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 - airwingmarine

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth map
« on: August 19, 2008, 06:29:45 PM »
your author here has never navigated any further than from his couch to his bathroom in his life if he thinks any of that is actually true.  When you fly 2500 miles across the water with no visual refrence and no GPS, using only gyroscopic tools, magnetic compases, and charts and can fly directly to an island about 2 miles long (Kwajalien Atoll) I'm goan stick with those rules.  If I tried to follow his, we'd run out of gas and end up having to test if a KC-130 floats.....

Dude I needed your help over on this thread...

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22288.20

I didn't wana dable around in that.  I didn't even understand most of what people were asking and you did as good of a job as I could.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the earth is flat explain this to me Part 2
« on: August 18, 2008, 01:02:59 PM »
Especially over water, as there are no land based nav beacons and or points of reference.
So how does that work, then?

I wish my Nav buddy was still around he could explain it way better than I am about to attempt, but here goes.

Every couple of years there would be a book published.  Inside that book was angles of all the stars and sun and moon on any given day, say today at 12 noon at Kaneohe Bay HI the sun should be at x angle above the horizon from this spot, at 1203 it should be at x angle, and at 1206 it would be at x angle.  By having all three of the those angles I could draw lines to where I think I am and where the sun says I am. They are called cell lines.  The same goes for the stars and moon.  All VERY predictable in RET.  Again my explanation is pretty bad.  Here is the wiki on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_navigation

Rig did better of a job than I ever could.  Only gripe I have is the bit about DR.  Navigation is esentialy like GPS in it uses several points of refrence to triangulate your position on a chart.  Different stars would provide differnt lines, along with ADFs, the INS (gyro based nav system) DR and several other things.  Amazingly acurite, and I wish they hadn't stoped teaching it in nav school.

And the books are republished every year.  Even though we don't use it we still get the damn things in the pub's room and have to file all of it.  Though, one of the old school guys would usualy snatch them up right after they came in.

And wardog's thing about a GPS not being able to be used for navigation is correct.  The systems we use are actualy more acurite than the civilian moddels however they have no integrity monoriting system.  Basicly the gps has no way of checking itself to make sure it's not screwed up.  I've been flying laps over the water by North Carolina and magicly 30 sec later we ended up in central Africa, atleast acording to the GPS system.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the earth is flat explain this to me Part 2
« on: August 18, 2008, 12:54:35 PM »
Especially over water, as there are no land based nav beacons and or points of reference.

ADFs buddy...dont' tell me you forgot about those?  Also you can use barometric presure to come up with a refrence line very very acuratly withing 2-10 NM

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the earth is flat explain this to me Part 2
« on: August 18, 2008, 12:53:09 PM »
Yeah I think we're getting away from the crux of the question I was asking ... "How can a pilot know his ground speed? Can it be ascertained solely by the information collected on the plane, or does s/he need input from an external source?"

A pilot knows his ground speed by the information collected from the airplane via, pitot tubes, static ports, INS, GPS, and its TAS computer.

HEY HEY HEY HEY!!! I know the dam "Gay" model suposidly replaced us but us navs can find all that crap with a wiz wheel and a TACAN andyou know it Wardogg :)

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth map
« on: August 18, 2008, 10:06:57 AM »
Quote
Your right, but the magnetic compas, use of celestial nav all required a spherical earth in the method they were used.  The entire premise of how they function was on a sphere.

Nope.

Quote
A great circle is not possible on a FE,

Actually, it is.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za47.htm

your author here has never navigated any further than from his couch to his bathroom in his life if he thinks any of that is actually true.  When you fly 2500 miles across the water with no visual refrence and no GPS, using only gyroscopic tools, magnetic compases, and charts and can fly directly to an island about 2 miles long (Kwajalien Atoll) I'm goan stick with those rules.  If I tried to follow his, we'd run out of gas and end up having to test if a KC-130 floats.....

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth map
« on: August 18, 2008, 10:02:57 AM »


Although most of the "proofs" in ENaG are easily proved wrong, this one is actually doable.  Whether you are on RE or FE, if you set the autopilot on a ship on a course of 090, and have open water for the entire route (that part is tough), you could go all of the way around the world.  If you plotted your track line on a northern polar projection (FE's only projection) you would see it as a circle.  On a mercator projection, your track line would be a straight line leading from one edge of the chart to the other.

The difference would be in the actual distance traveled.  The farther away from the North Pole you made your trip, the more severe the differences would be.
[/quote]

If you plot a course of 090 anywhere your not going to fly a perfect circle around the earth.  Assuming you have the ability to fly a True Course of 090 and acount for magnetic variation (which is as much as 30 degrees in some places) the fact that lines of longitude convergE will slowly pull you north more and more and more (asuming your in the northern hemisphere).  You will corkscrew around the earth and never end up the same place you started.  Not even CLOSE.  Without a large navigation chart I can't actualy show this.  This is called a rhumb line.  Maybe you can find a representation on google.

And I'm not sure how you can say a great circle course is possible on a flat earth map.  A great circle is a course on a sphere.  Drawing a strait line on the surface of a FE model is not a great circle course, it is a strait line.

Simply enough if you look in the back of the magazines in all the comercial airlines it shows curved flight paths.  These are great circle courses, the curve apears because of the style of map/chart that is used.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about high altitudes?
« on: August 15, 2008, 08:28:44 AM »
The question posed is how old is the woman in the picture.

I think another could be which direciton is her body facing...

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about high altitudes?
« on: August 15, 2008, 12:18:34 AM »
I guess this will turn into telling someone who saw bigfoot or an alien they didn't see it though eh?  Not much reason in arguing the fact anymore....
I wouldn't take it that far but, people will for the most part see what they want to see, kind of like diagrams where there are two images and each individual may see one or the other.  

yeah the paint blot thing psycologists use, or what ever they are called in PC terms now a-days.

9
If you're here for the lulz then enjoy. Yeah it's good practice to debate here, but the moral of this story is: don't take it too far, and don't expect to win.

You never win in practice right?

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about high altitudes?
« on: August 15, 2008, 12:15:22 AM »
Has mostly to do with the limited field of view and the distortion of the differnt pains.  Plus i've never seen a window that was clean and clear in a comercial airliner.

I got on and looked and I guess you can do it at sea lvl as long as your by an ocean and the waves arn't to big.  You take a level and a table and set it up.  Then you move the table to be even with the horizon and it is visible that way.  I just did a quick google search of "where can u see the curvature of the earth?" and looked at the 2nd and 5th results.  THe other talk about the sinking ship thing which isn't what we are.  They do throw out that 60k number in there too though.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about high altitudes?
« on: August 15, 2008, 12:08:45 AM »
It's only a little above 10,000 ft.  You can see it from mountain tops in Montana, and deffinatly from Mount Everest.  Go read some of the excerpts from books from mountain climbers.  It's one of their favorite things about reaching the top.  How they feel like gods and blah blah blah because they can see the curvature of the earth.

I guess this will turn into telling someone who saw bigfoot or an alien they didn't see it though eh?  Not much reason in arguing the fact anymore....

12
I almost agreed with this about 5 hours ago.  But then I had a few beers, watched some of the Olympics and had nothing else to do.

But honestly I've enjoyed the debate.  It's exercised my mind a whole bunch.  I've done tons of research and dug up a bunch of stuff I'd forgetten about.  It's quite refreshing to go back and look up why something is the way it is instead of just knowing it is that way (if that makes any sense at all HAHAHA).

Plus I think I'm laughing just as hard as the creator.  Especialy at the dingbat (you know who you are)

I mean did you see the pic of the dino building a boat?  How much funnier does it get than that?

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 15, 2008, 12:02:44 AM »
Quote
And NO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FLY A GREAT CIRCLE ON A DISC

Why not? Pilots chart great circle routes onto flat maps all the time.

Again no idea about how navigation works.  The "flat chart" you are refering to is a gnomoic chart.  It maintains shape and size, but requries you to curve the lines of longitude.  Now on a mercador chart a great circle is curved, but those are almost usless in anything but land nav, or big maps for elemetry kids.  Go look up what a great circle is on wiki or something for @#$* sake.  You might actually understand how completly stupid every argument you've thrown out about Great circles and rhumb lines has been. 

Again, a great circle requires a GLOBE.  All of our current day charts that those pesky pilots use is based on a GLOBE.  This is like the 4th time I've seen you use real world physics or facts that suposidly are false, faked, or a concipiracy and used them to argue your side.  MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND!

You can stop making stupid assumptions and jumping from point A to K or somwhere in the middle with no real grasp of how or why you ended up there.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:47:32 PM »
Take a look at a UN flag, it's like an ironic inside joke.

Yeah it is

But no offense, but anyone who uses the UN as a refrences is really really really desperate for sources...

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:44:07 PM »
Oddly enough, the ICAO knows the earth is flat too.



Wait the UN is involved?  NO WAY THEY CAN KEEP A SECRET, they don't do anything but spend money

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:43:17 PM »
[
Quote
Great circles

Traveling a Great Circle route is possible on a Flat Earth.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za47.htm

Quote
rhumb lines


Rhumb line is possible yes, but dosn't make any sense in the southern himsiphere.  If you fly a rhumb line in the real world in teh sourthern hemispher you move farther south.  In FE it would make you fly further north

And NO IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FLY A GREAT CIRCLE ON A DISC.  A great circle is a line over the surface of a sphere as if you cut it perfectly in half.  If you cut a disc in half you only get great circles that run north to south.  You can fly a great circle in any direction in the real world.  This is like all the poeple that are saying we are in a recession when we still have  yet to go negative growth in GDP (yes i know the economy still sucks, i'm not saying it dosn't).  Your rewriting definitions to fit your own argument.  

Tom you have no idea what so ever about navigation and that is evident with your pitiful refrences.  In a flat earth the lines of longitude can not get closer in the south, the only get larger.  This fact is the signle event that throws off all your fake ass maps and 'charts' of a flat earth.  It's what causes the distance distortion and discrepencies in the southern regions, which none of you can nor has ever explained.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about high altitudes?
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:36:01 PM »
While on hiatus from the mighty Hercules...I am temping on a Gulfstream GIV.  We cruise at 45,000 ft and I can assure you the horizon is still flat at that altitude.  We are well above all commercial traffic.

Can't remember the math I looked up for it (got in an argument in one of my physics classes about it) but basicly at a little over 30,000ft (10km) the curvature of the earth is equal to a 10m disc view from like 50 cm.  Most of the time the curve is masked by upper level clouds or topography.  This is why the herc is perfect to see it.  Our fat asses flew to low to be in the uper level clouds.

Also maybe since the Gulfstreams are way way way more streamline than the flat windows of the herc it distorts the image?  Just a guess I've never been up in one before.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:32:57 PM »
I'm bored at work, just making coversation.  Aren't a lot of those 3 letters though, like LAX or am I thinking of something different.

yup that exactly where those come from.  You only see 3 letter usualy cause thats all the US uses.  Each internatonal area has it's own 4th, starting letter.  Like the us is K, Pacific regions is P, and a lot others but i don't have a IFR (in flight refrence) to look them all up.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:29:27 PM »
And ICAO?

Cmon Robbyj, I know you know how to use google LOL

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:25:09 PM »
HCAX is Hawaii Combined Arms Exercise.

Im at PHNG.

Oops beat me to it.

I love your sig boss, thats a quick way to say something I never have words for

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:22:19 PM »
Nevermind, that's air force anyway.  I was in Pearl back in the day, that's why I was asking.

Sorry didn't really answer what HCAX is, HCAX is another silly military acronym for Hawaii Combined Arms eXercise

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about high altitudes?
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:21:26 PM »
Turns out that 10000 feet is the altitude limit in non -ressurized vessels for Ipods too.

Along with gelly ink pens, some watches, and anything preasurized in a weak container

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:18:29 PM »
Is HCAX Hickam?

LOL, no Hickam/Honolulu is PHNL in ICAO terms

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about high altitudes?
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:16:54 PM »
[
But back to my argument he would have to be oblivous not to see it.  I've seen it over the US, over Asia, over Europe, Africa, And australia, Along with over the pacific, atlantic and indian oceans.  I'm gona bet I have more hours up front than that guy does....

So left seat time then?

Well the Herk has 4 seats up front.  I'm not a pilot I'm a navigator so I had a lot more time to look around  ;)

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth map
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:14:06 PM »
Quote
Before the advent of a reliable method for determining longitude, many vessels would sail to a latitude even with their destination, sail due east or west, and then try and determine their exact position upon landfall.  This included Columbus and Magellan.

Traveling Westwards from Europe will also get you to the Americas in the FE model. On both and RE and FE both East and West are curved.

Thought Experiment: You are on the top of the RE or FE. You are 15 feet from the point of magnetic North and you wish to travel Eastwards continuously. Where does your path take you?

I'm going to use this as the basis of how you have no idea of how navigation really works.  "Westward" or "Eastward is not a direction of navigation.  If you are 1 degree of leaving california for hawaii...you will miss it by a little over 400 miles...  If you move the heading from a starting point (other than 270 or 090 from the equator) you will end up at the north or south equator.  This is a rhumb line.  A great circle requires a constant and steady course change in order to move from point a to b in the shortest distance.  And this is what all aircraft and boats do a majority of the time.  A great circle is not possible on a FE, let alone lines of longitude...

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth map
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:12:27 PM »
Quote
Before the advent of a reliable method for determining longitude, many vessels would sail to a latitude even with their destination, sail due east or west, and then try and determine their exact position upon landfall.  This included Columbus and Magellan.

Traveling Westwards from Europe will also get you to the Americas in the FE model. On both and RE and FE both East and West are curved.

Thought Experiment: You are on the top of the RE or FE. You are 15 feet from the point of magnetic North and you wish to travel Eastwards continuously. Where does your path take you?

I'm going to use this as the basis of how you have no idea of how navigation really works.  "Westward" is not a very acurite model of navigaton.  If you are 1 degree of leaving california for hawaii...you will miss it by a little over 400 miles...  If you move 1 heading from a starting point (other than 270 or 090 from the equator) you will end up at the north or south equator.  This is a rhumb line.  A great circle requires a constant and steady course change in order to move from point a to b in the shortest distance.  A great circle is not possible on a FE, let alone lines of longitude...

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth map
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:08:55 PM »

Not necessarily.

Before the advent of a reliable method for determining longitude, many vessels would sail to a latitude even with their destination, sail due east or west, and then try and determine their exact position upon landfall.  This included Columbus and Magellan.

This works easiest in the northern hemisphere with the North Star (Polaris) as a guide.  If you are using a magnetic compass and maintain a constant altitude of Polaris, it works identically in both FE and RE theories.

Your right, but the magnetic compas, use of celestial nav all required a spherical earth in the method they were used.  The entire premise of how they function was on a sphere.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about high altitudes?
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:04:37 PM »
I'm guessing king air probably...

Well, no.  This one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation

I'll have to bow down to that.  I was just getting ready to look up the different cessna's cause I wasn't 100% sure of this.  That one most deff goes above 10,000ft

But back to my argument he would have to be oblivous not to see it.  I've seen it over the US, over Asia, over Europe, Africa, And australia, Along with over the pacific, atlantic and indian oceans.  I'm gona bet I have more hours up front than that guy does....

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about high altitudes?
« on: August 14, 2008, 10:59:29 PM »
Also Tom, I just did a little expierment with your photo.  Take a piece of paper and stick it on your tiny picture.  Put each end of the page on the ends of the photo and you'll se the curvature in the middle.  Very slight, less than a milimeter, but it's till there. 

here is a closer view of the same picture
http://images.quickblogcast.com/69589-61000/mteverest.jpg

it's even more evident on this one.

Great way to disrpove your own theorey! LOL

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about high altitudes?
« on: August 14, 2008, 10:58:12 PM »
I'm guessing king air probably...

Pages: [1] 2 3