Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - inquisitive

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 170
1
Flat Earth General / Re: GPS
« on: March 09, 2020, 01:57:59 PM »
Q&A is not for debate.
Sorry, I'm not debating. I'm trying to understand the question. I see no reason GPS wouldn't work perfectly well on a flat earth.
How does a geostationary satellite maintain its position on a flat earth and where can we find the elevation and azimuth for a particular satellite from a particular location?

2
Flat Earth General / Re: GPS
« on: March 09, 2020, 01:55:48 PM »
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
This question applies to both orbiting and geostationary satellites.  Move to different forum?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Challenge
« on: February 29, 2020, 11:05:35 AM »
So given that the distance of the Moon has been measured very accurately by RE using a variety of methods including lasers radar ranging from a variety of sources, could you run it by me again as to how FE reaches a figure of 3000 miles please.
Measured by RE?  Surely just measured by engineers and scientists.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
« on: February 25, 2020, 01:00:04 PM »
Don't let me stop you, but what does this have to do with the original topic?

Original topic: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.
Fact: The Bible doesn't "prove" anything.
Conclusion: Might as well get back to arguing whether the Earth is flat or not.  ;)

Note: The Bible is not a coherent work. It is a collection of writings dating from about three thousand years ago to a little less than two thousand years ago. Like any good anthology of fantasy stories, different books within it say different things. None of it proves anything. But if you make the silly assumption that the entire Bible is Revealed Truthô, then you can find a passage to support pretty much any theory you wish to espouse.

At the time genesis was written, nobody knew anything about the shape of the Earth. By the time of Jesus and the N.T., educated people knew that the Earth is a ball, and they knew how big it is.
The Hebrews of the time knew more than you know now; that the earth is flat.
Seriously, how do you explain measured distances and where is your accurate, definitive map?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Double standards
« on: February 24, 2020, 10:58:34 AM »
It's explained here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Quote
The distance to the sun and the celestial bodies has been in some contention over the years. In Chapter 5 of Earth Not a Globe Samuel Birley Rowbotham computes the sun to be less than 700 miles above surface of the earth, and the stars contained within 1000 miles. Later researchers with the Universal Zetetic Society estimated the sun to be at about 3000 miles above the surface of the earth, with the stars at about 100 miles above that.

The distance to the celestial bodies is considered to be technically unknown due to confounding phenomena such as Electomagnetic Acceleration and the projection celestial bodies upon the atmolayer which prevents reliable straight line triangulation. However, it is commonly and informally thought that the celestial bodies are in a range of a few thousand miles above the surface of the earth, in line with our precursor organization.

The purpose of this page is to showcase the historic methods that have been used to determine the height of the sun and celestial bodies. More specifically, this page will show that the Round Earth distance to the sun, and therefore the size of the solar system, relies on the idea that the earth is a sphere. The triangulation method depends on an assumption about the shape of the earth.

When a method is developed which assess the distance under EA, it will likely supersede Lady Blount's figures.
Current measurement methods do not rely on the shape of the earth, they use the relative 3D positions of the measurement locations.

6
Firstly, wind can not affect an aircraft to cause two hours delay. Forget it, it is imposible.
Every actual pilot in the world would disagree. Direct contradicting example: There were a few flights just last week flying from New York to London that hit 200 mph tailwinds and arrived 2 hours earlier than scheduled. Flights in the opposite direction were late along the same route. Wind DOES affect airplanes in flight whether you agree or not.
No, they do not. Accepting or denying something does not cancel their driving licence. They are some flat earther pilots and they are in the category of every. How can it be? Stop to baseless claims, or your claims based on wrong pre acceptations.
Even a flat Earther pilot would agree that wind affects the aircraft.
Not all of them.
then they wouldn't be a good pilot. It is a basic fact that wind affects an aircraft in flight and is necessary to understand to be able to land. I'd challenge you to prove your "Not all of them" by naming some but I'm betting you'll ignore this.
No, they are best pilots. They are using flat earth routes and spending less fuel.

Who might theses pilots be? And how are they following flat earth routes when there is no such thing as a flat earth map?

There is one numerical map, here. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74162.0

Just because the map is not similar to other maps does not mean that it is not a map. I suggest better routes to pilots when they ask and they earn very well from this job. So far, no pilot has been the victim of these recommendations but benefited.

The effort put into your map notwithstanding, it's not something anyone could use to effectively plot a course, especially via the air. It's not just pilots who need to plot and calculate routes, other entities do as well, e.g., air traffic control. And ATC must do so across radar regions defined all over the world. Coordinated, controlled via maps. Maps that are not yours.

So there aren't any commercial pilots out there saying to ATC:

Pilot: This is BA117 from LHR en route to Munich contacting Frankfurt Tower
Frankfurt ATC: BA117, have you on scope
Pilot: Ok Frankfurt, we're following a map based upon a flat earth devised by a Turkish gentleman so our route will be a straight line from Heathrow to Munich regardless of wind, weather, parity in distance, or any other air traffic you need to coordinate. Copy?
Frankfurt ATC: BA117, copy that. We will divert all other globe earth traffic so as not to interfere with yours.

Saying that commercial pilots have used your map is a seeming virtual impossibility. Do you have any evidence of it?
there are flat earther pilots I know and they are constantly under pressure. therefore, I refuse to share personal information or any of related content. I have already shared it enough.

Of course, under pressure to use standardized maps/routes, etc., all based upon a globe earth. Because they have to. Commercial pilots and ATC around the world can't just be using whatever map suits their whimsy.

That being the point, you claimed, "They (flat earth pilots) are using flat earth routes and spending less fuel." which is the definition of a baseless claim.
I ask for evidence of your claim - There is none = Baseless claim.

Again, I applaud the effort you put into your map. But, unfortunately, the underlying methodology is deeply flawed and it has no real world application.

I cannot prove such a thing without informing about them. but there is proof that logic.

they go out of the radar area after a while, especially in ocean-going journeys. the next route is completely predictive. At this point, pilots can use the route they know if they want. this route may be suitable for the flat earth map. this information is evidence, but flight data is required for more details. there can not be an evidence of such a thing.
Passengers will be able to track and record their route using a smartphone or GNSS receiver.  Do you have details of such a record?

7
You could ask Scepti about nuclear power stations if you want to understand how he thinks.

8
Some people just get on and do things and don't worry about what type of reasoning they are using.

9
Why do some people have problems understanding how we make maps and models of all or part of the world?  It is an established process.

Key is that the measurements are repeatable and accurate.  GPS helps with this.

Any questions can be answered by looking up cartography.  Amy issues, please give details of the link that you do not understand.

10
Most people would be confident the shape of the earth was determined by accurate measurement.
These accurate measurements rely upon inductive reasoning.

Again, most people would be confident that inductive reasoning works.

do you think the map of France was determined through inductive reasoning
Yes, or at least techniques which use it.

How do you think the map was produced?
By agreeing a technique of measuring distances and angles and plotting on paper.  Clearly the path of the sun shows that the earth is round.

11
Not true.
Care to elaborate?
What part wasn't true, and why isn't it true?

Most if not all parameters of the earth have been discovered  Via observation and experimentation with no inductive reasoning required. Itís total rubbish to say that the earth is a sphere based only or even partly on inductive reasoning.
And what observations or experiments were they?
What was the basis for that conclusion?

Please explain how these conclusions were reached, without needing any inductive reasoning.

Regardless, that is all in the past. It is only by inductive reasoning that you can claim it is still that way.

Again, it is based upon inductive reasoning, and for most people there is nothing wrong with that.
Most people would be confident the shape of the earth was determined by accurate measurement.

12
Producing an accurate model of the earth has been studied for many years and the WGS84 produced by scientists and engineers has been shown to be correct and therefore used for navigation etc.
The point he is making is that it has been shown to work, not be correct.
Technically with science nothing can be shown (i.e. proven) to be correct. Instead we can only show that it works to describe reality.

Most people would accept that it is correct, but John Davis likes saying we can't possibly know anything (at least anything that supports the RE) as everything is built up by inductive reasoning.
All a bit sad that he can spend time saying the shape of this big rock we live on is unknown.

13
It's a fine enough projection, but like any projection it doesn't necessarily match reality.
In what way?  Seems to work OK with eg. GPNSS everywhere.
It may provide a mathematically accurate way to predict certain phenomena, but that does not mean it is an accurate model of the earth. One can construct infinitely many as accurate projections and models that have equal predictive and historical confirmation powers, which leads any reasonable person to come to the conclusion that it is not necessarily a correct way to look at reality simply because it holds these traits. It must be shown that these infinitely many other views are incorrect to take it on face value that it is the correct representation.

This proves difficult.
It does not 'predict' certain 'phenomena'. It is an accurate model of the earth, agreed and used internationally.

Can you please provide details of an accurate alternative that has the correct distances, maybe even a map of a flat earth.

That's not now things work, we do not prove everything we might come up with is wrong before we know what is correct.  However, nice try to confuse the discussion, millions base their navigation etc. on the WGS84 model and it works.  As requested, where are the errors in it?
That may not be how you work, but if you aren't working in such a way you have no logical basis to say your view is correct and this other one is not. In fact, people smarter than myself (yes, I was surprised they exist too!), founded science on this very basis; on the columns of empiricism. You are taking science and dragging it back to the stupid ages so that it can talk to you like an oracle.

Hell before even then. Even Plato had his cave.

I have no need to show the details of such a model; I am arguing against the method not the specific now. To see that any mathematical equation could be altered in a minor way and provide evidence that fits the same data set, altered greatly and fits the same dataset, or even have the same equation and be interpreted differently is not a point of contention amongst anyone. This is why we have things like "Ockham's Razor" and "Russel's Teapot."

Unfortunately, they rely entirely upon happenstance, fashion, and 'good feelings' rather than any sort of methodological, metalogical, or logical basis. They simply appealed to people at the time, and thus now.

Let's take a stupid example: curve fitting an equation over some points. Obviously, when one curve fits they can choose less than ideal parameters such that the curve has a very low period or they can choose it such that it fits closest. Both these are as valid for the same set of data. Honestly its elementary to show that there are infinite such other functions etc that might fulfill a data set.

So, given this is obviously the case, and given any amount of time I could construct more refined methods to produce similar results, I must wonder what your point is; why should we stick with WGS84 -

Is it because you happened to find it first? A temporal fallacy.
Is it because it is as you "agreed and used internationally"?  That raises some interesting questions of its own. Should we decree my law pi is 3, does that make it so?

Sorry for dumping the tea out of your teapot, but is there no rational reasonable reason for me assume it is "an accurate" model of earth, aside from "predicting" certain "phenomenae"? I see a lot of handwaving and stating "oh oh ho, that's the way things are done" and little justification or evidence that this is how they actually are done or that it should be done that way.

Given that there are infinite such views that fit empirical data equally, two reasonable choices are certain: decision cannot be made which is "accurate" or represents the true nature of things. There is a nominalism to math which is often ignored which is starkly separated by a line of interpretation from the story it is sold by. I can use the exact same mathematics for something, and say fae pull things about rather than time being warped and it is equally valid. Attempts might be made to show it requires more axioms, but in reality we are just trading one axiom for another, which is really just hiding our ignorance.
I am not saying my view is correct.  Producing an accurate model of the earth has been studied for many years and the WGS84 produced by scientists and engineers has been shown to be correct and therefore used for navigation etc.

Equations are nothing to do with producing a model of the earth.

Do you have a method to produce maps, from 1:500 upwards?  Do you agree that we know the distances between different points on earth that confirm a round earth?

14
It's a fine enough projection, but like any projection it doesn't necessarily match reality.
In what way?  Seems to work OK with eg. GPNSS everywhere.
It may provide a mathematically accurate way to predict certain phenomena, but that does not mean it is an accurate model of the earth. One can construct infinitely many as accurate projections and models that have equal predictive and historical confirmation powers, which leads any reasonable person to come to the conclusion that it is not necessarily a correct way to look at reality simply because it holds these traits. It must be shown that these infinitely many other views are incorrect to take it on face value that it is the correct representation.

This proves difficult.
It does not 'predict' certain 'phenomena'. It is an accurate model of the earth, agreed and used internationally.

What does 'have equal predictive and historical confirmation powers' mean, why do you write in this way, it does not make what you say any more correct.

Can you please provide details of an accurate alternative that has the correct distances, maybe even a map of a flat earth.

That's not now things work, we do not prove everything we might come up with is wrong before we know what is correct.  However, nice try to confuse the discussion, millions base their navigation etc. on the WGS84 model and it works.  As requested, where are the errors in it?

15
It's a fine enough projection, but like any projection it doesn't necessarily match reality.
In what way?  Seems to work OK with eg. GPNSS everywhere.

16
Nice. Glad to see it was replicated by a round earther. Usually makes the discussion part of it all a bit easier.
Well it should make it easier, with you admitting it is a projection of a round Earth.
It can be a projection of two things.

Quote
But you want to keep up the pretence of it magically being flat.

But if it was flat, then you wouldn't need any special projection, you would just scale it down.
This is only true assuming Euclid was correct. We know he was not.

Quote
Tom had a comment around this being basically a dipolar projection; I'm not sure I agree.
Yes, because it is a projection of a sphere, which has 2 poles.
The 2 small pluses in your diagram are the 2 poles.
The difference being the rest of the space. If you refresh yourself with Wilmores projection, you'll see the difference instantly - namely a bunch of water.
What's the problem with the WGS84 model?

17
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.
I think Sceppy has given up:

Thats too bad, :( I was really hoping sceptimatic would finally try to explain the force that pushes a rocket in his world.  Probably something to do with a sloshing, stacked, atmosphere, but you cant discount that maybe his magic crystal at the center of the (flat) world was involved?
Just as soon as a global Earth rocket scientist shows me how their rocket works by making it clear and obvious as to what is happening to get it from atmosphere into space, as we're told space is supposed to  be.

Yet nobody seems to know. I wonder why that is?
Why not look it up, not difficult.  No need to show you here.

How about you find a link and explain why you disagree with it.

18
I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.
I find it odd that you people don't question the nonsense of space rockets.
'We' know that they get 'our' satellites into orbit so we can watch TV and navigate.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Are these forums controlled opposition?
« on: January 19, 2020, 11:25:08 AM »
Each fe'er has its own view, it has its own theory. every fe'er, although he thinks differently, respects the thoughts of other fe'ers. Since it is not easy to meet at a common point, most of the topics do not have consensus. If there was a consensus on any subject, one of them would come out and object to it. Essentially, fe'ers are conspiracy theorists, and therefore they constantly produce conspiracy theory about everything and each other. just like I thought John Davis is working with the FBI about  and he was thinking me working with Elon Musk. Even if we would working side by side in the same office, we would produce such theories about each other. The situation with others is no different. Sandokhan, Sceptimatic, Tom Bishop, they may all be agents. I think most of the FEs out of this society are working for NASA and trying to show our society is bad.

Even so, we are always trying to support each other. but unfortunately there is always a group out there that says we are controlled opposition.
Why can 'you' not find an agreed way to produce an accurate map or model of the earth?

20
You were given many diagrams.
We re all still.waiting for you to provide the one diagram showing what pushes on the rocket  to lift it..

Keep on dodging.
200 here we come.
Are you afraid to do a diagram or can't you do a diagram because you actually have no clue how in the hell your rocket is supposed to work?

This should be meat and drink to you and people like you, yet everyone shy's away.
Let's see what you can produce or let's see what your like minded friends can produce.
Plenty of explanations of how rockets work online. Why the obsession with people here explaining?

21
Apparently scepti doesn't realize that his "slosh effect" is an example of inertia.
In your own words explain what inertia is or does.

Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.
If you what to know look it up, this will save a lot of your time.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth
« on: January 16, 2020, 06:46:15 AM »
Hi! I am a person who actually believes in round earth! I come in peace. I don't want to harass or interrogate anyone. I just want to know what made you believe in flat earth or why you believe in it! I promise to be as respectful as possible. Thank you!

-Frank
Back to the OP at hand (despite the typical derailment tactics practiced by RE -adherents here at theflatearthsociety.org forum)...

I am a convert to FE because of one simple, undeniable fact.

The earth looks flat to me.

The above statement also serves as to the why I believe the earth to be flat.

Thank you.
Fine, but you are wrong.  Check measured distances.
Could you point out where in your post one could find anything relative to the questions posed by the OP?

Thanks.
Your answer is relevant to understanding the value of your reply.

23
Ues
The end result would be the same as the denp thread and the ballistic thread.
You ask questions and string people along with no intention of listening or producing your own counter points.
Merely waving it away witha "dupe" or a "nu-uh".

Draw the arrows.
I seem to see all that with you people.
Draw your diagram on how your space rocket works.
Plenty of information available online, please find and comment.

It's not just some sort of game with others on an internet forum that you play, it's about actual science and engineering facts.

24
Can you draw the damn arrows?

Or explain why you don't need them.
I donít think he can. Would have done so already, if able.
I can but can you draw one showing your space rocket and how it works.
Your diagram not a simple copy and paste of some diagram that shows nothing.

Over to you.
You don't need people here to explain, just look online for the answer and come back with what you think is right or wrong.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth
« on: January 15, 2020, 01:13:20 PM »
RE says that when the sun is touching the horizon that it is already below it.
Yes, with well understood physics, backed up by plenty of evidence.
And the difference due to refraction is also quite small.
Meanwhile FE has no explanation at all and instead just appeals to wilful ignorance and wild speculation which contradictions the other "evidence" they claim shows Earth is flat.

Kindly link or post the direct experimental evidence that the sun is below the horizon when we observe that it is touching the horizon.
What do you not understand about the path of the sun relative to the earth? Very well documented and proven.

Unlike the non-existant map that shows the earth is flat, unless you can provide a link.

26

Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course.  Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Explain it.
There are many you can find online.

https://www.indypl.org/blog/for-kids/science-experiment-newtons-first-law-of-motion

Are you saying that you have discovered that science as used and taught is wrong?  Who agrees with you?
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Who agrees with you?

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth
« on: January 15, 2020, 09:16:28 AM »
Hi! I am a person who actually believes in round earth! I come in peace. I don't want to harass or interrogate anyone. I just want to know what made you believe in flat earth or why you believe in it! I promise to be as respectful as possible. Thank you!

-Frank
Back to the OP at hand (despite the typical derailment tactics practiced by RE -adherents here at theflatearthsociety.org forum)...

I am a convert to FE because of one simple, undeniable fact.

The earth looks flat to me.

The above statement also serves as to the why I believe the earth to be flat.

Thank you.
Fine, but you are wrong.  Check measured distances.

28

Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course.  Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Explain it.
There are many you can find online.

https://www.indypl.org/blog/for-kids/science-experiment-newtons-first-law-of-motion

Are you saying that you have discovered that science as used and taught is wrong?  Who agrees with you?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Challenge
« on: January 14, 2020, 03:01:48 PM »
Actually the challenge was to show that RE can prove itself, which it has utterly failed.

We were supposed to see something that RE beats FE on, and here you are abandoning that, and instead demanding that we prove something about FE. Fail.
How about measured distances, travel times, path of the sun, satellite operation, accurate maps using projections, WGS84 model?

30
In short we know nothing about the shape of the earth. All we have managed to do is figure out the period of sin. I may need to revise my thoughts on mathematical nominalism.
I thought measured distances, satellites etc. prove the shape of the earth. Not least, the WGS84 model used for navigation and mapping.

Am I missing something?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 170