The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Voyaging on June 29, 2012, 04:48:03 PM
-
If Earth were not an oblate spheroid (which is the overwhelming, if not unanimous belief of the scientific community), planes would not be able to accurately gauge their location. The curvature of Earth is fundamentally crucial in plane GPS systems. If Earth were flat, GPS would be incredibly inaccurate, and planes would not reach their destination.
But planes do, therefore Earth is not flat. More information here: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/gislis96.html (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/gislis96.html)
Further proof: objects at the equator are heavier than objects elsewhere on Earth. This would not make sense in a flat-earth model, therefore Earth is not flat.
-
FYI, I removed your identical post in the other thread. We discourage duplicate posting here.
-
FYI, I removed your identical post in the other thread. We discourage duplicate posting here.
I had removed the sections of that post that correlated with this one. The deletion was unnecessary, as that post had entirely different content than this.
-
If Earth were not an oblate spheroid (which is the overwhelming, if not unanimous belief of the scientific community), planes would not be able to accurately gauge their location. The curvature of Earth is fundamentally crucial in plane GPS systems. If Earth were flat, GPS would be incredibly inaccurate, and planes would not reach their destination.
Incorrect. This is as biased and silly as the fellow who claimed GPS only works with satellites. Also, it does not constitute as evidence. You can not say "this would not work on a flat
Earth, because the Earth is round." You are self-validating, which is fallacious.
Further proof: objects at the equator are heavier than objects elsewhere on Earth. This would not make sense in a flat-earth model, therefore Earth is not flat.
Well, for one, RET claims you will weigh less at the equator, not more. Second, no, that doesn't really happen. "This object weighs 0.001 here than it does on the north pole!" is not valid in any way, shape, or form.
-
If Earth were not an oblate spheroid (which is the overwhelming, if not unanimous belief of the scientific community), planes would not be able to accurately gauge their location. The curvature of Earth is fundamentally crucial in plane GPS systems. If Earth were flat, GPS would be incredibly inaccurate, and planes would not reach their destination.
Incorrect. This is as biased and silly as the fellow who claimed GPS only works with satellites. Also, it does not constitute as evidence. You can not say "this would not work on a flat
Earth, because the Earth is round." You are self-validating, which is fallacious.
As a pilot, I should presume my expertise on the workings of GPS systems are vastly superior to yours and your claim that GPS does not rely on our accurate assessment of the curvature of Earth is, quite simply, false. I daresay you have no idea at all how aircraft GPS systems work.
Well, for one, RET claims you will weigh less at the equator, not more. Second, no, that doesn't really happen. "This object weighs 0.001 here than it does on the north pole!" is not valid in any way, shape, or form.
My mistake, but regardless the weight changes. The difference is non-arbitrary (an object weighing 1000g at a pole will weigh roughly 996g at the equator). Do you also reject that scales work properly?
-
FYI, I removed your identical post in the other thread. We discourage duplicate posting here.
I had removed the sections of that post that correlated with this one. The deletion was unnecessary, as that post had entirely different content than this.
No, they were exactly the same (I saw them, remember?) Also disputing moderation in this subforum is against the rules; please make a thread in Suggestions and Concerns if you wish to discuss this further.
-
As a pilot, I should presume my expertise on the workings of GPS systems are vastly superior to yours and your claim that GPS does not rely on our accurate assessment of the curvature of Earth is, quite simply, false. I daresay you have no idea at all how aircraft GPS systems work.
A GPS in a car works just like GPS in a Cessna. In fact, the car GPS is more accurate. Also, an appeal to authority fallacy, and a terrible one at that.
My mistake, but regardless the weight changes. The difference is non-arbitrary (an object weighing 1000g at a pole will weigh roughly 996g at the equator). Do you also reject that scales work properly?
It is assumed that because the Earth is round, the weight changes. No one has ever done a controlled experiment to test normal force changes varying from the north pole to the equator. You quite literally made it up.
-
FYI, I removed your identical post in the other thread. We discourage duplicate posting here.
I had removed the sections of that post that correlated with this one. The deletion was unnecessary, as that post had entirely different content than this.
No, they were exactly the same (I saw them, remember?) Also disputing moderation in this subforum is against the rules; please make a thread in Suggestions and Concerns if you wish to discuss this further.
Well you're wrong, because I modified the post (it was one-line and I have recreated it). I transferred some of the information to this new thread then deleted it from the post.
A GPS in a car works just like GPS in a Cessna. In fact, the car GPS is more accurate. Also, an appeal to authority fallacy, and a terrible one at that.
No, it doesn't, which was why the fact that I understand GPS and you don't is very relevant. If we had an argument about whether or not a Greek passage said a certain thing, but only one of us spoke Greek, that person is vastly more likely to be correct.
The GPS must take into account the curvature of Earth to prevent profound inaccuracy.
It is assumed that because the Earth is round, the weight changes. No one has ever done a controlled experiment to test normal force changes varying from the north pole to the equator. You quite literally made it up.
It has been done and I will find sources.
-
No, it doesn't, which was why the fact that I understand GPS and you don't is very relevant. If we had an argument about whether or not a Greek passage said a certain thing, but only one of us spoke Greek, that person is vastly more likely to be correct.
GPS' don't need to take any curvature into account. Why would they? They are simply performing advanced triangulation. Also, pilots are just glorified truck drivers. You don't know any more about how that GPS works than a man driving an 18-wheeler knows the exact operations of a diesel engine.
The GPS must take into account the curvature of Earth to prevent profound inaccuracy.
Incorrect.
It has been done and I will find sources.
I'll take this as a concession until such a time arrives.
-
I had removed the sections of that post that correlated with this one. The deletion was unnecessary, as that post had entirely different content than this.
Again, please note that there is a forum for this kind of thing and consider this a warning.
-
No, it doesn't, which was why the fact that I understand GPS and you don't is very relevant. If we had an argument about whether or not a Greek passage said a certain thing, but only one of us spoke Greek, that person is vastly more likely to be correct.
GPS' don't need to take any curvature into account. Why would they? They are simply performing advanced triangulation. Also, pilots are just glorified truck drivers. You don't know any more about how that GPS works than a man driving an 18-wheeler knows the exact operations of a diesel engine.
The angles of triangulation on a spheroid are far different than they are on a flat surface.
Your statement about pilots is demeaning of your own character as you are clearly ignorant to the knowledge that pilots must have to operate their navigation systems (which work far differently than you seem to think). This is irrelevant to the argument, just wanted to make the statement.
I had removed the sections of that post that correlated with this one. The deletion was unnecessary, as that post had entirely different content than this.
Again, please note that there is a forum for this kind of thing and consider this a warning.
Gotcha.
-
Your statement about pilots is demeaning of your own character as you are clearly ignorant to the knowledge that pilots must have to operate their navigation systems (which work far differently than you seem to think). This is irrelevant to the argument, just wanted to make the statement.
The only evidence you have provided so far seems to comprise of "I know more than you do" and "you're just wrong!" Fascinating, to say the least.
-
Your statement about pilots is demeaning of your own character as you are clearly ignorant to the knowledge that pilots must have to operate their navigation systems (which work far differently than you seem to think). This is irrelevant to the argument, just wanted to make the statement.
The only evidence you have provided so far seems to comprise of "I know more than you do" and "you're just wrong!" Fascinating, to say the least.
My statement that triangulation works differently on a spheroid than a flat surface, and the fact that GPS systems use triangulation is not evidence? You admitted yourself that GPS systems use triangulation. Are you arguing with geometric fact?
-
Your statement about pilots is demeaning of your own character as you are clearly ignorant to the knowledge that pilots must have to operate their navigation systems (which work far differently than you seem to think). This is irrelevant to the argument, just wanted to make the statement.
The only evidence you have provided so far seems to comprise of "I know more than you do" and "you're just wrong!" Fascinating, to say the least.
My statement that triangulation works differently on a spheroid than a flat surface, and the fact that GPS systems use triangulation is not evidence? You admitted yourself that GPS systems use triangulation. Are you arguing with geometric fact?
The triangulation does not require any supposed curvature. That is why it is called triangulation, it uses trigonometry. Good luck finding the very sought after "curved triangle".
-
Your statement about pilots is demeaning of your own character as you are clearly ignorant to the knowledge that pilots must have to operate their navigation systems (which work far differently than you seem to think). This is irrelevant to the argument, just wanted to make the statement.
The only evidence you have provided so far seems to comprise of "I know more than you do" and "you're just wrong!" Fascinating, to say the least.
My statement that triangulation works differently on a spheroid than a flat surface, and the fact that GPS systems use triangulation is not evidence? You admitted yourself that GPS systems use triangulation. Are you arguing with geometric fact?
The triangulation does not require any supposed curvature. That is why it is called triangulation, it uses trigonometry. Good luck finding the very sought after "curved triangle".
Thanks, but I don't need luck, the mathematicians and designers of aircraft GPS systems did the work for us by determining how triangles work on spherical or spheroidal objects. Do some research on spherical and elliptic geometry.
-
Good luck finding the very sought after "curved triangle".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry)
-
Good luck finding the very sought after "curved triangle".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry)
Ah, so the GPS satellites use signals that go straight through the Earth? Are you sure you know what you posted?
-
Good luck finding the very sought after "curved triangle".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_trigonometry)
Ah, so the GPS satellites use signals that go straight through the Earth? Are you sure you know what you posted?
No, they don't. I believe you are the one unable to understand it.
-
GPS' don't need to take any curvature into account. Why would they? They are simply performing advanced triangulation.
Just as an FYI, GPS does not use triangulation. It uses trilateration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration)
-
GPS' don't need to take any curvature into account. Why would they? They are simply performing advanced triangulation.
Just as an FYI, GPS does not use triangulation. It uses trilateration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration)
Ah this is in fact correct, thank you.
Are you a proponent of FET?
-
Are you a proponent of FET?
I'm a proponent of the truth.
-
Are you a proponent of FET?
I'm a proponent of the truth.
Which is why I ask what you consider the truth of the shape of Earth to be.
-
Apparently, there are individuals who don't understand how GPS's work. Just as a simple method of explanation, a GPS finds your location when there is an unobstructed line of sight to four or more GPS satellites. I fail to see how this would be possible with a flat earth. Without a spherical body to orbit, a satellite could not remain in space, and the entire system would not work.
This is as biased and silly as the fellow who claimed GPS only works with satellites
Please elaborate
-
If you think GPS would work without satellites, please explain how.
In the mean time, I will offer an explanations. Towers, the height of which was in excess of 30 km. I have not seen any of these around, and they would have to be quite bulky to support themselves at that height. Seems like a hard thing to keep hidden.
-
It interests me that every GPS manufacturer has to be in on the conspiracy. Not just the US government.
If the GPS system relied on Earth based towers, it would never be able to determine the user's elevation (valid 3D position fix).
Also, the towers would have to cover the Earth completely.
-
It interests me that every GPS manufacturer has to be in on the conspiracy. Not just the US government.
If the GPS system relied on Earth based towers, it would never be able to determine the user's elevation (valid 3D position fix).
Also, the towers would have to cover the Earth completely.
And the sea.
-
It interests me that every GPS manufacturer has to be in on the conspiracy. Not just the US government.
If the GPS system relied on Earth based towers, it would never be able to determine the user's elevation (valid 3D position fix).
Also, the towers would have to cover the Earth completely.
And the sea.
If I remember correctly, FE has said (Tom more specifically, dont quote me on that can't remember exactly) that the LORAN-C towers where used. That is flase though because LORAN-C towers are all shut down and not in use anymore (at least in the united states)
DGPS does use any tower that can receive and send a signal to give a more accurate position. Still, GPS is a pretty straight forward system. Not hard to see how it works and why it must use satellites.
-
It interests me that every GPS manufacturer has to be in on the conspiracy. Not just the US government.
If the GPS system relied on Earth based towers, it would never be able to determine the user's elevation (valid 3D position fix).
Also, the towers would have to cover the Earth completely.
And the sea.
If I remember correctly, FE has said (Tom more specifically, dont quote me on that can't remember exactly) that the LORAN-C towers where used. That is flase though because LORAN-C towers are all shut down and not in use anymore (at least in the united states)
DGPS does use any tower that can receive and send a signal to give a more accurate position. Still, GPS is a pretty straight forward system. Not hard to see how it works and why it must use satellites.
Loran-C was decommissioned and was likely upgraded to eLoran, which can simulate GPS signals.
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/1571 (http://www.insidegnss.com/node/1571)
Among the IAT’s key findings: “eLoran is the only cost-effective backup for national needs; it is completely interoperable with and independent of GPS, with different propagation and failure mechanisms, plus significantly superior robustness to radio frequency interference and jamming.”
-
It interests me that every GPS manufacturer has to be in on the conspiracy. Not just the US government.
If the GPS system relied on Earth based towers, it would never be able to determine the user's elevation (valid 3D position fix).
Also, the towers would have to cover the Earth completely.
And the sea.
If I remember correctly, FE has said (Tom more specifically, dont quote me on that can't remember exactly) that the LORAN-C towers where used. That is flase though because LORAN-C towers are all shut down and not in use anymore (at least in the united states)
DGPS does use any tower that can receive and send a signal to give a more accurate position. Still, GPS is a pretty straight forward system. Not hard to see how it works and why it must use satellites.
Loran-C was decommissioned and was likely upgraded to eLoran, which can simulate GPS signals.
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/1571 (http://www.insidegnss.com/node/1571)
Among the IAT’s key findings: “eLoran is the only cost-effective backup for national needs; it is completely interoperable with and independent of GPS, with different propagation and failure mechanisms, plus significantly superior robustness to radio frequency interference and jamming.”
Why don't you read the article before posting? eLoran isn't used actually for GPS signals. Its satellites. You know things high in the sky that a lot of people can detect but you.
-
It interests me that every GPS manufacturer has to be in on the conspiracy. Not just the US government.
If the GPS system relied on Earth based towers, it would never be able to determine the user's elevation (valid 3D position fix).
Also, the towers would have to cover the Earth completely.
It's pretty clear you haven't read this (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.0) yet. It's not as ludicrous as you think. I'm also confused by your assumption that the U.S. government would be the ones in charge of this conspiracy. I'm not really sure what they have to do with anything.
As for your second point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudolite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudolite) This is referred to in the F.A.Q. as well. Towers DO cover the Earth, and with these towers, you can effectively achieve the exact same result. If satellites were so incredibly important, why do companies like Ericcson (http://www.ericsson.com/us) and Cisco (http://www.cisco.com/) spend so much money on building towers and ground-based infrastructure and not invest solely in satellites?
~D-Draw
-
Why don't you read the article before posting? eLoran isn't used actually for GPS signals. Its satellites. You know things high in the sky that a lot of people can detect but you.
That's the cover story.
-
As for your second point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudolite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudolite) This is referred to in the F.A.Q. as well. Towers DO cover the Earth, and with these towers, you can effectively achieve the exact same result. If satellites were so incredibly important, why do companies like Ericcson (http://www.ericsson.com/us) and Cisco (http://www.cisco.com/) spend so much money on building towers and ground-based infrastructure and not invest solely in satellites?
Let me butt in and note that you can in fact see and photograph geostationary satellites. I've linked to a site previously that shows you exactly how to do it. I could look for it but you probably won't read it, so why bother?
Secondly, do you mean cell phone towers? Satellites wouldn't work well for cell phones. It takes a lot more energy to send information all the way to a satellite than to a nearby tower, and the satellite would have to be able to handle data from however many tens of thousands of people it would be covering in an area. They're also pretty expensive to launch.
And no, towers don't cover the earth, not the oceans, not huge remote areas. That's a ridiculous thing to say.
-
Let me butt in and note that you can in fact see and photograph geostationary satellites. I've linked to a site previously that shows you exactly how to do it. I could look for it but you probably won't read it, so why bother?
You mean you can photograph tiny white dots in the sky can call them satellites.
-
Let me butt in and note that you can in fact see and photograph geostationary satellites. I've linked to a site previously that shows you exactly how to do it. I could look for it but you probably won't read it, so why bother?
You mean you can photograph white dots in the sky.
And calculate their height, which you're far too lazy to actually do.
-
Let me butt in and note that you can in fact see and photograph geostationary satellites. I've linked to a site previously that shows you exactly how to do it. I could look for it but you probably won't read it, so why bother?
You mean you can photograph white dots in the sky.
And calculate their height, which you're far too lazy to actually do.
Since you have an abundance of free time to post here, perhaps you can calculate one for us.
-
Let me butt in and note that you can in fact see and photograph geostationary satellites. I've linked to a site previously that shows you exactly how to do it. I could look for it but you probably won't read it, so why bother?
You mean you can photograph white dots in the sky.
And calculate their height, which you're far too lazy to actually do.
Since you have an abundance of free time to post here, perhaps you can calculate one for us.
And get a one-line response like this one for the effort? You'll never believe anyone else's work, and you'll never do it yourself because you're not actually interested in investigating this matter.
Also, it's already been done. Feel free to use the search function.
-
And get a one-line response like this one for the effort? You'll never believe anyone else's work, and you'll never do it yourself because you're not actually interested in investigating this matter.
Also, it's already been done. Feel free to use the search function.
I believe in most works which aren't authored by NASA.
Show me where its been done.
-
It's never been done on this site. I was thinking of the ISS, not geostationary satellites.
If you're willing to trust the data, not from NASA, on where to look to find geostationary satellites we could probably calculate their height from that. I'd need to re-find the site, though, and once again I know all this effort will get me is a one-line response.
I'd be willing to try if people other than you are interested, though.
-
It's never been done on this site. I was thinking of the ISS, not geostationary satellites.
If you're willing to trust the data, not from NASA, on where to look to find geostationary satellites we could probably calculate their height from that. I'd need to re-find the site, though, and once again I know all this effort will get me is a one-line response.
I'd be willing to try if people other than you are interested, though.
I am extremely interested.
~D-Draw
-
I am extremely interested.
~D-Draw
Wonderful, we can get to work then.
-
I am extremely interested.
~D-Draw
Wonderful, we can get to work then.
I eagerly await your results.
~D-Draw
-
I eagerly await you not being a smarmy prick. I think we have enough of those already.
Anyway, I've tracked down the satellite photography site I linked to previously, if you'd like to have a look at it.
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/pr0106.html (http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/pr0106.html)
-
I eagerly await you not being a smarmy prick. I think we have enough of those already.
Anyway, I've tracked down the satellite photography site I linked to previously, if you'd like to have a look at it.
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/pr0106.html (http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/pr0106.html)
I'm not being smarmy, and ad hominem is completely unnecessary. I think I'm being quite reasonable. The site you provided is about photographing satellites, not about calculating our approximate distance to them.
~D-Draw
-
The site you provided is about photographing satellites, not about calculating our approximate distance to them.
Amazing observation. We can use this data to attempt to calculate their height, though.
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/0106images.html (http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/0106images.html) Shows some satellites and a streak that's the orion nebula. The picture was taken January 3, 2001 in Kitt Peak, AZ.
If we can find out at what angle the orion nebula was in the sky that night in Arizona we can start getting somewhere.
-
The site you provided is about photographing satellites, not about calculating our approximate distance to them.
Amazing observation. We can use this data to attempt to calculate their height, though.
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/0106images.html (http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/0106images.html) Shows some satellites and a streak that's the orion nebula. The picture was taken January 3, 2001 in Kitt Peak, AZ.
If we can find out at what angle the orion nebula was in the sky that night in Arizona we can start getting somewhere.
This is beyond my mathematical expertise, so if you know how to do it, I am interested to see your results.
~D-Draw
-
I installed stellarium, and it's telling me that on that night in Kitt Peak, Arizona, the orion nebula was at an angle of around 50 degrees when it would have been traveling nearly horizontally as shown in the picture. At that time, it appeared almost directly south, also, so it seems that whoever took the picture did it just by pointing their camera south and letting it take a long exposure.
This is where it gets dicey, though, because I'm guessing that Tom isn't going to accept that these objects are hovering over the equator.
-
If Earth were not an oblate spheroid (which is the overwhelming, if not unanimous belief of the scientific community), planes would not be able to accurately gauge their location. The curvature of Earth is fundamentally crucial in plane GPS systems. If Earth were flat, GPS would be incredibly inaccurate, and planes would not reach their destination.
But planes do, therefore Earth is not flat. More information here: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/gislis96.html (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/gislis96.html)
Further proof: objects at the equator are heavier than objects elsewhere on Earth. This would not make sense in a flat-earth model, therefore Earth is not flat.
I used to use flat maps to drive around. When I got where I was trying to go using them, I didn't claim it as evidence that round earth was false.
-
If Earth were not an oblate spheroid (which is the overwhelming, if not unanimous belief of the scientific community), planes would not be able to accurately gauge their location. The curvature of Earth is fundamentally crucial in plane GPS systems. If Earth were flat, GPS would be incredibly inaccurate, and planes would not reach their destination.
But planes do, therefore Earth is not flat. More information here: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/gislis96.html (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/gislis96.html)
Further proof: objects at the equator are heavier than objects elsewhere on Earth. This would not make sense in a flat-earth model, therefore Earth is not flat.
I used to use flat maps to drive around. When I got where I was trying to go using them, I didn't claim it as evidence that round earth was false.
I would be willing to bet that it's very hard to represent a sphere on a piece of paper. So if one were to try and do it, I guess the best option would be to draw in features as close to scale as possible.
-
When we use charts,maps, or what ever we have to work in the math to travel in the actual direction we want because we are, of course, not traveling exactly how we are on that map or chart we use.
I poke fun at this in my other thread busting out all sorts of nonsense. In the end as a navigator the Earth can not be flat at all. Nothing would work correctly (well not everything, but a large majority of stuff would not work correctly)
-
But boaty, aren't you an FE proponent?
-
And still! We have no explanation for the huge discrepancy in the calculated distance between Sydney and Adelaide under the Flat Earth Hypothesis and the measured distance in the REAL WORLD.
Flat Earth Hypothesis? Calculated by determining the circumference of the disk at the latitude of the two cities and then the ratio of the circumference against the longitude delta between the two cities.
Flat Earth Hypothesis calculation: 1878 miles (3005 km)
Real world. Maps are published with this info. These maps are used EVERY DAY by people traveling about Australia.
Real World: 740 miles (1184 km)
I've now seen this exact post in two different threads. Word for word.
-
I would be willing to bet that it's very hard to represent a sphere on a piece of paper. So if one were to try and do it, I guess the best option would be to draw in features as close to scale as possible.
Precisely. The difference between the two navigation systems wouldn't affect the traveler. User locations are constantly self-correcting given whatever model you use. Compass bearings, landmarks, roads and intersections all reaffirm where we are. They are not going to notice infinitesimal distortion differences in their navigation equipment contrasted with their their trip. Same goes for using 2D map data and grafting it onto a spherical model (like Google Earth).