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 - Rig Navigator

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS again.
« on: November 10, 2008, 01:54:46 AM »
The government gives the military many billions of dollars to put up weather satellites. By not putting up weather satellites and then getting the data from existing technologies out in the field and using predictive algorithms to fill in missing data sets, the conspirators can skim a good chunk of change.

Of course, weather predicting based on a spherical Earth was in place well before the advent of weather satellite.  The models for weather predicting are not "owned by the military."  Of course, even these predictive models have problems, hence why your local weatherman can't get tomorrow's weather right all of the time (some would say most of the time they can't get it right). 

But for your hypothesis to be correct, then the land based predictive model would be able to accurately tell me the location of clouds and weather out at sea in real time.  This doesn't sound very likely.

Tower and dirigible based GPS has been around much longer than "satellite" based GPS. Look up the LORAN System.

LORAN is not GPS.  They work on completely different operating principles.  Can you provide evidence of a "dirigible based GPS" system that you say "has been around much longer?" 

So far I haven't seen anything in FE explanations of GPS that explains the signals received on my GPS at sea, much less the ones used in many cars and trucks.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: wind
« on: November 10, 2008, 01:48:02 AM »
I have not yet learned his language, but I am guessing that he lives in an area in which wind blows west to east. He presumes RE is correct and probably thinks that wind generally travel in that direction all over the globe, perhaps due to rotation or something. If my assumptions about his assumptions are true, he thinks that the FE model conforms to the flawed universal west to east wind, which doesn't work on FE. Flattening a flawed RE wind model would create a flawed FE model, hence the question he posed.

Although his original question was flawed, there is some validity in the line of reasoning.  In the RE model, the direction of wind and the location of the wind bands are explainable through a combination of Coriolis and temperature differential.

What explanation does the FE model have?  The motion of the FE Sun wouldn't seem to create the temperature patterns that are necessary to use the RE model of the prevailing wind, and the lack of rotation eliminates Coriolis.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite Spotters
« on: November 10, 2008, 01:39:48 AM »
Isn't amazing how a group (Zetetics) that is supposed to be about basing your belief on things that can be actually observed discounts observations of satellites from the ground over an unobservable conspiracy and stratelites?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evidence
« on: November 10, 2008, 01:37:35 AM »
That's why we don't answer.

Nah, often even when it is presented politely, none of the FEers seem to want to answer the question as to what evidence actually leads them to believe that the Earth is flat.  The closest that we can get is Tom Bishop's window and chair.

Flat Earth Debate / The "True Earth Map"
« on: November 09, 2008, 11:27:32 PM »
Here is background on the "True FE Map," as Tom Bishop calls it, from the .net FE site for those people that don't go over there.  It is the True believers section because they didn't want to open it up for true debate.  Wonder why?  ;)  ;D

Quote from: Sandokhan
Now, the Real Map, used by C. Columbus, F. Magellan, J. Cabot to get to the right destination, with no problems: the Flat Earth Map.

A comparison with the round earth map, will reveal how he changed the distances, very cleverly, to at least give the impression of a spherical earth.

Secret maps of Columbus:

Many scientists, including C. Hapgood, have tried to somehow fit the Piri Reis map onto the round earth map, with strange results, not realizing that the Piri Reis Map is actually a flat earth map.

Then we start understanding that the map that we have used from the elementary school is not an equidistant representation of the distances among the different parts of the earth, but it is a powerful tool to deceive us miserably making us to believe in a distorted reality. How many other things are hidden or distorted in our maps?

Hapgood makes a great effort trying to adapt Piri Re'is charts to the system of latitude and longitud as used today, but those men didn't use that, because they had flat water in every place where they went.

Piri Re'is had some notes (see on his charts, and he never speaks of curved waters, or degrees, or latitude. I just copy some lines:

For instance, a book fell into the hands of the said Colombo, and be found it said in this book that at the end of the Western Sea [Atlantic] that is, on its western side, there were coasts and islands and all kinds of metals and also precious stones. The abovementioned, having studied this book thoroughly, explained these matters one by one to the great of Genoa and said: 'Come, give me two ships, let me go and find these places.' They said: 'O unprofitable man, can an end or a limit be found to the Western Sea? Its vapour is full of darkness.' The above-mentioned Colombo saw that no help was forthcoming from the Genoese, he sped forth, went to the Bey of Spain [king], and told his tale in detail. They too answered like the Genoese. In brief Colombo petitioned these people for a long time, finally the Bey of Spain gave him two ships, saw that they were well equipped, and said:

'O Colombo, if it happens as you say, let us make you kapudan [admiral] to that country.' Having said which be sent the said Colombo to the Western Sea

The late Gazi Kemal had a Spanish slave. The above-mentioned slave said to Kemal Reis, be bad been three times to that land with Colombo. He said: 'First we reached the Strait of Gibraltar, then from there straight south and west between the two . . . [illegible]. Having advanced straight four thousand miles, we saw an island facing us, but gradually the waves of the sea became foamless, that is, the sea was becalmed and the North Star-the seamen on their compasses still say star-little by little was veiled and became invisible, and he also said that the stars in that region are not arranged as here. They are seen in a different arrangement. They anchored at the island which they had seen earlier across the way, the population of the island came, shot arrows at them and did not allow them to land and ask for information. The males and the females shot hand arrows. The tips of these arrows were made of fishbones, and the whole population went naked and also very . . . [illegible]. Seeing that they could not land on that island; they crossed to the other side of the island, they saw a boat. On seelng them; the boat fled and they [the people in the boat] dashed out on land. They [the Spaniards] took the boat. They saw that inside of it there was human flesh. It happened that these people were of that nation which went from island to island hunting men and eating them. They said Colombo saw yet another island, they neared it, they saw that on that island there were great snakes. They avoided landing on this island and remained there seventeen days. The people of this island saw that no harm came to them from this boat, they caught fish and brought it to them in their small ship's boat [filika]. These [Spaniards] were pleased and gave them glass beads. It appears that he [Columbus] had read-in the book that in that region glass beads were valued. Seeing the beads they brought still more fish. These [Spaniards] always gave them glass beads. One day they saw gold around the arm of a woman, they took the gold and gave her beads. They said to them, to bring more gold, we will give you more beads, [they said]. They went and brought them much gold. It appears that in their mountains there were gold mines. One day, also, they saw pearls in the hands of one person. They saw that when; they gave beads, many more pearls were brought to them. Pearls were found on the shore of this island, in a spot one or two fathoms deep. And also loading their ship with many logwood trees and taking two natives along, they carried them within that year to the Bey of Spain. But the said Colombo, not knowing the language of these people, they traded by signs, and after this trip the Bey of Spain sent priests and barley, taught the natives how to sow and reap and converted them to his own religion. They had no religion of any sort. They walked naked and lay there like animals. Now these regions have been opened to all and have become famous. The names which mark the places on the said islands and coasts were given by Colombo, that these places may be known by them. And also Colombo was a great astronomer. The coasts and island on this map are taken from Colombo's map.

Whoever (person or sect) wrote that book knew very well that at the end of the western side of the Western Sea there were coasts and islands and all kinds of metals and also precious stones. .... and glass beads were valued, which clearly shows us that Columbus and his men were not the firsts. And whosoever wrote that book knew that those coasts was not India: Columbus took with him boxes of glass beads because he knew where he was going to.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Circumnavigators
« on: November 09, 2008, 11:21:35 PM »
Where are these comparisons?

Well, I take back what I said about it should be easy to draw the paths that the Sun takes.  I couldn't even guess where the Equator should pass from one side of that map to the other.  It doesn't make sense to have it go above North America and Asia, and it also doesn't make sense to have it go below Antarctica.  Then there was the issue that at the left side of that map, the lines of latitude are divergent, that makes it difficult to map any circular pattern like an orbit.  It also makes it impossible for the Sun to maintain a constant altitude (height above the horizon) for places along the same line of latitude.

So, all and all, this map is crap.  Even more so than the polar projection that is listed on the FAQ.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fiber Optic Latency on a FE model
« on: November 08, 2008, 11:17:21 PM »
This whole argument is only attacking one proposed map of the flat earth that the society has admitted has this issue.

Except all FE maps have this issue.  I haven't seen one yet that doesn't distort distances in the southern hemisphere.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Circumnavigators
« on: November 08, 2008, 11:14:29 PM »
Where have you observed the path of the sun to be?

Well, using FE terminology, the Sun follows a path directly over the Equator on the equinoxes (21 Jun and Dec) and is over either the Tropic of Capricorn or Cancer on the solstice (21 Mar and Sep).

The path of the Sun on those days should be fairly easy to draw on that map, but the paths don't make sense; especially when you compare that path to the observations of the Sun.

Significantly longer than 12 hours. Please fix that typo.

Thanks for catching that.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fiber Optic Latency on a FE model
« on: November 08, 2008, 06:25:16 AM »
Rig, you're forgetting...

Damn, you are right.  I was forgetting all of those.

I was counting on actual observations to have some validity in explaining real world phenomenon.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fiber Optic Latency on a FE model
« on: November 08, 2008, 04:46:55 AM »
Of course, this all ignores that there are people that actually lay the cable on the seabed and ensure that it is buried.  

The cable is loaded into the cable tank on the cable ship.  This ship then lays out the cable, based on RE charts, in the location detailed by the owner of the cable.  A trenching machine ensures that the cable is buried in the seabed to prevent damage from fishing nets and other potential sources of damage.

It wouldn't take a transoceanic cable in the southern hemisphere to create noticeable differences in distances.  Even cables between the islands of Indonesia, or between Australia and New Zealand, would have significant differences in distance that would be noticed by the crew detailed to lay these cables.

Without going into the differences between the speed of light inside a fiber optic cable, or the necessity for a "predictive algorithm," there are a lot of problems with the comparison with accepted RE geography and assumed FE geography.  I would say accepted FE geography, except there isn't anything that is accepted when it comes to FE geography.  You have the polar projection, you have Tom Bishop's "Columbus/Magellan" map, and the admission that there really isn't a FE map because that haven't been able to figure out how to make a FE map that matches real world observations.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Burden of Proof
« on: November 08, 2008, 04:24:21 AM »
Nope. The sinking ship is a known perspective effect. It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

What defines a "good telescope?"  I have never seen this effect, even to a limited degree.  Every ship disappears hull first, no matter what the weather conditions are.  Whether they are viewed through binoculars or with the naked eye.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read the following accounts of half-sunken ships which have been restored with a telescope:

There have also been experiments on Lake Michigan where the hulls of half-sunken ships have been restored by looking at them through a telescope:

How does Winship bring back ship's hulls when Rowbotham says that it should be impossible?

The above accounts of restored hulls prove that the hulls are not really behind "hills of water" and act as evidence that the disappearance of the hull is not due to any curvature to the earth, but due to the angular limits of the human eye.

Then it wouldn't take much magnification to increase the angular size of an image.  Simple binoculars increase the size of an image to a size that can be discerned by the human eye, but still no restoration is observed.  As these pictures show, the angular size of the object being viewed is increased, but there is no restoration.

You still can not see the legs of the platform that is 16 miles away.  You can't even see the air gap between the platform and the sea.  I am still waiting for you to post an image where the hull of a ship is restored through the use of magnification.

FET provides sufficient explanations for the seasons and the patterns and motions of the sun throughout the year. Read Earth: Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Except that Rowbotham's model does not explain the motion of the Sun as observed in the sky. 

The difference in circumference in the orbit at Equinox versus Solstice would mean that there would be observable differences in the angular velocity of the Sun.  As the Sun passed overhead to an observer standing on the Equator, it would be moving faster than when it is overhead during the Solstice on 21 June, because it has to cover a larger circumference orbit in the same 24 hours.  It would have to be moving even faster on 21 December.

There are also problems with this model explaining the fact that the Sun is above the horizon for significantly longer than 12 hours during the Antarctic summer.

Fixed Time Typo

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Circumnavigators
« on: November 08, 2008, 03:54:29 AM »
Traveling around Antarctica in that fashion could be achieved on an FE if the Magellan/Collumbus map were the true map of the earth.

Can you map out the path that the Sun would travel on that map?  It does not the observed characteristics of the Sun.  There are also great problems with the courses and distances between known points on the globe.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigators and Napiers Rules
« on: November 08, 2008, 03:51:37 AM »
I have been thinking a bit more about navigating on a FE as compared to a RE and I think there is actually a definite proof here that we can not be living on a FE. The problem lies with the East/West directions.

East/West is defined as being at 90 degrees (right angle/perpendicular) to the North South direction. If you take a compass bearing to North, then from this bearing travel due East as compared to the starting point for some distance, then at this new point take another compass bearing of North and then travel due West as compared to this second point the same distance again.

This works the same in FE and RE models.  Because the compass you are steering with is pointing North, the course of East or West would be 90? relative to North.

Now on a RE model, this set of movements will mean that you end up at the same place. However, on a FE this would not be the case (as shown in this image):

The course that you have drawn (assuming a polar projection) is south of west, not a true westerly course.

If you were to take constant readings on the compass as you travelled, then you would walk around in the circle, but because in this example you only take two compass readings (one at the start and one at the second point) and always travel at right angles to this reading, then you end up in a different place to where you started.

This is the reason that the shortest distance on a globe is a curve, if you steer a constant course, you end up moving in an arc.

This means that Navigating on a Flat Earth would lead you to a different position than you would if the Earth was round.

The difference isn't in the compass itself, the difference is in the courses and distances that would be steered.  On a FE model of the Earth, for travel in the southern hemisphere you would go closer to the equator while in the RE model, you steer closer to the pole.

This experiment is easy to try, cheap to implement, is not fooled by bendy light or other optical illusions, and gives a definite difference between a Round Earth and a Flat Earth. As the components needed to perform this experiment are capable of being made by virtually anyone, it also avoids any chance that members of a conspiracy could construct the devices to give false readings to trick you.

Navigation and celestial mechanics are some of the largest obstacles for the FE model.

After browsing these board for a few days, I have a basic understanding of the objections against the various experiments that have been proposed. This one, however, bypasses all these objections that I have read and is simple enough that anybody on these boards could perform it (which is one of the objections that has been put forward to many experiments, namely that they are too complex or are too expensive to perform.

As has been pointed out, FE advocates have a tendency to ignore evidence that doesn't support their worldview.  Observations of the azimuth of sunrise, which are different that those predicted by the FE model, and observations of navigation in the southern hemisphere are either ignored, or called lies.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigators and Napiers Rules
« on: November 08, 2008, 01:15:55 AM »
Hypothetically: If the earth was spherical - don't you think it would be more likely that the navigators had look up tables in books...

It depends on what is being calculated.  There are a lot of things where it is easier to look it up in a table because of the fact that if you were going to calculate everything, there would be multiple references to multiple sources.  For many things, one table can sum up that variables with a single reference.

I don't think the average person right now at age 12 knows trigonometry very well.. and certainly wouldn't remember it after a few years at sea....

Like anything, if you use it every day, it is easy to remember.  I know specialists that can remember lots of strange equations and can often calculate them in their head because they get used daily.

I can rattle off the spherical trig formula for calculating the azimuth to a celestial body because I have to use it daily.  Many people can still remember the trig functions (SOHCAHTOA anyone?) that they learned years, and sometimes decades ago, even when they don't use it daily.

The look up books/maps are probably faked...

No, the books and charts are real and match what is observed when you get to a location.  That is better than any of the FE charts that I have seen.  Of course, as Tom will tell us, there is no "real FE map" because of the lack of research into the matter.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigators and Napiers Rules
« on: November 08, 2008, 01:10:00 AM »
I wish you REers would stop contradicting each other. It would make debating with you a lot easier.

Interesting that the same request could be made of FEers. 

Does the Earth look flat or does light bend making it look curved?  That one hasn't been answered with consistency.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS again.
« on: October 20, 2008, 04:15:44 PM »
Did an unconnected third party peer review and verify NASA's claims?

Well here is a quote from the website that was linked...

The peer reviewers

 Generally 2-3 people knowledgeable in the type of data being reviewed, but not directly connected with the project which produced it.

Looks like independent review to me.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: More pictures at Sea
« on: October 19, 2008, 07:03:32 AM »
Hes trying to prove the object disappears because the earth is curved/Dr. Rowbotham's perspective theory is flawed.

That is correct.  I am showing that objects viewed with magnification are not restored as our good doctor suggests they should be.  If fact, there is no restoration from the naked eye view.

I however smell photoshop.

Sorry to disappoint you, no photoshop here.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon liberations
« on: October 18, 2008, 12:36:28 PM »
Maybe it is because the topic is called moon "liberations" and is being skipped over.

So the FEers are ignoring the original question because of a typo?  That seems rather closed minded.

How about if I rephrase the question?

In FET, the Moon does not rotate. But then, what causes libration?

Does that make it easier for FEers to answer with it spelled correctly?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« on: October 18, 2008, 12:33:51 PM »
Those cables expand when they reach the ocean floor due to geothermal energy.

So the crew of the cable laying ship that is loading the cable into the tank, laying the cable on the sea floor and making the terminations doesn't notice that the quantity of cable that they are carrying doesn't match the distance that they travel?  Is there excessive slack on the sea floor that goes unobserved by the ROV burying the cable?  Is this another effect of your miraculous fish?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FAQ Clarification
« on: October 18, 2008, 10:07:12 AM »
I am getting sick and tired of Rowbotham's nonsense being presented as credible evidence of anything ...

It is really all they have, so you are going to have to get used to it.  Don't forget, it isn't just Rowbotham; there is Winship.  Don't forget all of those people that were "proving" that the Earth is concave instead.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FAQ Clarification
« on: October 18, 2008, 07:03:26 AM »
Refraction is usually the answer.  With no atmosphere, the sun would never go down on FE.

I could repeatedly put down five as the answer to the question "what is two plus two" and that still wouldn't make it correct.

Flat Earth Debate / More pictures at Sea
« on: October 18, 2008, 07:02:23 AM »
I still haven't gotten a hold of a telescope, but I was able to take some pictures with a telephoto lens rather than relying on using binoculars.  We are wrapping up this well, so this is the last set of pictures that I will be able to take from this location.  So here you go, pictures showing the same thing that they did before, no restoration of the air gap under Thunder Horse, or the hull of the Discoverer Enterprise.

Naked Eye

Thunder Horse

Discoverer Enterprise

The focal length on the telephoto lens is 200mm.  If you have any other questions about the conditions, feel free to ask.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seeing the sun
« on: October 18, 2008, 06:39:51 AM »
It's to do with the contradictory argument that the earth appears round, but is in fact flat because the light magically bends away.

Rowbothams experiments have always tried to show that the earth appeared flat, so is flat.

Of course, his experiments are getting harder for FEers to defend, maybe that is why everyone except for Tom is starting to discard him?

The two are contradictory, but are used interchangably by FE'ers when they feel they're losing ground.

When has two ideas being contradictory ever stopped the FEers from using them both to argue the same thing?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a theory
« on: October 18, 2008, 06:36:03 AM »
Read Earth Not a Globe.

I did.  It wasn't very good, and really doesn't give any answers to his questions.  Many of the observations that he makes are flawed, so it calls into doubt the entire book.  Of course, there is that chapter at the end that go talking about how regardless of what we observe, the bible says that the Earth is flat, and that is the ultimate evidence.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon liberations
« on: October 18, 2008, 06:33:26 AM »
I would have figured that would have gotten some sort of response by now.

I wonder why the "real" FEers on this forum don't seem to want to explain this.  I realize that it probably might have something to do with the fact that there are no "real" FEers on this site, only REers who think it is more fun to play the Devil's advocate (i.e. OBLSteve).

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica Ice shelf
« on: October 18, 2008, 05:55:40 AM »
Well a compass doesn't point towards true north

Magnetic compasses don't point toward true north, but gyro compasses do.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica Ice shelf
« on: October 18, 2008, 05:52:26 AM »
The path will still be slightly curved. The distance traveled between any two points in FE is the same as in RE.

No, there are significant differences in the distances calculated in FE theory than in RE theory.  If you look at moving between two points in the southern hemisphere, you either have to travel different distances, but move along the same course, or travel the same distance and travel two completely different courses.  There is not a method that can make the two equivalent.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FAQ Clarification
« on: October 18, 2008, 05:42:51 AM »
For example,

here is a picture of an average bustling city at night. You will immediately notice upon looking at the image that the distant lights in the scene appear magnified and intense, particularly the white ones in the upper left of the image. You should note that most of the the orange lights in the background are about as big as the orange lights in the foreground. This is entirely contradictory to what one would expect. The background lights are much farther away and the distant bulbs are all smaller than a single pixel of the screen. The orange lights maintaining their size in foreground and background is a great example of the magnification effect of the atmosphere balancing out the natural shrinking to perspective.

It looks like the lights grow closer together and merge into a single mass as they are farther away from the observer.  The streets in the foreground of the picture are clear, but you can't make out the individual streets in the town in the background.

As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight. We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light. If we walk backwards and recede away from the wall the spot of light grows in diameter.

and the observed size of the light changes.  As the person standing at the wall, I see the apparent size of the light grow smaller.  This is not what is observed at sunrise and sunset.  The apparent size of the Sun remains constant throughout the day.

When we walk towards the wall the spot of light becomes smaller again.

and the observer standing at the wall sees the apparent size of the light grow larger.  Once again, this is not what is observed as we would expect the apparent size of the Sun to grow larger as it comes nearer.

The same effect happens with the distant sun at sunset.

But it doesn't.  The apparent size of the Sun remains constant, and the area lit by the Sun also remains constant.

Instead of a solid surface, however, the rays of light are shining upon the semi-transparent fog of the atmosphere between the observer and the sun.

But the observer is in the same position whether it is against the wall compared to the flashlight, or on the ground compared to the Sun.

The natural shrinking of the sun due to perspective is counteracted by the enlarging effect of its light upon the horizontal strata of the atmosphere. This is how the sun's diameter is maintained throughout the day.

Except there is no mechanism that would make that possible. 

In your model, the lit area would be constantly changing.  Shadows would grow or shrink throughout the day.  This is not what is observed.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27