not against satellites, I am opposed to where they fly.
The antennas are slightly higher than this according to what they tell us.
only up to 7 degrees higher - it's almost imperceptible
And that direct-focus is the Internet.
You can see for yourself ...
This antenna also receives satellites.
(http://picua.org/img/2018-07/02/lfil4w1c2in8jmt0ze46irzq8.jpg)
(http://picua.org/img/2018-07/02/uehulwpcxeuz64irviof5he0f.jpg)That is definitely an offset feed antenna.
Quote from: Wikipedia Offset dish antennaFrom: Wikipedia, Offset dish antenna (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_dish_antenna) So an offset feed antenna with a vertical dish might be aimed 30° above the horizon, as in: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/m9k7hagf6ypvf7s/30%C2%B0%20offset%20feed%20microwave%20dish.png?dl=1) | (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Parabolic_antenna_types2.svg) |
nobody adjusts antennas under instructions. Everything is done by eye.You can't see the satellites so it is not done by eye.
And I did not refuse the fact that the core does not give a magnet.That's the problem, it isn't a fact. You made a pathetic strawman against the core producing a magnetic field, all because you don't understand how the magnetic field is generated.
Here is another antenna for receiving the C range. I live in Ukraine.Which still shows no indication of being too high.
For me there is not much difference even the direction of the antennas.Yet they are quite clearly pointing in vastly different directions.
Here is another antenna for receiving the C range. I live in Ukraine.The most likely TV satellite serving the Ukraine seems to be the Astra 4A (Sirius) at 4.8°E. So the position of that satellite is 4.8°E 0°N (over the Equator).
http://picua.org/img/2018-07/04/ojl6po9te8euvd7380c17jyd1.jpg
For me there is not much difference even the direction of the antennas. I wanted to hear it from you.
I can disappoint you. all antennas are tuned to the sun and the compass. And further on the signal. If the sun and the compass are precise instruments. I will not say anything. nobody tunes in another way. Which devices can still use for tuning?I'm guessing this hasn't translated very well. Or maybe it was bollocks anyway.
rabinoz- and I say the same, the difference is only a few degrees.But it will depend upon what satellite it is pointing at.
But a few degrees back or forth do not play a big role.No, it can make a very big difference.
But the most surprising thing is that if you count all relatively flat land. That will leave the same height for the satellites.No, it results in vastly different heights.
I can disappoint you. all antennas are tuned to the sun and the compass. And further on the signal.A compass, if accurate enough and adjusted for magnetic declination can be appropriate.
rabinoz- and I say the same, the difference is only a few degrees. But a few degrees back or forth do not play a big role. The satellite is flying in the height belt. So these few degrees are completely permissible error. But the most surprising thing is that if you count all relatively flat land. That will leave the same height for the satellites.No, the given directions do not work over flat land - they point to all different locations up in the sky "somewhere".
How to Align a Satellite Dish Without a MeterIf I had to do it often, as when using satellite TV in a caravan or motorhome, I'd certainly invest in a meter.
There's a lot to be said for sitting back and relaxing while a professional installs your satellite dish for you. Unfortunately, the novelty wears off after you've paid for it a few times. Learning to align your own satellite dish can save you hundreds of dollars over the years, and isn't especially difficult. You'll need to orient your dish for the correct up-and-down angle, or elevation, and its left-to-right angle, or azimuth. Getting great signal is easiest with a commercial meter, but all you really need is your receiver, a television and a helper.
How to Align a Satellite Dish Without a Meter (https://itstillworks.com/align-satellite-dish-meter-1777.html)
So you understand the mechanism, how satellites fly over flat land.No we don't.
How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy?
Jack Black - no comment.What are these pictures meant to be of?
The early Church (yes, it was the "Roman" church - there was little else then)
No one can deny that the earth is flatnessYes they can, quite easily.
I'll try to explain how this is possible. Since both classical theories do not explain this.We have been waiting on your explanation for quite some time.
Satellite T.V, Satellite phones, and many other services such as GPS. Can work by using space wave technology. We can bounce waves off atmosphere above usExcept space waves are those which do not get bounced by the atmosphere and thus allow transmission to space, so the exact opposite of what you need.
Even if this was viable, it would only provide for services where the satellites are meant to be keeping a fixed position.
For GPS, they are not, and satellites come into and out of view. GPS cannot be faked by your magic non-space waves.
And the angles still don't add up.The service is quite laggy and patchy. So Lets debate this some more.Yes, the service typically will be quite laggy. This is due to how the packets have to travel.
As for being patchy, one downfall of satellite technology is that they need to penetrate the atmosphere and any obstructions. This makes it difficult to use inside, and the signal is typically much weaker (due to the greater distance), which is why good ones have large transceivers.
Do you think them being laggy and patchy is an issue for a RE?
BHS will be along soon to give us his detailed history of early Christianity that he got from a half remembered blurb on a Dan Brown book cover.The early Church (yes, it was the "Roman" church - there was little else then)
WROOOONG!
Sorry for going after you again, but I can't stand it when somebody is wrong on the Flat Earth Forum.
My argument for you would be, why wouldn't it be better on a round earth?On our round Earth it will vary depending upon which satellite system you use.
Sorry about that, but to have gone into great detail of the first few centuries would have made things too long and I don't that they were too bothered about the shape of the earth very much during that period.The early Church (yes, it was the "Roman" church - there was little else then)
WROOOONG!
Sorry for going after you again, but I can't stand it when somebody is wrong on the Flat Earth Forum.
Sorry about that, but to have gone into great detail of the first few centuries would have made things too long and I don't that they were too bothered about the shape of the earth very much during that period.The early Church (yes, it was the "Roman" church - there was little else then)
WROOOONG!
Sorry for going after you again, but I can't stand it when somebody is wrong on the Flat Earth Forum.
I guess I should have mentioned the Eastern Orthodox (in what is now Greece and Turkey) and Coptic groups (largely in Egypt) at least and in the first few centuries AD even calling it the "Roman Church" is a bit of a misnomer.
Do you have a concise history of that period anywhere.
Bye
I don't that they were too bothered about the shape of the earth very much during that period.
I imagine the Syrian theologians had a Jewish background and might have "inherited" the Hebrew cosmology.
The Syrian theologians were remarkably hostile against the globe theory, though in Beda's time they may have excepted it.
I imagine the Syrian theologians had a Jewish background and might have "inherited" the Hebrew cosmology.
The Syrian theologians were remarkably hostile against the globe theory, though in Beda's time they may have excepted it.
Those in Rome and Greece would have been influenced by the Greek (Ptolemaic) cosmology though, of course there was much Jewish influence there too.
And during the first few centuries there was much debate on the flat/Globe issue.
you only a beztolka argue having rested foreheads each other. As you won't understandYou are just insulting us and making a bunch of baseless claims.
You wanted the facts. Well now don't complain. And not my fault if you don't apprehend them.No, I wanted you to justify your claims. Not just assert them.
You study it.I have.
but you didn't listen to meYou are confusing failing to listen with failing to accept your baseless claims.
Not without reason Jesus saidMore religious nonsense without anything to back it up.
I will begin with the fact that I will incontestably prove that our earth – a sphere.So you accept that Earth is a sphere?
Do you think all from them believe that the sun is at the height of 5 000 km over us when by planes we fly above?Planes fly at ~35 000 ft or 10 km, not over 5000 km.
But also their big plus, They know that they are right. Otherwise there would be no this website, and these discussions.No, that is a big minus.
You are impatient my kind friend JackBlack.Only of some things, such as people repeatedly making basless claims and never providing any backing.
And of you it isn't fair to use all power of science perfected in one direction in 500 years.Why not?
You don't give chance to others to express the opinion.Yes I do, I just want them to back it up rather than just repeatedly assert nonsense.
Also as it in the assumption the earth – a sphere.Note: Taking "sphere" to just mean roughly spherical rather than perfectly spherical.
You use JackBlack work of hundreds and thousands of other people who have given years of the life of the theory the earth - a sphere. What was personally made by you to prove that it is the truth?I don't need there work.
I can't find so much time to be constantly here - as you. And correct translation occupies a half of time.Then stop trying to focus on so many things. Pick a single issue and stick to that, providing a justification for your claims.
I once again will repeat. I will explainRepeating this claim doesn't help you.
I will prove for a start that the earth – a sphere, and somebody won't be able to disprove it. Then I so, on the basis of the same facts will prove that the earth – the planeGo ahead and try.
But when both theories are proved same are either both of them are right, or both, aren't right … Paradox.It means you proof was unsound for either one or both of them.
Ам … I can disappoint you planes up to 75 000 km (kilometers) over us. It is a record of flights.Nope.
You not against if I also repeat everything in Russian in brackets that you could check the accuracy of my words?You can repeat it in Russian, however I don't speak Russian so I'm not sure how useful it would be.
Excuse - it is very extensive work including comparisons of theories as during Columbus, and modern time.None of this supports a FE.
Based on a research.
Sun, moon, earth.
General Theory of Relativity. Electromagnetism and radio hamming.
I will begin with ancient times.I can help with that.
I will be glad if you help me with it and to find inaccuracies.
How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?Satellites are traveling in straight lines.
To be a little more precise. Satellites are traveling along geodesics in curved spacetime.How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?Satellites are traveling in straight lines.
No, they travel in circles or ellipses or other complicated paths. If they were traveling in a straight line, they wouldn't repeatedly go over the same point.How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?Satellites are traveling in straight lines.
Yes.How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy?
How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?Satellites are traveling in straight lines.
Please explain with a typical path. How ahout broadcast ones that are in the same place?How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?Satellites are traveling in straight lines.
Excuse for a long absenceNo worries, the longer the better.
How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?They are flying in a straight line over flat ground on a path that overtakes itself. This causes them not to crash.
They are flying in a straight line over flat ground on a path that overtakes itself.What do you mean by that?
Please explain how something flying in a straight line can overtake itself in flat space.How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?They are flying in a straight line over flat ground on a path that overtakes itself. This causes them not to crash.
GeodesicsThen you have to explain what mechanism can cause space to curve to that extent. Einstein's GR certainly does not.
The "shortness" and "straightness" of a line, interpreted as the property that the distance along the line between any two of its points is minimized (see triangle inequality), can be generalized and leads to the concept of geodesics in metric spaces.
Presuming the axioms of euclidean geometry are true this would be correct. They are not.No, they travel in circles or ellipses or other complicated paths. If they were traveling in a straight line, they wouldn't repeatedly go over the same point.How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?Satellites are traveling in straight lines.
If you are referring to geodesics in spacetime, they are not straight lines, but analogues of them.I am not.
Presuming the axioms of euclidean geometry are true this would be correct. They are not.Straight lines are part of Euclidean geometry.QuoteIf you are referring to geodesics in spacetime, they are not straight lines, but analogues of them.I am not.
Interestingly. I have not seen in the pictures of the radar of the sky the satellites GPS - which would fly along the meridians. Believing in a ball - explain this.Radar looks at low altitude, not space. The frequencies used typically get reflected by the ionosphere.
Depends on the RADAR.Interestingly. I have not seen in the pictures of the radar of the sky the satellites GPS - which would fly along the meridians. Believing in a ball - explain this.Radar looks at low altitude, not space. The frequencies used typically get reflected by the ionosphere.
Depends on the RADAR.Yes, there are ones designed to look at space, but most are not. I am assuming the ones he has seen are ones looking for planes.
Really? Because it sounds like I'm not referring to Euclidean straight lines.Presuming the axioms of euclidean geometry are true this would be correct. They are not.Straight lines are part of Euclidean geometry.QuoteIf you are referring to geodesics in spacetime, they are not straight lines, but analogues of them.I am not.
So if you are rejecting the axioms of Euclidean geometry you are not referring to straight lines.
Really? Because it sounds like I'm not referring to Euclidean straight lines.Straight lines are part of Euclidean geometry.
Surely, one could define straight line in other geometries.Then do so.
It needs not be shown. You are being pedantic and wrong.No. You are completely rejecting the definition of straight line as used by basically everyone.
Surely a straight line would lie level upon itself.Before wasting time quibbling over:
Surely a straight line would lie level upon itself.No. That would only be the case if the level was itself straight.
Radio amateurs shoot for themselves the radar of the sky. The photographs show geostationary satellites.Photographs aren't radar.
As if they also hang in place, like geostationary satellites.They don't. They go in several orbits, with a period of roughly half a day.
If they actually flew, we would see them in terms of brightness and size - about the same as the satellite that was moving.On what basis do you claim this?
You haven't given me enough to answer to that question. To restate it in different terms, a straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.Surely a straight line would lie level upon itself.No. That would only be the case if the level was itself straight.
Lying upon itself is also a questionable concept.
So what exactly do you mean by a "straight" line?
For example, is this line "straight"?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Circle_-_black_simple.svg)
It lies upon itself. It goes through the same point, so does that make it level?
You haven't given me enough to answer to that question. To restate it in different terms, a straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.What information are you missing? The line is the circumference of the circle.
The information I'm missing is too great to list. Saying its a circle is a good start. What do you mean by circle? What space is it in? Can I assume this is to scale? What coordinate system is in use in the diagram? How would I replicate this 'circle'? What axioms of geometry are at play in this system? and so on.You haven't given me enough to answer to that question. To restate it in different terms, a straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.What information are you missing? The line is the circumference of the circle.
This is why I wanted a nice clear explanation of what you mean by "straight line".
Can you provide a definition which can then be used to evaluate lines to determine if they are "straight"?
And I thought you weren't trying to use Euclid?
As said, you can evaluate whether or not a line is straight by determining if its points lie evenly.Considering how vague that statement is, I would say you can't.
You can determine straightness of a line AB relative to another point D by following this methodology:No, that isn't evidence at all.
Axiom:
A segment AB can be drawn joining any two points A and B.
Postulate:
Given segment AB and segment BC: A straight line AB can be drawn by extending line segment AB indefinitely such that each point D on line AB is on a line segment CD that is congruent and normal to CB and CA. The line AB will intersect each of its points at length of its period
Evidence this is manifest in nature follows from the satellite thought experiment, coherence with Newton's Laws, observed phenomenon, and the equivalence principle.